Glenn Declares Candidacy for U.S. Senate

* Marriage Protection Amendment co-author
* Right to Work and School Choice leader
* Health care reform “pioneer”
 

Midland, Mich. — Gary Glenn, 53, of Midland Wednesday filed a formal statement of candidacy for the Republican nomination to challenge Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, for the U.S. Senate in 2012.  Glenn, who said he has crossed the $5,000 fundraising threshhold at which federal election law requires a formal statement of candidacy, is the only GOP candidate to formally file after former Rep. Pete Hoekstra announced his entry into the race.

Noting Hoekstra's votes for the $850 billion Wall Street bailout, earmarks such as the $223 million "Bridge to Nowhere," and budgets and debt ceiling increases that added trillions of dollars to the national debt, Glenn cited "Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

"The last twenty years, Debbie Stabenow and Pete Hoekstra both voted for red-ink budgets and debt ceiling increases that resulted in trillions in crushing new debt on our economy and our children's future," Glenn said. "A Democrat in Congress fourteen years, a Republican for eighteen years plus two more as a lobbyist, a total of over three decades as part of the go along to get along culture that got us where we are now. If we want to end the fiscal insanity in Washington, is it rational to expect we'll get a different result if we keep sending the same people back there over and over again?"

Glenn said the nation's "economy, security, liberties, moral foundation, and founding principles — all that’s made America and Americans exceptional in the history of the world – are under attack from within."

“If they're not stopped, liberal ideologues like Debbie Stabenow and Barack Obama will rob our children of their birthright and turn our country into the United Socialist States of America," Glenn said. "My mission, commitment, and duty is to do whatever I can to help senators like Jim DeMint and Rand Paul and Mike Lee stop them.”

Gary Glenn to Explore U.S. Senate Race Against Stabenow

The best political news we've heard in years!  Our friend, mentor and contributing editor of Sunlit Uplands has announced he is considering a race for the United States Senate against Debbie Stabenow.  This will offer the voters of Michigan the clearest choice they have had in decades, should be the most important race for every patriot concerned about the direction of our country, and knowing Gary's extraordinary political skills, will be great fun to watch.

Gary is a true Christian leader, a gentleman and a patriot.  Michigan has the opportunity to do something great for America in this race.

Dear family and friends,

I jumped off the high dive today.  But if we don't all do something to stop it, our country as we know it is on the brink of being lost, and I feel compelled to do whatever I can to help protect and preserve for our kids what we all love about America.

Lord willing, I can get there and help men like Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee demand and fight for restoration of the limited government principles of our Constitution.    

Please check out my new website: www.garyglenn.us

And please be sure to visit this page of the site in particular.  (Thank you in advance!)

Please also keep Annette and the kids and me in your prayers in the months ahead, as we face this challenge together.  We deeply appreciate your love, friendship, and support...

Salute, and thanks!

Gary

Prominent Mormon Blogger Labels Romney "Chameleon-Like"

By Gary Glenn

Connor Boyack of Levi, Utah -- well-known religion and politics blogger , Brigham Young University graduate, active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and self-described former Mitt Romney supporter -- nails Romney's "chameleon-like qualities" on a broad array of issues, up to and including Romney's personal responsibility for the executive order that actually implemented so-called homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts.

Boyack posted on MormonBloggers.com:

"Governor Romney took it upon himself -- absent any authority or legal mandate -- to order town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples, making Massachusetts the first state in the country to allow them.

For all his subsequent grandstanding -- criticizing the Court, participating in pro-traditional marriage rallies, and endorsing changes to the U.S. Constitution to require marriage be between a man and a woman -- Romney was either ignorant in regards to his duties as governor, or duplicitous in his actions.

Being bound in no way (and having no authority) to issue such an executive order prior to legislative action, the first homosexual marriages -- and no doubt the impetus for other states to follow suit -- occurred due to Mitt Romney's actions alone."

Many of the issues Connor covers were discussed by multiple critics during the 2008 presidential election cycle, but Connor's critiques -- to the extent they become broadly known -- are something new: he threatens to dramatically multiply the damage to Romney's credibility precisely because, as a practicing member of the LDS Church, he is immune to Romney apologists' knee-jerk weapon of first (or at least eventual) resort: the false characterization of any and all criticism of Romney's public policy record as being motivated by religious "bigotry."

Michigan GOP Majority Eyes ‘Right to Work’ Legislation

The battle for America is playing out dramatically in the nation's heartland.  This struggle between two classes of Americans -- hard working taxpayers described by Obama as "clinging to their guns and Bibles," and the Obamunists -- socialist, governmental elites who fancy themselves the ruling class, and believe they know what's best for the rest of us.  Using the Cloward-Piven Strategy and their handbook for revolution, Rules for Radicals, they are intent on bankrupting and destroying the old Republic so that they might impose a new Marxist order.

Wisconsin makes clear that Americans should get their children out of schools that exist for the benefit of leftist governmental unions.  They provide indoctrination; they most assuredly do not provide education.  Their own test scores testify in every state that they utterly fail to provide the education most parents want for their children.

We believe the outcome of the battle in Wisconsin and other states is crucial to the survival and success of liberty in America.  In this regard, we are not surprised that one of the greatest freedom fighters we have known, and a Sunlit Uplands Contributing Editor, Gary Glenn, is playing a leadership role on what may be a battlefield even more challenging than Wisconsin.

The Michigan Messenger reports:

"Gary Glenn, who runs the American Family Association of Michigan, scored his first legislative scores in Idaho pushing for Right to Work legislation there. Idaho approved Right to Work 25 years ago, and Glenn recently returned to celebrate that win. He says Right to Work is really about civil rights.

'State Right to Work laws are civil rights measures that protect employees against job discrimination on the basis of union affiliation by prohibiting collective bargaining agreements which require employees to join or pay dues to a labor union as a condition of continued employment, i.e., ‘pay up or you’re fired.’ The result is that each individual is free to choose for himself whether to join or financially support a union at his place of work, without fearing discrimination, retribution, or termination for whichever choice he makes,' Glenn said. 'Obviously, employees in Right to Work states are just as free to exercise their federally-guaranteed right to join or support a union if they wish as they are anywhere else.'

