Positive Momentum in Economic Confidence

A recent report released by Gallup Economy indicates that Americans' confidence in the US economy is the highest it has been in four years.  The monthly average of economic confidence in November (-13) is significantly improved from confidence levels recorded during the onset of the Great Recession in January 2008 (-32).  Throughout the month of November, Economic Confidence was relatively stable, ranging from a high (-10) in the week leading up to the presidential election and dropping slightly toward the end of the month (-15) as the fiscal cliff approaches.

The Gallop Economic Confidence Index determines monthly averages of economic confidence by averaging Americans' interpretation of current economic conditions and their future expectations for the US economy. Although in November more Americans viewed the economy as "poor" (38%) than "excellent" or "good" (17%) and the net score of Americans' opinions of the current US economy was negative (-11), the average rating of the current US economic conditions in November was the highest it had been since March 2008 (-20).  Additionally, while more Americans believe that the US economy is getting worse (50%) rather than better (45%) for an economic outlook net score of (-5), the economic outlook score is steadily improving.   Therefore, while Americans' assessment of the current economy and their economic outlook is bleak, it is the best it has been nearly five years.

Certain subgroups of the American population are more confident in the US economy.  Notably, Democrat (30), Black (30), Hispanic (6), and 18-29 year old (3) Americans reported the highest levels of confidence in the US economy, whereas married (-20), elderly  (-23) White (-23) and Republican (-59) Americans expressed the least confidence in the US economy.

Mitt Campaigns and Spends More in Swing States

The Economist reports that Mitt Romney, along with third party allies, have outspent Obama in most of the swing states, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. The notable exception is New Hampshire, in which Obama and allies spent approximately $16mil compared to $12mil for Romney and allies. All totaled, about $7.4 billion was spent on TV and radio ads for the 2012 election cycle. Additionally, Romney held more political events in key swing states, including Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Florida, and Ohio.

Most Americans Favor Quick Removal of U.S.Troops from Afghanistan

A recent public opinion poll suggests that Americans are increasingly pessimistic about developments in the Middle East.  This report released by Pew Research Center found that the majority of Americans (60%) believe that U.S. troops should leave Afghanistan as quickly as possible.  This number has significantly increased since May 2011, when only 48% of Americans supported quick troop pullout from Afghanistan.  According to the survey issued October 4-7, 2012, 73% of Democrats support quick troop pullout from Afghanistan.  The majority of Independents (58%) similarly support a quick troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.  However, Republicans remain divided, as 48% believe that U.S. troops should remain in Afghanistan until the country is stabilized. Overall, only 35% of Americans believe that U.S. troops should stay in Afghanistan until the country has stabilized.  The presidential candidates will likely respond to American’s growing pessimism about U.S. involvement in Afghanistan as they debate foreign policy tonight in the final presidential debate. 

Record-High Latino Voter Registration, but Latino Voter Turnout Trends Low

The Pew Hispanic Center has recently released a report detailing the current registration of Latino voters for the upcoming presidential election, revealing an all-time high of nearly 24 million Latino voters registered to vote.  These 23.7 million registered Latino voters are up 22% since 2008; this aligns with the fact that Latino voters now comprise 11% of the nation's available voters, up from 9.5% in 2008.

Despite the high number of Latino registered voters, the registered Latinos are much less likely to show up at the polls than registered whites and blacks.  Half of the Latino voters who were registered in 2008 voted, while 65% and 66% of registered whites and blacks voted, respectively.  Additionally, 55% of Hispanics are ineligible to vote (for example, not U.S. citizens or too young to vote) while only 31% of blacks and 21% of whites are ineligible.

The disparity between eligible Latino voters and continued low turnout has caused quite a stir within the media.  In a piece analyzing this occurrence, Ed Pilkington of The Guardian states that "the statistics spell enormous potential rewards for any politician or political party who manages to release the Latino genie from the bottle."

Energy Independence in the United States

The backdrop of the upcoming presidential elections in the United States has enabled the American electorate to hear the candidates' opinions on the issues, one of them being energy policy. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that energy independence is important.  Such independence would protect the United States from the risk of energy supplies from abroad encountering disruptions.

The concensus on building a more energy independent country has been around for years, transcending entire administrations and congresses. Contrary to expectation, however, is that petroleum imports are much higher today than they were 40 years ago. Of all petroleum products consumed in this country, 60% of them come from abroad, compared to 40 years ago when roughly 38% of petroleum products came from foreign suppliers.


