Dr. Richard Land: “Kingmaker” & Romney as Statesman
http://www.opinionjournal…ml?id=110010001
From The Wall Street Journal - The Weekend Interview
Today’s Featured Article: “Who Would Jesus Pick?”
“The religious right’s would-be kingmaker talks about the presidential candidates.”
Ms. Riley’s interview of Dr. Land is outstanding; Mr. Land’s points are thoughtful and intelligent. Richard Land is the highly respected ‘Southern Baptist Convention’s representative in Washington’ — his perspective and opinions of any presidential candidate are obviously influential. But more importantly, his insightful comments here cast an important light on the national debate regarding who should be the next standard bearer of conservatism and of the immutable Christian-Judeo values Americans expect their supreme secular leader to possess.
-
By Naomi Schaefer Riley
Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
-
Following are excerpts from this great interview (unless otherwise noted, these quotes are Dr. Land’s):
Mayor Giliani:
Rudy Giuliani didn’t score many points with social conservatives last week when he issued this impassioned endorsement of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a federal ban on “partial-birth” abortion: “I agree with it.” He certainly didn’t win over Richard Land, who has said he would never vote for Mr. Giuliani. . . “If he’ll lie to two wives, what makes you think he wouldn’t lie to you?” . . . we have Rudy Giuliani, a twice divorced, pro-choice, supporter of civil unions.
—–
But it seems there is just about nothing Rudy Giuliani could do to change Mr. Land’s mind about his candidacy. “Three is one too many spouses for most evangelicals,” he says. . . What bothers Mr. Land is the “circumstances of [Mr. Giuliani's] divorce and the fact that there is more than one of them.” It’s not exactly a distinction the Bible makes, as Mr. Land no doubt knows, but he may be right about how much spouse-hopping evangelicals will tolerate.
Governor Romney:
Mr. Land might, on the other hand, vote for Mitt Romney. He says that evangelical voters may be able to get over their problems with a Mormon. “Charitably speaking,” Mr. Land says, “they would call [Mormonism] the fourth Abrahamic religion. When they’re less charitable, they would call it a cult.” And they might even let him off the hook for his flip-flops on the social issues. “A lot of people in this country who are pro-life didn’t used to be.”
Mr. Land says that reporters have misunderstood what it means that Mr. Romney has changed his mind. “Why does the liberal media call it a flip-flop? Because they believe in the moral correctness of their pro-choice position. The only reason someone would move from the morally correct position, as they perceive it, to the morally incorrect position is because of political expediency. But religious conservatives believe that their position is the morally correct position. So they don’t see this as a flip-flop. They see this as a journey . . . as growth.”
“Hard-to-Get”:
Richard Land is a man waiting to be courted, and on behalf of religious conservatives he is playing hard to get. He wants “to make certain that we never become as taken for granted by the Republican Party as African-Americans have been taken for granted by the Democratic Party.” . . . With a bachelor’s degree from Princeton and a doctorate of philosophy from Oxford, he has often been credited with providing the intellectual heft behind the religious right’s political strategy.
-
Dr. Richard Land [Wikipedia]
President of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
-
Senator McCain:
John McCain, who voted against the gay marriage amendment and who crafted the campaign finance laws that have done much to damage the anti-abortion efforts of religious conservatives;
Senator Thompson:
. . . or perhaps Fred Thompson, who supported McCain-Feingold and says that gay marriage is a state issue. Mr. Land remains oddly upbeat, particularly about Mr. Thompson, the possibility of whose candidacy he finds “tantalizing.”
“The Unelectable Candidates”:
But he acknowledges the reality of his constituency’s situation: “Evangelicals would be very happy if Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback or Duncan Hunter were the nominee, but the problem with those three guys is they don’t give any indication they can win.” And he adds, “With Hillary Clinton looming on the horizon, electability is a very important issue.” . . . At the very least, the evangelical influence in the Republican primary will be diluted, with some religious conservatives thinking ahead to the general election and others going for the purest representative of their values. It is noteworthy that even among the unelectable candidates, evangelicals can’t make up their minds between a free-trade, open-immigration candidate like Sen. Brownback and a closed-borders protectionist like Rep. Hunter.