Many Michigan groups, like CALL and a coalition of Tea Party groups who are hosting a day long conference in Lansing later this year, are turning to Glenn for advice, guidance and support in driving Right to Work legislation to the forefront of Michigan’s agenda."

Gary Glenn Interviewed on the Bott Radio Network

Gary Glenn

Gary Glenn, President of the American Family Association of Michigan and Contributing Editor of Sunlit Uplands, was recently interviewed on the Bott Radio Network by Dick Bott, its founder and Chairman and host of BRN’s public affairs talk show “The Complete Story.” The interview was heard on nearly 90 Christian radio stations in 15 states, from Tennessee to California and Indiana to Texas.

Click here to listen.

We think our readers will be especially interested in what Mr. Bott and Gary have to say about the "great pretender," Mitt Romney.  According to the AFA-Michigan website their discussion includes:

AFA-Michigan’s news release this week calling on Gov. Rick Snyder and legislative leaders to act to protect taxpayers from being forced to fund spousal-type benefits for the homosexual “partners” of state employees.  Glenn said the state should instead limit such benefits only to legally married employees as an incentive to encourage and promote marriage, an institution which social studies prove reduces poverty and the need for law enforcement, social welfare, and other government programs. Bottom line: incentivize and promote more marriages, get less government at less cost to taxpayers.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney’s responsibility for the actual implementation of so-called homosexual “marriage” in Massachusetts. As Associated Press reported April 25, 2004: “Gov. Mitt Romney’s top legal counsel told the state’s justices of the peace Sunday to resign if they are unwilling to preside over the marriage of same-sex couples beginning next month. …’If a justice of the peace cannot comply with his or her oath of office, then we would expect that person to tender their resignation from that office.’ …Romney has also ordered changes to the state’s marriage application, replacing ‘bride” and ‘groom’ with ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B.’”

African-Americans’ strong support for traditional marriage despite homosexual activists’ attempts to equate their political agenda with and thus exploit the black church-led Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

GOProud Out at Annual Summit of Conservatives

We resolved to ignore the annual CPAC meeting this year, which was hijacked by  libertarian and homosexual organizations.  We are pleased that steps are being taken to restore this meeting to authentic conservatives in the mould of Burke and Kirk.  But it has been illuminating to see which organizations and candidates will stand for principle and which will go with the flow. 

We salute Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality and Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel for leading the opposition to the inclusion of groups antithetical to the conservative movement.  Organizations that boycotted this year's meeting include The Heritage Foundation, Media Research Center, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, American Principles Project, American Values, the Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage.

As our friend Gary Glenn, President of the American Family Association of Michigan, points out, marriage protection has been on the ballot in 30 states and has passed in every one, with an average margin in support of nearly 70%.  Why would conservative organizations want to alienate the broad mainstream of the American public?

Conservative principles have never been an obstacle for Mitt Romney

From WorldNetDaily

The homosexual activist group GOProud, whose inclusion in the Conservative Political Action Conference here last year and last week stirred controversy within the largest annual conservative gathering, will not be welcomed back next year, sources tell WND. 

Some of the nation's biggest conservative organizations withdrew from participation over the inclusion of GOProud and other factors. Those groups include the Heritage Foundation, Media Research Center, Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America. 

Read the rest of this entry >>

Rise of the ‘Teavangelicals’

Will the Tea Party bring new life to the religious right?

From OneNewsNow

By Ed Vitagliano

Since the rise and triumph of Ronald Reagan, Christian conservatives have had a hot-and-cold love affair with politics in America. But with Barack Obama’s rise to the White House – along with two straight winning elections for Democrats in Congress in 2006 and 2008 – some predicted the collapse of the religious right.

   

Of course, that forecast was made simultaneously with grim prophecies concerning conservatism in general and the GOP in particular.  When the historic 2010 midterm elections were over, however, the Republican Party had made sweeping gains in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures, and solid gains in the U.S. Senate. (See AFA Journal, 1/11.)

How did doom-and-gloom turn into a GOP rout?  Enter the Tea Party movement, which appears to be the latest incarnation of a still-vibrant political conservative movement and, in the words of one analyst, a clear “game-changer.”

What is the nature of this movement, and are social conservatives a part of it?

Gary Glenn Celebrates 25th Anniversary of One of His, and Freedom's, Great Triumphs

"I'm a true believer. The purpose was always individual freedom. It is no longer legal to be discriminated against or fired on the basis of support or nonsupport of a private organization."

Gary Glenn is the most brilliant political strategist we know, a champion of individual freedom, and a columnist for Sunlit Uplands. This week he is returning to the scene of one of his most important political victories for the twenty-fifth anniversary of the campaign to end compulsory unionism in Idaho.

The Idaho Statesman tells the extraordinary story:

Glenn returns to celebrate 25 years of Right to Work in Idaho

Dan Popkey: Glenn returns to celebrate 25 years of Right to Work in Idaho

One of the most polarizing figures in Idaho history is marking a triumph that changed the workplace and solidified the Republican hold on Idaho.

Gary Glenn, now 52, was the baby-faced but ruthless leader of the long campaign to make Idaho the 20th of 21 states to outlaw "union shops," where workers are obligated to pay dues as a condition of employment.

After the passage of Right to Work in 1985 over the veto of Democratic Gov. John Evans, voters affirmed the change 54 percent to 46 percent. The subsequent emasculation of a key component of the Democratic base has changed politics forever.

"It was a big victory for the Republican Party and a big defeat for the Democrats," said Roger Madsen, a former GOP state senator who leads the Idaho Department of Labor. Madsen will join his boss, Gov. Butch Otter, and others Thursday night at a banquet organized by Glenn at the DoubleTree Riverside in Garden City.

The political culture has changed so much that the current Democratic nominee for governor, Keith Allred, declines to take a stand on an issue that was once a Democratic litmus test.

"What a difference 25 years makes," Glenn said.

Jim Kerns, president of the Idaho AFL-CIO from 1981 to 1992 and a key player in a 1970 Treasure Valley grocery strike, said the anniversary dredges up bitter memories. "You can't have an effective strike today in Idaho and everybody knows it," he said.

Steve Ahrens, a former Statesman political editor who became a business lobbyist and favors Right to Work, said the landmark campaign was plenty bitter. "The tactics on both sides were equally despicable," Ahrens said. "They ranged from scurrilous to reprehensible."

