Huckabee Granted Clemency to a Murderer Because He Converted to Christianity While in Prison.

NBC news has been investigating Huckabee’s record on commutations and clemencies. This piece is revealing.

“At the time Huckabee acknowledged that his belief in redemption factored into his decisions.” Is this going to far? Should a person’s religion play a role in whether or not he should get out of prison?

The Iowa Caucus is approaching fast and Mitt needs your help. Please visit www.mittromney.com and contribute to his campaign.

Romney v. Huckabee … Who’s Telling the Truth About Their Immigration Policies?

Answer: Romney. Here’s MSNBC fact check on Romney and Huckabee’s assertions about their own immigration policies.

The Iowa Caucus is approaching fast and Mitt needs your help. Please visit www.mittromney.com and contribute to his campaign.

The Government is NOT a Charity.

Huckabee seems likable and his personal approach to politics is a strength that other candidates should implement in their own campaigns. His stance on social issues seem also good. However, Huckabee’s record on spending, taxes, and big government is the wrong direction for this country.

Here are some evidences of Huckabee’s spending sprees:

During an interview with Lou Dobb’s on CNN, Ed Rollins, Huckabee’s new endorsement, confessed that Huckabee likes to spend taxpayer’s money. When trying to defend Huckabee’s proclivity to spend money and raise taxes, Collins said that if Reagan were running today even Reagon wouldn’t pass the “puritan’s” litmus test from organizations like the National Review. Collins stated, “There are a lot of things a governor has to do if you are going to be a good governor and make the state function better.” I don’t by it.

Mitt was a phenomenal governor. He reduced taxes, got Massachusetts out of a $3 billion dollar deficit and still managed to (1) get some of the top scores in the nation in regards to the education of his youth, (2) get every resident of his state affordable healthcare, (3) fight for traditional marriage, and (4) enforce immigration law. I guess such should not come as a surprise given the 25 years he spent in the private section revamping failing organizations and saving a scandal ridden Olympics.

In this next video Huckabee and Chuck Norris on Bill O’Reilly’s show. When questioning Huckabee whether he will impose his religious views on the nation he replied, “When we tried to improve education … when we improved health care … when we built better roads … frankly I think is consistent with a person of faith.”

And of course, the Club for Growth put this ad out a few weeks ago that highlights Huckabee’s more Democratic-like fiscal, economic, and tax policies.

Frederic Bastiat once said:

“But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are not here under question. In fact, I have already said that legal plunder is based partially on philanthropy, even though it is a false philanthropy.

With this explanation, let us examine the value — the origin and the tendency — of this popular aspiration which claims to accomplish the general welfare by general plunder. . . .

We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.

When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all. . . .

When a politician views society from the seclusion of his office, he is struck by the spectacle of the inequality that he sees. He deplores the deprivations which are the lot of so many of our brothers, deprivations which appear to be even sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth. . . .

Perhaps he should consider this proposition: Since all persons seek well-being and perfection, would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the greatest efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?

But the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations, combinations, and arrangements — legal or apparently legal. He attempts to remedy the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder. . . .

You say: “There are persons who have no money,” … Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.”

Mr. Huckabee, the government is not a charity. It rules only by force. Force is the antithesis of charity. Religion is about charity, not force. It is not charity to force people to pay for things, that is false philanthropy. Perhaps I’m wrong but false philanthropy seems some what inconsistant with religious teachings.

Vote for Mitt. A candidate for less force.

The Iowa Caucus is approaching fast and Mitt needs your help. Please visit www.mittromney.com and contribute to his campaign.

Economic Prosperity is Essential to Fighting the War on Terrorism

Our military power is critical in defending our Nation and defeating the terrorists. It takes money to run the military. That money is generated by a strong economy. Taxes, overspending, inefficient and duplicative government operations, and unnecessary regulations depress the economy. Thus, without lower taxes, a cut in spending, and a reformation of failing government programs, we limit the money we have to fund our military. Without a strong military we cannot defeat our enemies.

