United for Equality - Utah Pride 2008

Hello Amicus Readers!

I am excited to finally join the Amicus after having written a couple of posts for Senor Rob.

I thought that for my first "official" post, I'd write something a tad controversial--cause, that's just how I am.

I am a straight woman, but have considered myself to be a gay activist for over 4 years now. I have fought for complete equality for all Americans because I believe in decency, fairness and most of all, love.

My quest began when I started working on passing an effective hate crimes law here in Utah that covered sexual orientation. It didn't pass that year (2003) but I did sit on a panel with a former ACLU attorney and a prominent professor of Sociology to discuss said hate crimes bill. After that, I went on to help stop the unnecessary and discriminatory gay marriage constitutional amendment in Utah. Sadly, it passed.

I then got involved in many GLBT organizations and affectionately became known as "the straight single mom" in gay circles. Four boards and four years later, I am still fighting the fight.

I believe that people should be allowed to marry whomever they choose--no matter their gender. I believe that no one should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. I believe that gay people do not choose to be gay but do choose the person they want to spend the rest of their lives with. I believe (much to the sadness this would bring me) that gays should be allowed to serve in the military (if they choose) with no repercussions. (I still do not believe in war, just for the record).

And today, it seems as though more and more Americans are agreeing with me.

According to a recent Gallup poll, 59% of Americans believe that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal. This percentage has fluctuated over the years. Before July 2003, this belief reached its peak at 60% since 1977. For the first time since that July (aka the infamous SCOTUS ruling on sodomy), it is now back up near 60%. This is awesome!

Since the beginning of my involvement, I have said that the gay rights equality movement is the next civil rights movement. The fight is just getting warmed up too. Women did not get the right to vote overnight. Blacks were not considered full citizens and granted true equality for over 100 years. Gays, with their dominant presence everywhere, have no where to go but up. And up they'll go quite quickly.

The one sad part of the poll shows that 53% of Americans believe that gay marriage should not be valid. A note on this question says:

It should be noted that this gay-marriage question follows a number of questions about homosexual rights in Gallup's Values and Beliefs survey. When the same question is asked in other Gallup surveys that do not include such questions, a lower level of support for gay marriage is usually found.

So, the gay lifestyle is becoming more acceptable and more people believe that gays should have the same job opportunities as others but they are not okay with them getting hitched. Hmmm...

However, looking at the numbers, there is a definite trend. The more accepting of the gay lifestyle people are, the more likely they are to be supportive of gay marriage.

I think this trend has a lot to do with the rise of popular and accepted gay culture. The coming out of many prominent people--celebrities, politicians, sports stars--has not only forced us to recognize that gay people exist, it has also allowed us to have an open and respectable dialogue about the importance of true equality.

Here in Utah, we are fortunate to have many of our elected Democrats support full equality for the GLBT community as well as three openly gay legislators. I must disclose that I am biased when I say that they are the best legislators on the Hill as I am represented by "The Gay" Scott McCoy and newly-elected Representative Christine Johnson. I used to live in Rep. Jackie Biskupski's district (the part that was also in Sen. McCoy's) a few years ago. They really are the best legislators up there because they are guided by a true passion and desire to make this a better place to live for all of us.

GLBT citizens around the country are business leaders, parents, sons & daughters, PTA Presidents, legislators, Mayors, religious leaders, neighbors, doctors, friends, teachers and policemen. They pay taxes, attend school, drive cars, vote, run for office, play professional sports, babysit our children, and grocery shop everyday. In short, they are exactly the same as us straight people.

And they deserve all the same rights that we enjoy. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you're in downtown Salt Lake this weekend, stop by Library/Washington Square for the Annual Utah Pride Festival. It is one of the highlights of my year and a place where gay couples and families are free from the stares and whispers they receive outside the gates. It's an amazing and energizing experience.

For all the Gallup numbers, go here.

The Utah Focus Presents: Mining in Utah" from the Enterprise Newspaper Group

Mining in Utah

Few people recognize the economic impact of the mining industry in Utah. Little is known of this multi-billion dollar sector of our economy.

On June 4, 2007, the Enterprise Newspaper Group will publish the first of what is planned to be an annual special edition of the Utah State Focus dealing with mining in all its facets as it impacts our state. News content will be directed at the state of the industry in Utah with special emphasis given to the economic impact mining has on the lives of virtually everyone who lives here.

In addition to the standard distribution, The Enterprise Newspaper Group will distribute approximately 4,800 extra copies of this timely section to civic, business leaders, and others associated with mining in Utah including all current members of the Utah Mining Association and the Southeastern Utah Energy Producers Association.

Never has there been such a comprehensive treatment of mining in our state.

The Enterprise Newspaper Group has been Utah's leading business news source for more than 35 years. Their flagship publication, The Enterprise, has been published weekly in Salt Lake City since 1971 and is recognized as the authority on Utah business. The Utah County Business Journal and the Wasatch North Business Journal fill the same role in their respective ends of Northern Utah. Each paper reports on all sectors of business in its coverage area. Whether it's finance, agribusiness, construction, real estate, energy, transportation as well as wholesale and retail trade, these publications report timely and accurately on business news trends. The Utah Focus is published periodically as a special section of all three publications.

To obtain your free four-week subscription to The Enterprise call 801-533-0556 and ask for Natalie, or email her at natalie@slenterprise.com and tell her The Utah Amicus sent you.

Click on the image above to enlarge

CIVIL WAR: Utah GOP's divisive power struggle

Read about it in today's Rolly column:

Rolly: The next state GOP chairman won't have full party support

The Utah Republican Party looks on the surface to be solid, holding nearly three-fourths of the legislative seats, four of five spots in the congressional delegation and every statewide elected office. But it is about to have a contentious and potentially divisive fight for party chair at the state Republican convention June 9, the state party headquarters is in debt and disarray and one loyalist who contributed more than $100,000 to GOP causes last year is closing his wallet and dropping out of the party.

Most fingers point to Utah's popular Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., who, critics say, has disassociated himself from the party, abrogated his responsibility as titular head of the party and alienated key Republican contributors. The result: No matter who wins the chair, he or she will not have the full support of party activists and officeholders who already have broken into several factions.

Shift Happens

glumbert.com - Shift Happens

KVNU: Paul Mero on families and government, abortion, immigration, pluralism and the Friday News Quiz!

Click here!

Read Senator Scott McCoy's

What the heck does that mean?

Finally, I'm back from the spirit world...

Fevers can do strange things.

Paul Mero Says

"Understanding others is more important than persuading others."

