It was a curious thing when shortly after Obama’s inauguration, the new Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, handed Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, a large red button, meant to indicate a “reset” in American-Russian relations.  And reset relations, we did.

President Obama did a “reset” on the space program, gutting ours and making it virtually impossible to do space travel without going through the Russians at an exorbitant future cost. He did a “reset” on plans to build defense missiles in Poland, breaking our promise and disheartening friends and allies.

And it made no sense.  With Russia the pitiful remains of the old Soviet Empire, plundered of her natural resources by the Oligarchs, struggling for new identity, disillusioned with newfound wealth…in the midst of scandal from poisonings of journalists and dissidents, Russia was weak…a non-player on the international stage; Her only treasure her history and scattered sights of valuable nuclear material.  There was no need to bargain with Russia…no need acquiesce to her demands.

“After my (last) election, I’ll have more flexibility,” said President Obama to Russian President Medvedev reaching out to touch his hand.  “I understand.  I will transmit that to Vladimir,” replied Dmitri with a knowing nod.  Sounds like the opening to a cheap spy thriller, but this was an actual conversation heard recently between an American president and the leader of that former foe.

We know now the President was rendering our trusted allies, Poland and the Czech Republic defenseless against the still looming Russian threat, and ourselves neutered by agreements to share nuclear secrets we had no reason to share.

This convergence of decisions coupled with that overheard conversation could mean nothing.  Or it could mean a great deal.  But in order to understand it, we would have to go back in time to the days of the Cold War and the romance of the Left for Mother Russia.

The Venona Files revealed in 1995 that the Soviets infiltrated our government at the highest levels in the 50’s.  From Alger Hiss to the Rosenberg’s and Hollywood, and later the Civil Rights movement and the anti-war Left, Communist subversives were deeply entrenched. In an 1950 interview with U.S. News and World Report, FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover made this statement:

The teachings of Communism are directed toward one final result—world revolution and the triumph of international Communism. The achievement of this aim would mean the violent and complete destruction of the American Government. Any person who subscribes to these teaching… is working against American democracy and for the benefit of international Communism’s chief leader, Soviet Russia.

The FBI waged war against Communist subversives from its earliest years until the 1980’s when President Ronald Reagan brought the godless “Evil Empire,” soaked in the blood of millions slain by Joseph Stalin, to its knees.

Yet the American Left idolized that empire and it’s Manifesto.  The KGB was actively recruiting young American college students at the time young Bill Clinton mysteriously showed up in Russia while travel was still forbidden.  In their own manifesto, “Prairie Fire,” William Ayres and Bernadine Dorn wrote, “We are a guerrilla organization…We are communist women and men…We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build the new society.”   The Weather Underground sought the “violent over throw of the United States government.”

The Marxist Barack Obama Sr. came to America and married Ms. Stanley Dunham, who he met in Russian class.  Frank Marshall Davis, an editor of a Communist newspaper in Chicago with a damning FBI dossier, was a close friend to Ms. Dunham’s father and later a mentor to his grandson, Barack Obama Jr., referred to affectionately as “Frank” in Dreams from my Father.

From the cousin Obama campaigned for, Kenyan Marxist Prime Minister, Raila Odingo, to Green Job Czar-Communist, Van Jones, to former Whitehouse Communications Director, Anita Dunn whose favorite political philosopher was Mao Zedong…to Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, daughter in law of Vernon Jarrett, philosophical friend and coworker of Frank Marshall Davis, the circle of Soviet romanticists surrounding the President seems endless.

So…what did the administration mean about resetting relations with Russia?  And if this proclivity to “make it up” to the weakened Russians, handing them the tools to reclaim power, is already in place, is the gutted Space Shuttle Discovery a metaphor of what comes next?

In 2008 John McCain took the nomination to a less than enthusiastic response.  But when Sarah Palin hit the stage in Minneapolis, the roof nearly came off the convention center, the base electrified.  One of the first campaign stops was Wisconsin.  Crowds were enormous as Wisconsinites craned their necks to get a glimpse of the new conservative VP candidate.