It is therefore essential that we elect someone who will implement those measures aimed to stimulate the economy. Huckabee’s record as governor of Arkansas indicates that he will raise taxes, overspend, and over regulate our economy if he becomes the President.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, made a living in the private sector and as governor of Massachusetts at reviving failing organizations and reducing inefficient operations. As Governor he faced a $3 billion deficit when he took office in 2003. He was determined to stop the madness. He lowered taxes, cut spending and reorganized the state. By 2006, the state no longer had a deficit, in fact, it had a $700 million surplus.

Mitt Romney believes the strength of America comes from the people. Mitt’s economic policy will not only allow each American to keep more of their hard earned money, but, most importantly, it will enable us to maintain the strongest military in the world.

Click here to view a related entry.

The Iowa Caucus is approaching fast and Mitt needs your help. Please visit www.mittromney.com and contribute to his campaign.

Guiliani’s Homeland Security Team Consists of Almost ALL NEW YORKERS!!!

Beware American’s. If elected, Guiliani will continue to support “sanctuary cities.” Just look at the list of people who are his Homeland Security Advisers — they are almost ALL loyal NEW YORKERS.

According to yahoo news, “The only other city represented is Indianapolis … [and t]he only person with state experience is from Minnesota …. No one is included from the South or Southwest with experience with hurricanes …. There is no one represented from California, which has a lot of infrastructure of importance to the U.S. economy.”

Here’s the complete list:

• Chairman Louis Freeh, former director of the FBI;
• Chief Homeland Security Adviser Rob Bonner, former Customs and Border Protection commissioner;
• Rep. Peter T. King, R-N.Y.;
• Joe Whitley, former DHS general counsel;
• Joshua Filler, former director of DHS’ office of state and local government coordination;
• Andrew Maner, former DHS chief financial officer;
• Jon Odermatt, former commissioner of FEMA’s New York City office;
• Howard Safir, former New York City police commissioner;
• Richard Sheirer, former commissioner of FEMA’s New York City office;
• Stewart Verdery, former DHS assistant secretary for policy and planning;
• Thomas Von Essen, former New York City Fire commissioner;
• Seth Stodder, former Customs and Border Protection director of policy and planning;
• Peter Beering, former coordinator for Indiana Terrorism Preparedness;
• Daniel Johnson, former director of Homeland Security for Minnesota;
• John Rabin, former program director for DHS’ Security’s Lessons Learned Information Sharing program.

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to learn more about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.

Now is NOT the Time to Give Up!!! We Need a Surge of Support for our Troops!!!

Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal written by Kimberly Kagan on September 4, 2007. The title is “The Tide Is Turning in Iraq.” Here’s the article:

The initial concept of the “surge” strategy in Iraq was to secure Baghdad and its immediate environs, which is why its proper name was the “Baghdad Security Plan.” But as President Bush pointed out during his surprise trip to Iraq, operations and events on the ground are already showing successes well beyond Baghdad in Anbar, Diyala and Salahaddin provinces — formerly al Qaeda strongholds and hotbeds of the Sunni insurgency.

Considering the speed with which these successes have developed, and the rapidly growing grass-roots movement among Iraqis to support the effort, there is every reason to be optimistic about the prospects for establishing security in Iraq, and every reason to continue supporting the current strategy.

The first major combat operation of the surge, Operation Phantom Thunder, began on June 15 and accomplished its primary objectives. American troops and Iraqi Security Forces eliminated all of al Qaeda’s sanctuaries in the Baghdad belts, including its urban stronghold in Baqubah. U.S. forces cleared Dora, al Qaeda’s stronghold in western Baghdad. They established an extensive net of outposts in former enemy safe havens, degraded the capabilities of Shiite militias, and dramatically reduced sectarian violence and spectacular attacks in and around the capital.

Phantom Thunder was the first coherent campaign aimed at all of the major al Qaeda strongholds at once. As a result, terrorists could not move from one safe haven to another. Iraqi and Coalition forces killed, wounded and captured thousands of them.