Kerns, 71, would just as soon forget it and focus on his grandkids and celebrating his Boise State Broncos. But Glenn, also a big Bronco fan, loves reliving the fight.

He edited 30 hours of video to 27 minutes for the banquet. Highlights include Oscar winner Charlton Heston's pivotal TV spots and lawmakers like Boise Republican Kitty Gurnsey, saying she was voting "aye" so Right to Work backers would go away. Glenn, who moved to Idaho in 1978, engineered defeats of key GOP opponents in order to win near-unanimous Republican support.

The result is a more conservative Idaho GOP and a weaker Democratic Party, Glenn said: "A party that could not sustain itself in the free market of public debate is no longer subsidized by compulsory union dues."

After the 1986 campaign, Glenn went to work for the Idaho Cattle Association and famously was barred from the governor's office by Democrat Cecil Andrus. (Evans also ousted Glenn's video crew when he tried to film the 1985 veto.)

Glenn ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 1992 against now-Sen. Mike Crapo.

He spent six years as an Ada County commissioner before being defeated and leaving to become president of the American Family Association of Michigan. He's now the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit to overturn the federal hate crimes law on grounds that it infringes on religious freedom.

"I'm held in the same regard among homosexual activists in Michigan as I was by AFL-CIO officials in Idaho," Glenn said.

Kerns takes some comfort in the fact Glenn left. Kerns still calls him a carpetbagger.

He says Right to Work has transformed Idaho into a company town. "Idaho's still a great place to live, but I don't think it's a great place to work," he said.

Union membership has tumbled nationwide since 1985, dropping from 18 percent to 12 percent of the work force.

In Idaho, the decline was steeper, from 12 percent in 1985 to 6 percent in 2009.

Kerns and Glenn disagree on the economic impacts. Kerns points to the relative decline in Idaho wages, from 84 percent of the national average in 1985 to 75 percent in 2008. Glenn cites two decades of job growth that easily exceeded all but a few states.

Researchers also differ. One study says that after you account for the fact the Right to Work states started off poorer, wages have risen faster than national rates. Another says Right to Work has brought a 6.5 percent "wage penalty."

Northwest Nazarene University economist Peter Crabb suggests Right to Work made employment more stable. Boise State economist Don Holley says lower wages may have made the housing bubble worse.

Glenn concedes there's almost religious fervor about the impact of Right to Work.

But economics weren't the most important aspect of the campaign, he said.

"I'm a true believer," he said.

"The purpose was always individual freedom. It is no longer legal to be discriminated against or fired on the basis of support or nonsupport of a private organization."

A Winning Speech: "Let America's Prenatal Children Live"

The following is the winning speech in a pro-life speech contest for college students cosponsored by Flint, Michigan Area Right to Life and Black Americans for Life.

It was delivered by Harrison Glenn, 19, a Delta College freshman. He is the son of Gary and Annette Glenn. Harrison's father, Gary, is President of the American Family Association of Michigan and a Sunlit Uplands correspondent.

____________________________________________________________________

By Harrison Glenn

I've met some amazing women in my life. My mother was the first, with special other ones thereafter. But no matter how amazing, none of them have had two heads or four eyes.

But abortion activists like attorney Lori Andrews would have you think otherwise. When talking about pregnant women and their prenatal children, Lori Andrews said “people's body parts are their personal property."

In other words, she said, a pregnant woman does have two sets of body parts -- hers and her “fetus’s."

Does it matter if she’s right? Of course it does, especially to the baby.

Here’s just one way it matters: pain.

When we see someone else get hurt, it doesn't cause us pain, and likewise, during an abortion, a woman may not feel physical pain when her “second set” of body parts are ripped from her, but someone does. The baby does.

Abraham Lincoln once said: "As I would not be a slave, I would not be a master; for I would not choose for others, what I would not choose for myself."

Lincoln also said: “Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him.”

And so it is with abortion. How many women who have had abortions would choose for themselves the “choice” they chose for their baby?

How many would choose themselves to be ripped apart, limb from limb, while their heart is still beating, aware of and feeling all that is occurring?

How many would choose to die an agonizing death in a vat of acid, which is what a saline abortion feels like to a prenatal child, or have their consciousness, their very minds sucked from their skulls, aware of and feeling it all til the last moment, as in a partial birth abortion?

My name is Harrison Glenn, and I am a survivor of the "pro-choice" era, one of the greatest tragedies on American soil. I am a survivor because my Mom and my Dad did not buy into the lie, because my Mom and Dad believed I had a God-given right to life.

Unlike 40 million of my generation’s never-born brothers and sisters, I have been given the chance to live life to the fullest, to see the sun set, to learn, grow, and fall in love.

And still, despite irrefutable scientific proof, abortion activists either argue illogically and unscientifically that life does not begin at conception…

…or argue immorally, as John Kerry did, that life does begin but it doesn’t matter if our laws allow that life to be snuffed out.

Such people, empowered by our courts, have denied more than forty million prenatal children the chance to live.

It is an irrefutable scientific, medical, biological, moral, and spiritual fact that human life begins at conception.

Still, many argue irrationally that an embryonic prenatal child, especially in its earliest stages of life, is not human. But let us think about this rationally and logically.

What kind of life is the embryonic prenatal child? Is it rabbit life? Vegetable life? Maybe bird life? No, the last time I checked I don’t have feathers.

It is a human life.

Others claim abortion is good to ensure that no child grows up in an abusive home. "Every child a wanted child," they say.

They suggest that if a family can have the "correct" amount of children at the "proper" times, then these family problems will be eliminated. No more child abuse, no more children that are not "wanted" will be born.

"Eliminating" the lives of prenatal children does not lessen child abuse. Brutally and painfully ending their lives is the ultimate child abuse.

In fact, according to doctors, 90 percent of all abused children are those that were wanted at birth. Abortion does not save children from growing up in abusive homes, it “saves” them from growing up at all! This is a “good” thing, they argue.

But Abraham Lincoln answers once again, regarding another great moral and social issue over which our great, great, great grandparents fought and even died, over another “good” in which some people thought they could exercise “choice” over the lives of other human beings:

“As a good thing, slavery is strikingly peculiar in this, that it is the only good thing which no man ever seeks the good of, for himself!”