One man stood to express the exasperation many conservatives felt with the clueless McCain who had been facing Barack Obama with timidity and deference,  “Fight for us, Senator McCain!  Fight for us!”  McCain pulled the mike close…delivered his signature grunt-laugh, and made a joke.  The Heartland’s heart sunk to realize the former war hero had become their hapless champion against a formidable foe he didn’t even understand.

Why then are so many Republican leaders rushing to anoint a similar candidate, Mitt Romney, who describes President Barack Obama as a “nice man” who “just doesn’t understand?” For some it is a matter of power.  They fear a conservative candidate, in spite of the fact that no moderate Republican has won the nomination in years; Gerald Ford…. Bob Dole… John McCain…all moderates…all losers.  The only Republican to win during those lost decades was conservative Ronald Reagan, after battling the same Republican Establishment.

There is much to be gained by supporting Mitt Romney.  There are nominations for Vice President to be considered and payoffs of campaign debt.  This might explain Newt Gingrich’s reportedly “very friendly” meeting with Governor Romney last week.  There is an orchestrated effort by insiders in Washington and by the Romney camp sweetening the deal for anyone who will come his way.

But the race is not over!!!!   Walter Shapiro has articulated it beautifully in “Why is the Press so ready to Count Santorum Out?”

http://www.cjr.org/swing_states_project/why_is_the_press_so_ready_to_c.php?page=all

Right now only one man stands in the way of Mitt Romney getting the Republican nomination.  Rick Santorum is statistically tied with Romney in North Carolina, ahead in Pennsylvania by double digits, strong in California and Nebraska, yet many are clamoring for him to get out of the race.

Rick Santorum was eloquent and powerful in almost every brief debate exchange.   But afterward pundits ignored him.  Why?  Romney, who had been campaigning for president since 2007, had quietly begun donating to conservative organizations and media outlets.  He had strategically positioned himself for the nomination well before the candidates ever took the stage.

But he can’t buy the American people.  And even now after spending millions, he has low support among Republican voters and a very high unfavorable rating.

While Rick Santorum steadfastly holds to the convictions of conservative America, Mitt Romney has been shirring up support for his candidacy by changing positions on issues like gun control, global warming, Cap and Trade, and certainly government healthcare.   Romney’s advisors on Romney Care were later advisors on Obamacare.

If his so-called conversion to pro-life was so profound why was the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, given a place on a board for Romney Healthcare and why does his plan offer abortions for a $50 co-pay?

As soon as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was repealed for the military Romney issued a statement that he would do nothing to reverse it if elected.

Who at EPA just issued green house gas regulations to effectively ban new coal-fired power plants?  Romney’s former green energy advisor, Gina McCarthy. Part of Romney’s campaign money can be traced to radical environmentalists like Julian Robertson who funded the efforts behind passing Cap and Trade.  John Holdren, who believes in population control thru forced abortion and compulsory sterilization, currently serves as Barack Obama’s top science czar and was once part of Governor Mitt Romney’s policy team.

Unlike Mitt Romney, Santorum is fully committed to stopping the march to the Left on moral, social, economic and national security issues.

Americans are tired of beltway disingenuousness.  Many find Rick Santorum’s candor refreshing… like an elixir to our politically correct, mind-numbed interactions.

Where does this boldness from Santorum come from?  Perhaps partly from his family’s odyssey with Bella.  Bella Santorum is three years, diagnosed with Trisomy 18 who in a bout of uncontrollable seizures was recently nearly lost to them during the campaign.

American voters should know that almost 90% of husbands and fathers leave their families when they have disabled children.  It takes character to absorb the blows of disappointment, endure exhaustion and endless sorrow and…stay.

That’s an indicator of what kind of a man Rick Santorum is and what kind of a president he might be: Steadfast…committed to the best for his American family just as he for his own.

Wisconsin has given us some of the finest public servants in recent years.  From Paul Ryan to Ron Johnson to Scott Walker.  They have done a great service to the nation in infiltrating it with leaders of character.

