Brain Trust - Rachel Sheffield

Rachel Sheffield is a Research Assistant for the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, with a focus on welfare, marriage and family, and education. She joined the Brain Trust to discuss marriage in America. Below are the "CliffsNotes" of her interview.

How unhealthy is the marriage situation in the U.S.?

We just got a research study saying that the percentage of married adults has fallen to a record low.

Only half of Americans are married. This has significant impact, for individuals and for the nation as a whole.

What effect does this have on poverty?

With this declining marriage, and also the unwed birth rates, it has a huge effect on poverty. 

A child in a single-parent family is much more likely to be poor than a child in a two-parent family.

Marriage is the biggest antidote to poverty. I don't think people realize how big of an impact this has on children's lives.

What about crime?

Children who are raised in impact families are much less likely to get into crime. They are more likely to have better psychological, emotional, even physical health.

How does marriage affect poverty?

We see the major breakdown of relationships in low-income communities. We need to start by telling these young men and women about the importance of marriage.

Think about how much we stress the importance of not dropping out of high school, and where we would be today if we didn't. We should tell them the same thing about marriage.

We have to begin by spreading that message of the importance of marriage.

Who should be spreading that message?

I think it needs to be done at every level, but certainly down at the churches, the schools.

They need to tell this message to their youth and children. The president can certainly explain why marriage is important. It's a message that everyone needs to share.

Is this toothpaste out of the tube? Can it be reversed?

I think we definitely have a long road ahead of us. But we have to start somewhere, or the problem is certainly going to become a lot worse.

Brain Trust - Kevin McCullough

Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of The Kevin McCullough Show & Baldwin/McCullough Radio, and a blogger at Townhall. He joined The Matt Friedeman Show to discuss . Below are the "CliffsNotes" of his interview.

Do you have predictions for Iowa?

I don't know if anyone's paying attention, but Ron Paul has now taken the lead in six different polls. 

I think there's some real trouble to the Republican establishment there.

If Ron Paul ends up winning Iowa, it could really throw the race into a tailspin.

There's so many people that I have talked to in the primary states that say his foreign policy stance is so off-the-wall that he'll never chance. But Romney can't seem to get more than 22%.

If we don't see a leader come forward, Ron Paul might actually be the guy who is looked to as the non-Romney.

What's your take on Virginia's ballot?

Rick Perry's group is saying that Virginia changed the rules on them and didn't notify them. But in reality, you cannot expect to run a successful campaign if you don't pay attention to things like this.

Gingrich especially should know how important this is at the federal level.

What I want to know is that if someone who is not Mitt Romney wins Iowa and South Carolina, is Virginia really going to ban them?

Is there any possibility that someone like Bobby Jindal or Chris Christie could jump in?

I don't know if that's as much of a possibility, because you'd have to drum up an entire campaign staff and crew.

What I'm wondering is if we will see something like a brokered convention if this continues to splinter and be the fractured process that we've seen thus far

I think we've had too many debates. Romney has his core support, but no one else has anything sewn up.

And if, say, Bachmann wins Iowa, Paul wins South Carolina, and someone else wins Florida, and we get to the end and no one has secured the nomination, we might see something like a brokered convention.

Brain Trust - Matt Barber

Matt Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel and also serves as Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law. He joined the Brain Trust segment of the show to talk about Ron Paul. Below are the "CliffsNotes" of his interview.

Tell us about your recent article on Ron Paul.

It's in the Washington Times. The article is titled "Ron Paul's Presidential Dance: Cute, But Unstable."

Basically, I'm pointing out and hopefully alerting conservatives and Christian evangelicals that Ron Paul is a likable guy, but no conservative.

Ronald Reagan had his "three-legged stool" of conservatives: strong national defense, strong social values, and strong economic values.

Ron Paul is strong on economic values, I will give him that. But he is a social liberal, and he's a pacifist; essentially, an isolationist.

Is his economic policy the reason he's leading in Iowa?

I will give him that. On the economic issues, he makes a lot of sense. He is resonating with people because of the dire straits we find ourselves in economically.

But he goes completely off the rails when he talks about radical Islam, especially in Iran. Where you stand on economics kind of becomes a moot point.

