Some of us may have been so focused on the differences between Rick Santorum (who I favor), Newt Gingrich and Mitt “etcha-sketch” Romney during this GOP Presidential primary, that you may not have noticed there’s a crowd out there which doesn’t care, because they hate us all the same.

For them, the “line in the dirt” is very clear and they are taking dead aim to all of us they see on the other side of that line from them.

Yes, they hate us, you and me and all of us, regardless of which of these three candidates we support.

To these haters, there’s not a “dime’s worth of difference between Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

To the haters there’s only two sides in this battle – and most people who are RED STATE and Human Events readers and who support any of these three candidates for President, are on the wrong side of the line, are the enemy.

And they hate us.

Which side of this line do you stand on?

The street protestors who hate all conservatives and Republicans but especially Rick Santorum – their “flavor of the month” lately, or on the other side from them?

I do not know if your mother or father ever told you they did not want you to be friends with someone you wanted to be friends with.  I had such a situation at a very young age.

I listened to my parents but I was really upset about it what I thought was unreasonable interference with my private life (makes me sound either very young or else, like a liberal or libertarian?).

Well, that kid ended up being arrested a few years later and went to jail.

Whereupon, it dawned on me that “there but for the grace of God” while true, is incomplete until you add, “and the choice my parents forced on me at that youthful age, of who I should NOT associate with.”

Harken.  (“listen well” for you youngsters, per Merriam Webster).  Therein lies a lesson.

For most of us today it is your choice, not your parents, who you associate with.  Who would that be?  It tells the world a lot about you, who your choice is.

We oldsters, not as well versed as the “now” generation with their “smartass” phones and their 2-thumb typing, their “social” media and their Facebooking, know something you might not have yet figured out.

You are who you hang out with.

Oh you can argue about that – but few argue with Plato’s old “perception appears to be reality” idea (popularized into what he did NOT say – perception is NOT reality it just appears so).

Your choice of friends, gives the appearance of WHO you really are.

Or as some who “bastardized” the original Plato might put it today, “your friends SAY WHO YOU ARE.”

As we listen to complaints from our libertarian friends about the surveillance and “information mining” (as it was called by Admiral John Poindexter who under our hero Ronald Reagan, first proposed it), that the “guvamint” is “collecting” information on all of us – and they are – the people who complain the loudest should HARKEN the most.

You are who you hang out with.

In today’s facebook age you go to someone’s facebook page and you see some real crazy people sometimes, on their facebook page as their “friends.”

What do you conclude about that person, whose page you are looking at?

If you are like me, a little older and “choosier” about who you might want to be friends with, you draw a conclusion – and in some cases you say OK, and accept their friend request – or even initiate it.

But in other cases you run like heck the other way – perhaps you click IGNORE (that is Facebookese for “no I do not accept”).  Or you go further in your flight and you click BLOCK (which means, we have each turned “invisible” to each other using the “Facebook” search).

But how many of those young people who laugh at us oldsters, how many of those libertarians worried about the “guvamint’s surveillance” of publicly available information – such as our Facebook page – have ever considered this question: WHO are your friends, and what does that tell the world about YOU?

I recently had one of my friends “refer” or recommend someone, using the Facebook mechanism, to become MY friend – I had but to do one “click” to accept the invitation and invite that person.

After looking at that referral’s facebook page, I wrote this, which I wanted to share with you (blocking out the name of the friend of mine who kindly suggested this for me).

“(name of my friend), just wanted to thank you for your recent “referral” but I must decline in this instance.  Although I am more of a “mainstream/full spectrum” conservative, people who identify themselves as a capital L libertarian (ie. Libertarian Party) tend to call people like me “neocons” and they especially hate the Christian-right.  It is not a mutual feeling, ie. I do not know any people on the Christian-right who ‘hate’ anybody, much less hate Libertarians. 

“But for an example of what people like this GET ANGRY ABOUT (ie. who you recommended to me), read my column of today.  The people who were there to jeer and express hatred towards Rick Santorum (Tues. nite in in Gettysburg, PA), as I report from eyewitness accounts, were BOTH the Libertarian (capital L libertarians) and the Occupy Wall Street, and from the perspective of any fair minded observer they are the same thing, they mingled together comfortably, and they hate the same thing/same people/same candidate. 

