Mitt Romney To Give Major Speech About Spending On November 3rd

Mitt Romney has revealed that he will be giving a major speech on government spending on November 3rd:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, will be in Exeter on Thursday, Nov. 3, to “deliver a major policy speech on spending,” according to an e-mail sent out Sunday night by Doug and Stella Scamman.

Romney announced his candidacy for president in June at the Scammans’ Bittersweet Farm in Stratham. Both Doug and Stella Scamman are former state representatives. Doug served two terms as House speaker.

According to the Scammans, the event will be held at 5:30 p.m. at Exeter Town Hall, 10 Front St., Romney was last in Exeter in August, when he appeared at a small forum at the Exeter Historical Society.

In his 2008 presidential bid, Romney led the early polling in New Hampshire, but was beaten by the party’s eventual nominee, Sen. John McCain. Romney enjoys a sizeable lead in the 2012 New Hampshire polling but is fighting tough battles with Herman Cain in Iowa and South Carolina and is facing intense attacks from former Gov. Rick Perry, who is trying to claw his way back into the race after some early missteps.

Mitt Romney has given lots of policy speeches on this issue. Yet, from the way I understand this, this is going to be something much more bigger and more significant than the speeches he's given in the past. Team Romney hasn't revealed the details of his speech yet but the fact that they have only stated that it was about spending has me excited and curious about what more he could say on this subject since he has written extensviely on the subject of spending government spending in his book, No Apology: Believe in America and provided voters with 160 page economic plan which includes ways he will rein in excessive government spending.  

However, Mitt Romney has revealed his underlying guiding principle that is foundation of each of his economic proposals: 

Each proposal is rooted in the conservative premise that government itself cannot create jobs. At best, government can provide a framework in which economic growth can occur. All too often, however, government gets in the way. The past three years of unparalleled government expansion have retaught that lesson all too well.

As a result, we can be confident in what Mitt will say on November 3rd. Like most Americans, I look forward to hearing Mitt Romney's speech on Thursday. 

Senator Joe Lieberman Speaks Out Against Religous Bigotry

Joe Lieberman gave an speech at Brigham Young University in Provo Utah in which he spoke about religious liberty in America. You can watch a short clip of his speech below:

Here's my favorite quote from Lieberman's speech:  

"Governor Romney must be judged not on the basis of his faith…but on his personal qualities, leadership experience and his ideas for America's future," Lieberman said. "My personal experience from 2000 gives me great confidence that the voter will again reject a (religious) test and show their strong character, their instinctive fairness and steadfast belief in the ideals of the Declaration and the Constitution. And when they do, another barrier may well be broken for another group in America, and the doors of opportunity will thereby open wider for every American."

In another part of his speech, Senator Lieberman explained that the imposing a religious test on a candidate is wrong because it is religious discrimination: 

"But … assuming the polls are correct that a minority of people continue to have unease about the Mormon faith, this will also be a Mormon moment of testing," he said. "Hopefully more people … think about how wrong it is to apply a religious test to public office in American and give Gov. Romney a chance.

"It sounds like I'm endorsing him," Lieberman added. "But I'm just endorsing his right to be judged on his personal qualities and experience and ideals, and not to be discriminated against based on his religion, which is unacceptable in this country."

He also told the students of Brigham Young University, who are mostly members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, that people impose religious tests due to unfamiliarity with that religion and it is up to members of the LDS Church to speak out against religious bigotry and educate people about their faith:

"I would bet you, that whatever that percent of people who said (in public opinion polls) they'd be reluctant to vote for a Mormon candidate for president, I bet they have had little or no real contact with members of the LDS church," the Independent Democrat from Connecticut told the crowd of more than 5,000 at the Marriott Center. "When I hear expressions of bigotry, and you should do the same, don't hesitate to speak up in your own defense, you've got a lot to defend."

Senator Lieberman also explained that Mitt Romney will have to also educate the public about his faith:

"If Governor Romney is nominated, he's going to have to, he's done it a little bit, but he's going to have to educate people about the Mormon faith, and confront it directly and appeal to people's better nature, which is what Kennedy did in 1960," Lieberman said. "(Kennedy) appealed to people to be fair, which is what the country's supposed to be about."

Although Romney and other members of the Church must do more to help the public understand our religion, the American people should not let their unfamiliarity or their theological differences with a religion be the basis of supporting or opposing a candidate. A candidate should be judged on their character, leadership experience and his plans for America's future. 

Of course, a candidate's religion can be considered in selecting a President but it cannot be done only on the basis that candidate is a member of that religion or that he holds certain theological beliefs. One can judge a candidate on how his membership and theological beliefs influences his political, social and moral beliefs which is the more important factor in deciding who to support for President. 

Its worth pointing out that just because a candidate is a member of a certain religion or is a member of your very own faith doesn't mean he holds the same values and beliefs as you do. A perfect example is Mitt Romney and Harry Reid. Both men are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. However, they do not hold the same values and beliefs about important issues of our day. They do not agree on the size of government, abortion, taxes, war and other important issues. 

You will find this to be true in every religion. There are liberal evangelical Christians and conservative ones. There are liberal Jews and conservative Jews. There are liberal Buddhists and conservative Buddhists. There are liberal Catholics and conservative Catholics. 

As a result, that is why a candidate cannot be judged on his religion since people of the same faith do not hold the same views and values. That is why a candidate's political experience, character and values are the important factors in supporting a president.