-Paul Mero

From Voice of Utah

Mero's Nerve

Mero's jaw dropper. A few days ago, Utah Amicus pointed out the use of the "worst of all possible analogies" by Paul Mero of the Sutherland Institute in a pro-voucher column. Not having seen the Tribune column to which UA referred, we thought perhaps it was an off the cuff remark, an ill-advised choice of words for which Mero might be given some slack. In response to UA's comments, Mero provided a link to his entire essay "for any of your colleagues interested in thinking." What the heck, we'll try anything once.

Warning: Mero's essay is not for the weak of stomach. It is not an off the cuff remark, not a slip of the tongue. It is 6 pages of Mero arguing that there are legal, familial, socioeconomic, and "disquieting" parallels between slavery -- slavery -- and not receiving public funds for sending your kids to private school. (Mero's essay downplays the fact that parents are legally free not to send their children to public school already; what we are really talking about is getting public money for doing so.) At the beginning of each section, Mero reiterates that slavery was, like, really bad, but then argues at length that it is still analogous to not getting voucher money. We like a good debate, and we have even been known to change our minds once in a while, but this analogy is just nauseating. In Mero's last reminder that slavery was really not a good thing at all, he writes, "As a personal experience, there are no sane comparisons." Just sane "parallels."

Chair of Utah Democratic Party Invites Republicans Cannon and Bishop to Join Democrats in Helping to Ease Pain at the Pump

With gas prices soaring over $3 per gallon as Utahns head into the Memorial Day weekend, Democrat Jim Matheson votes to prevent price gouging

[SALT LAKE CITY] Wayne Holland, chair of the Utah Democratic Party, today called on Utah Republicans Chris Cannon and Rob Bishop to help ease the pain at the pump for Utah’s families.

Yesterday in the House of Representatives, Democrats led the charge to pass the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act of 2007 by a mostly party line vote of 284-141, defying a veto threat from President Bush. The bill would protect Americans from being gouged at the pump and set America on a path toward lower gas prices by imposing tough new measures to investigate and punish those who are artificially inflating the price of gasoline. The Bush Administration's veto threat and the fact that most Republicans, including Cannon and Bishop, voted against the bill shows that the Republican Party remains beholden to Big Oil.

“I commend Jim Matheson and the other Democrats in Congress who showed political will and tenacity in the face of veto threats to pass a bill that puts American families first,” said Holland. “Republicans like Bishop and Cannon should apologize for failing to join Democrats to pass the anti-price gouging bill yesterday, and owe it to Utahns to hold the Bush Administration accountable and help lower gas prices. Jim and the other Democrats in Congress are keeping their promises and helping make America energy independent. That's what Utahns want, and that's what they're getting.”

More information:

AAA Fuel Gauge Report: http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/sbsavg.asp
How they voted: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll404.xml

My response to Paul Mero's slavery analogy

After Paul Mero, president of the Award-Winning Sutherland Institute, released his essay drawing parallels between public schools and human slavery, the two of us engaged in a somewhat less-than-fruitful blog commentary on the subject. I called his remarks “insidious” and “disgusting” while he decried me as incompetent and, in as many words, a stereotypical “liberal white” wimp who can’t stomach such difficult discussions. I can see him saying "You can't handle the truth" in a big booming voice :-)

Well, I’m here to tell you that I've read his essay several times over to better understand his point of view. And, while the essay cites sources effectively and is grammatically sound, the premise of the essay continues to be fatally flawed. Mr. Mero has climbed high atop his ladder, but the fact remains that the ladder is perched against the wrong wall.

It is a real stretch for a reasonable person to accept the premise that our public schools are, by their nature, "coercive." What is coercive about an elected school board, subject to open meeting laws and GRAMA requests, and that are themselves beholden to their patrons, elected officials, and the full weight of state law? What is coercive about a system in which troublemakers are ousted and that the leaders themselves can be (and are) replaced by the will of the voting public for whatever reason the people see fit?

Serious observers also cannot adopt the position that our educational landscape is a "one-size-fits-all" solution. A great many differentiated opportunities exist and those options continue to grow. On my street alone, children attend over 20 individual schools.

It is also difficult, based on the evidence, to support the position that parents do not have significant input into the educational process. As a founder of a charter school I can tell you that we had enormous autonomy at every turn (for the record, I'd like to see the number of charter schools tripled in the near future). School Community Councils and School Trust Land committees, for example, direct millions of dollars collectively, all with a majority of elected parents staffing those boards. I serve on such committees and they do make a real difference, right in the trenches where it’s needed.

Also to be rejected is the notion that public education is inherently socialistic and/or paternalistic simply because licensed educators who staff our district offices and man our schools are actually educated in their fields. Perhaps, on the whole, they *do* know more than you or I do about the nuts and bolts of delivering educational services. Does Paul Mero levy the same charges of paternalism and Marxist motivations against doctors or attorneys? Does Paul suggest that doctors are paternalistic and condescending because they know more than ordinary citizens about healthcare? Mr. Mero would have you believe in a grand conspiracy that our superintendants, school boards, principals, and teachers are in league to dominate our lives because they fancy themselves to be so much smarter and more ethical than the rest of us. I think he is reading too much Ann Coulter who decries our teachers as “priestesses of the godless liberal religion.” Whatever.

(Never mind that thousands of school teachers in the state are LDS Republicans – but why bother with facts?)

The truth is, we as parents don't always have all of the answers when it comes to actually educating children. Most of us are not afraid to admit it. This doesn't mean we are not interested in the outcome - of course we are. It also doesn't mean that we should just take every word of advice or every curriculum program at face value. Parents have a right and responsibility to be informed and to vote for those elected school board members in our representative democracy that will be the most responsive to their needs. Heck, they can even run for school board themselves, volunteer on the school community council, start a charter school, home-school, or even start up a private school if they desire. I see nothing in the way of coercion, domination, or subjection in this system. We live in a society in which ordinary people like you and me, people without PhD's in Epistemology, Public Policy, or Organizational Behavior have enormous, hands-on control over the direction of our educational system. This is true for all citizens, whether they live in affluence or in impoverished circumstances. Given this unparalleled control available to ordinary citizens, regardless of income, race, or gender, to shape and direct our children’s educational opportunities, comparisons to slave owners exerting absolute authority and inflicting violence on hapless people-as-property subjects may get the ideological juices flowing but in reality hold no merit.