This graphic from Slate Magazine illustrates the growing trend of importing oil products since 1973, along with the goals of three different presidents to develop greater energy self reliance. Ultimately what it depicts is the failure in the present day to meet any of these goals.  Any conversation between the presidential candidates on energy independence might be unlikely to see significant followup action.

Record-High Percentage of American Independents

Gallup’s party identification poll found that the percentage of American identifying as independents hit a record high in 2011.  Gallup cites "the sluggish economy, record levels of distrust in government, and unfavorable views of both parties" as causes for this record.  These results, however, closely mirror recent results in the year directly preceding a presidential election year.  Spikes in independent political affiliation also occurred in 1995, 1999, 2003, and 2007.

As in most years since 1988, Democrats outnumber Republicans, 31% to 27%.  When measuring party identification including independent leanings, however, those identifying as Republican or leaning Republican constituted 45% of respondents, equaling the 45% responding as Democrat or leaning Democratic.  Though Democrats and Democratic leaners led by one percent in 2010, this gap is significantly smaller than Gallup’s poll results since 2004.  Says Gallup: "If national conditions and the political environment do not change appreciably…independent identification – even if it declines – will probably remain on the higher end of what Gallup has measured historically."

Obama Starts New Year with 46% Job Approval

Gallup polling in early January finds that President Obama's job approval rating is at 46 percent, an improvement over most data since August 2011, when his approval typically scored in the low 40 percent range. Obama recorded "monthly approval averages of 41% in August, September, and October, and 43% in November and December." According to Gallup's Jeffrey M. Jones, "The current 46% rating for Obama, based on Jan. 2-4 polling, is one percentage point below his recent high three-day averages of 47% in Dec. 29-Jan. 3 and Dec. 21-23 tracking." The rating is still lower than last January, however, when Obama averaged 49 percent approval over the month.

Jones writes, "Obama's approval rating will be a critical indicator of his re-election chances this year. If he can sustain higher approval ratings through early November, his odds of winning a second term will increase." Historical data has shown "that all presidents since Eisenhower with approval ratings above 50% have won re-election easily." More recently, "George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004 with 48% approval at the time of the election." But Obama would not have to fall very far for Jones to anticipate trouble: "If Obama's approval rating reverts to the low 40% range, he would have a difficult time defeating a Republican in a two-candidate race."

Jones identifies independents as a key group Obama must target if he hopes to increase his approval rating. "Currently, 81% of Democrats, 42% of independents, and 10% of Republicans approve of Obama. By comparison, last January, when he had an overall monthly average of 49%, Obama's approval rating was 83% among Democrats, 47% among independents, and 13% among Republicans."

One potential reason for the modest uptick in Obama's rating this month "could be the improvement in Americans' economic confidence in recent days." But Jones says " it is unclear whether that will last." Further, "January brings challenges for Obama to maintain higher approval ratings, given that much of the political focus will be on the Republican nomination contest, with the GOP candidates seeking to point out Obama's shortcomings as president in order to help their chances of winning the nomination."

Obama does, however, have the State of the Union address January 24, which according to Jones presents "a unique opportunity for him to directly state his case for re-election to Americans."

Huntsman & Daughters Stage False Flag Attack

Our prior Governor Jon Huntsman betrayed Utah in the 2008 elections by insisting that he would serve his full term (themostsearched, May 2009) but 4 months into his governorship announced he was ready to serve Obama as ambassador to China, only to in turn to dump Obama to make a run against him for President.  If Huntsman were a man of his word, he would still be serving as Governor of Utah right now, not ex-Governor.

Now this mean-spirited deceiver has been found in conspiracy with his daughters to create a false flag attack in the form of a YouTube video which appears to be by a Ron Paul supporter (story at Huffington Post)

The video reaches into the Governor's personal life and is out-of-bounds; the Paul campaign promptly disavowed it.  The mass media story seems to end there as it being "some crazy Ron Paul supporter" going off the deep end.

But Youtube poster anonwoohoo did the homework (along with several others including Angel Clark and TokenLibertarianGirl) which has damning evidence that Gov Huntsman's daughters actually created and released the anti-Huntsman video as a false flag attack:

Huntsman has always been a bit of a embarrassment to the values of the Mormon community and the emergence of the Jon2012Girls with this false flag attack is stoking the flames.