What about the allegations that he's a racist?

That will sink him, I think. He has an active, devoted base of supporters. He may win the Iowa caucuses, but strange things happen in Iowa.

I think the GOP establishment is freaking out, thinking that if Ron Paul wins, their credibility is sunk.

This presidential race has been, if nothing else, all over the board. This week and next week may be Ron Paul's 15 minutes. But when the dust settles, I think clearer heads will prevail.

But hey, it's getting exciting. It's fun to watch, no doubt about it.

Brain Trust - Pat Fagan

Patrick F. Fagan is Senior Fellow and Director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute with the Family Research Council.

He joined The Matt Friedeman Show's Brain Trust segment to discuss FRC's "Index of Belonging". Below are the "CliffsNotes" of his interview.

What is this "Index of Belonging" all about?

When children grow up, they need to belong to their family. And when they do, they thrive.

The biggest rejection in the family happens between mom and dad, when they split, or when they have a baby and don't get married.

What proportion of our kids have grown up in a family where everyone belongs? The good news is that almost 45% of our kids grow up in a family like that.

The bad news is that 55% grew up in a family where mom and dad rejected one another.

What is the difference in the social health of the family between now and 1950?

This is a guesstimate, but I would say that in 1950 about 88% of our kids reached 17 with mom and dad belonging.

The depression-era parents raised their kids well. The baby boomers and their kids are much, much different. 

Is there a difference as far as ethnicity goes?

Actually, the black family is in real bad shape. Only in in 16.7 black children reach age 17 with mom and dad belonging. 88% do not.

What can we do about it?

Three things: restore chastity among teenagers. It's a Christian way of relating to the opposite sex.

The second thing is to restore marriage. They go hand in hand.

The third thing is to attend weekly worship of God, and prayer.

Brain Trust - Hunter Baker

Hunter Baker is an Associate Dean at Union University, and a blogger at First Things. He joined The Matt Friedeman Show for the Brain Trust segment. Here are the "CliffsNotes" of his interview.

Who is your Person of the Year?

One name came to mind immediately, and that would be Paul Ryan. He stands almost alone among our elected officials in trying to find an answer to our fiscal problem.

Why all the backlash against Newt Gingrich?

Yeah, this is quite a striking development. I'm especially taken aback by National Review's move. They are basically saying there are only three acceptable people: Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Santorum.

I don't know if listeners know this, but National Review declined to endorse Dwight Eisenhower, saying he wasn't conservative enough. And now they are pretty close to endorsing Mitt Romney.

The backlash against Gingrich is very interesting to me. I think there are a lot of people who are Washington insiders and Conservative insiders who are saying that this is a very bad idea. Obviously they have very bad memories of 1994.

What could be the repercussions of National Review's denial of Gingrich?

This was a very risky move for them. If Gingrich goes on to win the nomination, which really could happen, what is National Review going to do?

How are they going to recant their firm denial of Gingrich? And have they given free advertising to the other side with this?

Obama apparently thinks he has had an "accomplished presidency."

I was astounded by that. That quote about healthcare, that no one is going to go bankrupt because of healthcare, I was thinking that while no individual may go bankrupt, the entire nation might.

I don't see that he has made any tough choices. I really don't see that he has made up any solutions to problems. He simply delegated decisions to Congress.

Our economy seems like it's locked in ultra-slow growth mode, so slow that you can barely see it happening.

How would you rank Obama in the lineup of our presidents?

I think that he would like to be in the line of FDR and Johnson. The presidency that he had is not the one he wanted.

He wanted to be the third person in the trinity of the welfare state, starting with Roosevelt and going on to Johnson.

We may turn around and say that it's a blessing that these have not been great economic times, because who knows what he might have done if we had had money.

Brain Trust - Warren Smith

Warren Smith, Associate Editor of World Magazine, joined the Brain Trust to discuss the presidential race. Here are the "CliffsNotes" of his segment.

In the recent GOP debates, Gingrich seems to like this format of debating one-on-one.  

There are two things that play in Gingrich's favor here.  First, he is very good in this format.   