Additionally, I've seen many, many examples of teachers, districts and school boards bending over backwards to accommodate whiny, complaining parents who won't take personal responsibility for their children and instead wish to blame others for their children's snotty behavior and bad performance. (As an aside, those Parents for Choice billboards with the fat kids indulging in drippy ice cream cones almost suggest that they are encouraging such spoiled behavior). Ironically, even when educators truly do "know better" and could move a child forward, they are beholden to the desires of the parents. That’s the way it should be but it does make me sad when I see ignorance trump knowledge just to satisfy ego. And what of those parents who have devastating substance abuse problems or who are themselves guilty of wanton neglect or abuse of their children? Paul Mero is saying that just because our society puts our arms around these children, gives them a good meal or two at school, and works to better their lives (thus reducing poverty and crime and ultimately improving society for everyone) that we are to be branded as Marxists with our collective goal being nothing more than to increase state domination over people’s lives the way that slave owners increased their power by grinding down on their minions. Nonsense? Yep!

I've also seen several instances where patrons and citizens generated the momentum to replace members of school boards they didn’t feel were representing their interests. That’s great. That’s the way it should be. These elected school boards, comprised of ordinary citizens (as opposed to authoritarian slaveowners) have the ability to shape curriculum, to direct funds, to appoint a new superintendant, and to negotiate salaries, to name just a few of their many powers. What could be less coercive than the people, citizens like you and me, making these decisions for the good of ALL children? How striking the contrast between our representative, citizen-initiated system and the forced authoritarian control of a class of elitists subjecting complete domination over other human beings.

Howard Gardner stated that education ultimately boils down to "goals and values." As a society, we cherish certain values. We also set goals and seek to achieve those goals. To encourage equity (not equality, but fairness), I, as well as many fellow Democrats and Republicans, believe in educational policies that cast a wide net, a "big tent", that ensure adequate resources to fund a variety of quality services for every child. That is the goal. Of course, there is the possibility that some with widely differing viewpoints are going to be dissatisfied. And sure there are some lousy teachers and some “bad fits” out there. But such is a two-way street. We as a society are willing to educate the kids with lousy, whiny parents. We as a society are willing to take on children who don’t even show up on the free-market radar. We, as citizens in a representative democracy, plan, decide, and implement projects together, day in, and day out. We do this not to increase the power of the state but to improve the lives of the individual citizens. But instead of following the process that WE as a society have put in place, Paul Mero and others demand a short-circuit quick-fix – just give out the money – hand out the vouchers. No accountability. No representation. Let the corporations and the business interests, propped up by our contributions, rule the day. You don’t like the school board you elected? No problem, here’s a voucher. Forget running for office; forget having an honest dialog; forget being a little patient or even a bit understanding. That’s just Marxist nonsense. We’ve got big, drippy ice cream cones for you! Come and get it while the gettin’s good. Those school boards we elected are drunk with power – they are the slaveowners and you are their subjects. Rise up and take your voucher!

Who knows…perhaps vouchers will pass. But when Johnny is expelled because he said the wrong thing to the owner’s son or when Sarah gets booted out because her 81% is driving down the test scores or when Marta’s parents can’t afford the tuition increase imposed by the schoolmasters because they want a bigger house, remember that we as a society will be there to pick those families up. And maybe, just maybe, our “system” won’t look so bad after all.

Book excerpt: The Assult on Reason

by Al Gore

Centerville Citizen

"We are a war like people..."







Pres Hugh B. Brown was a Democrat

Wayne Holland featured on Utah Policy

Wayne Holland didn’t have a chance. The die was cast. His political proclivities were set at an early age, and they didn’t waver. By the age of 6, he was on his way to become State Democratic Party Chairman

Check Out,Wayne Holland: A Lifetime of Politics
By Greg Jarrad

USDP: Sutherland's Mero uses the worst of all possible analogies

In today's Salt Lake Tribune, the Sutherland Institute's Paul T. Mero made a clumsy and ill conceived (not to mention just plain wrong headed and insensitive) effort to compare the current arguments advanced in opposition to vouchers with the arguments used to support slavery through the mid 19th century. At least he had the good sense to begin by stating "Certainly the common experience in our public schools in Utah is far removed from anything comparable to the inhumane experiences of slavery." Unfortunately, he didn't let the degree of public education's removal from the slavery experience stop him.

Continue reading from the Utah Democratic Party Blog here.

From Michael Moore: "Sicko" Is Completed and We're Off to Cannes!

Friends,

It's a wrap! My new film, "Sicko," is all done and will have its world premiere this Saturday night at the Cannes Film Festival. As with "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11," we are honored to have been chosen by this prestigious festival to screen our work there.

My intention was to keep "Sicko" under wraps and show it to virtually no one before its premiere in Cannes. That is what I have done and, as you may have noticed if you are a recipient of my infrequent Internet letters, I have been very silent about what I've been up to. In part, that's because I was working very hard to complete the film. But my silence was also because I knew that the health care industry -- an industry which makes up more than 15 percent of our GDP -- was not going to like much of what they were going to see in this movie and I thought it best not to upset them any sooner than need be.

Well, going quietly to Cannes, I guess, was not to be. For some strange reason, on May 2nd the Bush administration initiated an action against me over how I obtained some of the content they believe is in my film. As none of them have actually seen the film (or so I hope!), they decided, unlike with "Fahrenheit 9/11," not to wait until the film was out of the gate and too far down the road to begin their attack.

Bush's Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, launched an investigation of a trip I took to Cuba to film scenes for the movie. These scenes involve a group of 9/11 rescue workers who are suffering from illnesses obtained from working down at Ground Zero. They have received little or no help with their health care from the government. I do not want to give away what actually happens in the movie because I don't want to spoil it for you (although I'm sure you'll hear much about it after it unspools Saturday). Plus, our lawyers have advised me to say little at this point, as the film goes somewhere far scarier than "Cuba." Rest assured of one thing: no laws were broken. All I've done is violate the modern-day rule of journalism that says, "ask no questions of those in power or your luncheon privileges will be revoked."

This preemptive action taken by the Bush administration on the eve of the "Sicko" premiere in Cannes led our attorneys to fear for the safety of our film, noting that Secretary Paulson may try to claim that the content of the movie was obtained through a violation of the trade embargo that our country has against Cuba and the travel laws that prohibit average citizens of our free country from traveling to Cuba. (The law does not prohibit anyone from exercising their first amendment right of a free press and documentaries are protected works of journalism.)

I was floored when our lawyers told me this. "Are you saying they might actually confiscate our movie?" "Yes," was the answer. "These days, anything is possible. Even if there is just a 20 percent chance the government would seize our movie before Cannes, does anyone want to take that risk?"

Certainly not. So there we were last week, spiriting a duplicate master negative out of the country just so no one from the government would take it from us. (Seriously, I can't believe I just typed those words! Did I mention that I'm an American, and this is America and NO ONE should ever have to say they had to do such a thing?)