That would be my friends standing in the line to hear Rick.  And it includes (especially) Rick.  And it would include people like me, who gave a ‘fair and balanced and truthful’ report on what ‘Libertarians’ were up to yesterday. 

“So long as somebody identifies themselves as your friend did who you recommended to me, not as an open minded, fair minded, affable lower case ‘L’ libertarian that Ronald Reagan spoke of over 25 years ago but instead as a partisan, anti-conservative, Santorum-hating, capital ‘L’ libertarian, I am not interested in being publicly identified, not on Facebook and not anywhere else, as a ‘friend’ with such a person, or even of being associated with such a person in any way.  See my RED STATE column of today for specific reference  … and thank you again for thinking of me in making the referral, I do appreciate it.  -PAT HENRY”

Now the liberal left is big on the theory of “free speech” and the first amendment, although they never do read the entire text – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Notice it does not say there, that your “freedom of speech” is absolute?

Notice the First Amendment ALSO refers to our right to assemble, petition, and to practice our religion?

Notice most of all, it does say that I must give you a platform on my Facebook page to express YOUR views which oppose mine, nor do I have to give you access to MY FRIEND LIST so you can go spew forth onto them, views with which I don’t agree?

Most of all, notice that it does not say, you have the right to “pose” as if you were my friend – using Facebook – while you post on MY WALL and speak to MY FRIENDS, views I don’t at all agree with and don’t wish to be associated with?

It is one thing to be “friends” with someone who is for Rick Santorum while you are for Mitt Romney or for Newt Gingrich.  You might disagree on a few things and friends can do that but still remain respectful and amiable towards one another.  Especially if they say that they are Christians.

But when the core of your belief is that there’s no difference at all between the two political parties, that you want to stand side by side with Occupy Wall Street protesters expressing hate towards Rick Santorum and with those who are standing in line to hear him and see him – as happened at Gettysburg, PA, then it is time to draw a line, and see which side of that line you want to stand on.

Yes I know.  I’m not Colonel Travis, and last night was Gettysburg and Santorum, not Alamo and Davey Crocket.

But the line is there, nonetheless.  On this side of that line stand I, and most of those who support Santorum, Newt Gingrich and yes I do believe, Mitt Romney as well (even though many are far more moderate than those of us who support Rick or Newt).

Most of us are not at all Olympia Snowe Republicans (though some are) and if we live in Pennsylvania most of us didn’t agree with Santorum and didn’t vote for Arlen Specter as he suggested..

On the other side of this line, are those who stood with Occupy Wall Street last night in Gettysburg.  Who think it is great sport to brandish about – on their Facebook pages in some cases – the symbol of leftwing Occupy Wall Street – the terrorist Guy Fawkes’ mustachioed cartoon drawing or even the most “popular” image in the world (see wiki’s entry) of that other terrorist thug, Che Guevara.

They love that quote, those on THAT side of the line, about the blood of patriots and tyrants refreshing the tree of liberty (as did I until I kept seeing it on their pages), they sport photos of guns and knives and happily of themselves bearing it, of “speaking truth to power,” and “throwing them out” and even “resist.”

Sounds like the Black Panthers from the 1960′s so far?

They hate all GOPers, most often hate all conservatives who they say are just apologists for the wicked Republicans.  They say they cannot see any difference between the GOP and the Democrats.  It is all “the establishment” to them, all needs to be torn down and lets start anew.

They are for “power to the people” and most often have no clue that is exactly what the 1960′s leftists used to chant, and it is what the Occupy Wall Street crowd says, and why they are so comfortable with them, and with their rhetoric.

They don’t like you is an understatement because so many of them HATE you and they say it loud and clear.  And some of you my friends, are THEIR friends on Facebook because, I suppose you would say, you have “an open mind”?

When it comes to trash and filth and those tearing down America I must tell you plainly, I do not have an open mind at all.  My mind is very made up.

When it comes to protecting my wife, my family, my country and my faith, my mind is very, very made up.

And you and I my friend, should be far more “choosy” about these matters and about the friends we have – especially on place like “Facebook” where your choices very much help define WHO you are and what you stand for.