Six months ago, insurgents operated freely around Baghdad’s belts. Now U.S. and Iraqi forces limit them to discrete areas, more distant from urban centers, where they cannot easily defend themselves, or support one another or their vehicle-bomb network. Smaller groups who escaped from their safe havens during combat operations generally fled along the Tigris and Diyala River valleys. The remnants of al Qaeda in western Baghdad can no longer quickly reinforce their positions from outside or within the city.

Gens. David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno followed up Phantom Thunder with Phantom Strike. The new campaign, launched on Aug. 13, aims to prevent terrorists and militias from reconstituting their forces in Baghdad, its belts or elsewhere. U.S. and Iraqi forces are moving along the river valleys to destroy the remnants of enemy groups and eliminate any new safe havens they try to establish. Their operations are also preventing Shiite militias from taking over territory al Qaeda once controlled.

Phantom Strike involves Coalition and Iraqi forces throughout central Iraq. U.S. forces are clearing a wedge of terrain between the Tigris and Diyala Rivers north of Baghdad and holding those river lines. Operation Lightning Hammer, part of Phantom Strike, cleared 50 villages in the palm groves of the Diyala River valley, permitting U.S. and Iraqi forces to establish a combat outpost 15 miles northeast of Baqubah to secure the area. U.S. and Iraqi forces have captured Iranian-supported extremist leaders on the Tigris River’s east bank, and they are striking al Qaeda in Balad, Samarra and Tikrit.

Meanwhile, Phantom Strike has dismantled a vehicle-bomb network in central Baghdad. And to the south of the city U.S. forces are destroying remnants of al Qaeda in Arab Jabour and Salman Pak — both al Qaeda safe havens just months ago.

Skillful combat — and skillful negotiation — have transformed the area formerly known as “the triangle of death” into a region of dawning, if precarious, stability. As Coalition forces consolidate their gains in these areas, they are also striking Shiite militia sanctuaries east of Baghdad and further south and east along the Tigris River valley. Gen. Odierno and his division commanders cleared territory gradually throughout Phantom Thunder and Phantom Strike, so that they could hold it after clearing operations.

The tribal movement begun in Anbar has spread throughout central Iraq, as thousands of Sunnis have either volunteered to join the Iraqi Security Forces or formed local defense groups under Iraqi government and Coalition auspices. These “concerned citizens” groups springing up throughout central Iraq have not been previously observed on this scale in the country. They permit U.S. and Iraqi forces to hold territory they have cleared more effectively. The volunteers who make up these groups, recruited and deployed in their own neighborhoods, have incentives to protect their families and communities. They are not independent militias, however. They are partnered with Iraqi Security Forces and Coalition forces.

The Baqubah Guardians, one such group, recently helped the Iraqi police in that city fight off al Qaeda insurgents until Coalition helicopters arrived. The Taji Neighborhood Watch association searched hundreds of homes for weapons caches. Iraq has hitherto lacked a local policing initiative, relying instead on national and regional models. The concerned-citizen groups are filling this gap while the U.S. and the Iraqi governments work to expand and improve the Iraqi Security Forces that many of these volunteers hope to join.

There is every prospect of extending this movement further. Residents of freshly cleared Arab Jabour have volunteered to join the Iraqi Security Forces, indicating that the population there feels increasingly secure from terrorists. Tribal leaders in the Diyala River valley, many of whom have fought with one another since 2006, met immediately after Operation Lightning Hammer ended and swore to fight terrorism and work together as a single tribe.

Tribal leaders encourage local citizens to join the Iraqi Security Forces, working as volunteers before they are accepted into the police or army to identify weapons caches and terrorists to Iraqi or Coalition forces. U.S. commanders hold tribal leaders accountable when they fail to secure their area properly. U.S. forces take fingerprints and retina scans and record the serial numbers of the weapons of citizen-group members. This helps them vet the groups for dangerous insurgents and hold accountable anyone who turns against the Coalition.

