Joseph Farah to lightweight Rick Perry: “Why are you using the 10th Amendment as a license to undermine civilization?”

Lying by politicians in order to fool people into voting for them—for example, a liberal-leaning politician telling conservatives that he’s a conservative—is more or less expected behavior. But the gratuitous adoption of an extreme liberal position by a politician whose entire (potential) candidacy is premised on his appeal to conservatives is, to put it mildly, not expected. Last week I wrote in astonishment about how Gov. Rick Perry, billed by all his supporters as the Great Conservative Hope, virtually destroyed the basis of his candidacy when he went out of his way to declare that New York’s homosexual “marriage” law was “fine with me” (as an exercise in states’ rights), and about how he then compounded the problem with his incoherent explanation of the statement.

Joseph Farah at World New Daily is also appalled, and has some fine words for the Texas governor. Most importantly, Farah understands the difference between the areas where states’ rights properly apply, and the areas where they do not properly apply. The latter include those common civilizational values and institutions without which we would not be what we are. For example, monogamy. Polygamy is simply incompatible with what we are. This truth was once understood in America, and was enforced by federal law and judicial decisions. But now, under the multiple influences of Islamic immigration, fringe polygamist groups, sexual liberation, and an ideologically extreme notion of states’ rights supported by some supposed conservatives, it is being steadily lost. And the same thing, mutatis mutandis, is happening with regard to the decadent absurdity known as same-sex marriage.

Farah writes:

Rick Perry’s phony, selective constitutionalism

Rick Perry is not what we once called “presidential timber.”

He’s not thoughtful enough for the job.

He’s not consistent enough for the job.

And even after serving as governor of Texas for longer than any other person in history, he doesn’t have enough of a track record for the job.

That’s my conclusion to his startlingly incoherent and dangerous comments last week to the effect that he is fine with the New York legislature’s decision to create a new institution called “same-sex marriage.”

He’s done as a potential candidate for the GOP nomination.

I had been seriously thinking of attending his Texas prayer meeting. That’s off the table. I think he would be better off praying privately for some divine guidance and poring over the Scriptures than organizing public events of this kind.

In case you missed his remarks to Republican fat cats in Aspen, Perry said: “Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me. That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”

So, let me get this straight, Gov. Perry. If the New York state legislature decided to legalize polygamy or to eliminate the age of consent so pedophiles could legally target “consenting” children, you would have no problem with that?

I assume your 10th Amendment-trumps-all position would be the same?

By the way, this is not just some hyper-theoretical question. You might recall, Gov. Perry, that Utah couldn’t join the Union until it outlawed polygamy—the 10th Amendment notwithstanding. Do you think a territory that permitted same-sex marriages even 20 years ago would have been admitted into the national covenant?

Of course not. You know that, and I know that.

In fact, when an existing member of the Union redefines a sacred, 6,000-year-old cultural institution like marriage, the very building block of civilization, it is an implicit violation of the values of that national covenant. It’s ground for the national political equivalent of divorce.

Gov. Perry, one of the secrets of your recent successful bid for re-election as governor was your hint that if the federal government pushed Texas too far with mandates and regulations that you would consider secession as an alternative.

Was that just hype? Was that just re-election rhetoric? Were you just trying to bolster your conservative credentials?

If not, why are you using the 10th Amendment as a license to undermine civilization itself?

I guess I was too optimistic that Rick Perry’s worldview had actually dramatically changed from 1989 when he served as Al Gore’s campaign chief in Texas.

I guess I was too gullible in believing that his support for the NAFTA Superhighway through Texas was just a mistake, one Republicans should overlook in deciding on their next GOP presidential nominee.

I guess I was wrong about extending political grace to Perry for his advocacy of mandatory HPV vaccines for children.

I guess his early support for New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani as his first choice for president in 2008 was not a political faux pas after all.

I guess his quick jump in 2008 to support John McCain actually reflected his best political instincts.

I guess we were too quick to overlook his associations with globalists in the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group.

I guess he’s happy about getting accolades from the Republican homosexual lobby GOProud for his “enlightened” stance on redefining marriage.

Let me add Rick Perry to the short list of totally unacceptable Republican presidential candidates—those that need to be rejected at all costs by those of us looking for a dramatic reversal of Barack Obama’s policies in 2013. They include Mitt Romney and Obama’s ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman.

I’m sure that list will grow in the months ahead. But for all those thinking Rick Perry was our answer in 2012, please reconsider.

[end of Farah article]

- end of initial entry -

Ed H. writes:

Why is it that a simple honest citizen like Joseph Farah can see the simple truth so easily but those at the top of today’s political ladder can’t come to one clear conclusion about anything? Why do the befuddled, the spineless, the mediocre rise so effortlessly to the top in today’s America? Once upon a time political power didn’t equate with idiocy. It didn’t happen with Eisenhower or Truman or even Nixon … these men were competent and capable of clear thinking. Why this Noah’s flood of imbecility drowning every landmark in the world?

LA replies:

Short answer: Once people stop believing in truth and the possibility of arriving closer to truth, everything progressively becomes more befuddled.

Stewart W. writes:

You say: “This truth [regarding the incompatibility of polygamy with American culture] was once understood in America, and was enforced by federal law and judicial decisions. But now, under the multiple influences of Islamic immigration, resurgent Mormonism, sexual liberation, and an ideologically extreme notion of states’ rights supported by some supposed conservatives, it is being steadily lost.”

I have to take issue with the inclusion of “resurgent Mormonism” in that list. Do you have any specific examples which prompted you to include Mormons? Although there have been splinter Mormon polygamist groups in this country ever since the LDS church banned polygamy in 1890, that is not the position of the LDS church or it’s leadership, nor am I aware of any prominent Mormon groups which are advocating for a return to or legalization of polygamy. While the fringe polygamist groups may have become more vocal in response to the successes of the homosexualist agenda, there is no evidence that they are growing in influence or numbers. Such groups are only perceived as “resurgent” because the degenerate leftists in Hollywood and elsewhere are using them to promote exactly this kind of social decay.

The bottom line is that it is offensive to include today’s Mormons or Mormonism in the same company as Moslems and sexual libertines.

LA replies:

You’re right. Thanks for pointing out the error. I will change the wording to:

the multiple influences of Islamic immigration, fringe polygamist groups, sexual liberation, and an ideologically extreme notion of states’ rights supported by some supposed conservatives,

Stewart replies:

Thank you, even though I’m not Mormon. My ancestor was the Mormon President who abolished the practice, so I suppose I’m rather aware of the issue.

David B. writes:

A liberal-leaning politician telling stupid GOP presidential primary voters that he is a conservative usually works.

LA replies:

Unfortunately you’re right.

David B. replies:

After the 2008 Republican presidential primary, I read that people who voted for McCain didn’t know he was for amnesty. After all, McCain called himself a “proud conservative” and was a “war hero” who was supposedly pro-life. This was enough for South Carolina’s “conservative” voters.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 01, 2011 03:47 PM | Send