According to various sources, the Obama administration and its allies in the MSM pressured Mitt Romney into publicly repudiating a potential ad campaign by an independent Super PAC that would have tied Obama to Jeremiah Wright.  Their argument was that religion should be off the table.

The decision by Governor Romney was wrong.

It is perfectly valid to examine and question the religious beliefs of a political candidate.  Religious beliefs are by definition deeply held beliefs that shape how a person views the world and are thus good indicators of how a candidate may govern.

Religious beliefs often attempt to answer the higher story questions of life:  Who am I?  Why am I here?  What is the purpose of life?  What is the value of life?  What is the nature of man?  etc.  How these questions are answered will directly affect not only the governing philosophy of an administration but the practical policy applications.    The difference can be rather striking.  We must remember that our Declaration of Independence begins with a theological statement about God as the source of equality and natural rights.

Religious beliefs can also point directly to policy applications.  For instance, we know that Jeremiah Wright taught Black Liberation Theology and explicitly condemned the founding principles of the United States.  Black Liberation Theology touches directly upon the need for government directed social justice, taxation and redistribution of wealth, and racial policy preferences.  It also teaches the inherent evil of western civilization and the need to destroy it so that a new – more equitable – society can be rebuilt amidst its ruin.  Those familiar with Black Liberation Theology – and Liberation Theology in general – were not surprised by the actions of the Obama administration during its first term.  Nor are they under any illusion that a second term would be any better.

Finally, religious beliefs and a person’s adherence to them can be a good indication of character.

Since Barack Obama and his religious beliefs have not received a proper vetting, many are confused as to what the President actually believes.  The basic tenets of Black Liberation Theology are not commonly known and many would find it hard to belief the President truly believed such things – which is precisely why the Obama administration wants religion to be off the table.  Obama wants to be free to construct his own narrative and to distort religion to support his election and his policy positions.

It is also worth noting the hypocrisy of the Obama administration and the MSM on the issue.  While they may proclaim that religion should be off the table, that proclamation does not apply to Mormonism.  Mormons and Mormonism are still fair game.  President Obama may never raise the issue.  He has surrogates in the MSM who will do it for him.  The most recent example is a Washington Post article that connects Romney to the massacre of settlers from Arkansas by a Mormon militia in the Mountain Meadow Massacre of 1857.  Another example is Bill Maher’s attack on Mormonism as a cult.  Barack Obama will not silence or publicly repudiate his surrogates when they outlandishly attack Mormons.  Why should Romney repudiate his supporters when they raise valid questions about Obama’s religious beliefs?  Unilateral disarmament worked so well for John McCain.

Let me close with two caveats.  Religious beliefs should be discussed with tact but discussed nonetheless.  Atheism and agnosticism are also religious beliefs and should be treated the same as other such beliefs.

Dan Savage is a gay activist and founder of the “It Gets Better” Project.  He has extensive ties with the Obama Administration and is a frequent visitor to the White House.  Recently at a high school journalism conference, Savage, after making reference to just having sex with his male partner,  launched a profanity laced attack upon the Bible and Christianity.  He mentioned that regarding homosexuality, “we can learn to ignore the bulls***” contained in the Bible.  He then went on to elaborate [erroneously] on how the Bible endorsed slavery and the honor killing of women who lose their virginity before marriage.  He then intimated that the GOP would like to see both slavery and honor killings restored.  He closed his attack by referring to the Christian students who walked out of his screed as “pansy-assed.”

The link to the remarks can be found at Dan Savage’s Anti-Christian Rant.  Hat tip to Ben Shapiro and the Breitbart sites.

Dan Savage, however, is much more than just a militant gay activist.  He is the White House endorsed spokesman for their anti-bullying campaign.

Dan Savage and his “It Gets Better” Project is endorsed by the White House’s own StopBullying.gov.  Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelious and President Obama have both recorded videos endorsing Savage and his organization.  On June 29, 2011, Savage attended the White House “Pride Reception” where he hobnobbed with administration officials including the Vice-President.  Savage openly brags about his close connections to the White House.  After the reception, he told news outlets that President Obama would move to openly endorse gay marriage after the 2012 election, more specifically in February 2013.

