Harry Reid Accused Of Accepting Bribes From Utah Business Man

During the 2012 Presidential election, Harry Reid accused Mitt Romney of not paying his taxes while Hollywood actor Jason Alexander claimed that Romney hasn't been paying his tithing. Both claims were outright LIES. The underlying assumption that Harry Reid wanted to get the American people to believe was that Mitt Romney is a criminal who hasn't been caught yet. However, we just may find that Harry Reid is a hypocrite when he made those false allegations.

We are now learning that Harry Reid is being accused of accepting bribes from Jeremy Johnson, a Utah businessman, with Utah Attorney General John Swallow, as the middleman who brokered the deal between the businessman and the Las Vegas Senator to make a federal investigation into his company go away. Jeremy Johnson claims to have proof of the whole transaction:

To back his allegations, Johnson provided an email from Swallow that Johnson identified as key in supporting his claims. Johnson also granted access to at least several dozen other emails, two financial records, several photos and a transcript of about 60 pages of a secretly recorded April 2012 meeting Johnson had with Swallow, who was then Utah’s chief deputy attorney general.

The documents appear to support Johnson’s story that in 2010 Swallow brokered a deal between Johnson and Richard M. Rawle, owner of the Provo-based payday-loan company Check City, to enlist Rawle to use his influence to get Reid involved on behalf of Johnson and I Works, Johnson’s Internet marketing company that was under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission.

....

Copies of emails show Swallow worked with Shurtleff to arrange meetings between Johnson and top Utah officeholders.

Then, with the FTC investigation continuing, Johnson said Swallow suggested Reid could make problems with regulators go away — for a price.

"I said, ‘OK, what do I need to do?’ He’s like, ‘OK, it costs money,’ " Johnson said, who claimed Swallow was adamant he make a deal.

"I think he told me, ‘Richard Rawle has a connection with Harry Reid,’ " Johnson said.

He said Swallow at first wanted $2 million to enlist Reid’s help. But I Works was no longer profitable and he did not have the money, Johnson said, so they eventually agreed on $300,000 upfront and $300,000 later.

Harry Ried's false accusation was an attempt to get a certain percentage of the American people to believe that Mitt Romney was not the squeaky clean man he appeared to be. However, the truth is Mitt Romney is more representative of how Mormons really are than Harry Reid is. Mr. Reid might be Mormon, but he's anything but a squeaky clean guy. 

Liberty Central has discovered that he may have also engaged in a pay for play scheme in by awarding government contracts in exchange for campaign money: 

"In fiscal year 2010, Arcata won a 1.36 million dollar contract for the Continuous Threat Alert Sensing System (CTASS) according to OpenSecrets.org after spending $50,000 to lobby the Senate. What the site fails to mention are the multitude of Arcata donations to Harry Reid and the Nevada Democrat Party. In addition, Arcata stands to gain another two million dollars in 2011, also a no-bid earmark directed by Senator Reid. The requests for these earmarks can be found here and here.

The Wong family, owners of Arcata Associations, have a long history of donating generously to Harry Reid. Their donations are over $130,000. Here is a PDF of all the donations."

Some might argue that such a quid pro quo arrangement is just the usual part of how politics is done in Washington D.C. Some would even argue that awarding earmarks is a Constitutional power that members of Congress have. However, Hot Air destroys that argument: 

"Reid and others in Congress defend the earmarking process by claiming that the Constitution vests Congress with the authority to appropriate funds, not the executive branch, and that earmarks more closely represent the intentions of the founders.  That’s absurd on several levels, but let’s focus on one pragmatic consequence of the earmarking process for this example.  The executive branch agencies have bid processes for purchasing systems and services, which in theory at least create competition and better outcomes and reduce bias in procurement.  Earmarks bypass the bid process entirely.  Arcata Associates doesn’t have to worry about competitors producing a better product, because Reid has in effect already picked the winner.

It’s just another example of Congress refusing to live by the same rules and regulations they impose on others.  In this case, that has big implications for waste, fraud, inefficiency, low quality procurements, and corruption."

The reason why this pay for play scheme is especially heinous is because of the timing of the donations. Once again, Liberty Central explains why this is bad news for Harry Reid and the American tax payer: 

"The most recent donations indicates a possible quid pro quo relationship between Arcata and Senator Reid. Arcata executives gave the Nevada Democratic Party $20,000 on June 5, 2009.