I’m very happy with the company I keep, here at RED STATE online and in what some of us still call “the real world” – the people that would NEVER be seen associating with the people on THAT side of the street in Gettysburg, PA.

It has nothing to do with Rick Santorum, who was there in Gettysburg on Tuesday night, nor with Mitt Romney nor with Newt Gingrich.

The sooner the supporters of these three candidates understand the real “line in the dirt” is not between us, but between all of us and those people in the street at Gettysburg last night, the sooner we can get back on track to throwing out of office those people who are destroying our country and defeating in primaries those who won’t stand up to them but wish to run away from battle.

Most of us here agree with the purpose of RED STATE – to help the most conservative, articulate and experienced candidate available win primaries and then help them win elections.

We can only win in general elections by defeating in primaries the wishy-washy “etcha-sketch” Republicans who RED STATE’s Erick Erickson warned us about – one of whom won renomination anyway on Tuesday in Illinois’s 16th Congressional District (A Case Study in Why Republicans Do Not Fear Conservatives).

That is what happens when we don’t stand together.  That is what happens when we say “oh I’m just too busy” instead of doing what several hundred people did this past Tuesday night – turn off their TV set, get out of their comfortable house and drive off – some drove a few hours – to stand up on the other side of the line from the Occupy Wall Street leftists and their hater-allies in Gettysburg.

The winner when we don’t stand together, are those people in the street at Gettysburg two nights ago – the Occupy Wall Streets, the direct descendants of the hateful radical left of the 1960′s, those who line us all up in their gunsights and say, “we do not see any difference between them.”

Despite some differences in primaries – and I do remain a steadfast supporter of Rick Santorum – the real “line in the dirt” is between us, and those who would either help, or stand to the side, while Barack Obama and his army tramples us to win reelection in 2012 and continue their “transforming” work on our beloved country.

Defriend them on facebook.  Stand apart from them.  Take issue with them.  They are not your friends and they think all of us are the same thing, all of us are “neocons” and all of us conservatives, are the same thing as the liberals.

They cannot tell the difference between conservative Senator Marco Rubio and leftist Senator Chuck Schumer.  The two parties are the same thing they keep chanting.  It is right there on their Facebook pages, and some of these people are listed as YOUR friend.

They are either stupid and/or misinformed or they are purposely lying with the purpose of destroying us, discrediting us, defeating us.

Either way, stand apart from them.

It is time for us to have a clear field of fire, regardless of which candidate for President each of us on THIS side of that line support.

Take a good look, at who is throwing the rotten eggs and tomatoes, the epithets and angry words at us.

It is clearly there to see.  In the street of Gettysburg this past Tuesday night.

On the pages of Facebook, all over the internet, at hate sites like Daily Kos and at the Facebook pages of those who echo that hatred and that defamation of conservatives and in some cases use the material from the leftwing hate sites to attack conservatives.

Take a good look at those who hate us, and then make a decision.  And then I pray, you will do something about it.

As for me and my house, we serve the Lord, and we stand with Ronald Reagan in urging, “hold up that banner of no pale pastels but of bold and vibrant colors.”  The Colors of concerned Christians who will not lay aside our faith when we step into the public square.  The colors of conservatives, proud of our country’s heritage and determined to preserve all that is good.

We did terribly in Illinois watching conservative Don Manzullo go down to defeat in a primary at the hands of a GOP “regulars” candidate.

As Erick Erickson said, so often, conservatives “won’t pony up for their own. (therefore we are) Paper Tigers… desk ornaments, not cause for concern.”

Men of the West, to echo Tolkien’s King, make your stand now.

Oh.  And as for a choice of friends?

Were I there this past Tuesday night I’d have happily stood on the Santorum side of the line, and this weekend, I’ll be there with Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney’s emissary Gov. Nikki Haley at the PA Leadership Conference.  Stand with me there in Harrisburg, now and onward, and I’ll happily be friends with most anybody there.

Stand with me, with RED STATE activists, on this side of that line in the dirt.

HanoverHenry is Pat Henry on Facebook, and I’m on the lookout for new friends there.

Links to articles I wrote at RED STATE at my Facebook Notes section.