I mean, folks, I have just about had it. Investigating ME because I'm trying to help some 9/11 rescue workers our government has abandoned? Once again, up is down and black is white. There are only two people in need of an investigation and a trial, and the desire for this across America is so widespread you don't even need to see the one's smirk or hear the other's sneer to know who I am talking about.

But no, I'm the one who now has to hire lawyers and sneak my documentary out of the country just so people can see a friggin' movie. I mean, it's just a movie! What on earth could I have placed on celluloid that would require such a nonsensical action against me?

Ok. Scratch that.

Well, I'm on my way to Cannes right now, a copy of the movie in my bag. Don't feel too bad for me, I'll be in the south of France for a week! But then it's back to the U.S. for a number of premieres and benefits and then, finally, a chance for all of you to see this film that I have made. Circle June 29th on your calendar because that's when it opens in theaters everywhere across the country and Canada (for the rest of the world, it opens in the fall).

I can't wait for you to see it.

Yours,

Michael Moore

P.S. I will write more about what happens from Cannes. Stay tuned on my website, MichaelMoore.com.

Party Lines - Was Sharpton out of line? Is it time to let it go?

By now, everyone in Utah has heard Reverend Al Sharpton’s comments concerning Mitt Romney. Although Sharpton was directing his comments towards an atheist, Christopher Hitchens, Romney’s campaign saw a political opportunity. And Sharpton’s apology and overblown statement now appear to be Romney’s chance for some free press.

As an LDS member myself, most of us have heard many ridiculous and outrageous statements made about our faith. Yet, some Mormons seem to be very offended by Sharpton’s comments. While local conservatives are claiming Sharpton is politicizing Romney’s faith, Republicans in turn are politicizing Sharpton because he is a Democrat. Romney has already encountered numerous anti-Mormon comments in the past few months. But Romney has dismissed those comments because he was surrounded by Republicans. Obviously, Romney is trying to win the attention of evangelicals and the Religious Right.

However, the Al Sharpton incident has re-opened some questions for LDS Democrats. Why do so many LDS members align themselves with a party that is clearly dominated by the Religious Right? These Evangelicals, like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Charles L. Wood and all of the Southern Baptists claim that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a cult. Nevertheless, many LDS members try to rationalize the Religious Right as a minority. But that minority may very well keep Romney from winning his party’s nomination. Conservative columnists, George Will and Robert Novak, also claim that Romney has little chance of winning because of his faith.

Another troublesome issue is the hypocrisy of so many Republican Mormons wanting the nation to take the LDS Church seriously and they attempt to show everyone that Mormons are Christians. Yet, many local Republicans believe you cannot be a good Mormon if you are a Democrat. This is despite the fact that the Church has advocated political neutrality for more than 100 years. Yet, too many Republicans believe the Church supports only one party.

Every LDS Democrat has stories of being ridiculed by local Republicans. For instance, the Salt Lake Tribune interviewed Elder Marlin Jensen nine years ago about being an LDS Democrat, yet the Utah GOP blasted Elder Jensen for his comments. In addition, many LDS Democrats still hear jokes about being the “token” Democrat in the ward while others ask, “Why are you a Democrat?” And there are those statements from the Republican Party claiming that the GOP “resonates” with the values of Utah. I wonder if those same values include the “cult” status the Religious Right has labeled our church.

Last week, local Republicans were quick to demand an apology from Sharpton, but for decades, Republicans have never apologized to LDS Democrats. And it is doubtful that we will ever see an apology.

The values of hypocrisy from the Utah GOP is reflected from a line in the TV series M*A*S*H when Colonel Potter said, “Just remember, there’s a right way and a wrong way to do everything and the wrong way is to keep trying to make everybody else do it the right way.”

See Todd Weiler's article here.

The unvarnished truths about Iraq - Part 3 of 3

In his landmark book The Shield of Achilles, American international law scholar Philip Bobbitt states in clear language the direction our nation must set in this new age. (To read the W.H. Auden poem the book was named after, a sobering commentary on the brutality of war, click on the title for a link.)

Now that technology has made it possible for non-state actors like terrorist groups to have state-like impacts (as al-Qaeda did on 9/11), Bobbitt states that civilization's only hope is for the nations of the world to do two things: enter into a cooperative Manhattan-project like effort to develop new sensor technology to detect weapons of mass destruction, and for worldwide intelligence services to embark on a degree of unprecedented information sharing and cooperation. The only country that can lead this effort to avoid an almost certain Armageddon is the United States. And we cannot very well unite the world unless we can unite ourselves first. This analysis leads to the conclusion that the minute details of what approach might be best is not as important as America being united. We can continue to engage in partisan bickering about domestic issues. Unless we want al-Qaeda to win, we'd better get it together on a bipartisan approach to terrorism.

Luckily, we have that approach. It's the combination of the 9/11 commission study and the report of the Iraq Study Group. Unfortunately, these important bi-partisan efforts have been largely ignored, especially the Iraq Study Group. And that's a shame. In addition to the ten distinguished members of the main group, there were five expert subcommittees involving over fifty individuals from academia, government and the military, and literally hundreds more were consulted with. The 79 Iraq Study Group recommendations are not claimed to be a magic pill to deal with the tragedy in Iraq, but they represent the best approach from some of the most informed, smartest people in the world. And this approach is the only way forward to heal the terrible divisions in our country over this issue, while presenting the United States with a way to heal the wounds we have inflicted on that country.

It's a shame (but unsurprising) that the Bush Administration has chosen to essentially ignore the report from the Iraq Study Group in favor of more of the same. But it's also disappointing that the Democratic leadership has not made the Study Group's approach the focus of their opposition to the President. If I were Senator Reid or Speaker Pelosi, when I talked about the Iraq War, every other sentence would include reference to the Study Group. It would totally diffuse the "cut and run", "setting a date for defeat" rhetoric. More importantly, it would work toward uniting the nation, rather than further dividing it. It also sure seems the smartest thing to do politically.

Let's pray, for the future of the nation and the world, that our leaders from both sides of the aisle can unite behind this bi-partisan approach, so America can reclaim her leadership in the world in fighting this horrible enemy.

Senator John Edwards is coming to Utah

The Utah Amicus is pleased to announce that Democratic Presidential hopeful Senator John Edwards is coming to Utah. Senator Edwards will be the special guest at an evening fundraiser that is being held at The Depot at 400 W. South Temple in Salt Lake City from 6:30 to 8:oo PM. You can RSVP to Jillian Waldman (jullianwaldman@yahoo.com) or call (310) 966-6020. A $500.00 contribution is suggested. For more information on what should be an exciting event for Utah Democrats click on the flyers below.