So it is with abortion.

Still, I do believe in a woman's right to choose -- a right to choose whether to remain celibate.

Nearly every woman who ever had an abortion first made a choice to engage in behavior that might result in the creation of a prenatal child. A woman does not spontaneously generate a child. Some thought was involved in the process, and certainly some action.

For that less than one percent of all abortions in which the woman's choice was violently and criminally violated, the solution to that first wrong is not a second and even greater wrong -- to kill the innocent prenatal child because of the sins of its father.

The solution is to do all we can to prevent it from ever happening again, through harsher penalties for rape, or other methods.

As I said, a woman does not have two hearts, four eyes, two noses, four ears.

A baby is not just a part of a woman, nor a parasite, any more than any human being is a parasite on others just because we depend on each other.

Every human being is dependent in some way on others. You require the farmer's milk and food, the miner's steel, the autoworker’s car. You needed your mother as a prenatal child and beyond to survive, but did that dependence and your location make you somehow less human? No.

Finally, let's choose to be honest about what these procedures really are -- a partial birth, but total death, experience. And such a heinous procedure -- this partial birth, total death, abortion -- is not partially wrong. It is totally wrong.

We cannot stand by. The time to reclaim the birthright of all Americans, including America’s prenatal children, is now.

You see, life is not just a beautiful choice. In the eyes and laws of God, it is, and some day again under the laws of man, should be, the only choice.

I urge you to position yourself and take a stand against abortion.

Listen to the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

"On some positions, cowardice asks the question, is it expedient? And then expedience comes along and asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? Conscience asks the question, is it right? There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right."

I agree.

Now is the time, and conscience tells us it is right -- right to let America’s prenatal children live.

Mormon Blogger: 'The Chameleon-Like Qualities of Mitt Romney’s Conservatism'

By Gary Glenn

Connor Boyack of Lehi, Utah -- well-known religion and politics blogger , Brigham Young University graduate, active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and self-described former Mitt Romney supporter -- nails Romney's "chameleon-like qualities" on a broad array of issues, up to and including Romney's personal responsibility for the executive order that actually implemented so-called homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts:

"Governor Romney took it upon himself -- absent any authority or legal mandate -- to order town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples, making Massachusetts the first state in the country to allow them. For all his subsequent grandstanding -- criticizing the Court, participating in pro-traditional marriage rallies, and endorsing changes to the U.S. Constitution to require marriage be between a man and a woman -- Romney was either ignorant in regards to his duties as governor, or duplicitous in his actions. Being bound in no way (and having no authority) to issue such an executive order prior to legislative action, the first homosexual marriages -- and no doubt the impetus for other states to follow suit -- occurred due to Mitt Romney’s actions alone."

Many of these issues were discussed by multiple critics during the 2008 presidential election cycle, but Connor's critiques -- to the extent they become broadly known -- are something new: he threatens to dramatically multiply the damage to Romney's credibility precisely because, as a practicing member of the LDS Church, Connor is immune to Romney apologists' knee-jerk weapon of first (or at least eventual) resort: the false characterization of any and all criticism of Romney's public policy record as motivated by religious "bigotry."


Gary Glenn is a long-time conservative and pro-family activist who co-authored and helped lead the successful ballot campaign to enact Michigan's Marriage Protection Amendment.

New Federal ‘Hate Crimes’ Law Challenged on Constitutional Grounds

We are very proud that our friend and Sunlit Uplands columnist, Gary Glenn, is the lead plaintiff challenging this unconstitutional assault on freedom of speech and religious liberty. Gary is a valiant champion of freedom and we will follow this story closely.

From CNSNews
By Susan Jones

A conservative civil liberties group is challenging the constitutionality of the recently enacted federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

The new law, attached to a defense authorization bill that President Obama signed on October 28, 2009, makes it a federal crime to attack someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center says it elevates people engaged in deviant sexual behaviors to a special, protected class of persons under federal law.

The lawsuit naming U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of three pastors and the president of the American Family Association of Michigan.

All of the plaintiffs “take a strong public stand against the homosexual agenda, which seeks to normalize disordered sexual behavior that is contrary to Biblical teaching,” the Law Center said in a news release.

“There is no legitimate law enforcement need for this federal law,’ said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center.

“This is part of the list of political payoffs to homosexual advocacy groups for support of Barack Obama in the last presidential election,” Thompson continued. “The sole purpose of this law is to criminalize the Bible and use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their Biblically-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is a sin. It elevates those persons who engage in deviant sexual behaviors, including pedophiles, to a special protected class of persons as a matter of federal law and policy.”

According to the Law Center, of the 1.38 million violent crimes in the U.S. reported by the FBI in 2008, only 243 were considered to be motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation.

The four plaintiffs are Michigan Pastors Levon Yuille, Rene Ouellette, James Combs, and Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan.

The lawsuit alleges that the new law violates the plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment, and it violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. The lawsuit also alleges that Congress lacked authority to enact the legislation under the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

The lawsuit says the Hate Crimes Prevention Act “provides law enforcement with authorization and justification to conduct federal investigative and other federal law enforcement actions against Plaintiffs and others deemed to be opponents of homosexual activism, the homosexual lifestyle, and the homosexual agenda,” thereby expanding the jurisdiction of the FBI and other federal law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies.

Robert Muise, who is handling the case, said the new law promotes two Orwellian concepts: “It creates a special class of persons who are ‘more equal than others’ based on nothing more than deviant, sexual behavior. And it creates ‘thought crimes’ by criminalizing certain ideas, beliefs, and opinions, and the involvement of such ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a crime will make it deserving of federal prosecution."

He said it gives government officials the power "to decide which thoughts are criminal under federal law and which are not.”

The Thomas More Law Center describes its mission as defending and promoting “America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life.”

Clemency Call Seen Haunting Huckabee

We were very pleased to see Sunlit Uplands contributor, Gary Glenn, standing in defense of Mike Huckabee.