To devote Mormons a previous video the Jon2012Girls put out is clearly at odds with the teachings of Mormon religion in aspects of the immodest dress (Mormon women are taught to cover their shoulders) and the music to which the Jon Girls sing their political message (Justin Timberlake's "Sexyback" which refrains: "I'm bringing sexy back / Them other motherf*ckers' don’t know how to act" is an inference by the Jon2012girls that all the other GOP candidates are "motherf*ckers")

As with the plethora of other GOP candidates, I have been appreciative of Huntsman's presence in the campaign; but at this point when he is covertly planning false flag attacks as demonstrated by the end portion of the anonwoohoo video, Huntsman needs to go away.

++++

Updated:  FOUND!  Picture of a Iowa Huntsman supporter.

Iowa Caucus Takehome: Ron Paul Easily Defeats Obama

In studying the Iowa Caucus entrance polling, Ron Paul now has definitive proof of what he has been preaching all along as supported through numerous polls:  he is the candidate who could best defeat Obama.  In examining both the FoxNews and CNN entrance polling we find Dr. Paul doing well in areas where the GOP has struggled:  young voters, urban areas, among the poor, and among people who aren't influenced by ads.  (If Iowa had any measurable ethnicities we would find he does well among races, too!)

But most notably in the polling is the support among Independents for Rep. Paul:  An outstanding 43% of independent voters--more than double any other candidate--voted for the good Congressman!  One can only imagine what would happen in a general election when Dr. Paul wins the GOP nomination:  not only would Obama be defeated but with this kind of support from Independents, it would be no contest.  States typically off hands for any GOP candidate would come into play.  I'm talking big time like Ronald Reagan time here:  California, New York, Oregon, even Hawaii would have HUGE possibilities of turning Ron Paul Red. States Romney or Santorum can't even begin to waste a dime on.  Ron Paul WON the California GOP straw poll. Paulians are everywhere.  This isn't the Romney United States of New Hampshire and Utah.  Ron Paul has NATIONAL support; he's a people's candidate loved by those who are defending us in the military and sacrifice their lives over our insipid provocations, symptomatic of a domineering American Empire consumed by a Military Industrial Complex.

I don't know whether the Party will see this or not.  We don't study out issues but go with whatever our favorite FoxNews commentator is.  We don't read the Constitution we embrace; we don't think for ourselves. We pick one mass media and trust it like the Bible.  We're busy and don't have time to truly study out and do our own homework.  I know I've been there.  We are changing.  Slowly.  We're getting that just because Romney spends the most money doesn't mean he's the best or most electable candidate.

And what is the Party going to do with people like me who won't vote for Romney because we have watched him and know his business experience isn't running a business and creating jobs or producing cars like his father: it's mergers and acquisitions.  That's not the business skillset we need to run the country, we don't need to merge with Mexico or acquire Iraq!  Remember being a "businessman" is NOT by itself any better than any other profession.  Indeed, Romney can't even come up with a proposal to balance the budget his first year!  Sounds to me like he needs to go back to Harvard and learn some business budgeting!  And if Romney can't get our own party together, let alone appeal to independents, we're looking like another four years of Obama.  Is not then a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama?  Is that what we are trying to do as a Party to get Obama another 4 years by nominating Romney???  If indeed a vote for Romney helps Obama, then is it not only the right but the duty of every Republican to find someone else to whom to give their sacred vote and Romney's duty to bow out of the race and endorse someone who does have a plan to balance the budget their first year?

From a purely electability standpoint, Ron Paul is a GOP dream candidate and the only GOP candidate who could produce a landslide victory over Obama in 2012.

++++

Update 1/7:  More interesting analysis http://freeindependentsun.com/republic/what-the-new-ppp-3-way-race-poll-shows-only-a-ron-paul-led-republican-ticket-can-beat-obama/

Update 1/9:  I'm telling you folks, if Republicans would just rally behind Ron Paul not only would we save the country, but Paul would be above 50% vs Obama and this election would be in the bag.  Take a look as Paul scores 47% Percent of all Independents  (CBS Poll) and yet thanks to the mass media is barely known and even less understood.  If Republicans want a winner in 2012, the only hope is Ron Paul.  Look, I understand some of you are going to have to hold your nose when you vote for Paul because you worry too much about the bomb in Iran, but read this: I love George Washington Except for his Foreign Policy by Michael Maharrey at the 10th Amendment Center and perhaps like myself and Michael you too will begin to see why Dr. Paul is much more right than wrong on foreign policy.

Why a Conservative Mormon Cannot Support Romney

With the Iowa caucus just hours away, I thought I would elaborate on some of my feelings as to why as a Conservative, Utah Mormon I reject Romney as a candidate for POTUS.