To visit Senator Edwards website click below

Hate Crimes

Recently, there have been a flurry of letters to the Editor (The Spectrum, Deseret News) complaining about Congressman Jim Matheson's recent support of Hate Crimes legislation.

It *really* bugs me when people don't pay attention. Putting aside that support of hate crimes legislation is the *right* thing to do (and I'll talk about that in a minute), the people who are so inflamed by his vote aren't even paying attention to what the legislation says.

So, I asked Matheson's people about it. The legislation in question only does one thing: it authorizes the U.S. Attorney General to award grants to local, state and Indian law enforcement agencies to help defray the costs of upholding the law, and authorizes the US Department of Justice to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial or other assistance upon request from state, local, or tribal officials who are dealing with a hate crime. Period. I repeat: It provides technical, forensic, prosecutorial or other assistance upon request from state, local or tribal officials.

Big deal. This legislation imposes nothing on the states, and doesn't give anybody anything extra.

And yet, the letters continue. By the tone of these letters, it is apparent to me why hate crimes legislation is even necessary in the first place.

But isn't it somewhat ironic that when the Rev. Al Sharpton makes bigoted statements against Mitt Romney, people are outraged, calling his comments “wrong and un-American.” But when we talk about hate crimes legislation, singling out other Americans who are different in other ways is somehow OK.

For the record, I'm proud of my Congressman for supporting what is right. We should all take bold stands and is speak out against hate. Always.

And also for the record, Cannon and Bishop voted against the legislation (I guess they don't think local organizations deserve technical support or help in defraying costs. I'm gonna remember that the next time they vote for something that does just that. )

The unvarnished truths about Iraq - Part 2 of 3

During the first Democratic presidential debate, one of the candidates said the following: America sacrificed to get rid of Saddam to help the Iraqis, now it's the job of the Iraqis to create a stable country.

I'm sorry, but I have a problem with that statement. Who invited us to destroy the government of a sovereign nation?

Several years ago, just as the insurgency was starting, New York Times journalist Tom Friedman said that we're about to find out if Iraq is the way it is because Saddam was the way he was, or if Saddam was the way he was because Iraq is the way it is. I think we have the answer to that question at this point. Saddam was a homicidal monster, but it's become obvious that an iron hand was the only thing keeping the lid on things in that country. No one is arguing any more that the average Iraqi is better off living under anarchy and civil war than under Saddam.

I agree with Democratic leaders in their strong criticism of the President over the loss of American life and American treasure in this tragedy. But personally, I feel most Democratic leaders are being a little cavalier about the sufferings of innocent Iraqi civilians that has been created by our nation's misadventure. Liberals are supposed to stand up for the dispossessed. Who is more dispossessed than the hundreds of bodies found dumped on Iraqi streets every week? While the loss of American life is tragic, the Iraq war will soon come to an end for America. It will not soon end for the thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children who are killed every month, thanks to our nation destroying their government and plunging them into chaos.

Even if you disagreed with the Administration, it was still our government that did this. Although I am pessimistic that Humpty Dumpty can be put back together again, I think we as a nation cannot collectively look ourselves in the mirror unless we make an honest effort to repair the damage we have done.

In saying this, I'm not supporting the Bush Administration; it's their bumbling that has caused this tragedy. But simply pulling out and leaving innocent Iraqis to suffer the consequences would be immoral.

What's the answer to this quandary? Stay tuned for Part 3.

Is he listening?

A Plea to the Governor

By Senator Mike Dmitrich
Senate Minority Leader

Adam Ford: Sunlight on Special-Interest Funding Called a Gag on Free Speech

The Wall Street Journal has published a hit piece by John Fund in the opinion section this morning. The piece is subtitled: “Congressional Democrats prepare another assault on the First Amendment” http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=1 10010072

Fund admits that “Hardly anyone objects to the [proposed] legislation's requirement that former lawmakers wait two years instead of one before lobbying Congress. Ditto with bans on lobbying by congressional spouses and restrictions on sitting members of Congress negotiating contracts with private entities for future employment.”

But Fund’s justification for his sensationalist puffery is that “the legislation may be amended on the floor to . . . require groups that organize grassroots campaigns to register as ‘lobbyists’ and file detailed quarterly reports on their donors and activities. The law would apply to any group that took in at least $100,000 in any given quarter.”

So, to recap: Democratic sponsored legislation is pending before Congress that would tighten lobbying controls. The bill has hardly any opposition. But there is a possibility of an amendment which would require right-wing e-mail/phone mills to disclose who funds them. Fund believes this possibility constitutes a frontal and dire assault on the First Amendment rights of all Americans.

It is stunning to see how far some on the right will go to oppose even the smallest obstacle that has even a minuscule chance of getting in the way of their big-money influence-buying machine. They define free speech to mean manufactured speech facilitated by mercenaries operating in the shadows paid by hidden donors. Any attempt to shine light on their activities is decried as a constitutional crisis.

The Republican right in Utah would be proud. They have long held the line against any and all lobbying reform in our state. Repeated attempts to lower the gift disclosure level (meals excepted) have been rejected by the Republican state legislature in recent years. The best summary of Utah lobbying reform was published by the Deseret Morning News last year (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635185011,00.html).

Stories of two Utah Democrats

Heber residents mourn 'old-timer'
Deseret Morning News, Friday, May 11, 2007

Mission president dies in Uganda car crash

By Sara Israelsen and Carrie A. Moore
Deseret Morning News

HEBER CITY — Residents are mourning the loss of a businessman, civic contributor and religious leader who was killed in a traffic accident Thursday while serving as president of the Uganda Kampala Mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"We're gonna miss him," said Heber business owner Ren Provost, who grew up with President Ralph L. Duke. "He'll leave a big hole in the community."

President Duke, 57, and his wife, Kim, were returning from the Entebbe Airport, presumably to the mission office, around 6:30 a.m. when the accident occurred, according to Elder Chris Fee, executive secretary in the LDS Church's Africa Southeast Area office.

In an interview, Fee said the couple had just taken four missionaries to the airport — two of whom had finished mission and two others who were leaving to serve missions elsewhere.

Sister Duke was injured but has been treated and released from a hospital, Elder Fee said. There were no other passengers in the Dukes' vehicle at the time of the accident, he said.

Details of what caused the accident were not immediately available.

"We pray the spirit of the Lord will be with Sister Duke, her family, friends and the missionaries in the Uganda Kampala Mission during this difficult time," church spokesman Scott Trotter said.

Word of the accident spread quickly throughout the city of Heber, where the Dukes had been lifelong residents.

"It's a shock for everybody," said Steve Provost, assistant store director of the Smith's grocery store. "He's one of the old-timers."

