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.

I just scanned through the majority opinion of Christian Legal Society V. Martinez, 08-1371 and found some very disturbing items. 

First, some background.  In September of 2004, the Christian Legal Society applied to Hastings College of Law (part of the University of California system) to become a Registered Student Organization (RSO).  Hastings denied the application because the CLS required its members and officers to sign a “Statement of Faith.”  The CLS bylaws excluded homosexual students and students from other religions from membership and leadership positions because those students failed to comply with the Statement of Faith.  It also excluded those who practiced sex outside of marriag and other actions that violated Biblical principles.  It did not exclude those students from participation in events – just from voting membership and leadership positions.  Hastings has a requirement that all RSO be open to all students regardless of religion or sexual orientation.  CLS appealed for an exemption from Hastings.  When Hastings denied the exemption, CLS sued Hastings for violating its constitutional right to free speech, association, and the free exercise of religion.  The Supreme Court by a 5 to 4 vote decided in favor of Hastings.  Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion.  Justices Kennedy and Stevens wrote concurring opinions.

Now for the disturbing logic of the majority.

1.  Adherence to a set of beliefs and a commitment that voluntary members of a group adhere to the beliefs of the group is harmful to intellectual development. 

Justice Ginsburg argued in her opinion that the exclusivity of CLS did not “contribute to the Hastings community and experience.”  Kennedy argued that such adherence to principles of faith stifled intellectual development on campus.  “The era of loyalty oaths is behind us.  A school quite properly may conclude that allowing an oath or belief-affirming requirement, or an outside conduct requirement, could be divisive for student relations and inconsistent with the basic concept that a view’s validity should be tested through free and open discussion.  The school’s policy therefore represents a permissible effort to preserve the value of its forum.” (p. 4) Kennedy most be applauded for consistency.  He has disregarded his own loyal oath to protect and defend the Constitution and he will now allow it in others.  I assume that perjury and treason charges will now be abandoned because they both require loyalty oaths.

2.  Hastings did not violate the rights of CLS because it still allowed them to function on campus with the use of some campus resources but without official sanction as a RSO.

Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Stevens all made much of the non-relevant point that Hastings allowed CLS access to venues for their events and to use of chalkboards and message boards around campus.  Their argument boiled down to the fact that separate but somewhat equal treatment of Christians was legal and constitutional.  No where did the justices rule that Hastings had to treat the CLS in such a way but all three applauded the treatment as showing the benevolence of the Hasting administration and the ingratitude of CLS.  I assume that we have returned to the days of Plessey v. Ferguson when separate but equal governed the segregation of the races.  Except now it is the Christian who can be treated as separate but somewhat equal.  Never mind that the Supreme Court has previously ruled that separate is inherently unequal.

3.  The general tone of dismissal and the vehemence of the majority toward Christians.

Ginsburg and Kennedy rejected the logical scenario that an organization which could not restrict membership or even leadership might be taken over by members who did not support and might actually be hostile to the stated goals and principles of the group.  They deemed it improbable and said that it was not Hastings responsibility to prevent such a scenario.

Ginsburg dismissed much of the complaint as without merit or even standing.  Kennedy, through his loyalty oath comment, indirectly compared Christianity to Joe McCarthy.  Justice Stevens compared the discrimination directly to discrimination against “Jews, blacks, and women.”  He bemoaned the fact that:  “A free society must tolerate such groups.  It need not subsidize them, give them its official imprimatur, or grant them equal access to law school facilities.” (p. 6)

4.  While the majority claimed to confine itself to a narrow ruling on the case, its rhetoric soared beyond the case and will have a larger impact on society.

Ginsburg argued:  “The First Amendment shields CLS against state prohibition of the organization’s expressive activity, however exclusionary that activity may be.  But CLS enjoys no constitutional right to state subvention of its selectivity.”  (p. 2) Subvention means endowment or subsidy.  Ginsburg argued that the state had a right to determine which groups it subsidized and which it did not with public tax dollars.  She did not rule out the fact that the state might even subsidize some exclusionary groups and not others.  The power of subsidy and official endorsement gives the state substantial influence over which groups will succeed and which will fail.  She made no apologies and denied that uneven “incidental effect” merited a constitutional challenge. 

In short, the highest court in the United States held, in an official court document that will set legal precedent, on June 28, 2010 that the adherence to traditional Christian beliefs stifled intellectual development and the free exchange of ideas, that adherence to said beliefs discriminated against fellow citizens in the same way as those who discriminate against Jews, blacks, and women, and that the government had the right to discriminate against those groups.

Will future attacks upon churches an other Christian organizations follow the same path?  Will their adherence to Biblical principles be called anti-intellectual, divisive and thus be deemed harmful to society?  Will their adherence to Biblical principles be called discriminatory and deemed on the level with race segregation, anti-semitism, and sexual discrimination?  Will the government use its power to reward compliance with its own directives to create counter groups deemed more constructive to society?  Christian Legal Society v. Martinez says yes and provides precedence for such action.

The police have in custody a suspect who confessed to starting the fire.  His name is Mohamed Amine Lahlou.  No word reported as yet on why he started the fire.  The damage to the motel is estimated at $1.5 million.

I do not want to jump to conclusions but such arson would fit the profile for the massive wave of individual attacks some strategists are expecting Al Qaeda to adopt in the near future.  A large number of first responders reported to the scene to assist in evacuating trapped quests and to stop the blaze.  They would have been sitting targets for snipers in the area.

Update:  Fox News in Austin are reporting that Lahlou is originally from Morocco and recently returned to Austin after being out of the country for eight years.  “Authorities do not believe that the fire was an act of terrorism.  They believe that Amin-Lahlou is emotionally distured and that the fire was a result of him acting out.”  – Yea, now my money is on terrorism.