Will they now allow Washington to tell them whom they should select as a candidate for the next president of the United States?

Conservatives around the country will be watching on Tuesday’s primary to see.

 What exactly did Pat do?  He wrote a book, “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive until 2025?”  He included chapters like “The End of White America” predicting whites will be the minority by 2041.  In another, “The Death of Christian America,” he wrote of the assault on Christianity and its values, the loss of a moral compass as exemplified in gay marriage and abortion.  He predicted that America is in the “Indian summer of our civilization.”

As a result of these thoughts and ideas, a group founded by self-professed Communist and former Obama Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones, called Buchanan’s words “hateful” full of “outdated ideas.”  “Color of Change,” is circulating a petition to have Mr. Buchanan fired from MSNBC.  Joining their demands have been the largest homosexual activist group in the country, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Anti-Defamation League.  “Buchanan continues to show his true colors by espousing hateful, bigoted statements in his new book,” said Abraham Foxman, the national director.  He continued, “We…urge MSNBC …to ensure their brand is no longer associated with Buchanan’s history of passing off white supremacy ideology as mainstream political commentary.”

Buchanan hasn’t appeared on air at MSNBC since publication of the book in October. “When Pat was on his book tour, because of the content of the book, I didn’t think it should be part of the national dialogue much less part of the dialogue on MSNBC,” said MSNBC President Phil Griffin. 

And with those words, Pat Buchanan faces what many thinking Americans have been facing, the loss of favor, then advancement and sometimes jobs.  It’s no surprise groups like Human Rights Campaign who thrive on intimidation of opponents would demand such of Buchanan.  He dares to say that homosexual practice and gay marriage are contrary to Christian principles…anathema.  Such opposition shall be silenced at all costs.

Leftist Jewish organizations like ADL whose gold standard is “tolerance” are absolutely intolerant of Christ-followers or anyone they perceive don’t embrace the sacred cow of political correctness with regard to race.  Buchanan has mentioned race and faith in a way they hate and he must be silenced.

But most of all it is no surprise that a Communist like Van Jones would demand the destruction of free thought.  That’s what Communists and Fascists do.  Russian Nobel Prize winner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn was one of the great minds of the Soviet Empire, but refused to conform to its madness.  He was exiled and silenced in the Siberian Gulag.

Stalin murdered his opponents.  So did Mao Zedong, Kim il Sung, Castro and Hitler. It’s what despots do.  One has only to visit the S-21 Prison in Phnom Phen, Cambodia, to see how the Khmer Rouge handled people who simply thought differently.  Intellectuals were rounded up and imprisoned in what once had been a school.  As millions were slaughtered in the “Killing Fields,” these men were rounded up for torture.  You can still see the metal-framed beds, photos on the walls of their bodies lying in pools of blood, with actual bloodstains on the floor.  Their crime was not violent opposition, but thinking differently…having a different point of view. 

It is no small thing that some want to silence Pat Buchanan and that his current network, MSNBC, is actually entertaining the notion.  Van Jones knows what he’s demanding.  He has embraced Communism. But what of HRC?  Is there a limit they would go to silence their opposition?  Can they not defend their positions with words of reason or persuasion?  Is their commitment to homosexuality so fragile, it cannot be defended in the court of ideas?

Does the ADF want to foster a country like many well remember that arrests and targets and tortures and murders people for having another God and a different set of beliefs? 

Does MSNBC want to see the death of the First Amendment in this great country?  A cable network cannot handle honest debate…really? The Founders put the guarantee of Free Speech first not tenth on the list of rights because they remembered all too well the punishments of dissent under King George.

Pat Buchanan is an American intellectual who believes America is currently committing suicide.  He has a right to say it and to write it.  And if we don’t defend the rights of free speech in others, we ARE contributing to that suicide by standing by until the bony fingers of intimidation slowly close around our own necks.

