Browse > Home / Archive by category 'Richard Land'

| Subcribe via RSS

***Ads Do Not Necessarily Represent The Opinions of the Staff of comMITTed to Romney***

***Support comMITTed to Romney by visiting our sponsors***

Profile Image of John Cronin
John Cronin

If McCain loses, what next for conservatives?

http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSTRE49P1RT20081026

By Ed Stoddard

DALLAS (Reuters) - If Republican John McCain loses the November 4 election as most polls predict, his party may be in for a rough period of soul searching.

Analysts and some party activists say losing the White House will highlight the pitfalls of relying too heavily on a narrow foundation of conservative Christians whose support has nonetheless become crucial to Republican electoral success.

But some social conservatives say a victory for Democrat Barack Obama, whom they regard as an “ultra-liberal,” will energize them for the 2010 congressional “mid-term” races and the 2012 White House battle.

The election is still over a week away and a lot can happen between now and then. McCain has staged huge comebacks before.

But almost every major poll has Obama with a commanding national lead as his campaign benefits from an unfolding financial crisis that has shaken America and knocked conservative red-meat issues like abortion and gay marriage off the political stage.

“An Obama victory will galvanize social conservatives for 2010 and 2012 and they will look for a standard bearer they can rally around,” said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the public policy arm of America’s largest evangelical group.

And that would be MITT ROMNEY!!!

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

“ARTICLE VI” the Movie Debuts to Large, Enthusiastic Crowds in California and Georgia

Flag Waving

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS MOVIE AND THAT YOU PURCHASE THE DVD THAT IS NOW FOR SALE.

Tonight (1/14), with my wife and several family members and friends, we drove to Newport Beach to watch the screening of the new film ARTICLE VI. Atlanta also had a screening of the film tonight at a packed house. The theater at Lido Isle holds about 500 people and it looked like there were about 450.   At the end, Hugh Hewitt, Executive Producer of the film and Reed Dickens, Producer answered questions. Hugh asked the audience by raise of hands how many members of the LDS, Protestant, and Catholic faiths were present. Roughly, the mix was 30%, 50%, and 20% respectively. [see brief review below the film's poster]

Click here to go to the film’s online site ——-> http://www.article6themovie.com/index.php

I highly recommend this documentary to everyone — It is outstanding in every way!

Brief Review:

This film is a documentary. Though I found it very interesting, informative, and even entertaining, it is a documentary. As I listened to conversations around me and with the creators of the movie, people were most enthusiastic.

The movie combines a wonderful mix of music, interviews, video and film footage of historic and current events. Beloved patriotic music was arranged to different melodies and played by a single acoustic guitarist as background to footage of religious strife and intolerance across America. Interviews were primarily of evangelical leaders, including Richard Land, university religious and theology professors, and “woman-on-the-street” interviews among others. There were a large number of different individuals that were interviewed across the country and of many different Protestant faiths.

Some of those interviewed represented the hard-core evangelical point of view of, if-you-are-not-evangelical-you-will-go-to-hell, to the more tolerant, what-would-Jesus-do-if-he-were-here-today points of view, best articulated by David French (co-founder with wife Nancy of EvangelicalsForMitt.org) and Richard Land (at the end, I spoke briefly with Hewitt who said he thought David’s commentary was the best of all those interviewed — David is serving in Iraq as JAG for the Army near the Iranian border today). All in all, I thought the large number of people interviewed and the various points of view provided balance and were fair in presentation.

Fascinating to me, and to most people attending, were the outstanding commentaries by religious/American historians illustrating the many examples of religious bigotry and intolerance this nation has endured from the early days of the Pilgrims in Massachusetts where Quakers were hanged, to the presidential race involving Thomas Jefferson (deist) in which it was feared that the country would become less believing by electing a non-believer. In our nation’s history, various forms of religious intolerance played an important part in many presidential races including that of the JFK who eventually became the first non-Protestant (Catholic) President. In fact, several clips from Kennedy’s amazing and eloquent speech in 1960 to the Texas ministers in Houston were used liberally throughout the film.