This is a tragic story, but the balance between justice and mercy, as Shakespeare made clear in his great play on this dilemma, Measure for Measure, cannot be achieved through scientific method. Governor Huckabee acted in good faith and made the best decision he could, nine years ago, with the facts that were available to him. He should not be held accountable for actions that could not be foreseen. After all, he's Constitutionally eligible to run for President, hasn't spent 20 years as a member of a church advocating racial hatred and contempt for the United States, and wasn't a community agitator for a criminal Marxist organization.

From The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
By Alex Daniels

A jury won’t determine the fate of Maurice Clemmons, the man who police say gunned down four Lakewood, Wash., police officers Sunday before being shot by a lawman Tuesday.

But for several people close to the man who granted him clemency in Arkansas nine years ago, the political verdict is clear: The bloodshed over the weekend has dimmed former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s political hopes.

On Tuesday, Jason Tolbert, the Arkansas coordinator of HuckPAC, Huckabee’s political action committee, resigned.

“The recent news of the last two days along with the response did play a role in this decision but was not the sole factor,” Tolbert said in a statement posted on his Web log, www.tolbertreport.com.

Other former staff members and campaign volunteers vented their frustration on Tuesday.

Huckabee’s justifications for the clemencies he granted as governor were “inadequate,” wrote Joe Carter on a Web site run by First Things, a publication of the Institute for Religion and Public Life, which describes itself as an “interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society.”

Carter was Huckabee’s director of opposition research early in the 2008 presidential campaign. He said that Huckabee, a preacher and former president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, placed too much faith in “restorative justice” and should have denied more requests for leniency.

“The unfortunate reality is that for politicians, unlike pastors, there are limits to compassion.”

Even some supporters say the weekend violence has undermined a potential 2012 Huckabee bid for the White House.

David Schmidt, director of an online grass-roots organization dubbed Huck’s Army, is among them.

“I’m still with him,” he said. “But I’m not saying this doesn’t hurt him, because clearly it does.”

Tom Forbes, who was Huckabee’s campaign coordinator in Whitman County, Wash., wrote on the Red County Web log that when he found out about Huckabee’sconnection to Clemmons, he “cringed.”

“For Huckabee to punt on his personal responsibility is beyond the pale. Let’s face it. No matter what Huckabee says or doesn’t say, his shot at the presidency is gone.”

‘FULL RESPONSIBILITY’

Huckabee’s first statement on the killings did not mention his role in Clemmons’ release.

“He was recommended for and received a commutation of his original sentence,” Huckabee said in a statement released Sunday. The resulting reduced sentence - from 108 years to 47 years - made him eligible for parole and he “was paroled by the parole board once they determined he met the conditions at that time.”

On Tuesday, Huckabee, a Republican, followed up with another statement.

“I take full responsibility for my actions of nine years ago,” it said. “If I could have possibly known what Clemmons would do nine years later, I obviously would have made a different decision. But if the same file were presented to me today, I would have likely made the same decision.”

Huckabee, who hosts a television show on Fox News and a radio show on the ABC Radio Network, has not said whether he will take another shot at the Republican presidential nomination.

Over the weekend, shortly before the police officers were killed, Huckabee had suggested on Fox News that he was leaning toward skipping the 2012 race.

He has trailed other Republican politicians, notably former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, in raising money. But he has scored well, leading the field in several early polls, and conservative Christian voters demonstrated their support for him in September, when he won the Value Voters Straw Poll.

Ed Rollins, Huckabee’s campaign chairman last year, declined an interview request Tuesday.

He said in an e-mail “I still like him and admire him and would not rule out helping him in the future.”

POLITICALLY ‘DIFFICULT’

Huckabee’s record on granting clemencies was an issue during his failed 2008 presidential run.

During his 10 1 /2 years as governor, Huckabee commuted the sentences of 163 prisoners, including 12 murderers.

In December 2007, Romney, one of Huckabee’s rivals in the race for the Republican nomination, criticized the Arkansan for granting pardons and commutations in an “arbitrary or capricious manner.”

Much of the attention on the clemency issue during the campaign was focused on Wayne DuMond, a Forrest City resident convicted of rape in 1984.

Huckabee, who had said he would like DuMond to be paroled, spoke with the state Parole Board in late 1996. Some of the members later said they had felt pressured by Huckabee to release Du-Mond, a claim Huckabee denied. DuMond was paroled in January 1997. Three years later DuMond, who had moved to Missouri, sexually abused and suffocated Carol Shields in a Kansas City apartment. Critics say Huckabee shoulders the blame for working to free DuMond and Clemmons.

“This isn’t Huckabee’s first Horton moment,” wrote Michelle Malkin, a conservative commentator on her Web log on Tuesday. Malkin referred to Willie Horton, a convicted murderer who was released from custody in Massachusetts on a weekend furlough in 1986 and disappeared. Nearly a year later, he raped a woman in Maryland.

Former President George H.W. Bush used Horton’s story prominently in his successful 1988 presidential campaign, when he defeated former Massachusetts Gov. Mike Dukakis, who supported the weekend furlough program.

Bush’s opposition researcher, James Pinkerton, first got wind of the issue when reading transcripts of the Democratic primary debates. Al Gore had raised the issue to suggest Dukakis was soft on crime.

During the 2008 race, Pinkerton was a senior adviser to Huckabee.

“That’s ironic, isn’t it?” said Paul Brountas, who served as Dukakis’ campaign manager.

Brountas said the Horton issue helped cement in voters’ minds the perception that Dukakis was soft on crime. He doesn’t think the issue will stick with Huckabee.

“This is early for Huckabee,” he said. “By the time he announces, much of this will have worn off.”

Pinkerton did not return calls Tuesday. Nor did former Sen. Tim Hutchinson, the former U.S. senator from Arkansas who campaigned heavily for Huckabee.

Arkansas state Sen. Gilbert Baker, an announced candidate for the U.S. Senate, campaigned for Huckabee during his 2008 presidential bid.

“Politically, it is very difficult,” Baker said. “It gives folks an opportunity to make political points.”

He added that he is still a “strong” Huckabee supporter, saying he’d be “favorably disposed” to supporting him again, should he decide to run in 2012.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan and another Huckabee supporter, said he’d support him in 2012.

“I don’t think this one decision is going to define Mike Huckabee as a man, a Christian or as a political candidate,” he said.

Schmidt, the director of Huck’s Army, said that it is not fair to compare Clemmons to Horton. Horton was a murderer at the time of his furlough, Schmidt said, and Clemmons was convicted of burglary and robbery.