Last night they were discussing foreign policy and he came out very well, even though Huntsman is considered an expert on foreign policy.   

Secondly, he wants to eventually debate Obama one-on-one. He also knows if it comes down to him and Romney for the GOP they will be paired together in this style of debate.  

Why are these other front runners afraid of him?

I just think they realize that he is very good in this format.  He comes across very well.   

In this format he had the chance to give more extended answers.  In a larger debate setting you tend to get media sound-bytes when you have 6 or 7 candidates.

It appears Romney is nervous about this surge by Gingrich.

I think you're right.  Gingrich is finally polling at 30%, which has proven to be a difficult number for any of the candidates to sustain thus far in the campaign.   

In Iowa it will be less about who wins, but rather who loses in that primary.  I think after Iowa and New Hampshire, we will see a couple of candidates get out of the race.   

Once we see the support of those candidates re-shuffle we will see what it looks like. This has been the fall-out of the Herman Cain situation; we have seen a lot of Cain's support go over to Gingrich

What do you make of this speech Obama recently made in Kansas?

Some have said it was the start of his reelection campaign.  In reality he is merely trying to shift the focus off of his failed presidency. 

He will attempt to make this a race about two competing visions for America.

Brain Trust - Patrick Knudsen

Patrick Louis Knudsen is the senior budget expert at the Heritage Foundation. He joined the Brain Trust to discuss Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget reform proposals. Below are the "CliffsNotes" of his interview.

Is Paul Ryan's work too radical or not radical enough?

In my own view, I wouldn't call any of his work radical either way. I do think he's on the right side of the conservative slate.

He's working on getting spending under control to change the relationship between individuals and the government.

How do you write something like this without going too far?

That's the political scale that's almost instinctive, I think. Chairman Ryan has always had a very good grasp of the issues he explored, and that gives him confidence when he's talking about it.

There are few politicians with that that instinct, but I think he is one of them.

 Is there any value in doing something like this when it won't pass?

The answer is yes, and he knows it. Here's why. Everyone can see that over the past couple years, the Congress budget system has completely broken down.

Chairman Ryan understands that most policies do not pass right away.

If you keep advocating the policies, if you keep saying what needs to be said, the people will get it. And if the people get it, the politicians will eventually catch on. 

I think he's making progress.

Does Rep. Ryan care about all the loopholes in the budget?

For instance, there's a loophole called the emergency loophole, so that if there are wildfires or tornadoes as there always are, Congress can spend an unlimited amount of money.

Chairman Ryan cares about all those things. You have to remember, though, that while they're degrading to the budget process, they're still relatively small issues.

Talk to us about changing the retirement age.

When Social Security started and the retirement age was set at 65, most Americans weren't living long past 65.

We're talking about programs that were established 80 years ago. Why not raise the retirement age to a more reasonable level? It wouldn't solve the entire problem, but it would certainly help.

Brain Trust - Gregg Harper

Congressman Gregg Harper (R, MS) came on The Matt Friedeman Show today to discuss the issues currently facing Congress. Here are the "CliffsNotes" of his segment.

There's a strained relationship between the House and the Senate.

It is a huge divide that is between the House and the Senate, and of course the White House.

We've had probably 25 bills that we've passed out of the House this year that are not even going to be looked at by the Senate.

The Senate is just lethargic or nonexistent, and intentionally putting the brakes on things that would make things go better.

If I didn't know better, I would say that the President and the Democrats sort of want things to shut down so they can shift the blame to the Republicans.

The President said recently that "Reaganism didn't work." Comments?

It is just such a divisive technique that the President has taken. He has been in full campaign mode since the so-called "Jobs Speech" back in September.

It's remarkable to watch him. We just need to get some things done and they obviously do not want to do that.

Is the tax burden going to increase soon?

If the payroll tax deduction doesn't pass, the average family will probably see an increase in taxes of about $1000 a year. That's real money in real pockets.

Is there no law about having to pass a budget?

It's just understood, both the House and the Senate are supposed to pass a budget every year.

Obviously they don't have to, because the year Nancy Pelosi was Speaker, they didn't pass one. I think the numbers were so bad that they were just too embarrassed.