(1) Romney equals Bush.  During Bush's administration, Bush began some of our country's longest wars to deal with a situation in Afghanistan which should have only taken months.  Credit Bush for the so-called "Bush Doctrine" in which we are supposed to preemptively strike on any nation we consider a threat.  Bush imposed the unconstitutional federal mandate of No Child Left Behind, expanded Medicare through implementation of Part D, created a federal police force called the TSA, passed the Patriot Act in violation of our civil rights, and bailed out powerful wall street banks through TARP.  Bush was a disaster to Conservatism and the Constitution.  Looking back with the knowledge I have gained on political matters, I am ashamed I voted for the man.

Romney equals Bush as Romney has hired tons of old Bush staffers for his campaign.  I hear Romney bashing Obama, Rick Perry, or Ron Paul but he never seems to criticize Bush.  Perhaps he finds no fault with the Big-Government Bush agenda as his policies seem to mirror Bush's.  He's even got Bush Sr's endorsement.  Wow.  I am SO thrilled. (NOT!)

(2) Romney has endorsed both Orrin Hatch's current bid to extend his senatorial dynasty and ex-Sen Bob Bennett in his failed quest at a fourth term.  Here in Utah, it is clear Romney has courted the powerbroking establishment at the expense of Constitutional freedom.

(3) Romney appears comfortable at applying the Bush Doctrine in Iran.  It seems illogical in a financially broke, war-weary nation that one would want to do a preemptive strike against Iran under the justification of stopping them from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  I grew up under the constant and real threat of thousands of warheads pointed at my nation and yet none of those in the original "evil empire" ever took preemptive strike. If we are so concerned about a nuclear weapon in the hands of an unstable country, does this mean we also have to go to war against Pakistan and Syria?

These Muslim countries are fighting against us in large part because we are in the midst of a 21st Century "crusade" against their lands.  We occupy their countries and support dictators like Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak and in some cases like Iran overthrow democratically elected leaders to establish tyrants like the Shah.  If we would leave them alone to worship as they please, there would be much abatement to the hostility towards us.  Jews and Christians which have respected Muslim worship have lived at peace for centuries in both Shi'a and Sunni countries.

As a Mormon, we believe that we have the duty to spread the message of Jesus Christ to every nation and people of the world.  We know through experience that in wartime the spreading of the message is inhibited to the point of impracticality.  Why then does Romney insist on stirring up the Persians to wrath against us through the implied threat of preemptive strike?  Surely peace is the message of Mormonism and of the Book of Mormon from which the name derives.

I cannot support Romney in his foreign warmongering policies against the Persian people.

In all I view Romney as a Rattlesnake versus Obama as an Inland Taipan; although the Taipan is much more toxic, you want to avoid being bitten by either and both require serious treatment afterwards.  The want of Conservatism is for drastically smaller government, adherence to the Constitution, decreasing the laws of the land, relief from taxation, and paying down the debt.  I am fully aware and convinced that, like Bush, at the end of his term a Romney presidency will have more pages of law, more taxation, more war, and less adherence to the Constitution.  I cannot foresee any circumstance of me being able to vote in good conscience for Romney or Obama even when I am told by people who claim intellectual superiority that I must choose between these vipers.

Values Voter Summit Picks a New Presidential Staw Poll Winner

Ron Paul gave an amazing speech (transcript) at the Values Voter Summit, an organization of social conservatives.  It was unique among speeches I have heard from Rep. Paul, being structured around 1 Samuel 8 and how the people of Israel were admonished to not choose a king because they would lose their personal liberties.  Rep. Paul related that chapter to the king we currently have in Washington.  Rep Paul talked repeatedly about protection of the family as well as other social themes such as respect for life and avoidance of both personal and national debt.

As a social conservative and a defender of liberty, the speech resonated with me; I felt like I was listening to a good Sunday sermon by a noble preacher or an LDS Conference talk.  Apparently the voters at the Summit felt the same way giving Dr. Paul a first place finish with 37% of the vote, an amazing comeback from his dismal 16th place finish last year.

So what was the headline from the leftist media on the straw poll winner?  Unbelievably it's "GOP Values Voters say they’d back Mitt Romney".  Gov. Romney finished a dismal 6th place out of 8 with less than 5% of the vote.  Go figure.

Unrelated to the Summit but a recent speech which outlines Rep. Paul's core constitutional principles which I enjoyed was that to the National Press Club:

Paul Schools Santorum on Iran in GOP Debates

During Thursday's Ames, Iowa GOP debates, Rep. Ron Paul was questioned about his views on Iran.  He advocated lifting sanctions and letting Iran defend its borders instead of fighting endless wars and provoking through our actions other countries to war with us.  It was a classic noninterventionist, conservative argument, one our Founding Fathers would surely endorse.