“President Obama is a nice guy.  He just doesn’t understand how to run the economy,” said Mitt Romney after his eight-vote victory in the Iowa Caucuses; Rousing words for the GOP establishment’s standard bearer against the most dangerous, destructive President the United States of America has ever endured.

Words to inspire…words to motivate and persuade: ”Let’s get this nice guy out of the White House because he just doesn’t understand.” Just imagine. “No more Mr. Nice Guy!” could be the campaign slogan.  As Barack Obama plunges the country into soul-crushing debt, we can all collectively sigh and remark, “That just wasn’t very nice.”  As he hesitates to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons while Iran threatens to cut off our oil supply we can opine that Obama just doesn’t understand.  As he promotes abortion of all kinds…at any time for any reason, we can cluck our tongues with disapproval.  As marriage and the family implode, the military is dismantled, the unemployment rate increases, personal wealth shrinks, homes further devalue, veterans come home to a crumbling economy, Romney can rally us with the battle cry, “He’s a nice guy, but he just doesn’t understand!”

Doesn’t anyone remember the campaign of 2008 as John McCain ordered his staff never to mention Obama’s middle name, “Hussein?” Or his orders not to mention Obama’s pastor-mentor, Leftist-radical Jeremiah Wright?  Nor Obama friend and co-worker, domestic terrorist, William Ayres, who McCain dismissed as just “some old terrorist?” Anyone remember how he restricted Sarah Palin from speaking the truth about Barack Obama while he left the nation defenseless in the face of the most Leftist-radical, masquerading as a bridge-building new kind of black-white presidential candidate America had ever seen?

Immediately after the convention in Minneapolis where McCain selected Sarah Palin as his VP, he did an appearance in Wisconsin.  The crowds were huge because people were electrified by Palin’s powerful persona.  But John McCain was the candidate and as he stood on the platform, someone from the crowd shouted pleadingly, “Fight for us Senator McCain! Fight for us! “  McCain responded with derisive laughter. 

The fight he waged is now legendary; Weak…ineffective…dispassionate…missing the mark… clueless to the real dangers.  It was a terrible campaign run by a foolish candidate whose idea of opposing the nation’s worst future nightmare was to hail Obama as “a great American.”

Following his 2008 defeat, John McCain began a campaign to purge the Republican party of Conservative influence.  He wrote an article detailing his plans to do so.  That plan was to get rid of social conservatives who were an embarrassment to the party.  He was convinced we must elect moderates in all key races. And he put his money and influence where his pen had been.

One of the first endorsements McCain did under his “plan” was Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois.  McCain came pouring into the state with millions in Pac dollars to overpower Illinois Conservatives and elect a pro-cap and trade, pro-gay rights, pro-choice liberal to replace Barack Obama.  He succeeded in Illinois.  And if it had been left to McCain, there would have been no Senator Marco Rubio but rather the dishonorable Senator Charlie Crist.  Thanks to the efforts of Senator Jim DeMint, we got Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, and Kelly Ayotte.  Those are the Senators who are the current bain of John McCain’s Senate existence.

Now he has endorsed his arch-nemesis in the Republican Primary of 2008, Mitt Romney.  It shouldn’t be such a surprise.  Both are moderates, to be kind…unconcerned about social issues except to the extent tweaking their positions can get them elected.  Both engender zero passion.  They care very much, they say, but even what they care about is negotiable under the right circumstances.

Now the weak, moderate, passionless 2008 Republican Presidential candidate who inspired no one, and never understood who Obama really was, is endorsing a man who after six years of campaigning in Iowa mirrors him with much the same result.   It took six years for Romney to get the support of just 24.5% of Republican Primary voters. That’s fewer, not more voters than supported him in ’08.   And many of them gave him their support not because they like him, but because they were led to believe he is the only candidate who can beat Barack Obama. 

If he got no more traction or enthusiasm after all the money and time he poured into Iowa, what makes pundits think he can electrify the general public to beat the charismatic Barack Obama in 2012?

McCain has endorsed Romney.  That should speak volumes.  Is any one listening?