A grocer and rancher by trade, President Duke grew up on a farm in Heber and worked in local grocery stores before buying a failing grocery store and turning it into Duke's IGA — one of the most successful businesses in town, residents said.

Steve Provost worked with President Duke at his IGA store before it was sold to Smith's about 10 years ago.

"He always had time for you," said life-long resident Vida Applegate, who spent many of her 30 years in the grocery business working with President Duke. "He was interested in what you were doing.
"He had great integrity," she continued. "He was honest with those he knew and associated with."

Ren Provost said he got to know President Duke best while the two served with Mike Kohler as Wasatch County commissioners from 1999 to 2003.

"He was honest and he told it like it was," he said during an interview in the office of his Wasatch Auto Supply store on Main Street. "He spoke his opinion. I'll miss Ralph."

Kohler said President Duke enjoyed working on the community's master plan and helping to ensure Heber would be carefully taken care of as it grew.

"He was very confident and had a lot of ideas," said Kohler, who is still a member of the now Wasatch County Council. "He loved to work with people. His people skills made him a good businessman."

There's a long list of Dukes in the Heber phone book, which includes R.L. and Mike Duke, two of the couple's four children who are firefighters for the Wasatch County Fire District. Another son, Spencer, is a sergeant with the Utah Highway Patrol.

Spencer Duke had a passport and could quickly book a flight to Kampala on Thursday to be with their mother and help arrange to bring their father's body home, said Mike Duke.

"She's coming home," Mike Duke said. "As soon as we can get her here, she's coming home."

A man of deep and simple faith, President Duke "was just a giant of a man for everybody that knew him," R.L. Duke said with emotion in his voice. "He was an example to the whole community. He just possessed all the qualities that we all strive to attain. He wasn't fake — people loved him. He loved the gospel and the church and devoted his whole life to that cause, to service."

President Duke had served three LDS missions: one in Australia as a young man; a second with his wife, overseeing the Church Education System in Johannesburg, South Africa; and his most recent assignment as mission president in Uganda.

President Duke had only been home five months and had just been called as a bishop when he was asked by church leaders to serve in Uganda, R.L. Duke said.

"They had two weeks to prepare to take the assignment, and they did it," he said. "They didn't hesitate."

That's how President Duke responded to any call to serve, his sons said.

"Where he was and what he was doing say more than I can," Mike Duke said, choking back tears. "That's what means the most to me. He did whatever he was asked to do as far as serving. He didn't care what the sacrifice was."

"Words can't describe how great a man he was," R.L. Duke said.

The couple raised their children on a ranch, and President Duke loved spending time with his horses and hunting elk and deer, said Steve Provost.

But most of all, he was devoted to his family of four children, their spouses and nine grandchildren — all of whom live in Wasatch County.

"He loved his grandchildren. He would always take his grandkids on little trips and invite them over for a sleepover or take them for a treat. They were the light of his life," R.L. Duke said, noting their last three grandchildren have been born since the Dukes began serving in July 2005.

"We're hanging in there," Mike Duke said. "We're just grateful that we know what we know. Our faith will get us through it."

A member of the Valley Hills 1st Ward, Heber Utah North Stake, President Duke was a former counselor in the stake presidency. He was born in 1949 in Heber to William Howard and Ellen Child Duke. He is survived by his wife, sons R.L., Spencer and Mike, and a daughter, Katie.

Elder William Parmley, a member of the Africa Southeast Area Presidency, has been sent to Uganda and will assume leadership of the mission, Elder Fee said.

Mission President Ralph Duke and Sister Kim Duke, residents of Heber City, were serving in Kampala, Uganda.Deseret Morning News Graphic

Explosives used to vandalize Park City councilman's mail box
Last Update: May 9, 2007 6:40 PM

Story by:
Buddy Blankenfeld

He expected some people might not like some of the decisions he has to make as a Park City councilman but not enough to destroy his property. Jim Hier has had his mailbox vandalized three times.

The first time knocked down by a car on April 29. Remnants were found in his neighbor’s yard and pieces of the car were left behind after hitting a decorative rock.

A week later, explosives were used, some flying into Hier’s yard catching his grass on fire. "If this was two months from now we could've had a serious fire here," Hier said.

The third strike happened just last Friday. Hier's neighbor heard the blast. "I was in the house about 9:30 and heard a big explosion. My wife said, 'Gosh, that sounds like a bomb'," remembered Gary Hennings.

The charge, from an M-80 type firework (equal to a quarter stick of dynamite) blew Hier's mailbox apart. Pieces were found all over his neighborhood.

"I don't think my mailbox has offended anybody," Hier said. While he jokes about it he is also worried. "If I'm away and my wife is by herself, just the thought that somebody, it's a pretty good size. It's about the size of a trailer hitch ball and for somebody to be doing something like that, it concerns me," he said.

Police have stepped up patrols to about six a day that drive by Hier’s home. They also have recovered pieces of a car that were left behind from the first incident. Investigators are trying to determine the car's make and model using the car parts.

The ATF has also been called in to analyze remnants of the explosive. Police said, depending on the motive, charges could range from mischief to terrorism.

"I can not think of anything controversial enough to want to blow up my mailbox, that's for sure," said Hier. His mailbox was blown into several pieces but he was able to snap those pieces back together again.

Bringing a little levity to the situation, he said, "This mailbox has been blown up twice so if anybody is anticipating getting their mailbox blown up I suggest they go to Home Depot and buy a cheap plastic mailbox because it goes back together."

Busy weekend

For the three people that are waiting for my posts on Washington D.C., and Annapolis I apologize. My wife Michelle and I worked in our yard all day Saturday, and spending Mothers Day with Mom, Michelle, and the three beautiful Miller kids ended up being priority number one, as it should be.

I will try to get those posts up asap.

With every best wish,

The Utah Amicus

Queen Noor: Let's reclaim Mother's Day for peace

I loved this! Go Moms!

Richard Watson's Recap of Davis County Democratic Convention: A Statement of Values

Last Saturday, the Davis County Democratic Party held their annual convention where delegates elected their executive officers and approved a new party platform. In addition, guests, visitors and delegates were welcomed with an agenda of hope and optimism. In years past, the Party often has relied on keynote speakers to draw in delegates and guests.

This convention, however, offered something different to coincide with the theme of “Davis Democrats: Grass Roots In Action”. In an effort to reach our roots, the Davis County Democratic Party (DCD), invited special guest, Jackie Thompson with her presentation of Rosa Parks and footage of Dr. Martin Luther King’s various speeches.
Afterwards, delegates and guests heard comments from State Party Chair, Wayne Holland as well as comments from the DCD Executive officers.

