Politics

Back when Michele Bachmann was the GOP’s flavor of the month, three Religious Right leaders formed a Super PAC to bolster Bachmann’s fledgling campaign. Kenneth Blackwell, the former Ohio Secretary of State, failed gubernatorial nominee and unsuccessful candidate to be chairman of the Republican National Committee, was to chair the pro-Bachmann Citizens for a Working America. In fact, the announcement came just days after Rick Perry entered the presidential race.

How times have changed. Today, Blackwell switched sides and is now endorsing Rick Perry:

Ken Blackwell, the former Republican Secretary of State of Ohio and one time candidate for Governor who lost against Democrat Ted Strickland in 2006, has endorsed Texas Gov. Rick Perry for President.

“I am proud to endorse Texas Gov. Rick Perry for president,” said Blackwell in a release from the Perry campaign. “Gov. Perry’s successful record of job creation shows that he has the skill, experience and ideas necessary to get our nation working again. His proven conservative values, and his proven executive experience are exactly what this country needs to reverse the failed policies of the Obama Administration.”

Blackwell’s endorsement comes just as Perry’s campaign is having a second roll-out following a major slip in the polls as a result of dreadful debate performances and other missteps. Bachmann’s poll numbers have also dropped significantly as Herman Cain, for now, has emerged as Mitt Romney’s closest rival. But with Cain flubbing and flip-flopping even straight-forward questions on abortion rights and gay rights and Bachmann’s campaign running low on support, staffers and funding, it may be time that establishment figures in the Religious Right rally behind Perry as their choice.

Coverage of the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit this year was dominated by stories of Robert Jeffress’ criticism of the Mormon faith; Bryan Fischer’s unabashed bigotry; and the infighting that rose to the surface when Bill Bennett rebuked Jeffress and Mitt Romney, tepidly and not by name, denounced Fischer. The press coverage of the Religious Right conference was so completely focused on Jeffress and Fischer that the FRC even asked members to pray that the media will stop reporting on the story.

Today FRC president Tony Perkins used his radio alert today to defend Jeffress, who made it clear that Romney’s Mormon faith was a reason he endorsed his chief rival, Rick Perry. “His rational; all else being equal a Christian leader is to be preferred over a non-Christian,” Perkins said, “I whole heartedly agree.”

Listen:

Do you have the freedom to choose between Christian and a non-Christian candidate? Hello, this is Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. Texas pastor Robert Jeffress created a firestorm when he declared at the Values Voter Summit he was voting for Rick Perry because he was a Christian. His rational; all else being equal a Christian leader is to be preferred over a non-Christian. I whole heartedly agree. So did the first justice of the Supreme Court John Jay who said it was in the "interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Many so-called journalists have gone apoplectic claiming such a bigoted position violates article 6 of the Constitution, how absurd. The article reads, “Congress may not require religious tests for an office." The Constitution restricts what the government can require, not what individuals can consider. If voters can consider a candidate's party and that party's platform, they can consider a candidate’s religion and the tenets of that faith. We should prefer mature, qualified Christians for public office over those who reject the orthodox teachings of scripture.

This prompts the question: how would Tony Perkins feel about the competence of a Jewish leader over a Christian one? Perkins and the Religious Right always talk about their Judeo-Christian coalition and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who is Jewish, addressed the Values Voter Summit and is seen as a rising star in GOP circles. So much for that.

And would it impact Perkins’ decision in the Republican primary? During the Jeffress spat, Perkins told CNN’s John King that he does not consider Mormons to be Christians: “Well, let me say this, John. I do not see Mormonism as the same as Christianity. Now, whether it’s defined as a cult, I don’t know. I would say it’s not Christianity the way evangelicals view Christianity. There’s a distinction. There’s no question there’s a theological distinction between Mormonism and Christianity.”

If Perkins thinks that Christians should be given preference over non-Christians, and that Mormons are not Christians, is there any difference between his view and Jeffress’ view on Romney’s candidacy?

Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation warned members that President Obama is making the military far weaker through his controversial use of drones. While the use of drones has sparked controversy, they were essential in the killing of Col. Muammar Gaddafi and Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, and in monitoring Osama bin Laden.

Phillips explains that Obama’s increased use of drones is a result of liberals’ aversion to military action. “Drones are great for a cowardly President,” Phillips writes, “He can order the drone to hit a target and if there is success, he can claim the glory for it and if the drone fails, there is no captured American pilot or the corpse of an American pilot to be paraded about on TV.” Phillips derides liberals for supposedly not caring about the military and claims they are only determined to protect the reputation of a “liberal president”:

Obama is a many singularly devoid of his own accomplishments. There are types of men who must build their legacy on the acts of others. Obama is one of those. His legacy of war is not only dangerous but opens the door for America’s defeat.