But now that has all changed.  In an interview with the Des Moines Register editorial board last Friday, the former Massachusetts Governor explained that it wasn’t the concept of having gays openly serve in the military that had troubled him…only the fact that the change was being made in a time of war.  Now that the conflict is over, he would not, as Commander in Chief, do anything to change it. 

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/VideoNetwork/1319060566001/Romney-meets-with-DM-Register-Editorial-Board (See video at 35″)

This will surely make the fiction that Romney is the most conservative candidate in the Republican field harder to defend.

“What I am saying now is of the available candidates, Romney is by far the most conservative, tied with Michele Bachmann,” declared Ann Coulter to Sean Hannity.  A long time supporter of Romney, Ann’s enthusiasm for him has now been incorporated into campaign ads in Iowa.

Following Coulter’s lead, Mitt Romney used his interview with the Washington Post Editorial Board to position himself as the true conservative by attacking Newt Gingrich for being “an extraordinarily unreliable leader in the conservative world.” 

“Defending himself against charges that his own conservative credentials are suspect, Romney turned the question in Gingrich’s direction and said that it is the former House speaker who has strayed repeatedly from embracing conservative doctrine in recent years,” reported the Washington Post.

As if to drive his point further, Romney added that Gingrich’s “unreliability” hadn’t just been 14-15 years ago, but in the last 2-3 years.  Yet Mitt Romney’s latest leap from conservatism had only taken place a few days prior.  What kind of audacity does it take to stand before a news agency editorial board and brag in the face of the evidence that you are the most conservative candidate?

And what conservative can possibly claim, given Romney’s history, that he is the most conservative candidate?

He implemented socialized medicine in his own state.  It wasn’t a free market plan, it was a top-down big-government program.  Whether he did or did not say or pen that his plan should be the model for the country, he certainly DID lend his advisory team to President Barack Obama to develop the current national mandate, arguably the mirror image of the Romney Plan.  The bottom line?  When health care problems presented themselves in Massachusetts, Romney’s instinct was to turn to government not the free market for the solution.  That is not the fall back position of a conservative.

Romney invited Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider to the table in the development of his Massachusetts healthcare plan which subsequently made sure abortions were covered and affordable for a mere $50 dollar co-pay.

One could go further back with Romney’s liberal/conservative iterations, but these are current examples which in the case of gays in the military, goes back not a few years but a few days. Surely it is a quantum leap to assign him the mantle of conservatism in the current race. 

Truth and honesty are inconvenient at times, but they are as much a part of conservative values as any position on the economy or national defense.  Dishonesty and deceit are basic disqualifiers and bend as we may to excuse the inexcusable, in Romney’s case, they are very hard to ignore.

Why do I discount Bialek’s story?  I’ll answer with a few questions of my own. 

What was Bialek doing meeting Herman Cain in Washington, DC?  What did she hope to achieve by a face-to-face meeting?  She wouldn’t have been attempting to use her feminine “powers” on him, would she? If she were staying in New Jersey, why didn’t she make it a daytime meeting, not an over night visit?  Why do that with someone you know so slightly?

What was Herman Cain to think about a single woman making an unnecessary arrangement like that…agreeing to drinks and dinner on the basis of nothing more, according to her, than a few conversations at public dinners and receptions?

If Bialek were so traumatized and embarrassed, why did she eagerly seek him out at a recent Tea Party event in Chicago?  Amy Jacobson, co-host of morning drive on WIND Chicago, was witness to that encounter with Cain and described her as “hell bent” on getting back stage to see him.  Jacobson said Bialek “cornered him” and that her approach to Cain was “flirtatious.”

 If you are embarrassed by a sexual encounter, you don’t eagerly seek out the perpetrator to reconnect for a chat.  Unless you think the harasser might someday be president and you are imagining the connections that might come from that.

Why did she so carefully include the buzzwords of a harassment lawsuit? Herman Cain was “powerful,” she said,  “in a position of authority over me.”  Bialek was “shocked” that he would use his “power” in this way.  Does a sincerely abused person so carefully script their account?  Were there certain words she wanted to use?  This was not a court of law, but her statement was worded like a deposition.  She even described the clothing they wore…strange…unnecessary.