To understand why the timing of this large donation raises eyebrows, one must understand the timing of the congressional earmark process. For an organization to obtain an earmark, the organization must submit a request to Sen.Reid’s by their appropriations request deadline. In 2009, Sen. Reid’s deadline was at the end of February.

After receiving submissions, Reid would go through the many submission and some of them to submit to the Appropriations Committee for consideration. Thee committee’s deadline for submissions is sometime between April and June (the deadlines vary from year-to-year; this would most likely happen in mid-May). Between then and when the bill is released, Reid would prioritize the list of requests he submitted. Members typically submit many requests to the committee, but only some of these are funded. For example, in Fiscal Year [FY] 2010, Reid submitted 58 requests to the committee, of which 31 were funded.

Taking into account these priorities, the committee releases its bill with the list of earmarks. In 2009 (the FY 2010 bill), the committee released the bill on September 10, 2009. The FY 2011 bill was released on September 14, 2010.

On or about June 5, 2009, Tim Wong and his wife Shari each gave the Democratic Party of Nevada $10,000—the maximum about allowed by law. Note that June 5 is in between the date when requests were submitted to the Appropriations Committee and when the committee releases their list of earmarks.

On or about April 20, 2010, Buck and Aurora Wong each donated $2,200 to Harry Reid—nearly the maximum of $2400. Again, the timing here raises questions."

Reid's actions, if true, violates ethical and legal obligations that elected officials are expected to follow. Moreover, his unethical behavior are even more troubling for the Latter Day Saints as we see a high profile member of the Church engage in practices that do not reflect on how Mormons engage or should engage in business and politics. As members of the LDS Church, we have higher expectations for those who go into politics and are highly visible members of our faith. We expect LDS politicians to not engage in potentially corrupt and criminal activities that may reflect poorly on the Church and its members.

Mitt Romney lives up to those standards. Harry Reid appears not to. 

Steinfeld Star Accuses Mitt Romney Of Cheating The LDS Church Out Of Tithing Money

Jason Alexander, who is famous for playing George Costanza on the television show "Seinfeld" believes that Mitt Romney won't release his tax records because he believes there may be evidence that he's cheating the LDS Church out of millions of dollars by not paying his tithing:

Its a similar claim to Harry Reid made in which he accused Mitt Romney of not paying taxes for 10 years: 

Here's the transcript of Harry Reid's astonishing accusation:

He’s refused to release his tax returns, as we know. If a person coming before this body wanted to be a cabinet officer, he couldn’t be if he did the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns. So the word’s out that he hasn’t paid any taxes for ten years. Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn’t.

Jason Alexander accuses Romney of avoiding paying tithing. Harry Reid says Romney hasn't paid his taxes. 

Both claims are outright lies. 

Today Mitt Romney released a detailed report of his 2011 tax returns and Romney's trustee, whose name is Brad Malt, gives us a summary of the 2011 data:

- In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.

- The Romneys’ effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1%.

-The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.

-The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions. The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.

Brad Malt, the trustee of the Romney family, also gives us a breakdown of the taxes paid by the Romney campaign for the last 20 years:

- In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.

-During the 20-year period covered by the PWC letter, Gov. and Mrs. Romney paid 100 percent of the taxes that they owed.

Its clear that Harry Reid's claim that Mitt Romney hasn't paid is any taxes is a LIE. Mitt Romney has paid 100% of his taxes for the past 20 years. What's even more important is to keep in mind that if you look at the numbers more closely, Mitt Romney paid 30% in taxes rather than the 13% to 14%.

As far Seinfeld actor Jason Alexander's claim that Mitt Romney hasn't paid tithing, the LDS Church does not publicly release how much tithing any member of the LDS Church has paid. That is a matter between the Bishop and the member. Mitt Romney has said that his tithing records should remain private even though by releasing his tax records, people can figure out how much he's given in tithing. 

"Our church doesn't publish how much people have given," Romney is reportedly quoted as saying in the forthcoming edition of Parade. "This is done entirely privately. One of the downsides of releasing one's financial information is that this is now all public, but we had never intended our contributions to be known. It's a very personal thing between ourselves and our commitment to our God and to our church."