What is his legacy?

Obama’s primary military legacy is the use of UAV’s or drones. Drones are great for a cowardly President. He can order the drone to hit a target and if there is success, he can claim the glory for it and if the drone fails, there is no captured American pilot or the corpse of an American pilot to be paraded about on TV.

In Obama’s military, gone are the swaggering fighter jocks of Top Gun or World War Two. Instead, Obama warfare is little more than a very expensive video game.

…

Under the Obama Defense Department, unmanned vehicles are the flavor of the day. Unmanned vehicles do have their uses, but as our primary military strike tool, they leave a lot to be desired.

Of course, for liberals, there is only one consideration with the military. In liberal land, the military must never be a political embarrassment for the liberal President. Yes, they can be around to transport the President. Yes they can be around for disaster relief. But if there is a military operation, they had better not screw up and end up with collateral damage or Americans captured or killed.

That is why Obama and the left love drones so much.

…

Liberals never ask the important question about defense. What are our threats and how do we defend ourselves? Instead, defense is always a political question. How do we have defense without “embarrassing” the liberal President? The answers they come up with are always wrong.

By relying on technology alone, without American airmen and soldiers actually doing the fighting, Obama is creating a legacy like his liberal predecessors.

A hollow defense that may not serve America in her time of need.

• Tanya Somanader @ Think Progress Justice: Herman Cain Compares Social Security To Slavery.

 

• Eric Hananoki @ County Fair: Pat Buchanan Won't Disavow Idea That Minorities Have Inferior Genes.

 

• Joe My God: Dominionism & The Mayor Of Vallejo CA.

 

• Jillian Rayfield @ TPM: GOPer Apologizes For Saying A Woman Should Be ‘A Whore’ In the Bedroom.

 

• Kevin Drum @ Mother Jones: Rich People Create Jobs! And five other myths that must die for our economy to live.

 

• Sarah Posner @ Religion Dispatches: Dems' New Faith Outreach Director "Pro-Life" and Against Marriage Equality.

During an interview with Piers Morgan on Wednesday, Herman Cain ignited controversy by stating that homosexuality is a choice and presenting an incoherent view on abortion: that he is against abortion rights but that “it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision.” In the same interview, Cain also repeated his claim that he never said he’d ban Muslims in his administration if elected president:

Morgan: You got into hot water about the whole issue of Muslims in a potential cabinet.
Cain: Yes.
Morgan: And you have kind of flip-flopped a bit. I think you would concede, you've backtracked, haven't you?
Cain: Well, you media people call it flip flopping.
Morgan: What would you call it?
Cain: I call it explaining the intent of my comment.
Morgan: Back tracking.
Cain: You either flip-flop or backtrack. It's either all or nothing.
Morgan: Initially, it appeared to be that you were saying you wouldn't feel comfortable, your words, with having a Muslim in a cabinet.
Cain: Exactly. And this is an example of where I spoke to quick because I'm thinking about extremists, not all Muslims. I do recognize there are peaceful Muslims and there are extremists. At the moment that I was asked that question, I wasn't thinking about peaceful Muslims.

Cain was referring to an interview with Think Progress in which he first said that he “would not” be comfortable with appointing a Muslim to his Cabinet. But it wasn’t a one-time comment. Almost a month after the Think Progress interview, Cain doubled down, telling the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, “I wouldn't have Muslims in my administration.” While Cain told Morgan that he regretted that he “spoke too quick” about Muslims, he took the exact opposite approach in his interview with Fischer, complimenting himself for not caring what the media and even his own campaign staff thought about his ban on Muslims:

Cain: I have been upfront, which ruffles some feathers, but remember Bryan, being politically correct is not one of my strong points; I come at it straight from the heart and straight from the way I see it. And the comment that I made the become controversial, and that my staff keeps hoping will die, is that I wouldn't have Muslims in my administration. And it's real simple: the Constitution does not have room for sharia law. I want people who are going to believe and enforce the Constitution of the United States of America. And so I don't have time, as President of the United States, to try and screen people based upon their religious beliefs - I really don't care what your religious beliefs are, but I do know that most of the people of the Muslim faith, they believe in sharia law. And to introduce that element as part of an administration when we have all of these other issues, I think I have a right to say that I won't.