“It would be comparable if you could see a pattern, or if there were known serious offenders getting out early when they shouldn’t have.”

Does that include Wayne DuMond?

“That’s a fair question,” said Schmidt. “It does open it up for discussion.”

Just Say No To Big Government

From the Campaign for Liberty
By Jack Hunter

Frustrated with Gov. Mark Sanford's refusal to accept $700 million in federal stimulus dollars and his opposition to the state budget, S.C. Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell addressed the governor in an open letter this month, writing, "Time and again, you have failed to address problems in a constructive manner and proactively work with the Legislature to find solutions."

Noting Sanford's constant opposition to the Republican-dominated state legislature, McConnell added, "While the attacks you have launched may have been intended to build your national image as a reformer, in the final analysis, the work of a true reformer is measured not by words or TV ads or by press releases, but by what he or she has been able to accomplish."

McConnell has a point. But it's also nearly impossible to accomplish anything when there's only one reformer.

There are two types of "conservative" Republicans. The first type believes that government is broken, but simply needs Republicans to better manage it, while the other believes we need to actually reduce government. The first type can enjoy long careers by peppering their continuing support for the status quo with conservative-sounding language. The second type tends to make fewer friends because their career-long language consists of telling Democrats, Republicans, and even their constituents one word: "No."

Texas Congressman Ron Paul earned the name "Dr. No" in the House of Representatives for opposing most legislation brought to the floor. During his tenure in Congress, Sanford joined Paul in saying "no" more than any other congressman. Would America have been better served if Paul and Sanford tried to work more with the rest of the legislature to help bring us to our current state? Or might we have been better off if there were more leaders willing to consistently say "no" to more laws, more spending, and more government in general?

Consider the example of New Mexico's own "Dr. No," former Republican Gov. Gary "Veto" Johnson, who earned his nickname for vetoing 750 bills from 1995 to 2003, more than all the vetoes of the other 49 governors combined. Johnson also cut the growth of his state's government in half, privatized half of the state's prisons, reduced state employees by 1,000, oversaw the longest period without a tax increase in the state's history, and left office with a budget surplus. No doubt, New Mexico leaders wanted to spend as much money as South Carolina's legislature or any other state government. But Johnson constantly said "no," and was able to do some good.

The bloated budget and massive debt that continues to plague the state of South Carolina is a microcosm of the bloated budget and massive debt that continues to plague the entire United States. Everyone from across the political spectrum will generally agree that such reckless behavior is a problem and we cannot go on forever conducting business as usual. Yet when any leader dares to reverse course by saying "no," such leaders will invariably find themselves being attacked for daring to obstruct business as usual. The same state legislature that created our current economic woes are the same leaders who are now saying Sanford is the problem, as if a more cooperative gubernatorial extension of themselves would be preferable and somehow produce different, better results.

When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, the new president hung a portrait in the White House of his hero, President Calvin Coolidge. Author Ivan Eland described Coolidge as a president who believed the United States had too many laws. He once said, "We would be better off if we didn't have anymore ... The greatest duty and opportunity of government is not to embark on any new ventures." But as it was in his own time, Coolidge's conservative philosophy remains unpopular today, where "good" or "great" leaders are always defined as those who expand the power of government to accomplish certain goals. The opposite is also true, and it was for this reason that Time magazine once felt compelled to declare Sanford one of America's "worst governors" for his habit of constantly opposing government.

I'm often criticized for bashing Republicans, but I do so because it's hard to take most of them seriously. Any Republican who talks about "fiscal responsibility," yet spends as much as any Democrat, whether at the national or state level, is completely worthless. Unfortunately, this description fits the bulk of the Republican Party. Most Republicans aren't the least bit serious about their conservative rhetoric.

And as America continues to spiral downward the longer spending goes upward, the few, serious conservatives willing to say "no" to government will always get the loudest "yes" from me.


The "Southern Avenger" Jack Hunter is a conservative commentator (WTMA 1250 AM talk radio) and columnist (Charleston City Paper) living in Charleston, South Carolina. See his blog.

Should Homosexuality Be a 'Litmus Test' for High Court?

"Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of 'moral retreat.' 'It's not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family's moral retreat on the issue,' Glenn argues. '[That explanation] will be used by homosexual activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a Biblical standard.'"

From OneNewsNow
By Jim Brown

Conservative political activists are divided over whether homosexual behavior should disqualify a judicial nominee from consideration for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Focus on the Family's judicial analyst, Bruce Hausknecht, recently told liberal blogger Greg Sargent that Focus would not oppose a Supreme Court nominee solely because of their homosexual behavior. "Our concern at the Supreme Court is judicial philosophy," Hausknecht said. "Sexual orientation only becomes an issue if it effects their judging."

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus, says just like a nominee's ethnicity and life experience, homosexuality should not be a litmus test.

"Someone's sexual orientation or their preferences, none of these things should come into consideration when we're talking about evaluating someone who will make decisions based on precedent under the law [and who will] practice judicial restraint," Horne explains. "Those are the things we look at for whether or not someone would make a fit justice on the Supreme Court."

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of "moral retreat."

"It's not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family's moral retreat on the issue," Glenn argues. "[That explanation] will be used by homosexual activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a biblical standard."

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council agrees with Focus on the Family that homosexuality should not be an absolute litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee. He argues in blog comments that "even Supreme Court nominees deserve some zone of privacy, and...there is at least a hypothetical possibility that somewhere in the country there is a judge who has experienced same-sex attractions, but who also respects judicial restraint and the original intent of the Constitution.

"In the real world, however, the chances of finding a highly-qualified judge who fits both of those descriptions are probably about equal to the chances of a camel passing through the eye of a needle," Sprigg concludes. "So don't hold your breath waiting for social conservatives to 'support' a 'gay' judicial nominee."

Romney and Obama Advisor Urges Abolition of Government Recognition of Marriage

By Gary Glenn
President, American Family Association of Michigan

Doug Kmiec, the Obama-supporting law professor who today called for abolition of government recognition of marriage between one man and one woman was -- immediately before he endorsed Obama -- co-chair of the Romney for President Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts.

