ThinkProgress filed this report from the Conservative Principles Conference in Des Moines, IA.

As the Republican presidential nomination process begins, one GOP candidate is making a name for himself as the Islamophobia candidate: Herman Cain.

Earlier this week, Cain gave an interview to Christianity Today in which he declared that, “based upon the little knowledge that I have of the Muslim religion, you know, they have an objective to convert all infidels or kill them.”

ThinkProgress caught up with the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza today at the Conservative Principles Conference in Des Moines, Iowa, to discuss his comments further. We asked him, in light of his statements on Islam, would he be comfortable appointing any Muslims in his administration. Rather than skirting the question or hedging his answer, as most presidential aspirants are wont to do, Cain was definitive: “No, I will not”:

KEYES: You came under a bit of controversy this week for some of the comments made about Muslims in general. Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?

CAIN: No, I will not. And here’s why. There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government. This is what happened in Europe. And little by little, to try and be politically correct, they made this little change, they made this little change. And now they’ve got a social problem that they don’t know what to do with hardly.

The question that was asked that “raised some questions” and, as my grandfather said, “I does not care, I feel the way I feel.” I was asked, “what is the role of Islam in America?” I thought it was an odd question. I said the role of Islam in America is for those that believe in Islam to practice it and leave us alone. Just like Christianity. We have a First Amendment. And I get upset when the Muslims in this country, some of them, try to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.

Watch it:

Cain should check his understanding of the U.S. Constitution, which states in Article 6:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Cain’s apparent rationale for refusing to even consider a Muslim nominee for any position in his administration is as simple as it is abhorrent: he believes all Muslims would try to “force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.” This type of bigotry has been promoted by conservative figures like Frank Gaffney and Brigitte Gabriel for years. Now, it appears to be seeping into the presidential race via Herman Cain.

Newt Gingrich really doesn’t like it when Barack Obama takes his advice. It’s not just true of intervention with Libya — it’s also the case with fighting global warming pollution. In short, Newt was for carbon cap and trade, until Obama became president:

February 15, 2007: “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.” [Frontline, 2/15/07]

April 4, 2009: “And now, in 2009, instead of making energy cheaper—which would help create jobs and save Americans money—President Obama wants to impose a cap-and-trade regime. Such a plan would have the effect of an across-the-board energy tax on every American. That will make our artificial energy crisis even worse—and raising taxes during a deep economic recession will only accelerate American job losses.” [Newsweek, 4/4/09]

Gingrich’s full record on global warming is a series of epic flip-flops over more than two decades, with his positions mostly coinciding with whether the party holding the presidency is a Republican or a Democrat. Since 1989, when Gingrich supported aggressive climate action against “wasteful fossil fuel use,” until today, as he proposes abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 353 ppm to 391 ppm (from 26 percent above pre-industrial levels to 40 percent above), and the five-year global mean temperature anomaly has nearly doubled from 0.3°C to 0.56°C.

FLIP

FLOP

Read more

Last week, a Wisconsin judge issued an order “restrain[ing] and enjoin[ing] the further implementation” of Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) anti-worker law until she has time to fully consider a lawsuit claiming that the law was not validly enacted. Yet, despite this clear and unambiguous order, Walker and his allies have decided that they are not bound by the law:

In a stunning twist, Gov. Scott Walker’s legislation limiting collective bargaining for public workers was published Friday despite a judge’s hold on the measure, prompting a dispute over whether it takes effect Saturday. [...]

“It’s published,” [Senate Majority Leader Scott] Fitzgerald said. “It’s law. That’s what I contend.” [...]

Walker’s top cabinet official, Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch, gave only a brief statement reacting to Friday’s news.

“Today the administration was notified that the LRB published the budget-repair bill as required by law,” he said. “The administration will carry out the law as required.”

Under Wisconsin law, someone who intentionally defies a court order is in contempt of court, and can be fined up to $2,000 for each day that they disobey the court or imprisoned for up to six months.

Former California Superior Court Judge Donald McCartin, a self-described “right-wing Republican” who earned the nickname “the hanging judge” for the numerous death penalty sentences he handed out, penned an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times yesterday calling on California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and the state legislature to abolish the death penalty. Doing so, McCartin writes, would save the state “hundreds of millions of dollars” that could go toward filling the state’s $25 billion budget gap:

I watch today as Gov. Brown wrestles with the massive debt that is suffocating our state and hear him say he doesn’t want to “play games.” But I cringe when I learn that not playing games amounts to cuts to kindergarten, cuts to universities, cuts to people with special needs — and I hear no mention of the simple cut that would save hundreds of millions of dollars, countless man-hours, unimaginable court time and years of emotional torture for victim’s family members waiting for that magical sense of “closure” they’ve been falsely promised with death sentences that will never be carried out. [...]

It’s time to stop playing the killing game. Let’s use the hundreds of millions of dollars we’ll save to protect some of those essential services now threatened with death. Let’s stop asking people like me to lie to those victim’s family members.

Indeed, the Northern California chapter of the ACLU estimates that California spends $137 million each year on death penalty cases, mostly on legal fees, including the mandatory appeals process. In contrast, “the alternative of permanent imprisonment would cost just $11 million.” In addition to saving $125 million each year, abolishing the death penalty would allow the state to forgo its plan to build a new $400 million death row facility at San Quentin State Prison, a project that was put on hold earlier this year, bringing total savings to more than $1 billion over the next five years.

With California considering deep cuts to a plethora of programs, including education, law enforcement, and the state college and university program, the San Francisco Chronicle estimated that the $117 million alone could pay for 1,900 new California Highway Patrol officers, 2,100 new teachers, or help with tuition for 103,000 University of California students.

Several other states have considered abolishing the death penalty, including Kansas, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Montana, and Maryland. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) signed a law abolishing the state’s death penalty earlier this month, saving taxpayers an estimated $20 million annually.

There are numerous social justice arguments for the abolishment of the death penalty. But with lawmakers across the country facing daunting budget gaps, cutting the death penalty should be an obvious choice.