Delegates were also presented with a new party platform. The party has decided to move away from the traditional type of platform and has adopted a “Statement of Values”.

The values are:

We Value Families

We believe that strong family units are the basis of successful societies and that families, especially those who serve in our Armed Forces, should have the opportunities necessary to prosper.

We Value Education

Teachers that inspire and motivate students should be compensated competitively with surrounding states. We also believe it is bad public policy to support private schools with taxes.

We Value Good Health

We believe that basic health care should be available to all Utahns.

We Value Security

We appreciate the service of military, fire and police personnel and believe that they should be fairly compensated for the hazardous service throughout their lives.

We Value Honesty and Integrity

We support open government and oppose efforts to close government from scrutiny. We believe that ethics laws covering Utah legislators and lobbyists need to be further strengthened.

We Value Sustainability

We favor cost-effective, energy-effective options for transportation, energy, and government which enhances Davis County neighborhoods.

We Value Diversity

We believe that the community is better when everyone is included and involved in making Davis County a great place to live.

We Appreciate Service

We are grateful for the many willing individuals who give freely of their time and energy to make Davis County a great place to live.

With our Statement of Values in place and as our Democratic base grows, Democrats will be questioning the 30-plus-years of Republican accountability. Last week, Todd Weiler stated that the national Democratic Platform does not resonate with the voters of Davis County. Since when did national platforms and parties govern our county? No wonder our local governments have been inferior for so many years. Elected Republicans have depended on national party sound bites and have forgotten the needs of Davis County residents. It is time for our neighborhoods to demand better representation. It is time for the Republican Party to stop making ridiculous statements about Democrats. The Democratic Party, the party of the people and for the people, believes that neighborhoods should stand up and demand the Republican Party to get off our backs.

Richard Watson,
Chair, Davis County Democratic Party

Coming this weekend

ANNAPOLIS

The unvarnished truths about Iraq - Part 1 of 3

With all the debates going around on the subject of the war, why in the world would you think that I have anything to add to the discussion that you haven't already heard before? Well, because I haven't heard anyone else say the things I'm about to say, at least in the mainstream media. To be honest, I don't really like what I'm hearing from any of the camps out there - the administration, the Republican leaders, even the Democratic leaders and Presidential candidates. So, without any further ado, here goes:

In Part 1, let's have some honest talk about the two major talking points of the Administration and Republican Congressional leaders.

Point 1: We can't have a date for troop withdrawal from Iraq, because our enemies will just wait us out. It's setting a date for defeat.

Hard truth response: We already have a firm date for troop withdrawal from Iraq. It's November 2008. Because if we are still there by then, the Republican Party will be annihilated in the election - and then the troops will come home. You know it. I know it. More importantly, the Republicans know it, which is why there is a gathering earthquake of discontent in Republican ranks over Administration handling of the war. I'm not saying this to gloat or anything; it's just plain fact. Al Qaeda and the insurgents watch CNN. You don't think they've figured this out? America is on its way out of that country. What does it matter if the date is April 2008 or November 2008?

Point 2: If we don't win in Iraq, it will become a safe haven for Al Qaeda.

Hard truth response: Iraq already is, and will remain, a safe haven for Al Qaeda, thanks to the Bush Administration. In all the military plans I've seen, none include sending the hundreds of thousands of troops it would require out into the deserts of Iraq to rout out every trace of Al Qaeda and its supporters. At this point, it doesn't really matter what happens to the central government in Iraq; even if they survive the insurgency, it will be many years before they really have control of every square meter of their territory. The provinces of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan are safe havens for Al Qaeda, for heaven's sake, and they have a relatively stable government led by an American ally!

The Republicans arguments don't hold water. But I have a bone to pick with the Democratic leaders and presidential candidates as well. More about that in Part 2.

KCPW: A New Captain For Salt Lake County Democrats

Christian Burridge Ascends To County Chair (KCPW News)

There's a new hand on the rudder of the Salt Lake County Democratic Party. Christian Burridge, who unsuccessfully challenged Republican Representative Chris Cannon in the 2006 election, is now heading the County Party.

Burridge tells KCPW's Bryan Schott that his move to party chairman is the natural evolution in his political career.

Listen...

"Reverend Sharpton needs to spend some time with Senator Harry Reid..."

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation" .

Reverend Al Sharpton

You can listen to Utah State Democratic Chair Wayne Holland Jr.'s response to Reverend Al Sharpton's unacceptable comments on KSL's Nightside with Michael Castner and Ethan Millard.

Click here and then click play on Nightside's :
Al Sharpton And His War Of Words Part II

News Release: Democrats urge Huntsman to resolve voucher question by calling special session

SALT LAKE CITY – Utah House and Senate Democrats have requested a special session of the Legislature to resolve the conflict over two voucher bills passed in the 2007 General Session.

HB 148 passed by one vote in the House, and late in the session HB 174 was drafted to clean it up. Now, questions involve whether the recently qualified referendum would affect only the first bill or both. Democrats want to resolve the issue in a special session.

A copy of the letter to Gov. Jon Huntsman seeking the action is below:

May 8, 2007

The Honorable Jon Huntsman, Jr.

Governor of the State of Utah

E220 State Capitol Complex

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114



Dear Gov. Huntsman:



We understand that you will not be calling a special session in May, deciding rather to hold the voucher referendum vote in November. We think that a special session is imperative to cleanup the statutory confusion over the conflicting language in the voucher bills passed last legislative session.

The two voucher bills, HB 148 and HB 174, were inextricably linked, and as near as we can tell, nobody, including legislative counsel, anticipated the odd result of the latter bill being able to stand as a separate mandate to implement a voucher law. Throughout the presentation and debate of the bill, it was proposed as a cleanup of HB 148, and votes of many who otherwise would have voted against the bill, were made on the basis that addressed some of the problems with HB 148.

Further, and we believe most important (and consistent with your remarks), the public knows that the referendum on vouchers was on the question of whether Utah should allow vouchers for private schools. That will properly be the focus of the election. Any technical issues from different interpretations of the legislation are extraneous to this basic issue that the people of Utah have the right to express themselves on. We should not be wasting state resources and the people’s energy on a red herring.

Please place this cleanup on a special-session agenda. As you have said, the voice and vote of the people of Utah should be the foundation for the future of vouchers in Utah.

We welcome any further discussion on this issue, and hope you will help provide some certainty on this matter by providing a way to clean up conflicting interpretations of whether vouchers should be implemented in the middle of a referendum called by the people.

Sincerely,


Ralph Becker Mike Dmitrich

On behalf of Utah Democratic Legislators

Cc: Utah State School Board, Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, Utah legislators

Where's the diversity?