The Iraqi government determines whether or not the volunteers are accepted into the security forces. In mid-August, the government enrolled 1,700 new Iraqi policemen from the mostly Sunni former insurgent enclave of Abu Ghraib.

The destruction of al Qaeda sanctuaries has permitted Coalition forces to focus more on the violent Shiite militia groups funded by Iran. These groups are responsible for kidnapping numerous Iraqi government officials, running sectarian death squads and conducting mortar and rocket attacks against the Green Zone.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force and Hezbollah have organized, trained and funded this network of Iraqi special groups, which could not sustain themselves without foreign support. Offensive operations targeting these groups have intensified, a development also made possible by the increasing cooperation of the Maliki government. Coalition and Iraqi forces have been redeployed to disrupt the groups’ communication and supply routes east and south of Baghdad. A multi-phase campaign to capture or kill secret cell leaders is also underway across central and southern Iraq and in Baghdad.

In short, American forces are in the midst of a large, complex campaign to defeat al Qaeda, dismantle Iranian-backed Shiite criminal militias, support a growing grass-roots movement in the Sunni population, and create space for political progress at the national level. Al Qaeda is not defunct by any means. It continues to fight and is trying to re-establish itself. It will certainly try to conduct a large-scale terror campaign to coincide with Gen. Petraeus’s report to Americans later this month on the progress of the surge.

The Shiite militias seem more daunted. Moqtada al Sadr has ordered his Mahdi Army fighters to cease operations against U.S. and Iraqi forces — from his refuge in Iran.

Significant challenges remain in establishing security, building up Iraqi forces capable of maintaining it and helping the Iraqi government achieve reconciliation and unity. But few expected the progress made so far. The tide in Iraq is clearly turning, as the Iraqi people are voting with their lives to fight with us against terrorists and militias. Now is not the time to give up the fight.

Ms. Kagan is an affiliate of Harvard’s John M. Olin Institute of Strategic Studies and the president of the Institute for the Study of War in Washington.

Mitt believes Americans needs to show the troops a surge of support. Click here to watch a YOUTUBE VIDEO in which Mitt articulates his belief.

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to learn more about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.

Mitt Romney, Always a Conservative

I thought this article by Jeff Fuller at iowansforromney.blogspot.com was absolutely superb. It is titled “Romney Never a Liberal … No, not even close.” The article features Romney’s 1994 campaign flyer. Compare for yourself how he lined up against Kennedy.

Click here for the front side and here for the back side of the flyer.

As Romney’s 1994 campaign flyer illustrates, he has never been a “liberal” or a “flip flopper.” No, the record shows that he’s been a strong conservative on many issues for many years. Click here for Romney’s response to his critics.

Here are some other links that show Romney’s conservative record:

1. Letter from those who worked with Mitt personally – click here.
2. Romney’s response to the Massachusetts’ Supreme Court’s decision to prohibit bans on gay-marriage – click here.

To contribute to Mitt’s Campaign or to learn more about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.

“It’s a time for action … I believe in the people of America.”

“It’s a time for action … I believe in the people of America … A free American people are the source of this country’s great strength.” Those are a few quotes from Mitt’s first TV advertisement which people in Florida, Iowa, South Carolina, Michigan, and New Hampshire heard. Check it out:

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to learn more about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.

Part 2 – Romney is the ONLY candidate that will fight to protect the FAMILY.

As a follow up to posting entitled “Mitt Romney is the ONLY Top-Tier Candidate that Will Fight to Protect the Family” and to the posting entitled “Look at the Record”, I’m entering this post to illustrate what others, who have personally worked with Mitt Romney, are saying about his sincerity and commitment to defending the family.

The following is a letter sent by various community and religious leaders in Massachusetts:

An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney

January 11, 2007

Dear conservative friends:

We hail from a broad spectrum of organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda in Massachusetts. As you know, Mitt Romney became the governor of our state in 2003. Since that time, we have worked closely with him and his excellent staff on that agenda.

Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts:

• Staunchly defended traditional marriage. Governor Romney immediately and strongly condemned the 2003 court decision that legalized “same-sex marriage” in our state. More importantly, he followed up on that denunciation with action – action that saved our nation from a constitutional crisis over the definition of marriage. He and his staff identified and enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Absent this action, homosexual couples would surely have flooded into Massachusetts from other states to get “married” and then demanded that their home states recognize the “marriages,” putting the nation only one court decision away from nationalizing “same-sex marriage.”

• Worked hard to overturn “same-sex marriage” in the Commonwealth with considerable progress to date. In 2004 he lobbied hard, before a very hostile legislature, for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage – an amendment later changed by the legislature to include civil unions, which the Governor and many marriage amendment supporters opposed. Working with the Governor, we were successful in defeating this amendment.

• Provided active support for a successful citizen petition drive in 2005 to advance a clean constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

• Rallied thousands of citizens to focus public and media attention on the failure of legislators, through repeated delays, to perform their constitutional obligation and vote on the marriage amendment.

• Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court. The Governor’s suit asked the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. That lawsuit, perhaps more than any other single action, was by all accounts instrumental in bringing pressure on the legislators to vote. The vote ultimately was taken on January 2, 2007 and won legislative support – clearing a major hurdle in the three year effort to restore traditional marriage in the Commonwealth.

• Fought for abstinence education. In 2006, under Governor Romney’s leadership, Massachusetts’ public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the program, Governor Romney stated, “I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice.”

• Affirmed the culture of life. Governor Romney has vetoed bills to provide access to the so called “morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because he could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”

• Stood for religious freedom. Last year, Governor Romney was stalwart in defense of the right of Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care. Catholic Charities was loudly accused of “discrimination,” but Governor Romney correctly pointed out that it is unjust to force a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to placate a special-interest group.

• Filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Massachusetts legislature to save Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from being forced to violate their moral principles or stop doing important charitable work.

All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, has written that “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment.”

We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion. While they are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now – and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.

Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.

For four years, Governor Romney has been right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues – whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us.

It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 – to the benefit of our movement and our Commonwealth. In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative, pro-family actions in office. As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision that forced “gay marriage” upon our Commonwealth.

For that our country ought to be thankful. We certainly are.

Sincerely,

Rita Covelle
President, Morality in Media Massachusetts

Richard Guerriero
Immediate Past State Deputy, Massachusetts State Council, Knights of Columbus

Mary Ann Glendon
Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Kristian Mineau
President, Massachusetts Family Institute

Dr. Roberto Miranda
President, COPAHNI Fellowship of Hispanic Pastors of New England

James Morgan
President, Institute for Family Development

Joseph Reilly
President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life

Thomas A. Shields
Chairman, Coalition for Family and Marriage

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to learn more about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.

Mitt Romney is the Only Top-Tier Candidate That Will Fight to Protect the Family

On November 18, 2003, four of the seven justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Court made it unconstitutional to prohibit gay marriage. Since that day, Mitt Romney has consistently fought to preserve the institution of marriage.

In an article to the Wall Street Journal entitle One Man, One Woman: A citizen’s guide to protecting marriage, Mitt wrote:

No matter how you feel about gay marriage, we should be able to agree that the citizens and their elected representatives must not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage. There are lessons from my state’s experience that may help other states preserve the rightful participation of their legislatures and citizens, and avoid the confusion now facing Massachusetts.

In a decision handed down in November, a divided Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts detected a previously unrecognized right in our 200-year-old state constitution that permits same-sex couples to wed. I believe that 4-3 decision was wrongly decided and is deeply mistaken. Contrary to the court’s opinion, marriage is not “an evolving paradigm.” It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government.

Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. It encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society.

Because of marriage’s pivotal role, nations and states have chosen to provide unique benefits and incentives to those who choose to be married. These benefits are not given to single citizens, groups of friends, or couples of the same sex. That benefits are given to married couples and not to singles or gay couples has nothing to do with discrimination; it has everything to do with building a stable new generation and nation.