State Rep. Scott Perry, endorsed by many area state legislators to fill the seat of retiring 6 term U.S. Congressman Todd Platts, has withdrawn his support for the “Women’s Right to Know Act,” a bill in Pennsylvania similar to the one passed in Virginia and six other states to force Planned Parenthood to show the ultrasound image they usually do, to the mother whose baby they are about to abort.

It may be the first crack in the frontrunner’s campaign to sew up conservative support for his bid for higher office, even as his new position appears to satisfy his liberal critics.

The ultra sound for a mother is considered important to confirm the presence of a baby as well as its age before an abortion is done.

Planned Parenthood, which is heavily subsidized with federal taxpayer funds and is the leading provider of abortions in America, has already admitted that it already does do these ultrasounds.

But, they don’t want to be required by law to share the image with the expectant mother, fearing that some of the mothers will change their mind and abort the abortion and cause Planned Parenthood a loss of fees.  Apparently, the mother’s “right to choose” does not extend to any “right to the ultrasound image.”

So they have gone all out once again – Planned Parenthood and their liberal-left allies and Democratic Party leaders, to change this into a “women’s rights” issue instead of what it is – a woman’s “right to know” which imposes a requirement on the abortion mill to share information with the woman before it is too late.

Once again the liberal left is saying that “the Christians are trying to impose their religion on us” and the Christians are saying that it is about the rights of the mother and the rights of the baby and about basic safety and informed consent – all NOT religious issues but common sense and issues of very basic right and wrong.

It is of course, not unusual for a Republican legislator under fire from leftists just before an important vote, to withdraw his support and either abstain or vote with the liberals.

After all, what politician wants to have anybody angry at them, particularly in an election year?

One conservative columnist back during the Iran Contra controversy noted that some of President Reagan’s hitherto strongest supporters in Congress turned out to be “summer sunshine soldiers” who turned tail and “ran for the tall grass” as soon as battle was under way to tear down their President.

But what is unusual about this particular withdrawal from the field of battle is that military veteran, State Rep. Scott Perry, won the straw poll at last month’s candidate’s forum with 85% favorable rating by the 150 attendees of Americans for Christian traditions in Our Nation, to fill the open seat of retiring 6 term Congressman Todd Platts (R-PA).

Several of my close friends and sources were very impressed with him and gave Perry a “4″ rating and a few even gave him the top rating of “5″ (out of 1 to 5 score each voter could cast for each of the 7 candidates who spoke).

My quick survey of several of them confirmed my suspicion – they are horrified that the candidate who they gave the victory to, and who happily uses that victory on his campaign webpage, has now reversed himself on this issue so important to them.

And so less than 30 days after his victory at the candidates’ forum of the most conservative-Christian group in the district, this self described “pro-life” candidate for Congress, State Rep. Scott Perry, under pressure from the left, has withdrawn his support for the pro-life bill that is at the top of the conservative-Christian group’s agenda for passage in the state legislature in Harrisburg.

And what is ALSO unusual is that Perry is running in one of the “reddest” of red Congressional districts in the country, the 19th district in south central, Pennsylvania, which reelected GOP incumbent Todd Platts to his 6th term in 2010 with a victory margin of 72% to 23% (an independent candidate got 5%).

Rep. Perry, who is actually my “Facebook friend” (perhaps not, after he reads this), hopes to earn the votes of very conservative voters – as he did at ACTION of PA last month – to win the GOP nomination against six candidates for this “open seat”

All seven of the declared candidates are claiming title to the “most conservative candidate” mantle to win the GOP nomination contest to run, and be virtually assured of election afterwards.

This column in RED STATE, perhaps the first such open criticism from an independent but conservative source, is not Scott Perry’s only problem though, regarding this issue and his retreat from the conservative-GOP battle line.

On the very day (Sunday evening/Monday morning) that I was preparing this I was sent a link by the same source which has reported to me on the very strong stand of the Roman Catholic Church in general and by Father Samuel E. Houser of St. Patrick’s Church in York, PA.

You  may recall that I have written of this pastor, one of many in York County and across America who the parishioner of his called a “profile in courage” in introducing him at a recent Pastor’s breakfast organized by Pastor Ken Gibson and sponsored by Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation (ACTION of PA) York chapter.