Though Governor Romney’s name and photograph (from print articles) were shown a couple of times briefly and there were several examples of religious intolerance against members of the LDS Church (Haun’s Mill Massacre) as well as by LDS Church members (Mountain Meadows Massacre), the film was not about Romney or religious intolerance only involving The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Examples of intolerance involving the LDS Church were simply the most frequent and recent examples of many examples provided in the film. HH

In the discussion we had with Executive Producer John Carosella, Kevin Anderson asked him why they made a decision to exclude clips of Governor Romney’s “Faith in America” speech from last month. He reiterated that the film was never intended to be strictly about politics or about a current presidential candidate. He said the film is intended to be a cultural statement that is intended to stir debate among people of diverse religions to encourage them to find the humanity and friendship in others of completely different faiths.

The narrator of the film (Bryan Hall, I think??) and the person conducting most, if not all, interviews is LDS. However, I believe all the other creators of the film are of different Christian faiths and political persuasions (John Carosella told us he is “a liberal” and with a great laugh said he will be voting for “someone on the other side!”), including Reed Dickens and Hugh Hewitt who are evangelicals.

After the screening, a question was asked as to distribution to political camps and candidates. Dickens said the movie either has been sent or will very soon be sent to every presidential candidate and many members of congress and other national leaders. So look for publicity eventually as candidates are asked for their opinions about the film. Incidentally, Hewitt responded to a question about whether America has matured to the point in which evangelicals can vote in large numbers for someone not of their faith like Governor Romney, as they have not (more than about 25%) in the first three contests. He said he thinks they can. However, he said he was most disappointed in the level of bigotry he has seen thus far in the race. He also said that he is very disappointed that Mike Huckabee has not publicly demanded the end to all religious intolerance that exists today; that he has the power to make a big difference in this way and he has not (not exact quotes, but my attempt to capture the spirit of what he said in a long answer).

Those present that I saw included Ann Romney’s brother, Jim Davies and John Schroeder of Article6Blog.

For all upcoming screenings, click here and scroll down. I highly recommend you purchase the movie and show it often, especially if you live in a future primary or caucus state! This movie is definitely one you will want in your film library.

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

Huckabee’s “Base” and Strategic Mis-Calculations

flag waving

By now, everybody knows that Mr. Huckabee has done everything he can within his power to court every Evangelical Christian in Iowa and New Hampshire.

1) He evokes God in as many political appearances as he can.
2) He gives sermons to churches that he says are non-political in nature; and oh, by the way, he gets paid a lot of money to do so.
3) He calls big meetings of pastors and other Evangelical leaders to directly request their support.
4) He expresses outrage that any Evangelical would consider supporting any other presidential candidate.
5) He was upset that Richard Land, top Baptist leader in Washington, D.C., would not endorse him; that Land said so many nice things about Fred Thompson.

We know that Huckabee’s primary support is among Evangelicals; I am guessing his entire support is probably made up of 98% Evangelicals. There are approximately 500,000 Evangelicals in Iowa. And of course not every Evangelical is a registered voter and not every Evangelical registered voter is Republican.

Duckabee

There are approximately 22,000 members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) in Iowa. The same is true of them; not all are registered voters and not all are Republican.

Clearly Mr. Huckabee has done everything he can to make the Iowa caucuses a referendum about religion and the superiority of his. Of course he denies that. Of course he says he represents all citizens. Of course! He is not an idiot. But when you follow his actions — his behavior, it is all about his religion; and that is why voters should vote for him. He righteously expects it.

If he were right, then most, if not all Evangelicals would be supporting Huckabee; right? I am guessing that Huckabee one night sat down and ran the numbers. His handlers probably told him that a very high percentage of Americans would never vote for a Mormon; we’ve all seen those polls, right? So he gets to thinking,

“Let me see; if I make this about my religion in Iowa, and I have almost a 23:1 (500,000 / 22,000) advantage over the LDS members, I could really win big! THAT IS IT!! I am going to run against Romney on his religion! I know that there is a very high probability that every Evangelical registered voter will vote for me and if just half of them do, I will win and I will win big! That is it! Yaaaahoooo! That is my strategy! That is how I am going to attack this!  That is exactly how I am going to win this thing!   Let’s roll!”

However, I think he left out the need to read a newspaper and to check GoogleEarth once a month. Best to stick to the above strategy and just be sure not to answer any more questions! Brilliant!

We know that over the last several weeks, Mr. Huckabee has surged to almost 40% in the Iowa polls; I think I saw a couple of polls showing Huckabee as high as 38%. Let’s use 38%. With Huckabee’s brilliant strategy of appealing to “his base” of Evangelicals, and his more or less scorched-earth, sectarian approach to campaigning (and if his strategy were actually working), what should the poll numbers show by comparison to Governor Romney?