Governor Romney:
Mitt Romney is still a good possibility, but Mr. Land is waiting to see if the former Massachusetts governor will take his advice and give a major address on the way his faith influences his politics (à la JFK’s 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on his Catholicism).
Speaker Gingrich:
. . . Mr. Land wouldn’t vote for Newt Gingrich: “I am not a big enough hypocrite to have made character an issue with Bill Clinton and turn around and vote for men who broke their oaths to their wives.” Having been in his current position since 1988, Mr. Land has had more than enough opportunity to see Mr. Gingrich up close, and he has not been impressed: “When he was speaker, when they went into conference to negotiate, it was always our issues that got negotiated away and his economic issues that didn’t.” . . . Mr. Land suggests that Mr. Gingrich was good at paying lip service to evangelicals: “He always understood how important social conservatives were to the coalition.” But Mr. Land believes that many of them have learned their lesson: “I think most evangelicals still don’t trust him.”
Consequences of a Giuliani GOP win?
If Mr. Giuliani does somehow win the nomination, Mr. Land predicts that “you will see a drop in evangelical participation in the presidential election and in races below that.” Sounding more like a preacher warning of a coming plague, Mr. Land says, “even if the alternative is Hillary,” a lot of evangelicals will stay home.
Ms Riley’s entire Journal article is a must-read! Outstanding.
Notwithstanding Dr. Land’s perception of Fred Thompson, frankly he and the rest of the GOP candidates are literal light-weights when compared to Governor Romney’s long list of beefy credentials. One can argue about how Mitt Romney has grown more conservative as he has aged, but can any rational person actually think Governor Romney is inferior to any of the other candidates (Repub/Dem) when considering depth of executive experience, dozens of extraordinary business turn-arounds, and success at virtually everything he leads? Compare any of the men above to his intelligence, drive, determination, persistence, energy, capacity, etc. Some believe, if Romney is elected, he will be America’s most intelligent President ever - I do.
Romney has joint law and MBA degrees with Honors from Harvard, founded and ran what is arguably the most successful private equity firm in the world, got elected as a Republican governor in the most Democratic state in the Union (Massachusetts), has real values that he lives by (been married 36 years with five sons and 10 Grandkids), set an all time record for Republican Presidential fundraising (Q1/2007) by outdistancing by a wide margin John McCain and Rudy Giuliani (both of whom had huge advantages due to their name recognition) and brought the 2002 Olympic games from a $350 Million deficit to a $100 Million in profit while inspiring the nation with his presence, decisiveness, and commitment; and this as a three-year voluteer!
Mitt Romney is the only true leader and gifted statesman seeking the Office of President of the United States. His only ambition is to serve America in the family tradition which expects service to God, family, and nation.
No. None of the legislators and values-challenged politicians who attempt to compete with Mitt Romney even measure up to his stature.
.
~ RHR
April 28th, 2007 at 5:39 am
Wow! Never thought of that. McCain-Feingold has seriously undermined the Pro-life movement by sapping free speech during the election cycle. Oooh! If that point (which is true) could be made it would crush McCain!
April 28th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Good find on that article Vic. All his points are right on.
April 28th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Those of you closest to Romney… do you know anything about JFK speech? Any thoughts as to when he should give one or if he should give one at all?
His rising poll numbers are an indication that he doesn’t need to give a JFK speech at the moment?
Any opinions on this?
April 28th, 2007 at 10:30 am
I don’t know if this is true or not, but it occurred to me that perhaps Romney hasn’t made or may not give a Kennedy-esque speech because he can’t. Essentially, he would have to give the country a reassurance that his religious beliefs would not affect his decisions as President.
I’m not sure he can make that statement. I don’t think he can divorce his religious convictions from his civic duty, because it’s too much a part of what defines him as a person. To be sure, the leadership of the LDS church won’t try to wield political influence on him (they’ve done a pretty good job of remaining apolitical), but his personal beliefs will absolutely have an impact on his Presidency, and there’s no way of getting around that. It’s part of why we like him so much.
That’s also a tough concept to explain to people, particularly the mass audience of American voters. It’s a nuanced enough distinction that it would be easy to misinterpret and truncate, and most likely would not accomplish what he’d hope for.