Savage is a rather odd choice to lead an anti-bullying campaign.  He is the one responsible for the vile definition of “Santorum” that google prominently featured in its search results.  [I am not going to repeat it here.]  In a December 2010 interview with Newsweek, he called Supreme Court Justice Scalia a “c***sucker.”  On Bill Maher’s show he said that he wished “the Republicans were all f***ing dead.”  He later told Maher that he wanted to “f*** the s*** out of [Santorum].”  He has repeatedly threatened Santorum, the state of Utah, and Rick Warren at Saddleback Church.

Dan Savage and his endorsement by the Obama administration demonstrates the lie behind the left’s anti-bullying campaign.  The goal is not to stop bullying but rather to intimidate those who disagree with the Obama administration and the leftist agenda.

Dan Savage is President Obama’s handpicked ambassador to represent his administration and to attack Christians, the Bible, and Christianity.  The War on Christians is very real.  The administration plan is very clear.  They will attack the church for being intolerant of ideas and practices that contradict Biblical teachings.  We have seen it in the Obamacare mandate and we see it now in the administration’s endorsement of homosexuality and the bullying of those who refuse to conform.

Once again, I would like to give a hat-tip to Ben Shapiro and the Breitbart sites but I won’t.  Instead, I will take my hat off to you.  Well done.  For more information, please see:  http://www.breitbart.com/.

Although I am not a member of the Santorum camp, I appreciate the tenacity he brought to the Republican primary.  As Dan McLaughlin mentioned earlier, Santorum trailed the GOP pack for most of the primary season.  When he won in Iowa, must of us wrote him off.  After all, he had no money and no national campaign staff.  Yet, despite the odds, Santorum continued the fight.  As of today he has won over 3 million votes and 11 states to become the dominate conservative alternative to Romney.  In the process, he has endured relentless attacks upon his character, his family, and his faith.  A quick google search of “Santorum” will reveal the level of filth directed at the man.  Until recently the top search result defined “Santorum” as a byproduct of anal sex.  Even some “conservatives” – scare quotes used intentionally – have resorted to the same level of filth.  Yet, Santorum persevered until the delegate count and the need to care for his daughter and family led him to exit the race today.

Conservatives owe a lot to Rick Santorum.  He succeeded where all the other non-Romneys failed and exposed the myth of Romney’s inevitability.  Many have made hay out of polls showing that Santorum faced a “humiliating” upset in his home state of Pennsylvania on April 24th.  The truth is that even a loss in Pennsylvania would not have been humiliating.  Humiliation is the fact that Romney can only secure the nomination through smear campaigns and massive ad buys that have often outgunned his opponents 15 to 1.  Humiliation is the fact that Romney has been running for the GOP nomination since 2006 and a upstart candidate with no name recognition, no money, and no national campaign organization actually bested him in so many states including his adopted home of Michigan.  Rick Santorum has demonstrated Romney’s weakness with the conservative base.  If Romney is smart, he will move to correct that problem.  If not, then say hello to four more years of Obama.

Some “conservatives” have even suffered from Santorum derangement syndrome or SDS.  The very mention of his name sends them into fits and convulsions.  Resolutely they declare Santorum to be beyond the pale and state their willingness to back Ron Paul over a Santorum nomination.  In their more lucid moments they boldly claim that Santorum is a pro-life statist and not a true fiscal conservative.  While Santorum has faltered in his fiscal conservatism, he has at least remained true to his social conservative values, which is a heck of a lot more than one can say of Mitt ”all my principles are negotiable” Romney.  Santorum admits to mistakes as a Senator during the Bush years and promised to hold the fiscal line as president, which is more than Mitt Romney has done. Santorum has never given cause to question his promise to repeal Obamacare, which is more than Mitt Romney has done.  Santorum may not have been the true Reagan conservative but he is a lot closer to it than either Romney or Paul.

Mr. Santorum has my thanks and respect for a well waged campaign against overwhelming odds.  My prayers are with him, his family, and especially his daughter.

In 2011 Vanderbilt University adopted a new nondiscrimination policy that prohibits a student organization from requiring its members and even its leadership to adhere to a statement of faith.  Vanderbilt adopted the new policy after Beta Upsilon Chi, a Christian fraternity, removed one of its leaders because he disagreed with the fraternity’s official stand on homosexuality.  Following a public meeting in January 2012, Vanderbilt gave Christian organizations until April to rewrite their constitutions and remove leadership requirements.  Organizations that failed to comply with the new policy would forfeit their status as an official student organization and thus lose their right to use “school facilities, advertise its meetings at school events and apply for student fee funding.”  In essence, the Christian organizations had to comply by compromising their beliefs or leave campus.