However, records show that Mitt Romney has actually paid more than 10% in tithes to the LDS Church: 

The couple’s donations to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appear to be almost double the 10 percent tithe faithful members are asked to give to the Salt Lake City-based faith.

In addition to Romney’s direct contributions to the LDS Church, he also gave to the faith through his charity for a total of $3.07 million last year, according to his campaign. The campaign also said Friday that the Romneys have given, on average, 13.45 percent of their income annually to charity, including the LDS Church.

Jason Alexander's claim that Mitt Romney is cheating the Church of tithing funds is also NOT TRUE. Its clear that Mitt Romney has been a faithful tithing payer all along. 

For more information on the LDS practice of tithing, the LDS Newsroom gives a simple explanation on tithing and charitable donations while another official LDS website called Mormon.org explains what the Mormon Church does with these funds and why Mormons pay tithing.

Dear Mormon Friends, It’s Time to Go “All-In” for Mitt

Below is an open letter penned by two Evangelicals to the LDS Community: 

Nancy and I started Evangelicals for Mitt in 2006 with one simple idea: To enlist the mighty machinery of evangelical activism behind the single best candidate for President of the United States, Mitt Romney. Even then we could see the need for a man of Mitt’s unique talents and now – with labor participation the lowest in 30 years and with the most sluggish recovery since the Great Depression – the need is even greater.

We were more idealistic back in those days. Convinced of Mitt’s merits, we saw our task as relatively easy. Introduce Mitt to evangelicals, deal with the relatively easy questions about theology and politics, and then watch him win social conservatives on his way to the White House. Of course politics is never easy, and there are always competitors for the same set of voters. First Mike Huckabee won enough evangelicals to hand John McCain the nomination in 2008, then Rick Santorum swept southern conservatives and challenged Mitt for the evangelical vote in 2012.

But now, all that is past. Evangelicals are finally united behind Mitt (even 2008 Huckabee supporter – and coolest action star in the universe – Chuck Norris is pleading with evangelicals to vote Barack Obama out of office), and Mitt’s rivaling George Bush’s astounding share of the evangelical vote in 2008. Pro-Obama evangelicals are coming back home to the Republican Party after Obama’s almost four-year assault on religious liberty and his zealous support for abortion. In short, evangelicals – as theologically and culturally divided as we are – will be there for Mitt on election day.

Curiously, however, we’ve heard disturbing reports that LDS Mitt supporters are hanging back just a bit. Some are afraid of stereotyping (“just because I’m Mormon doesn’t mean I’m going to automatically support Mitt. After all, I can’t stand Harry Reid!”), but many more seem just a bit confused about the role of the church in politics. If the LDS church is politically neutral, how can you use your church relationships to mobilize voters and donors?

But let’s back up a moment. Is the LDS church really “neutral?” Is my Presbyterian Church really “neutral?” Yes, I’ve read the portions of the LDS Handbook that emphasize that the church is politically neutral and doesn’t endorse candidates. But the fact that the church is nonpartisan doesn’t mean that it’s neutral on the key moral issues of the day or that the church’s members must maintain their neutrality. In fact, the LDS Handbook specifically urges member involvement:

"Members are encouraged to support measures that strengthen the moral fabric of society, particularly those designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

Let’s be perfectly clear, after the God-booing abortion celebration masquerading as the Democratic National Convention, the moral choices in this election are beyond stark. Let’s just examine the issue of abortion. In Deuteronomy 30:19, God lays out His will for His people:

“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live . . .”

And now here’s the Democratic party platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

By contrast, here’s the Republican party platform:

Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

Is there anything that threatens the “moral fabric of society” or the “family as the fundamental unit of society” as much as granting mothers the “right” to order doctors to kill their innocent children in the womb?

In addition, the Obama administration’s assault on religious liberty through the HHS contraception and abortifacient mandates represents a clear and present danger to the autonomy of the church. The administration is telling Americans of every faith that if they leave the walls of their church and attempt to reach out to their communities – either as business owners or through ministries – that they can only do so on the state’s terms while advancing the state’s values. This is antithetical to the First Amendment and antithetical to fundamental American traditions.

