He's a Mormon, not a Martian

By Tanya Simon

In 1947, Branch Rickey, the President and General Manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, decided to take a high-stakes gamble and signed a new player to the team. It was so controversial that it drew catcalls from fans both inside and outside Ebbets Field, as well as fear and resentment from the ball club and from other league teams. But Rickey’s decision paid off. The player’s name was Jackie Robinson -- and the “colored” barrier was broken for all time. Rickey caused further sensation when he decided to sign Roberto Clemente, the first Hispanic ballplayer, to the major leagues -- and the “race” obstacle was vaporized.

Two years earlier, Harry Truman was sworn in as 33rd President of the United States, hours after Franklin Roosevelt died. America was at war, and it was up to the new President to make the no-turning-back decision to deploy the atomic bomb and end the bloody conflict. The President’s decision paid off.

These are excerpts from the voluminous archives of momentous decisions by Americans made out of dire necessity or the sheer will to effect a long-overdue social change, or both. And once widespread acceptance of such decisions was irrevocably established, critics and opponents had no choice but to dine on the ashes of their resistance.

Another controversy is occurring in present time. Beginning in 2006, and from the day Mitt Romney stepped through the golden arches of democracy and into the arena as a candidate for President, he has been ostracized because of his Mormon faith, and under fire as to whether he fits the mainstream ideal of an “American” Christian. The wholesale disrespect shown him would be acceptable if he were a toad-face alien from a hostile planet in the bad neighborhood sector of our galaxy. But he’s not. He was born and raised right here in the United States.

One has to wonder why Islamist fundamentalists aren’t vilified with the same aggression. By comparison, for example, the Muslim prisoners at GITMO have been given wider respect for the rites – and rights – of their faith. For this we can thank the likes of the ACLU and liberal Democrats who’d rather walk a mile barefoot on broken glass than allow anyone to step on the toes of these “anointed ones” of Allah. (And in case anyone has forgotten: Islamist mullahs, in their venomous wisdom, continue to work every minute of every day to perfect plans to massacre “American infidels” and establish Islam inside our borders. They’re also just as eager to “waste” every religion formed under and protected by our Constitution.)

Which brings to mind ancient Rome: For his amusement – and because he was a full-blown psychopath – Emperor Nero ordered lions and other savage beasts set loose on persons suspected of being members of the “Christian cult” – and I don’t need to describe what happened to them. Nero wanted to wipe Christians off the face of the earth.

Sounds familiar?

In today’s political Circus Maximus, the wheel has turned. Now it is particular Christian orders that want to sink their incisors into Mitt Romney and Mormonism and label him and others of the faith as cultists. It would seem these Christians have picked up where the Emperor left off.

Let’s review a short list of infamous persons, historical facts, and catchphrases:

Nero
Crucifixion
Spanish Inquisition
Stalin
Gulag
Kristallnacht
“Ethnic Cleansing”
“Master Race”
Ku-Klux Klan
“Whites Only”
Anti-Mormon rhetoric

I see no differences.

In America, religious persecution is a breach of our fiduciary duty to uphold and defend religious freedom, which is a vital element of our democracy. In light of this, I would be correct to point out that Romney has been unfairly painted a non-conformist and propped up as target practice by the self-proclaimed sages of our society (similar, no doubt, to what Jackie Robinson and Roberto Clemente endured when they first donned their team jerseys).

I believe I would also be correct by saying Mr. Romney has been more than patient and has behaved like a gentleman; he hasn’t overreacted to the slurs and suspicions pinned on him not just by members of certain Christian sects but largely by the media and their pundits, all of whom sound like trial lawyers who pose leading questions to witnesses to confuse and insult their intelligence: “Can a Mormon be President?” “Do you see his faith as a cult that would prevent him from being elected?”

The fair question that should be asked is: “Do you believe Mitt Romney has the strength and courage to tackle the demanding, dangerous and thankless job of President of the United States?”

If you’re unsure of what decision to make and are confused by all the hyperbole, then take five and read a transcript of Mitt Romney’s own words in his speech of December 6, 2007 HERE. Take control and draw your own conclusions.

If you decide not to support Mitt Romney because he’s a Mormon, then don’t – it’s that simple.

If you decide to support Mitt Romney because you believe he would be an exceptional Commander in Chief, then, by all means, do.

It’s your decision, and whichever one you make will be the one that's right for you.

We need a tough-as-nails new president

"You don't become President. The Presidency is an institution and you have temporary custody of it." - Ronald Wilson Reagan.

In the four short years of the office's term, the man elected must rise up to and sustain the Constitutional oath: '...that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God.'

There is no pledge as powerful and as selfless, because it demands that the succeeding custodian of the Presidency continue the eternal uphill struggle for, by and against the myriad domestic and foreign issues that eclipse our lives:

Threats of nuclear attack upon world nations by hostile leaders.

The countless numbers of disillusioned and dissatisfied American citizens.

Invidious politicians on both sides of the aisle who handily switch from ally to adversary between sunrise and sunset.

Biased media reporting with the intent to thwart the Chief Executive's credibility.

Predisposed civilian groups aggressively intoning issue after issue (whether relevant or not) -- to name a few.

And there remains the singular matter that requires our sitting and future President's attention 24/7: the promise by riotous Islamist terrorists to cause America's total destruction.

In view of these contentious realities, what distinctions should Americans expect from our next President?

Above all, leadership.

He must be governed by a steel-eyed countenance in order to effectively assume the mantle of Commander in Chief, and stand knuckle to knuckle with our avowed enemies -- upholding the principle that America takes a backseat to no one.

The next man destined to serve the American people knows to expect a daunting hand-off from George W. Bush, which is why that man must also cross the threshold of the Oval Office fully armed with practical business and management experience required for controlling the White House.

He will be a man who says what he means and means what he says -- who can 'talk with beggars and walk with kings.'

He must possess unshakable moral integrity.

He must passionately pursue every best measure necessary to defend our nation and amplify our security, no matter the cost.

These are only some of the reasons why the Republican Party should not support any candidate who is only partially qualified for the post. To invest hope in a man based solely on poll popularity or, worse, name recognition could provide fatal for the GOP and the American people. This would be as reckless as placing our trust in a non-FDIC bank with a flashy name that caters mainly to the glitterati while dealing junk bonds to the middle-class.

We would be incompetent if we champion any presidential candidate who has broken his sacred marriage vows, and who has joined himself with a spouse who has been a wife to more than one man. The presidency has already suffered the shame of adulteration from a Mr. "Right Now."

We should therefore not risk the possibility of more reprehensible maltreatment of the station, because the American people deserve better -- we deserve the best.

We must seriously consider that one candidate who is wholly qualified to be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States -- that one candidate who is capable of rising up to and sustaining the Constitutional oath ...

That one man who can continue to lead us up the iron mountain we proudly call the United States of America.