So far four Christian student groups have left Vanderbilt University rather than compromise their beliefs – Vanderbilt Catholic, Graduate Christian Fellowship, Christian Legal Society, and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

Vanderbilt Catholic posted the reasoning behind their choice to leave Vanderbilt University on their website:

While organizational skills and leadership abilities are important qualifications for leaders of Vanderbilt Catholic, the primary qualification for leadership is Catholic faith and practice….  We are a faith-based organization.  A Catholic student organization led by someone who neither professes the Catholic faith nor strives to live it out would not be able to serve its members as an authentically Catholic organization.

Vanderbilt University argues that the new policy is not a violation of religious freedom because no one is telling said groups whom to elect as leaders.   According to a Vanderbilt spokesman, “it simply allows for anyone to be eligible for membership and to seek a leadership position.”  The university’s position is a sham.  By opening the membership of any group up to people who do not support the beliefs and objectives of the group, the university is seeking to destroy the cohesiveness of the group and undermine their state objectives.  In other words, according to the new policy,  membership and leadership of a Christian organization must be open to atheists, Muslims, Hindus, etc.  Membership and leadership positions in a Christian student organization must be open to people who oppose the organization’s Statement of Faith and who might even work to oppose the stated goals and intentions of the group.

Vanderbilt’s actions are part of a larger trend in our society.  Christian beliefs are now considered discriminatory and must yield to the state (the recent Obamacare mandate) or to society at large.   The trend has even received the official sanction of the Supreme Court.

http://www.redstate.com/kipling/2010/06/29/cls-v-martinez-and-the-assualt-on-christianity/

Vanderbilt University has attacked religious freedom in the United States and deemed Christianity to be so offensive that a groups of Christians must leave the campus in order to practice their religious beliefs and exercise their constitutional right to expressive association.  Vanderbilt alumni and financial contributors should take note and find a more worthy institution to lavish your gifts upon.

We should all applaud those organizations who have taken a stand for their beliefs.  The non-Christian organizations should be wary.  How long before a Christian applies for leadership in an atheist organization or a neo-Nazi requests admission to the Jewish Student Fellowship?  If anyone can be a member then what is the value of membership?

Totalitarian:  a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute control over all aspects of life.

The left under President Obama is quickly moving to create a totalitarian state that controls all aspects of our lives through Congressional legislation, Executive fiat, Judicial rulings, and Bureaucratic regulations.  Since his efforts bear some striking similarities to totalitarian regimes from the past, I thought it might be enlightening to take a closer look at those similarities.

The Hallmarks of Totalitarianism

First, totalitarian governments can and often are elected through a legitimate electoral process.  In many case they may hide their totalitarian agenda or lie about it in order to get elected but they are elected nonetheless.  For that reason, many on the left and some on the right will take exception to characterizing Barack Obama and the modern Democratic Party as totalitarian.  They will argue that, since Obama and his fellow Democrats were legitimately elected to office, it is the height of incivility to compare them with totalitarians.  Yet, we must remember that both Hitler and Mussolini rose to power through legitimate electoral means.  Even the Bolsheviks in Russia came to power after the overthrow of the czar through a quasi-legitimate electoral process.  Elections are merely the gateway to power and do not determine whether a government is totalitarian or not.

Second, the totalitarian government will often employ an army of street thugs to intimidate, silence, and even murder their opposition.  Totalitarians may utilize the thugs both before and after an electoral process.  Hitler had his Storm Troopers.  Mussolini had his Black Shirts.  Lenin used dissatisfied elements from the czarist army.  All three used these forces to quell opposition and to initiate crisis in order to create a demand for stronger governmental control.  In 1924, Mussolini had the leader of the opposition, Giacomo Matteotti murdered.  He then used the murder to further consolidate his position by pledging to restore law and order and find those responsible.  In 1933 the Reichstag [the German legislative assembly] building burned to the ground.  Hitler used the crisis to strengthen his position and suspended the rights of citizenry.