With Huckabee at 38% let’s say, and a 22:1 advantage based on his base, Romney should be at or about 2%, maybe 3% in the polls (38 /22), by comparison. Since that is not the case, maybe Huck’s strategy was not so good. Maybe he underestimated the desire of Evangelicals to use their minds as they decide whom to support in Iowa.

~ Vic

Help Governor Romney get his message out — PLEASE CONTRIBUTE HERE, NOW

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of David Kim
David Kim

Rush Limbaugh “non-endorses” Mitt after the speech!!

Add Rush Limbaugh to the list of “non-endorsements” Mitt is getting (see prior post on “non-endorsements from Sean Hannity and Richard Land)

This is somewhat long, but you must read the whole thing! (Note toward the end when he starts caveating about how he doesn’t endorse in the primary…with “non-endorsements” like these, who needs endorsements?!)

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to start with Mitt Romney today, Mitt Romney’s speech. Frankly, I thought what we saw today, folks, was a Republican candidate for president giving an inspiring speech. It was an inspiring speech about American values, including religion. Mitt Romney did this because he has been relentlessly attacked as something less than a true American. I watched this. I had seen some excerpts from the speech published before he made it. I thought he was inspiring, folks. I think he set exactly the right tone and I am stunned by some of the criticism I am seeing of this speech, particularly on some conservative websites. “He didn’t include atheists; he didn’t include agnostics; he didn’t say and reach out to Hindus.” I don’t understand it. Of all things to take from this speech that Romney gave today, that he didn’t reach out to atheists and didn’t reach out to agnostics, is beyond me. I thought he showed today his ability to confront, to articulate, to persuade, and to lead.

He also demonstrated he is more than willing to take a huge risk. Everybody, from his advisors on down, said: “Don’t do this speech until after you’ve won a primary someplace, or until you’ve won the nomination. Don’t do this speech now. Too much can go wrong with it.” Bob Novak had a column today, said, “I don’t know what’s going to happen here; what can he say?” Well, he said a lot of things. It’s amazing how the Drive-By Media is going gaga over empty suits like Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Neither of those candidates can hold a candle to any of ours: Romney, Rudy, Fred Thompson, Huckabee, none of them can. They’re empty suits compared to our side, and for our side to sit here and start talking, “He didn’t address atheists”? Let’s start with the audio sound bites, and let’s go to the precedent for this. This is September 12th, 1960, in Houston at the Rice Hotel, presidential candidate JFK addressing the Greater Houston Ministerial Association about being a Catholic. We put together here just a little montage.

JOHN F. KENNEDY: But because I am a Catholic and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

RUSH: Now let’s go to the Drive-Bys and their analysis prior to the speech being given, a montage today from CNN, ABC and PMSNBC.

HARRIS: Mitt Romney speaks out on religion, but don’t expect him to explain his Mormon beliefs.

BRZEZINSKI: Romney isn’t expected to focus on specific teachings.

BERMAN: If people are looking for him to explain the specific doctrines of his faith, the Mormon religion, they will be disappointed.

BASH: Do not expect him to talk about how he prays. He does not intend to sort of uncloak the mysteries of Mormonism.

RUSH: You can tell what this is all about. These people are hoping like hell that they can destroy him because of his Mormonism and scare people and set it up in advance that he’s not going to be honest, that he’s not going to be forthcoming and he’s got something to hide. It didn’t come off that way at all. We’ve got some sound bite excerpts, and let’s just get started. Here is the first.

ROMNEY: Let me assure you that no authorities of my church or of any other church, for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I’m fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

RUSH: There was big applause. We cut the applause in the interests of time here, but there was a lot of it, and there were many applause lines, and a couple of them went on for an extended period of time. Here’s another excerpt.

ROMNEY: I believe in my Mormon faith, and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs. Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they’re right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. There is one fundamental question about which I’m often asked: “What do I believe about Jesus Christ?” I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the savior of mankind.

RUSH: You can see he’s not reaching out to the atheists here, is he? Not reaching out to the agnostics, not reaching out to the Hindus. I’m still stunned that I read that kind of criticism on some conservative websites today. Here’s another excerpt.