And I learned of yet another “call to arms” from the pulpit and in their newsletter, from Father Houser to his parishioners, to write letters to the editor and to their State Representative, on this very issue that I had already decided to write about this morning.

Father Houser said the local newspaper published three letters to the editor against the bill in a single day, none from our side.  He called for his constituents to telephone their state representatives.

Although Father Houser’s weekly bulletin did not speak of Rep. Scott Perry (yet), he did single out for criticism State Rep. Ron Marsico and State Rep. Glen Grell, who were originally co-sponsors of the “Women’s Right to Know” bill but who have now withdrawn in the face of the onslaught from Planned Parenthood supporters.

Father Houser also shared with his congregation the “life news” website urging them to learn more about why this is such an important issue for Christians.

But Father Houser is just one of the “angry Catholics” on the march (see my earlier column on this, subheaded “Here Come the Angry Catholics“).

Father Houser also echoes the call of his Bishops for a “Day of Prayer, Fasting and Abstinence for Religious Liberty” on Friday, March 30, dedicated to the “preservation of religious liberty” which many Catholics feel is presently under the worst attacks in American history.

Father Houser and the Bishops of Pennsylvania ask that we all join together on March 30 in prayer, fasting and abstinence (no meat and one major meal for the day and liquids or broths – or if necessary one or two very light snacks/meals in addition to the one major meal).

The “angry Catholics” are marching, fasting and praying to ask that their Church – and all Churches – be given back the “right to practice what she preaches, and for our political leaders, that their eyes may be opened to the rights of all Americans, including those of faith.”

Father Houser’s newsletter reports that there are 3 million Catholics in Pennsylvania, and he and other pastors are doing thier share to register them to vote, and to make sure that they vote “for candidates who share our ideals.”

Ominously for those who do NOT share the ideals of Christians like Father Houser, last Sunday the Catholic Pastor reported that he had run out of voter registration forms.  He was immediately provided an additional supply by a member of his congregation who is a member of ACTION of PA.

Father Houser goes to great pains to be certain his “call to arms” is kept non-partisan and does not favor or oppose any party, saying “religious liberty does not belong to the Democrats or Republicans, it belongs to all Americans.

His newsletter criticizes those who have attacked the Church’s stand, saying “we cannot, as a Church, be silent because some have sought to politicize our plight.”

Father Houser urges in this Sunday’s newsletter that those who wish to respond to his call should immediately visit www.pacatholic.org to send a message to state legislators in support of conscience rights for all Americans.

While the original ire of Christian pastors like Father Houser and ACTION of PA York Chapter Chairman Pastor Ed Gibson were provoked by the “ObamaCare” edict of February 10, they are very determined that the “Women’s Right to Know” bill – HB 1077, should be passed or else the names of those who vote against it should be known to their congregations, as was discussed in their recent “Pastor’s Lunch” (see my recent column).

While the news of Rep. Perry’s defection from the ranks of those supporting this “Women’s Right to Know” appears not to have yet reached Pastor Gibson and Pastor Houser at this writing, all indications are that they will not be “happy campers” when they learn that he has joined defectors, State Rep. Glen Grell and Rep. Ron Marsico – the total I have as of this writing is 28 defectors – in withdrawing from this battle.

But since he is seeking a “promotion” to go the U.S. House of Representatives, I anticipate it will be a great shock when conservatives and Christian activists learn that Rep. Scott Perry has withdrawn from this battlefield rather than been one of the leaders in one of the most critical battles of the year for values voters specifically, and for conservatives in Pennsylvania in general.

House Bill 1077 is rather straightforward.  But Planned Parenthood doesn’t like ANY restrictions on their power to abort babies and keep the expectant mother in the dark until it is too late.  The bill’s introduction states, that it is:

An Act providing for ultrasound test requirements to determine gestational ages of unborn children; establishing the right to view ultrasound image and ultrasound video of unborn child and the right to observe or hear the fetal heartbeat; providing for powers and duties of the Department of Health and for duties of physicians performing abortions; requiring certain reports to be filed with the Department of Health; imposing administrative sanctions and criminal penalties; and providing for remedies.