• It seems that Sen. Marco Rubio's compelling life story was made so compelling thanks to embellishments and false claims.

 

• Herman Cain continues to demonstrate exactly how easy it is to run for president when you have no qualms about just making stuff up when people start pointing out that you have no idea are talking about.

 

• And Cain can do so because his fans blindly see him as the second-coming of Ronald Reagan.

 

• Rena Lindevalvdsen says "the goal of the activist homosexual agenda is to completely silence or eradicate those who speak and stand for Truth."

 

• Every once in a while, Bryan Fischer manages to outdo even himself with the inanity of his arguments.

 

• Finally, the quote of the day from the Alliance Defense Fund's Brian Raum: "We should not turn a blind eye to the physical and mental harms that people engaged in homosexual conduct bring upon themselves by chalking those harms up to 'stigma, discrimination, and victimization'—demanding more health studies and changes to the medical system—rather than dare ask people to reconsider the path they are traveling down. Instead, we tell them 'it gets better' when, in fact, it does not."

• Lynda Waddington @ The Iowa Independent: Iowa Renewal Project plans second 2011 Des Moines faith, politics event.

 

• Towleroad: PA Professor Who Called Lesbian Student 'Disgusting' and 'Abnormal' Told Another Gay Student He Would 'Burn in Hell.'

 

• Bruce Wilson @ Talk To Action: IHOP Head Mike Bickle Predicts Coming "Prison Camps" For Jews.

 

• Steve Benen: Humor is Hard, Redux.

 

• Nick @ Bold Faith Type: Herman Cain and Common Sense Jesus.

 

• Andy Birkey @ Minnesota Independent: Bachmann, Trump: Countries the U.S. invaded should give up their oil.

 

• Andrew Sullivan: Standing Up To Rush Limbaugh.

 

• Conor Friedersdor @ The Atlantic: Why Speak Up When Rush Limbaugh Lies?

• Bill Dononhue says that if Rick Perry doesn’t denounce Robert Jeffress by the end of the week “his campaign will be in serious trouble.”

• Meanwhile, Jeffress falsely claims “that there has never been a church in American history that has ever lost its tax-exempt status,” while the not self-aware pastor attacks Barry Lynn for seeking “publicity.”

• WorldNetDaily’s Jane Chastain can only dream that President Obama will tell the Occupy Wall Street protest, “You have disgraced yourself by your public displays of indecency.”

• Republican and Religious Right leaders come together to heap praise on Generation Joshua, the ultraconservative home schoolers group.

• The New York Times looks into Michele Bachmann’s education in biblical law at Oral Roberts University.

Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance appeared on Janet Parshall’s radio show In The Market on Tuesday to discuss the “Green Dragon” film series which was made by Beisner’s group and hosted by Parshall. As we discussed in our report The ‘Green Dragon’ Slayers: How the Religious Right and the Corporate Right are Joining Forces to Fight Environmental Protection, the “Green Dragon” series represents efforts by the Religious Right and the Corporate Right to paint environmentalism as anti-Christian and ungodly:

During the radio show, Parshall played clips from the “documentary,” including one from Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, who argues that in the name of “population control” the government will eventually push “infanticide” and promote “same-sex relations”:

Perkins: Population control is a very loaded term. It includes not only abortion, contraception and sterilization, all at government expense of course, but it also includes infanticide and the promotion of same-sex relations. At the heart of this push for population control is an unbiblical view of children and of life.

Another clip featured right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton. Barton, who has made a career of infusing Religious Right beliefs into politics and American history, accused environmentalism of being “a religion” with its own rules and “high priests,” and went on to tell people to contest environmental beliefs because “that’s not science, that is the faith position that you’re taking”:

Barton: People say that environmentalism is a religion. Others say, ‘Oh no, that’s not true,’ but it really is. Now how do we know? I’ve been involved in seven cases at the US Supreme Court and I can point to a number of court decisions where the court has said religion is whatever you believe so strongly that it affects the way you live your life. That’s why the court recognizes even atheism as a religion. Environmentalism definitely is a religion, it has its own high priests, it has folks that tell us what we can and can’t do with the environment and how we can treat it and they’re the guardians of it as if it’s a great temple. It’s a religion. And as soon as we recognize that environmentalism is a religion then it helps us to understand better how to respond to what’s being said, how to filter what’s being said, and say, now wait a minute, that’s not science, that is the faith position that you’re taking.