ROMNEY: It’s important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter, on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. In recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It’s as if they’re intent on establishing a new religion in America, the religion of secularism. They are wrong. The Founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation under God, and in God we do, indeed, trust.

RUSH: I tell you, this stuff was, to me, it was inspiring listening to this. You’re listening here to a Republican candidate for president give an inspiring speech about American values in which he’s including religion because he’s been relentlessly attacked. Frankly, this is the kind of thing missing from the campaign. Where are we as a country? Where are we going? What kind of people are we? What binds us together? It isn’t health care. It’s not Social Security. It’s not all those little policy-wonk things. It’s who we are as a people and our acknowledgement, our Founders’ acknowledgement that we are all created by God, and it’s that creation from which we have our liberty and our freedom and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn’t come from any other human being. Those values are not imposed upon us. It can only be taken away by men, but they are granted to us by virtue of our creation. This is a perfect place for this kind of values speech to be made in a presidential campaign. One more sound bite.

ROMNEY: You can be certain of this. 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. Recall the early days of the first Continental Congress in Philadelphia during the fall of 1774, with Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. They were too divided in religious sentiments, what with Episcopalians and Quakers, and Baptists and Congregationalists and Presbyterians and Catholics, then Sam Adams rose and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot. And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together by the grace of God they founded this great nation.

RUSH: And the applause there went on and on and on. Romney also made it a point to say, in regards to prayer, that he will need the prayers of all Americans as president of the United States. There was nothing exclusionary; there was nothing threatening. I’m telling you, as far as I’m concerned, I think he was inspiring. I think he set exactly the right tone in this speech. But back to the people criticizing him and what he said. They really ought to look at themselves in the mirror, because what they really seem to be saying when they say he didn’t reach out to the agnostics and the atheists and the Hindus, what I think they really seem to be saying is, if you don’t share my religion, not my beliefs, but my religion, then you’re not qualified to be president. What they’re saying is, you can never say enough, you can never say the right thing because you’re not of my religion, and therefore you’re not qualified to be president. Atheism is a religion, whether they want to believe it or not. Agnosticism is too. If you want to say that he didn’t reach out to them or the Hindus then he’s not qualified because he didn’t acknowledge them, what kind of analysis is that?

This is poison, this kind of analysis, coming from conservatives on reputable websites. When I saw it, I was distressed by it. I expect it from liberals; I expect that kind of reaction. He didn’t address the atheists and the agnostics? He didn’t really explain his religion? He really didn’t explain why he should be nominated and so forth? All of this that people are saying reveals partisan thinking, the thinking of those who support another candidate, not seriously thinking about the nature of the process here and what Romney was trying to do with the speech. They’re looking at this strictly within the confines of a political speech, and I think it went beyond those bounds. The critics — I guess it’s quite natural — they put their own agenda into this speech. He didn’t talk about taxes, they’re saying, he didn’t talk about electability. This wasn’t a speech about taxes. This wasn’t a speech about electability. It wasn’t a speech about policy. It was a speech about American values, what binds us together as a people and as a nation and what will continue to bind us together in the future as a nation.

I have to tell you, I don’t endorse candidates in primaries, and this is not an endorsement. I’ve said this repeatedly. But Romney, throughout all of this — you try running around having your religion attacked and threatened and lied about every day, folks, and not get bitter, and Mitt Romney has not been bitter. He has not gotten angry. He easily could have. He’s kept a positive outlook and approach, despite being demeaned and doubted in ways that no other candidate has had to deal with.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Don’t doubt me. Now, just a couple final thoughts here on the Romney speech and the atmosphere surrounding it. As I mentioned, I don’t endorse candidates in primaries, but Romney certainly should have our attention in a good way. Whether he’s the nominee or not, he hasn’t been bitter; he hasn’t reacted in an angry way — and I’ll tell you, he has every reason to have done so. He’s been demeaned. He has been doubted in ways that no other candidate has had to deal with, and those who continue — even after this speech — to try to pick him apart with attacks on his character, which are really just disguised as supposedly thoughtful inquiries, should be ashamed of themselves. But I’ll tell you, I don’t think one candidate should be singled out this way, frankly, and this is another thing about this that is very, very irritating to me. If religion is important in this election — and I guess it is, because the Drive-Bys and the Democrats have made it important, and they make religion important in every election. I’ll tell you, you evangelicals? Don’t have short memories here. You are just as hated by the Drive-Bys as Mitt Romney is. You are just as despised by the Democratic Party as Mitt Romney is, and you know it. You have been the focus of full-frontal assaults on your religion for as many years as I can remember being in public life like this.