Why in one interaction did she say she was concerned for her thirteen-year-old son and the effect this would have on him and in another say she came forward because her son encouraged her to do so?  Did she tell her son about Cain’s sexual advances?  Why would she do that?  Wouldn’t that information be inappropriate and harmful enough to inflict on your young son without making it public?

Sharon Bialek has a history of financial trouble.  She has filed bankruptcy twice and charged a former boyfriend with harassment for trying to get her to pay back money he loaned her.  A Chicago friend is quoted as describing her as a “complete gold digger.”  When asked if she hoped to benefit financially from her fourteen year old accusation of Cain, she deftly replied, “It was not my intention,” eagerly adding that she had not paid Allred any fee for her services.  One has to ask, who IS paying Allred?  Bialek lives in the same building as Obama Political Advisor, David Axelrod.  At this point anything is possible.

This is a sordid and slimy accusation.  Bialek can say anything and the media will print and reprint it regardless of its veracity. Allred gets another moment in the sun…more clients…more money and you can bet Miss Bialek will get something for her troubles as well.   And the dirt will stick to Cain no matter his response.

It’s telling that by her own account, she was not offended by Cain’s actions, only that he did what he did knowing she had a boyfriend.  Are we to conclude it would otherwise have been fine? 

Am I excusing Herman Cain?  No.  But if he did what she said he did and she in turn flirted inappropriately, it is NOT sexual harassment, it is what happens every day in our sex-obsessed, morally bankrupt culture. 

If Cain did what she said he did, he is guilty of faithlessness to his wife, his family and the God he says he serves.  If there is any credible basis upon which she can be believed, that’s the criteria on which to judge Herman Cain.

When Barack Obama was running for president, he assured us he was a Christian. Pastor Rick Warren brought Candidate Obama to his megachurch and questioned him before a national audience. Obama’s answers seemed to satisfy and with Warren’s blessing, he proceeded to campaign. Never mind he sat for twenty years under a pastor who fumed Christian apostasy. Dr. Jeremiah Wright preached anti-Semitism, embraced homosexuality and abortion, and practiced open promiscuity. Obama and his family were mentored by Pastor Wright, but Obama said he was a Christian and that, in the minds of those who wanted to support him, made it so.

Almost three years into his presidency we see that those very anti-Christian teachings of Pastor Wright have made their way into policy. President Obama has suspended enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act and forcefully secured open homosexuality in the military. Against their protests, the Defense Department has ordered Christian Chaplains to perform same sex marriages in military chapels. Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, has a champion in the White House and Israel, having been strategically undermined by this President, is in a fight for its life.

Do a presidential candidate’s core religious beliefs have any bearing on his ability to perform his duties? Rather than embrace the Judeo Christian ethic of hard work and personal responsibility, the current President incites envy between classes. Rather than speaking truth, he has embraced dishonesty to implement “hope and change.”

If Christianity means anything to a person, it results in transformation of their character to the character of the central figure of Christianity, Jesus Christ. One can say one is an apple tree but if fall comes and there are no apples, it might not be so. Are core beliefs of presidential candidates important or not? And does the voting public have a right to know what they are?

When the Founding Fathers established “no religious test” in Article VI they were precluding literal religious tests commonly used by the colonies to ascertain Christian orthodoxy among would-be local candidates. There would not be a national church, but there were state churches, and the denominations of those states wanted leaders to be faithful to those particular teachings. The Founders did not want federal office seekers to have to pass such tests in order to serve, but they never intended to infer it was of no concern to voters what a potential public servant’s deeply held views were in order to inform their vote.

So now again come questions about Mormonism and Mitt Romney. Dr. Robert Jeffress, Pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas declared in an interview after introducing Governor Rick Perry at the Values Voter Summit that Mormonism is a cult.