In other words, while your church and my church will not endorse any candidate for president, that does not mean that individual congregants cannot or should not use our web of church friendships and relationships to invest fully in the outcome of this election.

In the six years that Nancy and I have run Evangelicals for Mitt, we’ve made a huge number of Mormon friends and learned a great deal from the LDS church. In fact, we’ve taken flack for urging evangelicals to emulate Mormons in your approach to missions, service, and church growth. We have long stood on the barricades against anti-Mormon bigots. But now we’re asking you to take a page from the evangelical book: Engage fully, proudly, and without hesitation.

Call your friends from your ward. Make sure they’re registered to vote. Ask them if they’ve given to Mitt’s campaign. If they need more education on the issues, equip them with materials. Don’t use church resources; use your own. Between worship and Sunday School, I can’t tell you how many conversations Nancy and I have had about Mitt, about abortion, about religious liberty, and – yes – about the economy. Politics isn’t a “dirty business;” it’s part of our life and obligations as citizens of a nation and government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Now is not the time for concerns about stereotyping, for false worries about “neutrality.” The church will remain nonpartisan, but you don’t have to. There are more than six million Mormons in America, and the causes of life and religious liberty need every one.

It’s time to go “all-in” for Mitt.

By David and Nancy French (EVANGELICALS for MITT)

Mitt Romney: I Pray Everyday

Mitt Romney has been increasingly more open about his faith as the 2012 election goes on. Recently, he sat down with the Huffington Post and talked about his spiritual routine as a Mormon: 

The Huffington Post asked Romney in an interview Thursday what kind of daily routine he conducts to keep himself spiritually grounded, a topic past presidents and presidential candidates have discussed at length. George W. Bush, for example, often spoke about how he would try to read the Bible daily and pray.

Romney said he does something similar with the Mormon scriptures, which include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and two other "canonized" books that are also referred to as "standard works."

Romney paused for a moment before describing his routine.

"Let's see, how would I describe this? Let's see," he said. "I read scripture regularly, and seek the counsel of my creator on a daily basis."

"I pray every day. I don't read scriptures every day, probably should," he added.

Ann Romney, who sat on the couch in the Romney campaign bus next to her husband fiddling with an iPad, held up the device, prompting an exclamation from Mitt.

"There we go, just did. I got them on my iPad," he said. "I should probably read scriptures every day, but I read them frequently, but not every day."

"Sometimes I read to him. If we're on the phone, I will read him chapters," Ann Romney said with a smile.

"But I go to church every Sunday," Romney said brightly.

I appreciate Mitt Romney talking about his daily spiritual routine, especially to the press, since he is like most Americans who pray daily and struggle to read their scriptures daily.  The daily practice of being LDS isn't any different from most Americans who try to lead a religious life in a busy and hectic world. Its inspiring to know that even Mitt Romney struggles with balancing work, family and religion just like everyone else. 

2008 & The Problem of Religious Unity

For most Americans, the 2008 elections have erupted into a national debate about the role of religion in American politics. However, for most members of the Republican party, the debate has narrowed down to an ugly debate over whether or not the candidate belongs to the "right" religion and whether or not membership to a specific religion qualifies a candidate to be a leader for America.

There is nothing wrong with a national debate on religion since it has been going on since the founding of this nation. However, the debate as always been about the general role of religion and not about a specific denomination. Our Founding Fathers came from various different religious backgrounds and when they were in the process of creating this nation, they specifically wanted religion to play a role in public life but they also wanted to prevent America from endorsing a specific denomination or sect. The Founding Fathers were purposely trying to avoid the mistake that Old Europe had made and that was one religion had the endorsement of the Government at the exclusion of all other religions. In fact, England herself has suffered a wave of political instability as one King or Queen was placed on or overthrown from the royal throne simply because one King or Queen was of a particular religion.

Thus, the Founding Fathers understood the problem that faces a country and its religiously pluralistic society. It is a problem of religious unity. Old Europe's solution was to force unity through governmental endorsement of a particular religion. The Founding Father believe that the answer lies in the paradox of allowing unifying a religiously diverse country by forbidding the government of endorsing a particular religion.