His call to deconstruct legal recognition and thus formal social endorsement and support for one-man, one-woman marriage should come as no surprise, given his support for first a Republican and then a Democratic presidential candidate whose vocal support for the homosexual agenda and opposition to constitutionally securing the definition of traditional marriage have at various times during their political careers been identical.

Romney -- under no court order to do so, but solely at his own initiative via executive order -- implemented the actual practice of so-called homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts, ordering a revision of the state's marriage licenses to remove reference to a "husband" and "wife" and then ordering magistrates to either issue them to homosexual couples or resign. Obama promises, by repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act, to expand nationwide what Romney started in Massachusetts.

It's no surprise that a lawyer who endorsed Obama would propose abolishing legal recognition of marriage as a unique social ideal between a man and a woman. It should open some eyes that the very same man was chosen by Mitt Romney to be his chief advisor on issues regarding the Constitution and the courts, a post that reasonably could have led to a similar position in the Romney Administration, including advising the president on judicial appointments and social policy, had Romney been elected.

Catholic Obama Campaign Adviser Wants to Replace All Legal ‘Marriages’ with ‘Civil Licenses'


From CNSNews.com
By Pete Winn

A top constitutional law professor who served as a surrogate for then-presidential candidate Barack Obama told CNSNews.com that he would like to see “marriage” replaced in the legal sense with a neutral “civil license.”

“As awkward as it may be, I think the way to untie the state from this problem is to create a new terminology that they would apply to everyone--straight or gay-call it a ‘civil license,’ said Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University and author of “Can a Catholic Support Him?’

“The net effect of that, would be to turn over--quite appropriately, it seems to me, the concept of marriage to churches and a church understanding,” Kmiec said.

Kmiec said that one of the things that motivated the passage of California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, “was a genuine concern on the part of religious believers--including myself--that the previous California ruling was not addressing what that would mean for religious practice.”

“After the state of California acknowledged same-sex marriage, would that mean, for example, that churches like the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church, which don’t acknowledge those relationships as a marriage by virtue of their scriptural and theological teaching--would they be subject to penalty? Would they lose public benefits? Would they be subject to lawsuits based upon some theory of discrimination?”

Kmiec said his idea would address those questions.

“One of the possible outcomes that would be good in this case, would be if the state got out of the marriage business, did their licensing under a different name--which, of course, would satisfy the state’s interests for purposes of distribution of taxation and property, but then the question of who can and cannot be married would be entirely determined in your voluntarily chosen faith community.

“We know that religions differ as to how they see that question,” Kmiec said. “But it seems to me that would be a nice way to reaffirm the significance of marriage as a religious concept--because that is a much fuller concept than just civil marriage.”

"Because, as we all know, from a standpoint of religious belief, the couple is not just making a promise to themselves, or even to their local community or their state, but they are making a covenant between themselves and their Creator. That’s something that is differently expressed in different religious traditions, but we shouldn’t lose the value of that, and this is an opportunity to heighten the value of that in order to help the State of California out of the corner it has worked itself into.”

But Princeton University law professor Robert George, who is also a top constitutional scholar--and a Catholic academic--said that Kmiec’s idea would do away with the public role of marriage--and banish it to the religious “ghetto.”

“That is a terrible idea,” George said. “The idea that the state would abandon its concern for the institution of marriage, that it would treat marriage as a purely religious matter, is I think a very bad one.”

Marriage is more than merely a religious institution, George told CNSNews.com.

"It’s not like baptisms and bar mitzvahs,” he said. “It has profound social significance, public significance; it’s a pre-political institution. It exists even apart from religion, even apart from polities. It’s the coming together of a husband and wife, creating the institution of family in which children are nurtured.”

“The family is the original and best Department of Health, Education and Welfare,” George said.

“No government agency can ever surpass it, ever has surpassed it,” he added. “Governments and economies and systems of law all rely upon the family to produce something they need, but that they themselves cannot produce, and that is, basically honest, decent, law abiding people of goodwill--citizens--who can take their rightful place in society.

“Family is built on marriage, and government--the state--has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were a purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake,” George said.

“I don’t know where Professor Kmiec is getting his idea, but it’s a very, very bad one.”

Huntsman Slammed for Embracing Civil Unions

Governor Jon Huntsman, RINO-Utah, who earlier this year was introduced to South Carolina Republican leaders at a dinner hosted by Attorney General Henry McMaster, has won praise from the leading homosexual advocacy group, Human Rights Campaign, for his support of civil unions. The liberal, Mormon Governor, who is expected to be a leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, is a close associate of John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

As the following story from The Hill indicates, Republican organizations in other states are taking a more principled stand when it comes to the ambitions of Governor Jon Huntsman.

From The Hill
By Reid Wilson

Utah Gov. John Huntsman (R), seen by many as a potential top-tier presidential candidate in 2012, has been uninvited from a local Michigan Republican club after announcing his support for civil unions between gay couples.

Huntsman is touring Michigan this week and stopping at several county party events as he slowly raises his national profile. But the Kent County Republican Party this week canceled Huntsman's appearance, with the county party chairwoman saying his appearance would amount to an abandonment of party principles.

Joanne Voorhees, chairwoman of the party in the Grand Rapids-based county, emailed party members to announce the cancellation of the Saturday fundraiser.

“The voters want and expect us to stand on principle and return to our roots,” Voorhees wrote in an email. “Unfortunately, by holding an event with Gov. Huntsman, we would be doing the exact opposite.”

The move won praise from the Campaign for Michigan Families, one of the main groups behind Michigan's 2004 passage of a ban on same-sex marriages. Campaign chairman Gary Glenn called on Kalamazoo and Oakland County Republican Parties to cancel their own planned events with the two-term Utah governor.

In place of the canceled Kent County fundraiser, Huntsman will be hosted by Dick DeVos, the GOP gubernatorial nominee in 2006 and a major Republican fundraiser in the state, and wife Betsy DeVos for a fundraiser in Grand Rapids that benefits the state party.

Huntsman will also stop by the Muskegon County GOP.

Huntsman won praise in February from the Human Rights Campaign, one of the leading gay rights organizations in the country, when he announced he would back civil unions as contractual agreements between what he called non-traditional couples.