To my knowledge there have been no follow-up questions to Dr. Jeffress to ask why he believes that. But there has been a quick rush to discredit him for saying it and another one to demand other hapless Republicans declare or defend what he said. No one seems to have asked Mitt Romney what he actually believes that might be of concern.

Evangelicals have not been spared this courtesy. Byron York of the Washington Examiner asked Michele Bachmann during the FOX presidential debate if, as an Evangelical, she believed she should submit to her husband. Rick Perry was asked by Brian Williams if he could sleep at night embracing the death penalty. Others have been asked if they thought mothers who aborted their babies should be prosecuted. Herman Cain was asked if he would appoint a Muslim to his cabinet. All of these go to the core of deeply held beliefs. It is at the very least instructive to hear their answers.

But, of course, pundits and questioners are not interested in deeply held beliefs, but entrapment. They play a dangerous game out of their own theological ignorance. It DOES matter what a person believes who runs for the office of President of the United States. It might not matter what they choose as a religious diet…whether they bow or kneel…or conform to certain rituals, but what they truly believe truly matters and has an effect on public policy.

It matters which God they worship. Modern American culture would like to persuade us all faiths are equal…all systems of belief basically the same, but in our rational minds, with the advent of radical Islam to our shores, we know inherently that isn’t true.

Everyone in this country has the right to worship the way he or she chooses…freely, but if they are running to be leader of us all, it does indeed matter what they believe and we as citizens have a right to know.

Why should a Christian theologian be ridiculed for telling us what he knows from his studies? Why should Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry be expected to explain it? Why don’t pundits, if they really care to know, ask intelligent questions to help us all learn what is true?

Because conservatives want, at any cost, to beat Barack Obama in 2012 and some think Mitt Romney can beat him. Questions about Obama’s faith were useful to them in ‘08, but questions about Romney’s now are to be dismissed. They would rather diminish and humiliate Dr. Jeffress than allow the inconvenient teachings of Mormonism to surface.

Mitt Romney is free to practice Mormonism. And he is free to run for President of the United States, but he should not be free from answering questions about what he actually believes.

Once when we know that, we will be free to embrace or reject him based on truth, not obfuscation.

Rubio can unite establishment Republicans, Conservative Republicans and Tea-Partiers.  While the first category is taken aback by his conservatism, they recognize the power of his person.  And they are willing to tolerate his positions if they are convinced he can win.  Conservatives, on the other hand, are a tougher bunch.  They require their candidate to have character…not simply to have cast good votes on core issues, but to hold their positions with passion.  Marco Rubio passes this test. 

Tea Partiers are purportedly concerned with financial issues only.  No one articulates the current crisis like Rubio.  And underneath the Tea Party platform veneer are a strong majority of participants whose hearts also beat fast at the notion of a champion on the moral issues of our day.  Rubio is that.

Rubio has the combination of elements Republican voters so long for:  character, passion, conviction, and the ability to communicate clearly with all three.  He would be a powerful opponent.  He could take on Barack Obama in debates with style, grace and chutzpah.  He has that infamous “Q Factor” want-to-be media types long for but can’t acquire by sheer determination.   It is innate.  It allows him to take the room with confidence…to command attention…and most importantly…respect.

Marco Rubio understands the threat of socialism and government control through the personal story of his exiled parents.  Although a few presidential candidates have tried to articulate the danger, Rubio has tasted, felt and experienced it through the lives of his Cuban family.

Unlike Candidate John McCain, Rubio will fight for American freedom with a passion that can only come from a closer glimpse of what it means to be with out it.

Marco Rubio can win in the general election.  Shallow American female voters will vote for him based on his handsome good looks.   The first Hispanic candidate who is also “cool” will win the young vote as powerfully as did the first “cool” black one in 2008.  Hispanics will vote for him because he is Hispanic; those that are informed, because he represents strong families.  Blacks will consider voting for him because he is NOT White establishment. And because if they stop and think about it, he more nearly represents their values than Barack Obama, the “post-racial” President who turns out to care more about the Left than the Black Community.