Of course the far left opposition has gone hysterical in their attacks, trying to make this into a “woman’s rights” issue as they aim to block information from being presented to the expectant mother so they can rush through another abortion and another fee.

In Virginia, legislators also faced this kind of deluge of email, phone calls and mail from angry leftists whose superior social networking strength was galvanized into action by an alliance of liberal left and Democrat organizations and leaders.

Those Virginia state legislators in marginal districts were especially vulnerable to such public pressure and some of them did in fact, retreat in the face of this one-sided avalanche before the “right to know” forces prevailed and the Governor signed the bill into law.

I am in part inspired to write this because of the March 9 column written by Red State editor Erick Erickson, about another candidate that everyone thought was a real conservative in 2010 when he ran for Congress.

and, Erick was even MORE forceful on the same subject in his March 14th column, “A Case Study in Why Republicans Do Not Fear Conservatives.”

Erick reports on how Tea Party and other conservative forces united behind Kinsinger and sent him to Washington two years ago.

Today that candidate, Rep. Adam Kinsinger, has earned a lousy 63% rating from the conservative Heritage Action – almost a match for GOP House whip Eric Cantor’s rating.

Both Congressmen – leader Cantor and his acolyte Kinsinger, use plenty of conservative rhetoric but they vote liberal about 40% of the time.

As Eric Ericson wrote about Cantor and the GOP House leadership, who this new Congressman kept aligning himself with during his freshman term, “ridiculed conservatives opposed to Planned Parenthood.”

Would State Rep. Scott Perry fit right in with that crowd who vote “right” just 40% of the time, and go with the liberals any time it is expedient or difficult to stand with the conservatives?

Would he follow the Adam Kingsinger model, to say what the conservatives want to hear to sweep past the other six candidates for the GOP nomination in this strongly conservative-Republican district but then go to Washington and vote far more moderate than anyone who voted for him ever suspected?

I hold no brief for any of the other candidates, and in fact, never even heard of any of them until I reported on the York County Action of PA breakfast “candidate’s forum” last month, where I served a member of the “Host Committee” for the event.

I am simply alarmed after seeing this retreat by State Rep. Scott Perry, and am influenced by the “call to arms” of both Red State editor Erick Erickson, and of Father Samuel E. Houser.

In Illinois, Rep. Adam Kinsinger has been gerrymandered into a district with another Republican Congressman, Don Manzullo.  So he now faces a challenger and possible “chastisement” for his liberal voting record and for abandoning conservatives on so many votes.

Congressman Manzulo’s 92% ACU rating contrasts strongly with Congressman Kinzinger’s 72% rating from ACU and the 63% rating from the influential and respected Heritage Action (which has a Facebook page for PA).

In another marked contrast, Eric Erickson reports the more liberal Kinsinger earned a meager 56% from the Club for Growth versus the 85% score for his primary opponent now, Rep. Don Munzullo.

Eric Erickson asks in his first column, “if we are unwilling to stand up for a man who stands up for conservatives… then why should we ever expect any man to stand with the movement against the party?”

Erickson flat out says in his second column, “By any measure, Manzullo is far more conservative.”

Yet the support from conservatives for the far more conservative Congressman isn’t materializing and Congressman Don Manzullo may lose to the more liberal candidate with the Republican “regulars” help.

I ask, if we give an 85% vote approval vote to State Representative Scott Perry who then abandons us in his previously announced support for House Bill 1077 to force Planned Parenthood to let expectant mothers see the ultrasound bill before they kill that baby, how can we expect him to stand with us on more critical and more controversial measures in the future?

And if we cannot expect Rep. Scott Perry to stand with us when an overwhelming majority of his own GOP caucus in the Pennsylvania state legislature are standing firm in the face of this deluge of email, phone calls and mail targeting Republican legislators who support House bill 1077, what will we do when the more “moderate” (ie. liberal) GOP House leadership signals it is OK to cave and abandon us?

Reports from my friends who heard him, say State Rep. Scott Perry gave a tremendous presentation at the candidate’s forum last month and has a generally very conservative rating, and much to recommend him as a candidate for Congress.

But will one of the most conservative districts in the country be represented by someone who the forces supporting Planned Parenthood know can be pressured to leave them alone to go about their “abortion work” free of restriction and free to keep the the pregnant women in the dark until it is too late – will he be the winner of the upcoming GOP primary to run in this safe seat?