Huntsman has emerged as a leading voice urging national Republicans to moderate their positions and has signaled that, were he to run for president, he would do so as a centrist with business credentials. He has said that he doesn't plan to run for president, though he has well-known consultants guiding him as he visits several states crucial to winning the GOP primary.

Earlier this year, Huntsman visited several state party events in South Carolina, site of the first-in-the-South primary. He has also stopped in North Carolina and will give a speech at a conference later this week in Chicago.

In South Carolina, Huntsman met a number of party chairmen and activists with Attorney General Henry McMaster (R) at his side. In Michigan, political consultant John Yob has been setting up meetings for Huntsman around the state.

Did Romney's Religion Cost Him the Presidency?

By Gary Glenn

Saturday, the Mormon Times, a website published by the Mormon church-owned Deseret News daily newspaper in Salt Lake City, published a commentary titled, "Did Romney's religion cost him the presidency?" citing assertions to that effect by Kirk Jowers, director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah.

Jowers must have been observing a different presidential election than most Republican primary voters did in 2008.

Mitt Romney didn't lose the Republican nomination because he's Mormon. Romney lost the nomination, among other things, because his record on family values issues such as abortion, the homosexual agenda, and pornography wasn't Mormon enough.

Anybody with an Internet connection could watch the YouTube videos in living color of Romney's own lips moving during his 2002 gubernatorial debate as he spoke the words: "I do not take the position of a pro-life candidate." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3 DP_w9pquznG4

In his runs for public office before seeking the presidency, Romney endorsed abortion on demand, Roe v. Wade, Ted Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation, same-sex benefits for the homosexual partners of government workers (at taxpayers' expense), gays in the military, various gun control measures, opposed the state Marriage Protection Amendment proposed by traditional marriage groups, and disagreed with the Boy Scout policy banning homosexual Scouts and Scoutmasters. In his prior campaigns, he was endorsed by both the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans and the pro-abortion Republican Majority for Choice.

On another family values issue, the Deseret News editorially commented on Romney's service as a member of the board of directors of Marriott Hotels, which offers pay-per-view pornography on its in-room movie service:

"Pornography taints everything it touches. Mitt Romney should have understood that. So should the Marriott Corporation and other hotel owners who offer hard-core movies in hotel rooms. Romney caught a bit of flack last week because he spent nearly 10 years on the Marriott board and yet never tr ied to reverse the company's policy of providing pornography on demand... For a presidential candidate who has railed against pornography, this is not entirely insignificant. Even if the subject never came up at a board meeting, one can argue that at least part of the $25,000 plus stock he was paid annually for his board membership came from the money some hotel guests paid for access to the films." http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,680197653,00.html

Conservative GOP primary voters were then asked to believe that in the few short years intervening, a man raised from childhood in a politically active and sophisticated family -- who had served in leadership positions in a pro-life, traditional values-based church -- had only at the tender age of 58 suddenly discovered his moral compass and "seen the light" to become a rock-ribbed pro-life, pro-traditional values conservative, just in time, conveniently, to run for president.

However, well after his alleged "Road to Des Moines" conversion to pro-family conservatism, Romney while running for president told Tim Russert in December 2007 that he supports state-level "gay rights" laws, called homosexual couples raising children "fine" and "the American way," publicly scolded Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace for characterizing homosexual behavior as immoral, and to this day -- unless he's changed his views yet again since his campaign's last statement during the primaries -- disagrees with the Boy Scouts' nationwide ban on homosexual Scouts and Scoutmasters, a position certainly at odds with the Church's firm stand in support of that policy.

And as fellow candidate Fred Thompson accurately pointed out, referring to legislation Romney signed after his alleged pro-life conversion: "Gov. Romney’s own health care plan in Massachusetts offers taxpayer funded abortions for a mere $50 co-pay and requires by law that a representative from Planned Parenthood sit on the MassHealth advisory board. Tellingly, Gov. Romney made no such requirement for a representative from the pro-life movement."

Also telling in terms of character: in trying to justify his pro-abortion on demand track record, Romney didn't hesitate to throw Church officials and even his own mother under the bus. He told WHO radio in Des Moines: "There are Mormons in the leadership of my church who are pro-choice. ...Every Mormon should be pro-life? That's not what my church says." (Not caring to identify which leaders of a pro-life church he claimed are "pro-choice," Romney self-servingly cast an undeserved cloud of doubt on all of them.) http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0807/Mitt_unplugged.html

In his debate with Ted Kennedy, he said: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate."http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

But as the Boston Globe reported: "(Former Michigan Republican Party chairwoman Elly) Peterson is dumbfounded to hear that Mitt Romney has described his mother as having been an abortion rights supporter during (her 1970 U.S. Senate) campaign. 'If it happened, I'd remember it,' she said in a telephone interview. 'It didn't, and I don't.' ...Detroit Free Press archives yielded no (Lenore Romney) campaign references to abortion...'The idea that Lenore would defy her church is hard to believe,' Peterson said." http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/06/26/evolving_history

And that's only one of the myriad of Romney's public statements that were, to put it kindly, simply not true: his demonstrably false claims about his gun ownership, his hunting prowess, his and/or his father's nonexistent marches with Martin Luther King, and his alleged endorsement by the NRA that never happened.

In the end, Romney's credibility was in such tatters that despite spending $100 million, he was able to win only three Republican primary contests, and only in his three "home" states: Massachusetts, Michigan, and Utah.

Kirk Jowers is wrong to blame Romney's church affiliation for his inability to credibly sell himself to socially conservative GOP primary voters. Blame instead Romney's record of blatantly disregarding and rejecting the Church's well-known values on life and marriage and pornography before running for president, and his challenges with telling the truth about that record while he was running.

Now, as of three months ago, Romney is once again serving on the Marriott board of directors, and once again -- as the Deseret News observed -- personally profiting from that corporation's annual sale of tens of millions of dollars of in-room pornography, never having uttered a word in protest. This despite the official Church website's instruction that "members of the Church should avoid pornography in any form and should oppose its production, distribution, and use."

Obviously, Romney's record at odds with the values of his own church, and the credibility challenges he faced in 2008 as a result, won't be going away between now and 2012.


Gary Glenn lives in Midland, Michigan.

For additional information see: The Myths of Mitt Romney: 'Making it up as he goes along'