Mr. Obama and the modern Democratic Party also have an army of thugs that engage in intimidation.  We call them SEIU, various Union thugs, and the new Occupy Movement.  I wonder what these groups will be up to during the current election year.

Third, once in power the totalitarians will discard the constitutional bounds, the legal process, and even the electoral process that led them to power.  Hitler, Mussolini, and Lenin all worked outside of and in direct defiance of the law to increase their own power.  Under the current administration, we see the same thing happening.  Obama ignores the U.S. Constitution at will by going to war without Congressional approval [see Libya and Panetta's recent remarks to Congress about Syria] and ignoring mandates set by Congress.  The Democratic Congress operated outside the law in passing Obamacare.  Justice Ginsberg went further and even lamented the fact that we have a constitution to might somehow limit the government.

Fourth, all totalitarian regimes will eventually attack the church.  Totalitarians cannot and will not concede that a higher power exists above the government itself.  The Obama administration has waged and continues to wage what Rick Perry termed a war on Christianity.  The most recent assault on the church is the “contraception issue” which really has nothing to do with contraception.  Obama and the Democrats will continue to press their assault until the church is silenced and the supremacy of the state is assured.  The church faces two choices:  fight or become subservient to the state.  It is not a new choice.  Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin all sought to make the state supreme.  In each case they wanted to make the church and the clergy swear allegiance to the state and to them personally.  In most cases the church fought back.  In those cases where the institutional church compromised, individual Christian continued the fight.  We call those men and women heroes.  Acts 4:19-20 should be the motto of every church in this battle.

Increasingly, conservatives face a growing totalitarian threat from the left, from the Democrats, and from the Obama administration.  We must recognize what it is, seek to understand its tactics, and respond accordingly.  To expose the totalitarian nature of the Obama administration and the Democratic Party will go a long way to rallying the American people against a “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism….”

Almost a month ago, Mr. Obama launched his “contraception” campaign in a blatant attempt to win over women voters and to shift the debate away from economic issues.  Since that time, the left – and even some conservatives – have distorted the issue.  Some fiscal conservatives have missed the relevance of the issue completely.

The “contraception issue” is not about birth control or even social conservatism.  It is about whether the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights can be trumped by a “right” made up by the left out of whole cloth.  Obamacare requires religious institutions to pay for health insurance that will provide contraceptives and drugs that induce abortions.  Most Christian organization – at least those not corrupted by the leftist cult of death – oppose abortion.  The Catholic Church and other organizations oppose both abortion and contraception.  Yet, Obamacare, in the name of women’s health, will deny these institutions the right to the “free exercise” of their religion and thus to living out their religious beliefs.  If the first amendment can be invalidated by the left, then none of the other rights are safe.

The “contraception” issue is about economic freedom.  The power of the federal government has grown to the point where federal regulators can force a private company to provide the “benefits” the federal government dictates.  The federal government has invaded the contractual process and set itself up as the final authority.  The mere audacity of the move should make both employers and employees nervous because it removes the process from their control and makes it subject to the political winds from Washington.

The subversion of the contractual process by the federal government is nothing new.  However, Mr. Obama has made a blunder with his recent foray because the contraception issue is the perfect issue on which to unite both fiscal and social conservatives against Obamacare.

Many fiscal conservatives have largely missed this blunder.  Instead of welcoming a potential alliance with social conservatives on the issue, they have characterized it as a “distraction” and “a waste of time.”  They have written columns entitled:  ”Is the GOP spending too much time on social issues?”  Others have lambasted the church leadership because some of them supported Obamacare and are now just “getting what they deserve.”  This is insanity.

Fiscal and social conservatives should unite on this issue.  It is an all hands on deck type of emergency.  If the issue is lost or the churches are forced to cave in under the threats – such as the Vatican being placed on the list of potential money-launders by the State Department – then the whole conservative movement suffers.  Those religious institutions who originally backed Obamacare should realize that a federal government capable of taking over one-sixth of the private sector is one capable of suppressing religious freedom.  The only answer is full repeal of Obamacare.  Even if Mr. Obama should relent and issue a waiver to religious institutions, those religious institutions must press for full repeal.  Mr. Obama lies and the waiver is not worth the paper it is printed upon.  Just ask Bart Stupak.