In my view, the 19th district of retiring Representative Todd Platts, is going to be represented by a strong pro-life Congressman after the incumbent retires at the end of 2012.

Whether my new Congressman will be State Rep. Scott Perry because he swings back into line with those he calls his friends, or by someone else who defeats him in the primary by calling attention to his retreat from our battle line in this fight, remains to be seen.

My sources report that Planned Parenthood’s supporters on the far left have generated far more email and phone calls to state legislators pressuring them to retreat from this battle, to back off, and to not require them to do the ultrasound which they already DO as routine – and to share a look at what the baby about to be aborted looks like, to the mother – the same sort of requirement passed in Virginia and in 6 other states already.

As Erick Erickson asks at RED STATE, are we conservatives going to be a paper tiger or are we going to show – as I’d like to put it – that our BITE is going to be just as strong as our BARK which I am sounding in this article?

And as Father Samuel E. Houser urges in yesterday’s newsletter, “Our freedom and liberty must be preserved.  And in this effort, we must remain steadfast.”

I salute Rep. Perry for his continuing service to America as a Colonel of the Pennsylvania National Guard and in Bosnia and Iraq.  I honor him for his readiness to stand on that battle line for us all, and I thank his wife and his two daughters for their sacrifice as well.

His courage in military service is not in doubt in my mind.  Pennsylvania State Representative Perry’s  willingness to stand fast in this battle to immediately pass House Bill 1077, is. You can let him know if you agree with me by writing to him at repscottperry@gmail.com.

Tell Rep. Perry, as Father Houser asked, “stand fast.”  Or as I’d prefer to say, “don’t run for the tall grass,” the battle for HB 1077 is on – lead, follow or get out of our way.

HanoverHenry is Pat Henry on Facebook, and I’m on the lookout for new friends there.

Links to articles I wrote at RED STATE at my Facebook Notes section. 

What I admire about Andrew Breitbart, the internet/blog conservative pioneer who passed away yesterday morning, is exactly what I admire most about Richard A. Viguerie, Bruce Eberle, William Rusher, Marvin Liebman, Jerry Falwell.

The latter are pioneers who combined direct marketing and fundraising technology, organizing skills with issues to help create the modern day conservative movement to challenge the radical leftwing which threatens to destroy America.

These early pioneers, working in the 1950′s, 1960′s and 1970′s showed others how you can raise the money, recruit the volunteers, hire the talent and carry the battle to the liberal foe and engage them on more equal terms.  This platform from which I post these words is an example of what I mean – Erick Erickson and his RED STATE band have found a way to make money, which they can use to expand their platform, including his stint at CNN as a regular commentator.  If he didn’t have that ability to attract capital – to make money in plain English – then I and all of us who write here would not have this platform to do our little bit to help advance our cause.

Those who began this work in the 1950′s, 1960′s and 1970′s were able to earn a living while building a movement that eventually helped defeat the left in pitched election battles.  Those victories were considered unthinkable in the 1950′s when William Rusher as Publisher helped William F. Buckley launch National Review and the modern day conservative movement.

Like Rusher, Viguerie, Eberle, Liebman and others – unknown and unsung heroes of our cause who paid attention to the often mundane details of organization – including fundraising, aka “paying the bills,” Andrew Breitbart helped show the way, in his case with internet and social media, combining the newer technology with the proven methods of the past to advance our conservative cause and do battle with the increasingly malicious, vicious, file and militant radical left in America.

Like his forbears in our cause whose cause he moved forward, Andrew Breitbart raised the money, paid his bills, expanded his empire to further amplify his voice, and was able to speak truth to power relentlessly.

Unlike his forbears, Andrew Breitbart in the age of the internet, was vilified more relentlessly and viciously than any conservative – in direct proportion to his successes in challenging the left’s media monopoly, particularly on the internet.

In all of these worthy website and internet endeavors, as his conservative organization forebears did, Andrew Breitbart maintained the balance between mastering the technology and the business side, while keeping his focus on those means to his end, advancing our cause and challenging the hitherto leftwing media and communications monopoly in America.