Fast forward from 1776 to 2008 and we find ourselves squabbling over whether or not a Evangelical Christian or a Latter Day Saint is the "right" religion for a GOP candidate to be. But this isn't the only harmful consequence of the 2008 elections and its focus on religion. The Internet and daily conversations are filled with people contending with one another about the merits or validity of a particular religion and its doctrines. Furthermore, the old and sad debate of whether or not its a particular religion is a "cult" or an authentic religion has become a part of our national discourse.

John F. Kennedy in address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association during the 1960's campaign warned that if the American voter got too focused on religion and refuse to vote for a candidates based on his or her faith, it might be that the voter's own faith might be the subject of unfair scrutiny by the general public in the next election cycle:

"For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist...Today I may be the victim--but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril."

The problem of religious unity that JFK identifies is that the public (and not the government) will endorse a particular faith based upon their support for a particular candidate and the religion he belongs to. This is a problem that the Founding Father sought to avoid when they inserted into the Constitution, a clause forbidding the application of a religious test to any candidate.

Fast forward from 1776 and passing through 1960 to 2008, Mike Huckabee's campaign has brought us into this unfortunate moment in history by making a candidate's religion an issue. While Mike Huckabee hypocritically refuses to make his own faith and the sermons he delivered a target of intense scrutiny. In fact, Mr. Huckabee gets irritated with the press when it focuses on his faith and its particular doctrines and yet he has made the faith of Mitt Romney's faith an issue. He plays passive-aggressive in feigning ignorance in questioning (or attacking) Mitt Romney's religion and then later apologizing for his remarks even though there is plenty of evidence that he is very knowledgeable about LDS doctrines when he was the Keynote Speaker at the 1998 the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in Salt Lake City and that Janet L. Folger gives Mr. Huckabee advice on "Faith and Values" issues.

But Mike Huckabee isn't just making an Mitt Romney's faith an issue of his campaign, he's making religion a central issue of his campaign. This is evident as he releases a Christmas campaign commercial with a well lighted cross disguised as a bookshelf or his willingness to speak at Churches across the nation but snubbing request to speak to the general public or offending the Catholics by visiting Pastor John Hagee, a man who some Catholics feel spreads an anti-Catholic message to his followers.

Huckabee's strategy of using religion to get himself in to the White House is dangerous for America and the political process. It leaves us divided as we are separated into religious groups. It gets us debating over the issue of "authenticity" of a particular religion. Feelings are hurt when religious groups such as Mormons and Catholics are snubbed by Mike Huckabee's campaign. But it also hurts the group that Mike Huckabee is trying to appeal: the evangelical vote since the secular public grows more and more weary of religion in the public sphere and sees religion as being exclusive rather than an inclusive institution. Not only will voters reject religion but they will reject its Christian message too.

In short, Mike Huckabee's harmful plan of using religion and appealing to a specific group of Christians to win the White House is hurting America because its not bringing us together but dividing us.

JFK wisely warned us of this problem us about because making religion an issue a central issue of the election because it will continue to divide us until "the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril."

In contrast, Mitt Romney understands the important of keeping the fabric of our harmonious society together. In his speech at the George Bush Presidential Library, he acknowledges that despite the diversity of religion in America, "we share a common creed of moral convictions" and that when a candidate becomes president, "he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths." Mitt Romney's campaign is inclusive, not exclusive like Mike Huckabee's. He tells the American voter that his campaign is inclusive because:

"Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."

Given the troubled times that we live in, we need a leader who can represent a religious, ethnic, social and politically pluralistic nation and bring us together. Mike Huckabee, by his words and actions, cannot bring us together. Mitt Romney can.

Mitt Romney, Christians and the 2008 Elections

Mitt Romney has announced that he will give a speech about his faith that will be similar to John F. Kennedy's address that he gave when his Catholic faith was under scrutiny during the 1960 presidential campaign.

As LDS person who has a keen interest in politics, I find it amusing that some Christian conservatives have made Romney's faith an issue during this 2008 presidential election. To those who refuse to vote for Romney on theological grounds, I request that you give the following thoughts some consideration. This is not an attempt to convince you to support Mitt Romney but an appeal to the Christian political community to rethink its priorities if it wants to reach their political goals. Here are some thoughts:

What's more important: Theology or Values?