Granted, I don’t claim to know what Romney is thinking, but if that thought has occurred to me, it’s probably occurred to someone in the campaign. Any thoughts?
April 28th, 2007 at 11:18 am
I don’t know that he needs to make a statement that his religious beliefs will not affect his policy decisions as president, as fletch seems to imply he would in this type of speach. I agree with fletch that he can’t make that statement, and we are glad he has the religious convictions he does. But many are sincerely concerned (out of ignorance, mostly) of the influence his church (not his religious values) might have on his policy, or how he might use the pulpit to promote his faith. The kennedy type speach that is being speculated on here would be to quell such fears. We know his values, we know his stance on the issues, now if he can reassure us that he would govern through his wisdom as a experienced leader and problem solver, instead of through the filter of his theological doctrines, then we can support him. BTW, I am LDS, and don’t, in fact, share these fears. But I can understand how some who are ignorant of (or have grown up hearing only slander of) our church might be concerned. There is a strong precident for the church staying neutral when it comes to members who serve in public office, but for those for whom history is not enough, they may need to hear it from his own mouth. Just some thoughts. Any others?
April 28th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Totally agree, I’m also LDS… I know he will govern through his value system, I also know that his personal religious beliefs will affect his decision making for the good. This is because I know the value system on which he will make his decisions on, and there for I know I can trust in him… more so than probably any of the other politicians out there.
As for people not familiar with the LDS church, I think he could very well give a speech affirming that he will abide by the Universal-Christian values… that is: “Love God & Love thy neighbor… “. He could assure people he will govern with all fairness to all people. That his concerns are the welfare of the American people and nation, and that he will govern based on the American values that he has.
I have not doubt in my mind that he will favor one group over the other. But how can you transmit that. Saying something like: “I will not favor the LDS Church during my presidency?” That sounds wrong.
I guess giving a JFK speech is not necessary at this moment, but if it ever does he should have a speech prepared.
I also know that the LDS church will stay out its way in every regard, it will never ask Romney to do anything specific, except tell him to do what his right and God bless you in doing so.
I realize how difficult it is to address a nation on this topic, JFK was never much of a church goer like Romney is.
How can Romney say that the Church will not influence his decision making? It already does, but it does for the good… Perhaps a speech on those lines is what he should say.
Some things like “I can’t say that the influence of my faith won’t affect my decision making, but I can tell you why it helps me make the right decisions… ” and explain the reasons why and share the value system that we have… which is common to all Americans. Being honest, good, virtuous, etc.
Any better ideas?
April 28th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Deg: I highly recommend reading here: JFK’s 1960 speech This speech by JFK is amazing prose. Extraordinary.
Fro, Fletch, & Deg: First off, THANK YOU for leaving comments and contributing to this blog discussion!
Regarding whether GMR should or will give the “JFK speech”, here are some thoughts of mine.
- My personal opinion is that GMR should give such a speech.
- There were two major turning points in JFK’s presidential campaign: a) the Nixon debate, and b) this speech; both enormously positive for him.
- A close friend of mine and I have actually discussed writing a speech for GMR. We do now know him personally, but thought we might take it on as a sort of “creative writing” project of sorts. We discussed many points of its thesis.
- I do believe that GMR is planning to give a similar “defining” speech and that he will eventually give one. This opinion is not based on any inside information at all. It is just an opinion.
Respectfully, I disagree that GMR does not need to give such a speech. “Need” is probably not the word to describe why he will give the speech. GMR would be proactive and forthright to come out and clearly describe and define the boundaries under which his religion influences him. JFK’s speech was masterful in this way. There are many American voters in this country who are both ignorant of GMR’s religion and who today definitely will not vote for GMR because of that ignorance and their belief that he will “take orders” from his church’s leadership.
With the right speech, GMR can easily put millions of voters’ minds at ease and therefore this speech will be a catalyst of sorts to possibly even catapult him forward.
Reading between the lines in the Richard Land interview above, I inferred from his words that he might endorse GMR if he gives “the right” speech about his religion.