Andrew Breitbart spoke “truth to power” both cheerfully and fearlessly, but the point so many overlook is, he did it while making money he could use to constantly and continuously expand his efforts and set an example for others to follow, who did.

This is the most important part about the legacy of Andrew Breitbart – not that he “spoke fearlessly” but that, like those whose example he followed, Andrew Breitbart himself set an example and raised the bar for the rest of us in the world of communications to influence our fellow Americans to resist the radical left, follow “the better Angels” of our nature and make America a better place and to enjoy every minute of it, as do I in filing these dispatches.

I salute my fellow warrior for our cause, who has been both a writer/spokesman as well as an astute businessman in the free market, showing how his standing up to the left and offering his own alternative conservative ideas can pay the bills, win some victories and inspire many more good conservatives to step forward to follow his example.

I feel confident that God Almighty Himself will make Andrew Breitbart most welcome for having fought the good fight, run the good race and earned his place in Eternity.  Our prayers to His family who, when the shock of his passing have faded, will I hope, smile as they consider the influence he has earned for his ideas, and the future successes that those of us inspired by him, will fight for and win.  Thank you Andrew Breitbart and now, your work done here, the inspiration of so many of us to carry on, may you rest in peace.

I have been a devoted follower, believer, and reader of Red State for years. I have consistently scoured the site to read pieces that the main stream media often ignores.

Recently, I wish I had not. Up until now, I have always read Erick Erickson’s articles with great anticipation. Now, I’m saddened to see he has compromised himself.

His vitriolic piece against the GOP playing field struck me as stunning and shocking. Is Erik now advocating for Barack Obama?
It is almost laughable if it were not so spot on. His ability to take cheap and unfair shots at our roster only undermines our candidates and does nothing other than to alienate voters from beating Barak. We as Republicans may support one of the many candidates and may disagree on who to support. Having said that, we know Ronald Reagan counseled us to be mindful of the 11th Commandment and to never criticize fellow Republicans.

Did Erick miss the memo? Or did he try to damage Romney, Gingrich, or Perry with his misleading piece.

He attempts to make the case against any of these candidates and draws out why they can’t beat Barack. He has essentially added fuel to the fire for Democrats to a lack of unity and for allegedly one of our own trying to draw out possible flaws of candidates.

Since Erick attempts to shed some light on candidate’s flaws, perhaps it fair game we shed some light on how Erik has conducted himself:

ERICKSON PRIORITIZES FINANCIAL INTERESTS OVER HIS BELIEFS

Erickson Changed His Position On Supporting Insurgent Virginia Senate Candidate Jamie Radtke Because The Owners Of Red State Are “Huge Allen Friends.” “A leading conservative blogger and commentator, Erick Erickson, said he shifted his stance in a key Senate race because the company that publishes his RedState.com is ‘socially connected’ to former Virginia Sen. George Allen. Erickson told Allen’s challenger, Jamie Radtke, that he had to moderate his support for her because ‘my bosses are huge Allen friends,’ according to an email he sent earlier this month, which her campaign manager forwarded to POLITICO.” (POLITICO, 8/24/2011)

ERICK ERICKSON – “My bosses are huge Allen friends, not just fans. They are socially connected. So I’m having to tread carefully in this. Happy to help, but it’s got me in a difficult position. So please come and let me introduce you to people, but just understand that I have to be delicate for now.” (POLITICO, 8/24/2011)

ERICKSON IGNORED HIS DUTY AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL WHILE TAKING TAXPAYER-FUNDED SALARY AND PERKS

Erickson Quit His Post As A Macon, Georgia City Councilmember Because He Received A Better Time Slot For His Radio Show

❖  In February 2011, Erickson Resigned His Spot On The Macon, Georgia City Council After Less Than One Term. “After serving less than one term, Erick Erickson is leaving Macon City Council for an earlier time slot for a radio show he began hosting last month. … He sent a resignation letter to Mayor Robert Reichert and Council President Miriam Paris, copied to senior city staff, Wednesday morning.” (Macon Telegraph, 2/17/2011)

If Erikson wishes to detail perceived challenges candidates may face in defeating Obama, I’d suggest he looks in the mirror and he’ll discover endless blemishes.