In deciding who is the best candidate for Christian voters, its values that matter, not theology. This is an important fact for the religious right to remember. For example, Harry Reid is Mormon, but I would never vote for him since he doesn't reflect my values. On the other hand, I support Romney, not because of his religion but because of his values.

Likewise, Christians are aware that there are many politicians who are Christians but don't have good values and are not worth supporting. On the other hand, Senator Joesph Lieberman is obviously not Christian, but is a Jewish politician who values reflect the traditional conservative view of America.

The Founding Fathers understood that values was more important than theology in politics. For them, it was never, never, ever about a particular brand of interpretation or view of the Bible. A prime example is that the Founding Fathers themselves came from all different religious backgrounds and yet they all shared the same Christian values and morality even though they may have had disagreements over theological approaches to the Bible and other doctrinal issues. Thus, a person's faith was never a factor in considering someone for elected office and thats' why they specifically forbid religion as a litmus test in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers understood this concept, and yet modern Christian society seems to be unable to grasp this idea.

For the religious right to be politically successful, it needs to be inclusive, not exclusive

If Christians want to restore the classical Judeo-Christian values that made America great, then it needs to make all the friends it can get to make that goal a reality. The LDS and Christian faith share much in common in their vision for America such asstrong families, bringing back morality & religion in the public square, appointing conservative judges and bringing freedom to the oppressed around the world.

LDS and Christians have worked together on numerous political issues and have been successful both on national and state issues. It makes no sense for Christians to reject a presidential candidate whose faith is closely aligned with them on political, social and moral issues and is eager to implement policies and programs that reflect our shared values.

If Christians are not making friends and allies in restoring America's values, how else are you gonna rally people to your cause?

The Golden Rule: It applies to politics too!

It is interesting that many (not all, of course) Christians complain about being persecuted and that there is prejudice against Christians in America and but many of those same people persecute Mormons as well as other faiths.

Rejecting people based on their faith only gives Christians a bad name in the public eye. I agree that there is an anti-Christian sentiment in American public today but opposing a political candidate's faith only exacerbates the problem to which more people will be turned off to Christianity, both religiously and politically. The more people make Romney's religion an issue in the 2008 election, the more the people will see the hypocrisy and double standard that is at play here. Many secular people will wonder, If you don't like being picked on as a Christian, maybe you shouldn't pick on other religions?

If Christians want to advance their conservative agenda, (1) Christians need to put an end to the "in your face, offensive style" preaching to those that are not of a particular Christian denomination or religion in general and (2) be more open minded about those who wish to be called Christians-if Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics. or even some Jewish people want to be labeled as "Christians"-let them do it. It only serves to help the Christian cause as a political group and usually these religious denominations may have different theological positions but they're almost always on the same page when it comes to traditional values.

Consider the 2008 elections

Its already turning out to be an historic election for many reasons with the most obvious being that many minorities are running for office. We have a potential for the first woman (Hil), first African American (Obama), first Hispanic (Richardson), first Mormon (Romney), first mayor in over a century (Guilliani) and oldest president (McCain) to occupy the White House. This isn't a flash in the pan moment for American politics. The populace is getting warmed up to the idea of having minorities run for office, especially the office of the President.

Given the political realities of the 2008 elections, people are starting to think outside the box in terms of what they want in a President. A person's religion isn't the only factor people take into consideration any more in American politics. JFK's victory as a Catholic president made it possible for people of all faiths to run for office. Look at Keith Ellison, Harry Reid, Mitt Romney and Joseph Liberman. Political diversity and tolerance is apart of the American political landscape now. And it should be. Insisting that a person be of the "right" faith is simply out of touch with our country's newfound American values.

As Mitt Romney makes his address to the nation about his faith and his bid to be the next President, he will invoke JFK's vision of a time "where religious intolerance will someday end -- where all men and all churches are treated as equal" and where people of all faiths "both the lay and the pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood."

Remember, that while America " is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish" or Mormon, it is "the real issues which should decide this campaign" since they are the problems that not only afflict America but the rest of the world such as terrorism, war, the economy, and immigration. Judge Romney, not on his faith but on the basis of his experience as Governor of Massachusetts, in managing the 20008 Olympics and other endeavors that shows he has the ability to lead America through the challenges that America faces.