Incidentally, I think Harry (surrender) Reid is the best thing that ever happened to GMR for many reasons. Anybody who would ever think GMR will be beholden to the hierarchy of the Mormon church need only look around to Hatch, Reid, and other Mormon national leaders to see that they act independently of the church and of themselves.
One last point: GMR, as President, must be able to be completely and totally independent of his church in all public decision-making. One example that might be construed to be contrary to the Mormon church’s doctrines (I don’t think so) is as President he must uphold the laws of the land. Until Roe v. Wade is overturned, it is the law of the land and he must not only enforce the law, he must protect it. I could give many examples in which his presidential duties could be construed to contradict the doctrines of his church. GMR himself has said that if elected, the Office of President would in effect become his “religion” of sorts.
Again, thank you for your comments. Please keep up the debates and great ideas and thoughts!
April 29th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I agree with Richard Land that Mormonism is not Christianity. I think this is the key point that Land makes and I think it’s a point that needs to be noted by the Romney campaign. When Romney makes his JFK speech later this year, it will be more important for him to make a distinction between Mormonism and Christianity and to essentially place Mormonism apart from Chrisitianty like Judaism, than to try to have it fit into Christianity. IF Romney makes the mistake of making Mormonism fit with Christianity, he will not only have liberal opposition due to him having a faith, he will have to deal with unceasing theological questions from evangelicals. By making Mormonism distinct from Christianity, he render the need for a theological debate moot and he can be looked at like Joe Lieberman is looked at as a man of faith that has strong convictions and whose conservative views align with evangelicals.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Steven: I disagree that GMR must address in such a speech, whether his religion is “Christian” or not to satisfy evangelicals or any other religious group. Many evangelicals decry Catholocism as vehemently as they do Mormonism, which they did at the time of JFK, yet JFK did not feel compelled in Houston to acknowledge those differences. In fact, the doctrines of the nature of Christ among evangelicals and Protestants in general derive directly from the Catholic Church, whom evangelicals refer to generally as “Christian.” For GMR to acknowledge doctrinal differences by religion would only perpetuate the religious bigotry that continues.
Evangelicals, Protestants, and Catholics refer to themselves as “Christian” and yet their doctrines are in many ways far different from one another. For example, some “Christian” (Protestant) faiths openly ordain ministers who not only are active homosexuals but who are not even married as those ministers continue in active relationships that Jesus Christ decries in the Bible as fornication. Yet, those religions today are still considered “Christian” generally. I myself call them “Christian” because they wish to be called “Christian”, though I strongly believe their doctrines to be apostate and not of Christ.
I disagree with a person’s ability to end the life of a human being when that person “chose” to engage in behavior to bring that human life into being. I do not call those who disagree with me “pro-abortionists” but rather I call them “pro-choice”, a) because they wish to be called “pro-choice”, and b) out of respect for their opinion, no matter how strongly I disagree with it. It is a matter of simple respect.
The name of Mr. Romney’s church is the “The Church of Jesus Christ…” and those of that religion choose to be called “Christians.” Granted, their “Christianity” does not derive from the votes of men that occurred at the Nicene Council (Nicene Creed) from which the Roman Church, Protestants, and evangelicals derive their doctrines surrounding the nature of God. Leading up to that council in Nice, France, many Christian ministers of the Church were all over the map as to their beliefs about the nature of God. In part, that was the purpose of the council: To debate about and to vote upon the “true” nature of God. Without getting into the details of that part of history, the doctrines surrounding the nature of God as believed by evangelicals, Catholics, and Protestants were decided by a vote of men and then by decree, and with a few nuanced differences among them, those doctrines are the same. Today, those votes by men at Nice, France stand as the first doctrines defined by men, not found in the revelations of the Bible. Many “Christians” and those of Romney’s church believe that vote at Nice altered truth revealed in the Bible through prophets.
Just because a large voting block in this country state that a given religion does not label or brand itself the way they prefer (or even demand) does not make it an issue at all for a presidential election. Based on what I know, Mormons are more “evangelical” in “the fruits” described by Jesus Christ than are other apostate “Christians” who ordain fornicators (for instance) to their priesthood. This presidential election has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or any candidate’s brand of religion. To say that it does risks revealing the person asserting such as a bigot. If you have not yet read Hugh Hewitt’s book, A Mormon in the White House?, I highly recommend that you do. This is precisely the thesis of the book.