But that wasn't good enough for Rick Santorum who verbally jumped out of turn in front of Herman Cain to defend his anti-Iran policy.  During Santorum's defense he claimed we had been at war with Iran since 1979; in turn Ron Paul corrected him claiming 1953.

As a student of history, I found it appropriate to share with you the truth in Dr. Paul's words.  For the vast majority of adulthood, the history lesson we remember and are told begins with the violent overthrow of a pro-American Iranian leader, the Shah, with the subsequent hostage taking of Americans at our embassy.  I remember those days well.  Yet most of us aren't quite old enough to remember a complex story of American interventionism gone awry.  Nor were the secret events of 1953 fully elucidated to the American public as they have been in more recent times.  Lets examine some history together and learn how events all across the globe impacted our relations with Iran.

During WWII, Venezuela passed the Hydrocarbons Act of 1943 which asserted that profits made from foreign oil companies had to be shared 50/50 with the state.  This precursor to oil nationalization was copied in 1950 by Saudia Arabia in its dealings with Aramco as King Ibn Saud achieved a similar agreement under the threat of nationalization.  Seeing successful profit-sharing results in other oil producing nations, the idea of nationalization grew wildly popular in Iran with regards to Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC, whom we know today as British Petroleum or BP) and its Abadan refinery at the time responsible for 20% of the world supply (Abadan is my sweetheart's birthplace so there is personal familiarity).  While the British slowly reacted to the profit-sharing demands, a group of radical Iranians terrorists lead by Navvab Safari and his secret society Fada'iyan-e Islam with a history of assassinations since 1946, assassinated the Prime Minister Haj Ali Razmara while praying in a mosque on March 7, 1951--just days after Razmara had spoken out against AOIC nationalization.  Razmara's assassination vaulted the issue into the Iranian parliament which days later voted for nationalization and a new pro-nationalization Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh.

This expropriation naturally resulted in an outcry from the British who blocked the Persian Gulf and succeed in dropping Iranian oil production by 95%.  After a period of time realizing that Mosaddegh would offer no recourse to the stolen assets, the British planned a coup using MI6.  As historian John W. Limbert points out in Chapter 3 of his work Negotiating with Iran: Wrestling the Ghosts of History (2009) with the UK under Socialist Party rule they hardly held the moral high ground:

Prime Minister Clement Attlee's socialist government, which had nationalized much of British heavy industry, could not well oppose the Iranian oil nationalization on principle. (p.72)

During 1951-2 both the UK and the US would change the party in control of leadership, first the UK choosing Prime Minister Winston Churchill and followed by US Churchill's wartime ally, Dwight Eisenhower.  Churchill began to lobby the US to assist in the coup playing on American fears that the UK might withdraw from the Korean War:

"Britain was supporting the Americans in Korea, [Churchill] reminded Truman, and had a right to expect Anglo-American unity on Iran." (Wikipedia, 1953 Iranian Coup D'état quoting Stephen Kinzer: All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, John Wiley and Sons, 2003, p.145)

With the election of Eisenhower and installation in January of 1953, the new president authorized using the CIA to cosponsor the coup codenamed "Operation Ajax".  The coup then occurred on August 19, 1953.  Whereas pro-American Mosaddegh had been democratically elected, the result of the coup was to install a king, the Shah, who ruled with tyranny as an American puppet over the nation.  The Sharia-law loving Islamic fundamentalists, angered both by the coup and the secularism of the Shah, staged their own revolution in 1979.  The CIA created the word "blowback" specifically to mean the unintended consequences of this anti-democratic American imperialism.

Quite simply, Americans were fighting their first war--the Korean War--under the banner of the United Nations and leaving behind the notions of both non-interventionism and with Truman declaring the it a "police action" circumventing the constitutional requirement for a congressional declaration of war.  Because Truman had illegally intervened into Korea, the pressure was augmented for the US to support its longtime ally.  Additionally, the Korean War removed the moral high ground of non-interventionism and may have help signal to Churchill that such actions by the US were now acceptable leaving the door open for Churchill to petition the US into a second instance of interventionism when clearly this was a dispute between--at that time two friends of the US:  Iran and the UK.  Ron Paul obviously knows his history and were we all to study Iran would learn of a classic case of interventionism gone awry and a warning echoed by Paul for us not to intervene.