Brain Trust - Jay Nordlinger

Jay Nordlinger, a Senior Editor at National Review, joined the Brain Trust today to discuss his to-be-released book on the Nobel Peace Prize, Peace, They Say. Below are the "CliffsNotes" of his interview.

You call the Nobel Peace Prize the most famous and controversial prize in the world. True?

I imagine the Oscars are as famous, so probably they're tied. In fact, in one year, Al Gore won both.

But I definitely think the Nobel is certainly the most controversial, because of the nature of peace. People disagree about what peace is, and what adds to it and subtracts from it.

What has been the theme of the last few prizes?

I think we've had two very good Nobel Peace Prizes in a row, which has to be some kind of record.

In 2010 they gave it to Chinese dissenter Liu Xiaobo, although he wasn't allowed out to receive the prize. That was last year.

And this year they've given it to three campaigners for women's rights and human rights in general. Two are from Nigeria, and one is from Yemen.

I think this is a good prize. What I remind my readers, and frankly remind myself, is that women's rights are old hat here, but in other countries they are very new hat or even no hat at all.

Of the Nigerian women, one is a woman named Leymah Gbowee. During the second civil war there in Nigeria, she organized a Christian women's peace movement to appeal to the dictator. Later other women of other faiths joined this peace effort.

The other is the woman who became president after the civil war. She's a very canny politician.

If they keep giving out meritorious peace prizes, I'm going to have to change my tune.

Brain Trust - Tricia Raymond

Tricia Raymond is an author, speaker, and expert on the history of the Pledge of Allegiance. She joined the Brain Trust to talk about her book, Saving One Nation Under God. Below are the "CliffsNotes" of her interview.

How important is the Pledge of Allegiance?

It's hugely important, because it speaks to the fabric of our nation. 

You were talking about Barack Obama, and how there might be some ideas of his that we can agree with. I definitely agreed with him when he said that words are important, that words have meaning. 

Words do have meaning, and the words in the Pledge of Allegiance have great meaning for our country. Not even just the words, but the history of the words.

Tell us about the backdrop of the Pledge.

We have to go back to the late 1800s. America was a country divided, at each others' throats. The election of 1876 was an election decided by one vote. There was an immigration problem. We were in the second dose of the Industrial Revolution.

At that point, the most popular book in America was Looking Backwards, a book predicting that by 2000, America would be a socialist nation.

People were interested in that happening. You had men and women and children working in factories. We had never had anyone become wealthy other than by inheriting it or taking over another territory. The workers and laborers were treated unjustly.

Carl Marx thought that society would be frozen in time, that we would always have the very wealthy and the very poor. There was no vision of the growing middle class.

This book just captured the interest of America, so much so that the American started clubs to figure out how to pursue this dream of socialism.

That book really started the establishment of the socialist movement in America.

How did the Pledge come about?

Enter James Upham with his idea to put the flag in front of schools all over America, and to have a Pledge to go with the flag.

The Pledge was penned by Francis Bellamy, who called himself a "Christian socialist." There was an awful lot going on in America that was very unjust.

As a Baptist minister, he felt like the gospel was more socialist than it was free market. He propagated the idea that Christianity was a socialist idea, that Jesus was a socialist.

1892 was the 400th anniversary of America's discovery. James Upham's idea was to have these townspeople come together under the flag and celebrate in their own way. So in 1892, approximately 12 million schoolchildren recited the Pledge for the first time.

As the deadline approached for the celebration, Upham still didn't have a Pledge. So, as the story goes, he told Francis Bellamy to go into his office and write something.

After a couple of hours, Francis Bellamy came out with the first draft. "I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Every other author likes to point out that there was no mention of God in the original Pledge of Allegiance. But in the program that came out, there was a Scripture Reading or Prayer.

How important has the Pledge proved to be in the last hundred years or so?

It has tied us together as a nation. It goes to the fabric of our nation.

If words are important, and they are, then One Nation Under God is an incredible set of four words that helps this nation stay together.

If we take God out of the Pledge, we're basically saying we don't need God anymore. It's up to us whether we become One Nation Under God again.

You can purchase One Nation Under God here.