Certainly religious bigotry exists today and perhaps to a much greater degree than even race or ethnic bigotry. It is precisely this religious bigotry to which John Kennedy referred in his eloquent speech in Houston. If Governor Romney chooses to give a similar speech about his religion, it is my opinion that he should direct his thoughts and comments to that bigotry that could cause an otherwise intelligent voter to choose a far less qualified person as President of the United States.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:56 am
I appreciate your response and the length of it! However I am making a political point and not a point about the state of Mormonism. Though I will say that just as Christianity had to so to speak gain its independence from Judaism, Mormonism eventually might find it worthwhile to be a stand alone religion, rather than being a fringe sect of Christianity. The main reason I think Mormonism should be considered stand alone is because of the Book of Mormon, which I liken to the New Testament for Christianity, which distinguishes Christianity from Judaism.
By calling Mormons, Mormons, rather than Christians, I am not making a bigoted statement, nor is Land or most evangelicals. Furthermore, suggesting there should be a distinction between Mormonism and mainline Christianity, does not call into question Mormons’ belief in Christ, just as recognizing Christ doesn’t call into question a Christian belief in Jehovah. On the contrary, recognizing Mormonism as a stand alone religion, legitimizes it and is a recognition of its uniqueness derived from the Book of Mormon. I think Romney doesn’t do Mormonism any wrong by making the distinction and as a political matter it alleviates any theological or doctrinal issues, which the press and some evangelicals would like to use to destroy his candidacy.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Personally, I feel that it will be important for Governor Romney to make a speech about “the religious issue.”
First off, I think he should distinguish between the influence (1) his values and (2) his church would have on his policy decisions as president. Of course his VALUES should strongly influence his decisions–especially with respect to abortion, stem cell research, same-sex marriage, etc. I think this is a great strength for Mitt with the Christian right, as evangelicals are increasingly realizing that he’s the most “family values” of all the top-tier candidates.
His church, on the other hand, should not dictate to him what policies he should or should not implement. Given the LDS Church’s history of political neutrality, this should be a fairly easy point to make. As RHR mentioned above, I think the example of Harry Reid as a Mormon who acts independently of the Church’s views will actually help Romney as well.
In regards to Steve’s comments, I must respectfully disagree. I think Gov. Romney has done a good job of building on common religious ground so far and I think his speech should make that same effort. I think separating Mormonism from Christianity (a distinction that I personally disagree with) would be counterproductive to his efforts. As he’s said often, Mitt thinks that voters care about shared values, not someone’s particular “brand” of faith.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Good topic and good discussion. However I think if Romney simply states that Mormonism and Christianity share common core values, he not only distinguishes the faiths, but focuses the discussion going forward on the similarities between the faiths, rather than the differences. Again this is a political point and he need not explicitly say that Mormonism is not Christianity. He simply needs to make a distinction, subtle enough to be acceptable to evangelicals, some of who really view Mormonism as a fringe sect (even as a cult) of Christianity. I think Romney’s case is different from JFK’s because the concern with Kennedy’s faith was the influence of the Vatican on the presidency and all the conspiracy theories relating to the AntiChrist. In Romney’s case, the challenge is to really focus on the shared values of Mormonism with American and Christian values, despite the reputation Mormonism has as an odd religion. The “oddness” of Mormonism and its influence on the presidency is what Romney needs to counter, whether he wants to or not. You ask any person on the street what is their perception of Mormonism and you will begin to understand the challenge that Romney faces. And also you will understand why distinguishing Mormonism helps to legitimize the faith (keep in mind Romney does not have the power to officially separate Mormonism from Christianity). This is my opinion, though Richard Land allusion that at best Mormonism can be view as the “fourth Abrahamic faith” shows that my thinking is not far off the mark.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Steven: Well said! I don’t disagree really. It would be more accurate to say that I agree more with Hugh Hewitt’s approach from his book in that for any reasoned, intelligent voter to make a decision not to vote for Romney based on his religion, for any reason, is simple religious bigotry. Therefore, for Romney to even get into a public debate about religion only feeds the bigotry.