The Power Of Captialism: Making People's Lives Better And Healther

Capitalism provided people with the freedom to make major discoveries in science, medicine, nutrition and technology which has increased the life expectancy and wealth of individuals all over the world over a long period of time. Hans Rosling explains: 

Another video takes a different approach in making the same point about how capitalism has helped improve the qualify of life for people: 

Another video demonstrates that capitalism provides the freedom for wealth to expand which makes it possible for living standards to rise for everyone, not just the rich only.  Capitalism has made it possible for the poor today to enjoy things that previous people in poverty could never enjoy before. The video shows how capitialism has raised the income of rich and poor people alike in just the last 40 years. What makes the video you're about to see even more powerful is that not only do we see a comparison between the rich and the poor in the United States but goes one step further by comparing the American poor and the average citizen in Europe, Asia, and Africa:

As shown in these videos above, capitalism has done more to improve the lives of humankind than any other political, social or economic system invented by mankind.

The Occupy Wall Street protesters do not realize that we stand on the shoulders of the men and women in the past who made these amazing discoveries which has led to further discoveries that made it possible to enjoy the life we live today. In fact, these protesters fail to see the irony in their protests against capitalism. One photo demonstrates the irony perfectly:   

In attempt to get the world to wake up to the flaws of capitalism, they are unknowingly promoting the benefits of capitalism by using products created by business organizations who have the economic freedom to create products and services in their protests against capitalism.

Time Magazine Is Wrong About The Constitution

Time magazine's main article, One Document, Under Siege which created quite an uproar among conservatives because the main thrust of the article was that the Constitution is a document that is no longer relevant because of changes in technology and culture and that it is an obstacle to political, social and economic progress. 

Almost every line in the article is absolutely wrong. here are just too many things that I would like to refute in the article. However, there is one claim in the article that I cannot restrain myself from blasting to pieces. Richard Stengel, the author of this article, asserts the reason that the Constitution remains the most powerful document in the world is because the American people love liberty and freedom:

A constitution in and of itself guarantees nothing. Bolshevik Russia had a constitution, as did Nazi Germany. Cuba and Libya have constitutions. A constitution must embody something that is in the hearts of the people. In the midst of World War II, the great judge Learned Hand gave a speech in New York City's Central Park that came to be known as "The Spirit of Liberty." It was a dark time, with freedom and liberty under threat in Europe. Hand noted that we are Americans by choice, not birth. That we are Americans precisely because we seek liberty and freedom — not only freedom from oppression but freedom of speech and belief and action. "What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty?" he asked. "I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." 

While Americans do love liberty and freedom, that is not the reason why the U.S. Constitution remains the most powerful document in the world. In Timothy R.Clark's  Desert News article, What My Grandma Taught Me About The Constitution, points out that rampant corruption, which is how most societies operated throughout human history, prevents liberty and freedom from occurring:

The United States Constitution is perhaps America’s most important export. It has influenced the chartering documents of many nations, beginning with France and Poland in the 1780s. But the long-term results are not so good. Although a stack of constitutions has been erected after the American model, corrupt leaders almost always chew up and spit out the ink and paper of high ideals. Most attempts to imitate or reproduce the world's most important charter, penned by the then 31-year-old James Madison, have been dead on arrival.

Why? Because most societies are endemically corrupt. Like a cancer, corruption influences, alters or stops basic processes such as commerce, capital flows, the expansion and delivery of education and the making of public policy. It shuts down civil society.

Timothy Clark goes on to point out that the Constitution is only as good as its leaders and citizens: 

At root, civil society is based on preconditions of ethical leadership and public virtue. We believe in the rule of law, but the rule of law is only enforceable through the unenforceable support of private citizens — a line of defense that is easily swept aside when corruption becomes endemic.

A constitution is nothing but a set of institutional arrangements. Yes, there is genius in the arrangements of the U.S. Constitution. But they don’t hold themselves up. We do. It’s the character of the citizens. It is the unapologetic support of Judeo-Christian values. It’s equal emphasis on both rights and responsibility.

In his inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson said, “Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?”

In other words, society depends on the integrity of each and every individual. John Adams famously explained that the Constitution was made for a society that promoted and cherished the integrity of the individual:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Foreign Policy Magazine, in writing about the collapse of the Soviet Union, explains that the real reason the communist country fell in 1989 was because everyone was tired of the corruption that was rampant in society. They wanted a more moral society. Gorbachev's Prime Minster made the shocking admission that Soviet Union was not great because because it relied on corruption to maintain power: 

To Gorbachev's prime minister Nikolai Ryzhkov, the "moral [nravstennoe] state of the society" in 1985 was its "most terrifying" feature:

[We] stole from ourselves, took and gave bribes, lied in the reports, in newspapers, from high podiums, wallowed in our lies, hung medals on one another. And all of this -- from top to bottom and from bottom to top.

Although the Soviet Union fell many years ago, Russia is still struggling to figure out how to make freedom and liberty work. Many Arab nations are now  trying to figure out how to make freedom and liberty work in the Middle East. Why are they struggling to make freedom work in their own lands?
The reason why they are struggling is because they assume that freedom comes when you eliminate corruption in the nation's economic, social, and political institutions by revising the policies, programs of the various institutions or even rewriting the Constitution to mirror the American constitution. In other words, they think that if they make the institutions good and moral, freedom will come.  

However, the Founding Fathers wisely realized that it was the other way around. If you make the people moral, virtuous and religious, then the public and private institutions of society will be morally good and in turn, it will create a free, democratic and good nation.

I fear that we are in danger of falling for the same erroneous assumption  that freedom comes if we only can make the institutions of society good. When you look back in history of how governments used oppression and corruption to keep the state going, America is the exception to the rule. That is the idea of American exceptionalism.

In the end, The United States Constitution matters, not because we love liberty and freedom, but that liberty and freedom comes only if the individuals themselves remain good and virtuous.