It is important that the defense of marriage not become an attack on gays, on singles or on nontraditional couples. We must recognize the right of every citizen to live in the manner of his or her own choosing. In fact, it makes sense to ensure that essential civil rights, protection from violence and appropriate societal benefits are afforded to all citizens, be they single or combined in nontraditional relationships.
So, what to do?

• Act now to protect marriage in your state. Thirty-seven states–38 with recent actions by Ohio–have a Defense of Marriage Act. Twelve states, including Massachusetts, do not. I urge my fellow governors and all state legislators to review and, if necessary, strengthen the laws concerning marriage. Look to carefully delineate in the acts themselves the underlying, compelling state purposes. Explore, as well, amendments to the state constitution. In Massachusetts, gay rights advocates in years past successfully thwarted attempts to call a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This cannot happen again. It is imperative that we proceed with the legitimate process of amending our state constitution.

• Beware of activist judges. The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature’s job to pass laws. As governor, it is my job to carry out the laws. The Supreme Judicial Court decides cases where there is a dispute as to the meaning of the laws or the constitution. This is not simply a separation of the branches of government, it is also a balance of powers: One branch is not to do the work of the other. It is not the job of judges to make laws, the job of legislators to command the National Guard, or my job to resolve litigation between citizens. If the powers were not separated this way, an official could make the laws, enforce them, and stop court challenges to them. No one branch or person should have that kind of power. It is inconsistent with a constitutional democracy that guarantees to the people the ultimate power to control their government.

With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That’s wrong.

• Act at the federal level. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. While the law protects states from being forced to recognize gay marriage, activist state courts could reach a different conclusion, just as ours did. It would be disruptive and confusing to have a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states. Amending the Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent such confusion and preserve the institution of marriage. Sometimes we forget that the ultimate power in our democracy is not in the Supreme Court but rather in the voice of the people. And the people have the exclusive right to protect their nation and constitution from judicial overreaching.

People of differing views must remember that real lives and real people are deeply affected by this issue: traditional couples, gay couples and children. We should conduct our discourse with decency and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is not a matter of semantics; it will have lasting impact on society however it is ultimately resolved. This issue was seized by a one-vote majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. We must now act to preserve the voice of the people and the representatives they elect.

Furthermore, on June 22, 2004, Mitt testified before the US Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the sanctity of marriage. He wrote, “With the inauguration of same-sex marriages, a plethora of legal and regulatory issues are now arising.” For example, “[t]hese issues will not be confined to Massachusetts alone. Our state’s borders are porous. Citizens of our state will travel and may face sickness and injury in other states. In those cases, their spousal relationship may not be recognized, and it would be likely that litigation would result. Massachusetts residents will move to other states, and thus issues related to property rights, employer benefits, inheritance, and many others will arise.”

“It is not possible for the issue to remain solely a Massachusetts issue; it must now be confronted on a national basis. We need an amendment that restores and protects our societal definition of marriage, blocks judges from changing that definition and then, consistent with the principles of federalism, leaves other policy issues regarding marriage to state legislatures. The real threat to the states is not the constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate, but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage in order to impose their will on the states, and on the whole nation.” Click here to read the entire speech.

On June 2, 2006, Mitt wrote to every US Senator requesting that each of them vote to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. He wrote, “Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.” Click here to read the entire letter.

Mitt has also urged his own state legislatures to allow the people to vote on a marriage amendment. In fact, he got 170,000 residents of Massachusetts to sign a referendum that would put the marriage amendment on the ballot. The ballot initiative would’ve allowed the state’s citizens to vote on the definition of marriage. The legislature refused to address the issue and thus violate the Massachusetts Constitution. Here is Mitt’s reaction:

On November 19, 2006, Mitt addressed a rally at the Massachusetts State House and called on the legislature to vote on a marriage amendment. Here is his speech:

Overall, I agree with Maggie Gallagher who hailed Mitt Romney as “a brave man.” America needs a President who is willing to protect and defend the traditional family. America needs Mitt Romney.

To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to learn about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.