Fiscal conservatives must realize that the issue is not simply a social issue but strikes at the heart economic liberty.  Nor is it a losing issue.  Two weeks after the launch of the campaign, Obama is at his lowest in the polls and sinking fast.  The “distraction” has proved to be a potent issue against Mr. Obama.  Women are not the simpletons that Mr. Obama thought and his pandering to the leftists like Fluke only makes him more toxic to anyone but the radical left.

Evangelicals and Jews should also stand together against the federal mandates and against Obamacare.  It is not merely a Catholic issue.  The mandate already applies to all religious institutions.  But the danger goes even further.  A federal government that can dictate that Christians must sacrifice religious beliefs on the altar of “contraception” and “women’s health,” can also dictate that kosher meals are not in the interest of “children’s health.”

The issue is so serious that resistance to Obamacare should proceed even to the direct defiance of the law.  Religious institutions like the Catholic Church should not close the charities nor should they comply with the new regulations and thus compromise their faith.  Nor should they pay the fines that come with non-compliance.

The Catholic Church and its bishops should stand firm and defy the law and the subsequent fines.  The Catholic Church and its Protestant cousins operate according – or at least it should – to the will of God. The Church does charity because Christ commands it. The Church opposes the murder of innocent children because it violates God’s law. The state has no authority to contradict the commands of God. See also Acts 4 and Daniel 6.

The Church should make its intent to defy the law plain, accept responsibility for their actions, and then set a date to turn themselves into the Department of Justice for imprisonment. Call a press conference on that date and let the American people see the Catholic Council of Bishops present themselves for arrest rather than submit. Let the American people see Protestant leaders stand in solidarity and submit themselves for imprisonment.

I sit on a board of a related agency affected by the new regulations. I would rather go to jail than submit. I will stand with the Catholics and the Protestants – just give me a time and place.

My fear is not that Mr. Obama and his minions will succeed against the church.  The church has survived much worse.  Mr. Obama will soon end up on the ash-heap of history along with all those who set themselves in opposition to God.  My real fear is that the church will submit and not fight.  But even then, God will preserve a faithful remnant.  He always has.

From the diaries by Leon…

Let me begin with two brief qualifiers.  First, I believe in fiscal conservatism.  I am a 100% fiscally conservative believer in small government.  I also happen to be 100% in favor of social conservatism and a strong national defense.  So, in short, I am a Reagan conservative.  The following diary is not a critique of fiscal conservatism but rather those fiscal conservatives who continually bash social conservatives while at the same time asking for their vote.  Second, those aforementioned fiscal conservatives were not exactly loners.  They simply wanted social conservatives to shut up and move to the back of the bus.  Despite their rhetoric, they still very much need social conservatives to triumph at the ballot box.

Throughout 2010 and 2011, fiscal conservatives loudly proclaimed that the upcoming presidential election was their election.  Jobs, the economy, and small government would be the issue.  Now was not the time, we were told, for a divisive cultural war or social conservative issues so we needed to call a truce and work with like minded Democrats to get the economy going again.  Now, less than 10 months away from the general election, we find ourselves hoping for the Sweet Meteor of Death to save us from our own potential nominees.  Where did we go wrong?  The fault lies with the Fiscal Conservative “Go It Alone” strategy.

The strategy first failed us in the area of leadership.  Surprisingly, in the year tailored made – we were told – for fiscal conservatism, no fiscal conservative leader stepped forward to take up the mantle.  Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, etc. all shuck their heads and walked away.  Now, all three of our nominees can legitimately be called “big government” conservatives with establishment ties.  Way to go fiscal conservative leadership.

The strategy failed us again because it unnecessarily provoked a rivalry between fiscal and social conservatives.  Mitch Daniels provoked the struggle and ended his own candidacy with his call for a truce on social issues.  Others, here on RedState and elsewhere, have trumpeted that refrain.  Many fiscal conservatives [although not all] mocked and dismissed Rick Perry due to his social conservative credentials and for his call to prayer in Houston.  Articles abounded about how social conservatives were no longer a force in the Republican party.  Even a few days ago we saw articles about how Rick Santorum’s social conservatism was a liability that he had to overcome.  The rivalry was unnecessary.  It weakened the field.  And it helped pave the way for Romney.

Read More →

Why conservatives should not blindly endorse Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee.