Additional reading:  TotallyFreePress, Iran’s History, the CIA / MI6 & Operation Ajax

Five Tiers of 2012 Presidential Picks

As we get close to next week's August 11 Washington Examiner/Fox News Iowa debates, now the 3rd round of GOP Presidential debates, and having observed the behavior of the various candidates over the jejune debt ceiling compromise fiasco, I am better formulating whom I would vote for in an abundant choice of Presidential candidates.  I remain uncommitted as to whom I would vote for, but instead grouped the candidates into tiers by preference as of this moment as follows:

(Tier 1) Ron Paul, Gary Johnson
(Tier 2) Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Donald Trump
(Tier 3) Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain
(Tier 4) Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty
(Tier 5) Thaddeus McCotter, Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, John Bolton

Tier 1 candidates are stone-sober debt cutters.  I don't worry about them being neo-cons who are willing to cut everything but the military industrial complex.  They have great track records of providing leadership in dealing with our economy.  They read the Constitution and abide by it.  They represent my preferred candidates.

Tier 2 candidates have much truth in their positions.  They tend to be aggressive fighters who will get things done in getting our economy back on course.  This group has extraordinary charisma and enthusiasm that will lend them towards success.

Tier 3 are candidates who have the potential to do a fine job.  I'm sure they would do much good and they strike me as having a high degree of personal integrity which we could sure use in a POTUS.

Tier 4 and Tier 5 candidates would really need to couple a person like a Tier 1 or Tier 2 in a presidential ticket to really get me enthused about their POTUS prospects.  To be clear, I'd strongly take any of the five tiers over a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton; I am after all talking about a presidential GOP primary. 

What are your thoughts?

Great Men Pray: Is The LDS Church Advocating POTUS Candidates?

Imagine as a Mormon going to church this week and finding the image on the right, poster-sized on the framed, ward display case bulletin board.  George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Barack Obama--all US Presidents--are seen with their heads bowed, eyes closed, hovering angel-esque above a LDS ward congregation also intent on prayer.  To the immediate right of the presidential portraits proclaims the caption:  "Great Men Pray."  In the youth classes, each youth is given a wallet-sized "Pass-along Card" with the same depiction as well.

Would such a poster cause you pause to think about the neutrality of the political position of the church?  Would you wonder why a poster of a sitting President who was actively campaigning for re-election decorated the same hallways as Jesus kneeling in Gethsemane or healing a leaper?  Would you ponder the singularity of such an event when no such other depictions of US Presidents adorned the hallowed passageways?

Although the LDS church created no such poster and the image is a photoshop of my own hand, it is however based on a similar 1956 poster depicted then with President Eisenhower instead of President Obama.  As in the case today with Obama, Eisenhower was running for re-election in 1956.

Elder Ezra T. Benson of the Quorum of the Twelve who was concurrently serving as Secretary of the Agriculture under President Eisenhower had this to say about the actual "Great Men Pray" poster (below) in the Sunday Morning (largest audience) Session of the October 1956 General Conference:

I was pleased, my brethren and sisters, as I read the report of the April conference and the remarks by Elder Mark E. Petersen, speaking as directed by the First Presidency, in announcing the series of new Church posters and cards for the benefit particularly of our young people, to note that one of them was going to be devoted to prayer. I wish there were time this morning to read the account of this particular card and poster on prayer. One will show the picture of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and President Eisenhower in the background, and then in the foreground a family group. At the top we will read: "Great Men Pray," and again at the bottom: "Be Honest with Yourself." (scriptures.byu.edu)

Mormon-themed Blogger Keepapitchinin puts into perspective the distribution and church emphasis on distribution of the original posters and wallet sized cards from the series of BHWY advertising directed at the youth: "Be Honest With Yourself: The Background."  In fairness, at least the wallet cards attempted on the reverse side to explain the Presidential depiction of then current President Eisenhower by alluding to his time as a General in WWII:

Washington at Valley Forge — Lincoln before Gettysburg — Eisenhower on D Day — Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove — Jesus at Gethsemane and at Golgotha — all these have prayed (full text available h/t tinypineapple.com)

By announcing the poster before the body of the church just a month before elections, could the poster have served as an over-zealous attempt by the church to influence its membership while staying technically neutral?  Furthermore, the governorship for the state of Utah was in chaos in a tight three-way race with incumbent Gov. Lee running as a Republican-turned-independent against strong Democrat and Republican contenders.  Both Lee and Republican Clyde both sought Eisenhower's endorsement, with Clyde (who would win) receiving a more current endorsement than Lee.  The issue of Eisenhower appearing in the LDS "Great Men Pray" distributions was addressed in Chapter 17 of Gov. Lee's biography "Let Em Holler" (Digital version avail at Utah State History) where the author was apparently unawares of the October announcement, instead crediting a post-election December date.  This raises the further question of did the "Great Men Pray" poster influence the outcome of a Utah gubernatorial election?