That said, I do think that Mitt should give a “JFK type” speech and your points are excellent for his consideration in that speech.
Well said Steven. And again, thank you for joining this forum and for excellent, constructive comments.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Thank you as well for your point of view and I will take you up on reading Hugh Hewitt’s book. I agree with you that if a voter doesn’t consider Romney because of his religion then that can be considered bigotry, though it may just be ignorance. If a person who is not ignorant, doesn’t consider Romney on the basis of his religion alone, then that person is a bigot. How many voters fit the former (ignorant) than the latter (bigot) description? I think most voters are ignorant of the Mormon faith and there lies the necessity for Romney to make a JFK speech. In my opinion, it can only be a plus for Romney, since we know he is well prepared and capable of giving a great speech. It will raise his name id tremendously, in that it will give him a great deal of media attention. The media loves to make a spectacle of peculiar candidates (like the first woman, first black, first mormon, etc) and they have been chomping at the bit to make a story out of Romney’s faith. The question is when is the best time for Romney to do this? In other words, when will this max attention benefit him the most to get his name out there? I say in the 4th quarter, with all his resources in place to launch a national campaign blitz. But others say before this up coming debate. We will see…
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
What I am trying to figure out is what most people’s definition of “Christian” is. I always understood it to be someone that believes that Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of the world. There are thousands of “Christian” churches around the world that all have some sort of difference in theology but the root of it all is that they believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior. Also that they want to follow his example and act Christ-like to all men. As has been stated in this block already values is what makes “Christians” not theology.
That is why I, as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have always considered myself a Christian.
If there is grounds to say that “Christian” means something else please point me towards it.
I find it disheartening that people feel that Mormon’s have to distance themselves from Christians because of difference in theology when there are so many Christian variations already.
Just my 2 cents.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
The issue with Mormonism is that it is a religion that offers another way to Christ, a way that is distinct from mainline Christian denominations. Because of this, there are strong parallels between how Mormonism is perceived with respect to Christianity and how Christainity and Islam are perceived with respect to Judaism. The distinction between the “three Abrahamic faiths” is a difference in how each show the way to God. Also each is different because of who is considered the founder of each faith and in the predominate literature used to interpret each of the faiths’ doctrine. Mormonism fits the bill in all these areas to warrant a distinction from Christianity in my opinion. It was founded by Joseph Smith, it has the Book of Mormon as its primary literature in conjunction with the bible (though Islam has the Koran in conjunction with the Bible), and lastly it provides an alternative interpretation and way to Christ/Salvation, much as Christianity provides an alternative way to God (through Christ not the law). So I think a distinction, if not an out right break from Christianity, is warranted.
May 6th, 2007 at 9:11 am
I do not think a word game( war) about who is a REAL Christian (a non-Christian that believes in Christ)and who is not will win many people. After all I have heard folks say from the Russian Orthodox church claim catholics are not Christians. Does that really win anyone to the faith or to any faith.
I think a discussion about what is meant by church and what is meant by religious practice might be better.
The founding fathers wanted separation of church and state so they would not be subject to a church leadership, such as a pope. Not to limit the practice of faith.
May 6th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Brent: I agree. Again, I think the matter at hand is fitness to be President. At least from my perspective, religion should not even be a focus of conversation in the national debate — to the points so well made in Hewitt’s book. To challenge one’s religious faith is to expose one’s bigotry.
The only thing about one’s core beliefs that is relevant to the national debate is one’s core values. What core values does Mitt Romney live by? How are those values expressed and what are the “fruits” of those values from his business and political careers? From his volunteer work (Olympics)? From his family, his life? To argue nuances of religious doctrine is irrelevant and can only further foster bigotry and division.
June 17th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
[...] in-depth WSJ article about Richard Land and his tremendous influence, go here ——-> KINGMAKER. You will also see many comments to that post [...]
October 5th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
[...] entire article is worth reading. There are references to recent comments by the influential Richard Land this week in the [...]
December 7th, 2007 at 6:29 am
[...] I could be wrong as to whom Governor Romney is embracing in this image just below, but I am pretty sure it is Richard Land (if you do not know who Dr. Land is, click here for a brief introduction ——> KINGMAKER: [...]