1.  Mitt Romney is not a Conservative.  He does not deserve the designation as the conservative candidate.

2.  If conservatives endorse Romney, even reluctantly, he will take the mantle of conservatism and drag it through the mud for his own edification and advancement.  He will propose non-conservative measures in the name of conservatism and twist conservative principles to serve his personal quest for the Presidency.  As the standard bearer, he will bring dishonor and disrepute upon conservatism and those who supported him will be complicit in his actions.  He will damage the conservative image in the eyes of the general electorate.

3.  The electoral strategy of establishment Republicans and Mitt Romney depends upon the dutiful support of conservatives once the primaries are over.  He will run as a conservative in name only.  He will then, if elected [big if], govern as a conservative in name only.  Since many conservatives have sworn to support him regardless, why would he bother to move toward a more conservative position?  In pledging to blindly support the Republican nominee, conservatives have made themselves irrelevant beyond the primaries.

4.  The Republican establishment will continue to support and nominate liberal Republicans as long as conservatives blindly pledge their allegiance to the eventual nominee.  In past years, conservatives have made themselves irrelevant by adopting the “any Republican in the general election” mantra.  We can all remember the stellar performance of John McCain.  Ironically, when these stellar liberal Republicans lose, conservatives receive the blame and conservatism takes a hit.

5.  The Republican establishment and their liberal candidates are taking the country down the same path as the Obama administration.  We may go a little slower and by a slightly different route but the destination is still the same.

What should conservatives do if Mitt Romney wins the nomination?

1.  Oppose Mitt Romney.  The fact that Romney has won the primary does not mean that he has earned the conservative vote.  Until he has earned that vote, conservatives should remain in opposition to his candidacy.

2.  To earn conservative support, Romney should announce conservative nominees for his cabinet positions.  He should also develop and campaign on a conservative political and legislative agenda – not the current fluff he has advanced.  He should work with the current House of Representative to initiate legislation intended to repeal Obamacare and make the election a referendum on that repeal.  He should take the lead on current political issues and offer conservative solutions to those issues.  If Romney wants to convince conservatives that he will govern conservatively, then he needs to be the conservative leader now.

3.  Until Mitt Romney earns the conservative vote, conservatives must oppose Mitt Romney.

4.  If Mitt Romney does nothing to earn the conservative vote, conservatives must oppose Mitt Romney.  I would rather die on principle than bow the knee to the Republican establishment and lose with Mitt Romney.  For too many years, conservatives have had to accept the establishment big government liberal – pretend he is a conservative – and then see conservatism betrayed.

5.  Conservatism – not another liberal Republican – is the answer to the problems that face America.  Romney has not demonstrated that he will govern any differently than Obama.  He marches in lockstep with the President on issues of global warming, healthcare, and regulation.

6.  It is my earnest wish that Mitt Romney not become the Republican nominee.  If he does become the Republican candidate, then the Republicans will lose to Obama in 2012.  If conservatives endorse Romney and give him sanction, then it may be a defeat from which conservatism will need a lot of time to recover.

7.  If conservatism oppose Mitt Romney and he loses the general election, it will not be the fault of the conservatives.  It will be the fault of the Republican establishment who continues to give us Democratic-lite candidates.

In the Election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied for the Presidency.  [The U.S. still had to work the kinks out of its electoral system.]  The election went to the Federalist controlled House of Representatives where Burr actively campaigned for the nomination.  Alexander Hamilton held great sway over the Federalists and swung their voters toward Jefferson.  Although Hamilton disagreed vehemently with Jefferson, he had a greater distrust for Aaron Burr – a man he saw as a blatant opportunist who would do anything, say anything, to get elected.  Mitt Romney reminds me of Aaron Burr.

A Pre-Rebuttal to the Attacks Sure to Follow

1.  The post is not an endorsement for a third party.

2.  The post does not preclude conservatives from taking over the GOP from within.

3.  I will not respond to those attacking the fact that Mitt Romney is not a conservative.  We have covered that ground pretty thoroughly.  See the RedState Archive.

4.  The primary question the post addresses:  What do conservatives do if Mitt Romney is the nominee?  Thoughts along those lines are welcome.

A common question about Governor Rick Perry of Texas is whether or not he is a traditional three-pronged conservative – social, fiscal, and strong on defense.  While much has been said about his social and fiscal credentials, little has been written about his potential foreign policy.  Two recent events give us some insight into what that policy might look like.