Bringing us to 2011, the issue of the involvement of the LDS into the political arena remains a poignant one for dedicated members such as myself.  We are currently dealing with a church who wants to influence immigration bills and to even formally lobby and praise the state legislature when it passes bills it likes.

Now the question before us is how much will the church want to promote or influence its two Mormon Presidential candidates:  Romney and Huntsman.  Although I don't worry about the church overtly supporting either candidate, as it has recently and repeatedly reiterated its neutrality stance (The Blaze, June 29, 2011), I do worry about the more subtle--yet potentially equally as powerful "Great Men Pray" types of support or advocacy the church may want to exert both pre- and post-election.

Mormons as a group are in the tank for Romney and to a lesser extent Huntsman.  Just today the Daily Herald revealed that Romney had secured support from 57 out of 80 Utah legislators, including 13 from Utah County.  Mormons will support the Mormon POTUS candidates just like blacks supported Obama in 2010, if for no other reason than their perceived political advancement of their minority.  For me I have a hard time supporting Romney who backed now ex-Sen. Bob Bennett in our grassroots push to replace him; and Huntsman is hard to swallow because he lied to his Democrat contender three years ago about his commitment to serve as Governor for his full 4-year term (themostsearched, May 2009).  While I'd take either Mormon over Obama in a wink and am glad they are both in the race, I am more appreciative of the multiple better-principled contenders for the Republican nomination I have to choose from.

P.S.:  For the die-hard Obama haters that can't imagine President Obama being a man of prayer, I derived the photoshop of Obama praying from this actual photo (White House Blog, Feb 2011) of Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast.  I don't hate Obama; I just hate his policies, lies, and lack of leadership.

Gov. Johnson's Plan to Balance the Budget Tomorrow

To his credit, one of the few fair Fox News interviews with GOP Presidential Candidate Gov. Gary Johnson on was broadcast last night on the Sean Hannity Show:

Gov. Johnson hit a nerve with me by focusing on the most important issue facing our nation:  the boldest plan I have heard from any Presidential candidate to balance the budget:

I'm under the belief that we're on the verge of a financial collapse...that's in lieu of the fact that we have $14 Trillion dollars in debt and we have no ability to repay $14 Trillion dollars in debt if we're racking up $1.6 Trillion dollars in deficit spending this year, the year prior, two years prior, and the years looking ahead.  Look, we're not going to pay back $14 Trillion dollars in debt.  So what we have to do is embark on balancing the federal budget tomorrow.

Gov. Johnson next puts forth his common-sense plan on how to balance the budget including entitlement reductions.  The plan was credible given Gov. Johnson's recap earlier in the interview of his competent financial stewardship in balancing the budget in the 2-1 registered Democrat state of New Mexico.

The latter part of the interview focuses on the drug issue Hannity and some other Republicans might take issue with.  Legalizing drugs is such a small ripple compared of the tsunami of debt threatening to destroy the entire nation, I don't worry about Gov. Johnson's views.  Besides, if some Mormon members close to me can overlook Obama's views on abortion despite their belief system that abortion is wrong--because they mistakenly believed that then Sen. Obama (with no fiscal track record) would keep our nation's fiscal house in order--then I certainly could support someone with a controversial issue that has little to do with balancing the budget.  Simply put, there is no candidate I completely agree with on every issue.

And yet as an ardent defender of the 10th Amendment, I find it impossible to justify the federal government's unwarranted regulation of drugs at a national level and feel legalization is an issue left to the states.

My prima donna issue for 2012 is to find the candidate most likely not only to balancing the budget, but in paying down the debt and if you agree, then I would assert you need to consider adding, as I have, Gov. Johnson to your list of preferred Presidential candidates.