Yes.  I would prefer an elder statesman…someone with the resume of a George Herbert Walker Bush.  But these are not ordinary times and elder statesmen don’t appeal to a population hooked on American Idol. 

American voters, thanks to our educational system, can’t handle long explanation…erudite delivery…nor do they have the respect to recognize and appreciate gravitas.

Charles Krauthammer would bore them.  So would John Bolton or Andrew McCarthy.  They don’t appreciate brilliance.  And by the way, the American President needs to be longer on leadership skills than erudition.

It isn’t possible for one man or woman to know all that needs to be known to lead this great country.  We need someone who will command respect and possess the wisdom to select people like Paul Ryan, Bolton and McCarthy to school him, then unleash them to do all they are capable of doing.

Rubio has proven his leadership already.  At forty, he has led one of the largest legislatures in the country as Speaker of the House in Florida.  He is more qualified already than was Barack Obama in 2008. 

Rubio will unite Republican voters.  He can win the primary and he can win the general election.  And the country needs him…now…at the age of forty.  We may lose the Republic if we wait.

Nine Republican candidates took the stage, but only one took the hearts of Florida’s Straw Poll participants on Saturday: Herman Cain. Pulling a whopping 37% in a field of nine was no small accomplishment. But wait a minute. Mitt Romney “won” that debate handily, didn’t he? At least that’s what pundits are declaring. He gave the right answers…spoke with confidence…demeaned Perry cunningly…railed at President Obama effectively…and of course, looked good. Campaigning non-stop for four years, he has no other job. And before this he campaigned at least four more for the last presidency. He has spent millions of his own dollars and by now we all know at least in part, his oft recited resume. So why didn’t he win the straw poll?

Governor Perry has a full time job. Most recently he was off the campaign trail to handle the enormous wildfires threatening his state. And Governor Romney was right in the last debate: Massachusetts is NOT Texas. Texas is about 38 times the size of Massachusetts with a budget the size of Canada. Governor Perry is good on the economy and most social issues, but his position on illegal immigration is anathema to conservatives. Still…he stood on the stage and like a true Texan, stuck to his guns. That drew boos from the audience, but on some level, was a refreshing contrast from the former Governor of Massachusetts.

As Governor Romney chided Perry over giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, no one pointed out that before he was a candidate in 2008, Romney supported a “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants.

No one reminded the audience how he hammered McCain in particular for holding the same position he once had held or how he demagogued Giuliani and Huckabee for being soft on illegal immigration.

“This could be extreme political repositioning, even for Romney,” stated the Boston Globe.

While Perry was chided for signing an Executive Order to mandate a vaccine for young girls to prevent HPV, which can lead to cervical cancer, no one mentioned the Romney-Care provision that covers abortion for fifty dollars. And no one reiterated that Perry admitted he was wrong to sign that order, while Romney stands by the healthcare plan he still boasts of, even as it bankrupts his state.

No one pointed out that Romney and his wife have been financial supporters of Planned Parenthood. And on the issue of gay marriage, no one pointed out it was Romney who forced Town Clerks to license same sex partners and change the wording on certificates from “husband” and “wife” to “Partner A” and “Partner B” BEFORE same sex marriage was even the law in Massachusetts.

And no one challenged Romney when he indicated Perry was lying about Romney omitting a sentence in his book in its most recent printing that advocated making a form of Romney-Care available all over the country. If Perry had a weak moment, it was not digging in his heels on his veracity

Rick Perry is not an Easterner. His voice pattern is slow and deliberate. Mitt Romney would out “Trouble-in-River-City” the Music Man. But we all remember Professor Hill’s eloquence was a smoke screen for much flim and flam.

Perry seems to be honest, committed to his positions, and able to apologize when he thinks he was wrong. And from the conservative point of view, he IS terribly wrong on some things.

Florida’s straw poll results weren’t good for Perry, but they were worse for Romney. Voters may not think much of Perry’s position on immigration, but it seems they still prefer an honest hesitator over a slickster with all the answers. And if Perry did so poorly, why did he still take second place? Just asking.