First, on June 28, 20011, Perry sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder encouraging him to prosecute Americans who broke U.S. laws to participate in the then pending Gaza Flotilla against Israel.

“The acts of funding, supporting, organizing and engaging in these efforts appears to constitute participation in a naval expedition against a people with whom the United States is at peace, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 960; the furnishing of a vessel with the intent that it be employed to commit hostilities against a people with whom the United STates is at peace, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 962; and the provision of material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2339.  See, e.g., Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705 (2010).”

….

“I respectfully request that the U.S. Department of Justice take immediate steps to investigate, enjoin and bring to justice all parties found to be in violation of U.S. law by their participation in these efforts.”

It appears that if Perry is elected President, the American left will no longer be allowed to spread their leftist agenda abroad in violation of U.S. law and in support of terrorist organizations.  It also appears that Perry will be a friend to Israel in more than just words.

The second event occurred on July 7, 2011, when Texas executed Humberto Leal.  Leal was convicted of the 1994 rape and vicious murder – bludgeoned to death with a chunk of asphalt – of a teenage girl from San Antonio.  Leal, now 38 years old, had lived in the United States as an illegal alien since the age of 2.  The government of Mexico and President Obama appealed to Perry to stay the execution because Leal, as a Mexican citizen, should have been informed at the time of his arrest that he could seek legal assistance from the Mexican government.  The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, denied the White House backed request to block the execution.

No one argued that Leal was innocent.  In fact, he accepted responsibility and apologized for the crime.  The attempt to stay the execution was a clear attempt by the Obama administration to subordinate American laws and the legal system to international opinion and the scrutiny of foreign governments.  Perry remained firm in his resolve and let the legal system of Texas function without outside interference.  Granted, the governor of Texas is limited in what he can do in the matter, but Perry did refuse to bow to pressure from the administration and the Mexican government.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEXAS_EXECUTION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-07-07-19-36-52

——-

Taken together, Perry’s response to the Gaza Flotilla and the execution of Humberto Leal demonstrates a solid commitment to the rule of law and the sovereignty of the American system of governance.  I expect that under a Perry administration, the U.S. would once again stand with Israel against terrorist organizations in the Middle East and that our national sovereignty would outweigh international interests.

Let me make one thing clear at the start.  I am not comparing Terry Jones to Martin Luther King, Jr.  However, the rationale used by the city government of Dearborn, MI, to deny Jones a permit to protest at the Islamic Center of America makes it quite clear that the city would also condemn King’s 1963 protest in Birmingham, Alabama.

The city of Dearborn denied Jones a permit because it feared a violent reaction from the Muslim community.  According to local news reports found at: http://www.wxyz.com:

Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad denied the permit because of a concern over safety.  A prosecutor for Wayne County  supported the decision in court by arguing that “‘Just because we have the first amendment doesn’t mean you can say anything or do anything at any time.’  He then referenced the fact that you cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theater because that poses a danger to the people inside.”

Based upon the aforementioned criteria, are we to assume that Dearborn would also have denied a permit for King’s march in Birmingham?  After all, Police Chief Bull Connor would have had legitimate safety concerns about allowing King and other African Americans to march through the city in protest.  Perhaps the county attorney would have argued that the march posed a danger to the people of the town and to the marchers themselves.  Does Dearborn now stand in the proud tradition of Bull Connor and the Birmingham city government?

Whether intentional or not, Jones attempted protest adopted the same tactic that King used in Birmingham.  Many considered Birmingham the most segregated city in the country and racial violence was a real possibility.  King targeted the city because he wanted to demonstrate the ugly, loathsome side of racism.  He hoped to provoke the kind of response he got from Bull Connor because it was the only way to wake America up to the evil in its midst.  Until Americans saw Bull Connor unleash the dogs and turn the hoses on peaceful men, women, and children, racism did not hit home to most Americans.  In one day, that all changed.

I say let Jones protest at the Islamic Center of America and let us see how the religion of peace responds.  Let us see if Sharia Law or the U.S. Constitution rules here.

If the protests are peaceful, then so be it.  If the protests however provoke a Islamic riot, then let the American people see the true nature of Islam and Sharia Law.