All the way back to the eighties, during the Reagan years, you know how you were portrayed. You’re stupid. You’re hayseed hicks. You have CNN with questions in a debate and some guy in a basement like the Unabomber holding up the Bible and asking, “Do you believe every word in this book?” Like, “You idiot! You can’t possibly.” You know how you’ve been insulted. You have gun racks in the back of your pickup truck. You get to church on Saturday night, and have a barbecue in the parking lot in order to be the first in the pew you want on Sunday. You go to NASCAR races. You’re missing a couple of front teeth. You chew tobacco, and you are stupid. That’s what they think of evangelicals and the so-called Christian right, and they’re dumping on Mitt Romney the same way. You have to understand why. They fear the morality of religion. They fear the moral guideposts. They fear that people of faith, whatever the faith is, believe in things larger than themselves. Liberals, some Democrats think the end-all is with them and with humanity, and that there is nothing larger (other than right now the environment), and anybody who knows there is something larger than themselves in this life, anybody who knows that there are questions human beings are capable of asking, but we will never be capable of answering while on this Earth, scares liberals to death, and they can’t control people like that, and they fear what they consider to be the judgmentalism of people like that. And they fear the standards, both moral and ethical, that people of faith — I don’t care what faith we’re talking about — conduct their lives with as best they can.

So it’s not just Romney that they are targeting. It’s people of faith who are public about it everywhere, and they’re doing their best to discredit anybody with faith of any kind. Do you note that the Democrats are never, ever, asked about this? If religion is important in this election, in that we want to know how someone’s faith may impact their governing, then I think all the candidates need to give a speech of this kind. All the candidates need to be asked questions like this. All the candidates need to spell out where they are coming from — Rudy, McCain, Thompson, Huckabee — not just the Republicans, either. Democrats as well. The Democrats mix the pulpit with politics all the time. They go into church and raise money for campaigns, in violation of laws, and nobody calls them on it because of where those churches are. They mix it all the time, and nobody ever calls them on it, and nobody ever tells them, “Aren’t you being a little hypocritical here? You’re out there constantly ripping evangelical Christians and the Christian right, and there you are in a church making speeches,” and in Mrs. Clinton’s case, using a Southern black dialect to talk to the flock that’s inside the church? Where do the Democrats draw the lines on religion and governing? What do they believe? How do their religions influence their views? You know, Harry Reid is a Mormon. I wonder how Harry Reid feels about his brother Mormon being attacked like this, and having to defend himself, and how come Harry Reid doesn’t have to defend his Mormonism in context of how he governs?

“Well, Rush, he’s not running for president.”

I don’t care. He’s in public life. He’s got a pretty powerful job. He’s the Senate majority leader. How come he doesn’t have to explain his belief in Mormonism? How come Orrin Hatch doesn’t have to? Understand what this is, folks: This is an effort to destroy the character and integrity of a good man, a decent man, on the basis of religion. It’s not the America I grew up in.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, one more thing about Romney, I don’t want you to forget this. This was articulate, it was clear, and it was somewhat courageous. Everybody was telling him not to do this. He showed leadership doing this today. He exemplified characteristics of somebody who is not afraid to lead. I hope you get a chance at some point to watch the whole speech or to at least read it, maybe watch it. It will be, I’m sure, replayed on a number of cable outlets.
END TRANSCRIPT

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Ann Marie Curling
Ann Marie Curling

Major Quotes from Evangelicals

December 6th, 2007 | No Comments | Posted in David Brody, Evangelicals, Richard Land

“America needed this more than the Governor”
Richard Land

“Presidential, Sweeping”

“If it sinks my Presidency, so be it” —Key Important

“Felt like January 09, and not December 07″
David Brody

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of David Kim
David Kim

Richard Land and Sean Hannity both provide great “non-endorsements” for Mitt

Read about it at Hotair.

And watch below:

For those who don’t know Richard Land is the head of policy for the Southern Baptist Convention. Very influential among Evangelical circles. He has repeatedly given great “non-endorsements” for Mitt in the past.

As long has he doesn’t endorse someone else, I say, keep the “non-endorsements” coming!

Share on Facebook


[ Copy this | Start New | Full Size ]