Dick Morris' Propaganda Poll Hides Ron Paul Vote

Tonight on the Fox News' O'Reilly Factor Show, Commentator Dick Morris offered up a "Dick Morris/GMRS" poll which Mr. Morris touted as showing presidential candidate Mitt Romney up in the lead over other candidates as follows (Palin was excluded from the survey which was done after the exit of Huckabee and Trump):

Romney = 30%
Gingrich = 15%
Bachmann = 7%
Cain = 7%
Pawlenty = 5%
Santorum = 3%
Huntsman = 1%

I find a couple of problems with this poll which was uncontested by host Bill O'Reilly:

(1) The numbers don't add up; in fact they add up to just 68%.  That means almost a third of the votes were "thrown out".  There simply aren't enough missing candidates (people like Ron Paul, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Gary Johnson) that would fit underneath Huntsman's 1% which means that at least one of the missing candidates got higher, and in all probability in the double digits.  I wonder who this missing candidate could be?  Perhaps this video on the "last of seven candidates for president" by Morris just might shed some light:

Morris, a former Clinton advisor and now Republican cheerleader, defames fellow Republican Ron Paul as someone who "would be a total disaster as president" citing two policy disagreements with Paul: drug war and foreign intervention.  How Ron Paul who appears to be the most fiscally conservative and anti-debt candidate of anyone running is in Mr. Morris' mind a "total disaster as president" serves no purpose but to slam Conservatives who are stone-cold-sober about reducing our debt and saving our country.

How interesting it is on Bill O'Reilly Factor Fox News website this very candidate--Dr. Ron Paul--missing from Mr. Morris poll is the leading candidate by far on the current O'Reilly Factor "No Spin Poll":

(2) The Morris poll is closed to outside review.  The complete findings of the poll are not available for review including such important things as if the candidate order presented was randomized, the rankings of ALL candidates, and the number of votes received.  Nor can you make comments on Morris site unless you pay him money.  Furthermore, information about what "GMRS" is is totally blocked from view.  A Google search of "GMRS survey" returns nothing of use.  In all, this poll serves nothing but to further the Morris propaganda that he hates Ron Paul and will distort the truth to further Morris' dogma.

I believe if you are going to have a "No Spin Zone" then abide by a policy of no spin and call out Mr. Morris for putting a huge amount of anti-Ron Paul spin on the show.

Ron Paul: Twice Victor at CPAC Makes Him Credible

Rep. Ron Paul won the CPAC Presidential straw poll a second year in a row, outpacing over 14 other candidates with a whopping 30% of the first place votes (see CPAC 2011 Straw Poll official results). After having personally previously written off Rep. Paul as an insignificant aberration, I knew after winning CPAC twice consecutively I had to give him another chance and devoted myself to listening to his CPAC speech.

I was stunned. Literally, I cannot remember a more inspirational speech by a national-level politician since my youth listening to Ronald Reagan. Rep. Paul tackled the GOP sacred cow of defense spending, of ending the Federal Reserve, of protecting the Constitution by protecting our natural civil and fiscal liberties. After all my studying and devotion to politics, he at a national level unabashedly set forth exactly what needs to be done. And the fact that he was willing to tackle the difficult issues vaulted him in my mind as the biggest principled debt- and government-shrinking zealot out there: and that is precisely what we need right now as a country to save us from ourselves and our $14T debt tsunami.

So then I started to compare other CPAC presidential hopeful speeches. Second-place Romney came across as an Obama-attack dog. That's a good thing. Yet what Paul did was better: to provide specific principles and solutions to an ever power-massing federal government. Tonight I watched Hannity's show on Fox News and he played a CPAC excerpt of Donald Trump saying Paul couldn't win while completely neglecting any excerpt from Paul, the huge victor. (Presidential straw poll votes for Trump were lumped in the "other" category.) Hannity's actions tonight were blatantly anti-Paul.

As for myself, I have yet to commit to any candidate. I like Cain, Palin, Christie, Bachmann, and now Paul a whole lot and like a whole lot less Huntsman, Gingrich, and Trump. Kind of between the two groups of like and like a lot less lie Romney, Huckabee, Santorum, Barbour, Thune, and Jindal. Pawlenty and Daniels I don't know well enough to put into any category yet.

Here's some of the great guzzles I extracted from Paul's speech; full vid follows:

"We need to do a lot less a lot sooner not only in Egypt, but around the world."

"It used to be Conservatives were against foreign aid. I'm still against foreign aid for everybody."

"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country...and there can't be a be example of that than what we did with Egypt."

"People don't like us propping up their dictators no more than we would like it if a foreign country came in here an propped up a dictator in our country."

"We've had troops in Japan since WWII and Germany: why are we paying for their defense?"

"The bill to audit the Fed is the first step to ending the Federal Reserve."

"[The Fed] eliminated 98% of the value of 1913 the dollar."

"The purpose of all political activity is to promote Liberty."

"Liberty comes from our Creator. It doesn't come from our government."

"When government takes over the role of making us virtuous, in making us excellent, and redistributing the wealth, they only do it at the expense of liberty: and that's why we're in such terrible shape today."