Bill Richardson: Job Interview

Waffles Anyone?

Governor Jon Huntsman Jr.

Coincidence?

On Thursday May 3rd I made the case why the Voucher Vote should be during a general election not the Presidential Primary.

Today the Trib Reported:

Gov. Huntsman favors November -- rather than February -- for voucher vote

Posted: 3:00 PM- Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. is now leaning toward a November vote on the school voucher referendum. That is a change from a preference for February he expressed two weeks ago -- and a return to his initial instinct to let people vote "sooner rather than later."
Huntsman expects to officially announce an election date within the next week, spokesman Mike Mower said. . . Read more.

Coincidence? Or is the Governor reading the Utah Amicus?

Starting the week off fresh

I'd like to change the subject. This morning, I took Sam to school and had to pull over for this Kodak moment.

It's a beautiful day in Cedar City!

My letter to Jessica

The poor thing said she needed to have a Priesthood Blessing because of the lively blogging conversation. I'm sorry we did that to her. Here's my response.

"Wow, posting this on the UtahAmicus seems to have really stirred things up out there in blog land - don’t know whether to apologize to Derek or to just keep posting!

I will say this… Jessica, I am sorry if all of our comments have taken you to the point of needing a priesthood blessing. Our intent is not to upset anybody to that point. I think most of us are just astounded that no matter what we say, you are refusing to address *our* arguments and keep coming back with all of this rhetoric, quoting people who we aren’t even talking about and assuming that because the majority of us are LDS Democrats or Liberals that somehow we are not following God’s plan because we don’t subscribe to your brand of politics, or because we think Sean Hannity is up in the night.

Really, it’s not all that important in the big scheme of things. The last time I heard, the plan of salvation was about coming to the earth to learn valuable things about returning to God. Part of that requires “Loving one Another” and being good to our brothers and sisters throughout the whole world, not just those who we agree with politically. When you say such hateful things, not only about LDS Democrats but also about members of the world family, it makes me a little bit sad.

You might not agree with George Soros or anybody else you’ve quoted here… but this bitterness that you have for anyone with a difference of opinion is really troublesome to me.

All I can say is that I hope you have a restful Sunday and that you don’t let this trouble you too much… it’s just politics, afterall — there really ARE things that are much more important."

To Jessica: Now who is teaching false doctrine and apostasy?

To reiterate Jessica said the follwoing yesterday on A Liberal Mormon:

First of all, member of the church like you are disgracful. How can a
member of the church, with the values and ehtics set forth by the church
conducive to “being a liberal” It is an oximoron....

The constitution will be hanging by a thread, and you of all people should
know that is fortold by Prophets ancient and modern. Therefore, how can you
being a member of the church live with yourself knowing that you are
deconstructing and contributing to the breakdown this great nation. Just as
conspracy and and tradegy has occured in the Church so does it in Washington.
That doesn’t mean that it is justifiable to jump on the band wagon of Mormon
bashing or Bush bashing…..it’s APOSTACY!!!! It may be your constitutional right
to be this stupid, but it is not without it’s consequences both here and in the
eyes of the Lord.

Today, the Trib ran an article tracing the Church's long history of political neutrality:

The LDS Church and politics
By Gary James Bergera
According to prevailing folklore, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regularly breaches the separation of church and state and secretly endorses the Republican Party. These beliefs are based largely on the activities of Utah's mostly LDS and Republican Legislature as well as the voting habits of Utah's predominantly Mormon population. Reality, however, is never so simple. Officially, the LDS Church has repeatedly stressed that it never injects itself into partisan campaigns and embraces the separation of church and state. At least since Utah's statehood, if not earlier, the church's First Presidency has consistently championed an official policy of political neutrality. Only the First Presidency is empowered to declare doctrine for the church, and the presidency's statements on the church and politics are clear and unequivocal. For example, six years before statehood, the First Presidency declared: "Church government and civil government are distinct and separate in our theory and practice" (Dec. 21, 1889). And it subsequently reiterated: "There has not been, nor is there, the remotest desire on our part or on the part of our co-religionists to do anything looking to a union of Church and State" (April 6, 1896). During World War II, the presidency again stated: "The Church stands for the separation of church and state" (May 1942). The church's own turbulent history has informed the presidency's position: "Members of our Church have been the victims of official persecution motivated by religious intolerance. We are, therefore, committed by experience as well as by precept to the wisdom of constitutional principle that government and public officials should maintain a position of respectful neutrality in the matter of religion" (Mar. 17, 1979). The First Presidency's clearest statement - issued 100 years ago and never rescinded - leaves no room for doubt: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds to the doctrine of the separation of church and state; the non-interference of church authority in political matters; and the absolute freedom and independence of the individual in the performance of his political duties. . . . we favor: The absolute separation of church and state; No domination of the state by the church; No church interference with the functions of the state; No state interference with the functions of the church, or with the free exercise of religion; The absolute freedom of the individual from the domination of ecclesiastical authority in political affairs; [and] The equality of all churches before the law" (May 1907). The LDS Church not only refuses to involve itself in electioneering, it explicitly condemns all attempts to enlist official church favor in partisan contests. "We claim no authority, and have no desire," the First Presidency proclaimed in 1910, "to use the power of the Priesthood which we hold, to dictate or compel any member of the Church, or other human being, to unite with or oppose any political party or faction . . . " (Dec. 17). Again, in 1936: "The Church does not interfere, and has no intention of trying to interfere, with the fullest and freest exercise of the political franchise of its members . . . " (July 3). Again, in 1963: "We believe in a two-party system, and all our members are perfectly free to support the party of their choice" (Jan. 4). And more recently, in 1988: "We have no candidates for political office and we do not undertake to tell people how to vote" (June 9). While the First Presidency periodically announces a position on a topic it defines as moral, and members sometimes violate official LDS protocol, it bears remembering that the LDS Church has long opposed the union of church and state and has never preferred one political party over another.

So, does this mean...

Just read a comment on a post where the writer was calling the blogger on the carpet, telling him he is a "disgraceful member of the church."

Yikes.

And why does this person think this LDS blogger is disgraceful?

Because he does not support the commander in chief.

She also said that "Bush Bashing is Apostasy."

If being a good Mormon means you have to support the president, at all times and without question, then does that mean this particular writer was a big supporter of President Clinton?

I'm just sayin...

The Best Damn Blog Coverage of Rocky vs. Hannity

JM Bell: Sean Hannity says - "JM Bell: You're a Great American." Seriously.

JM Bell: Rocky vs. Hannity

SLCSpin: I'm At The Debate

SLCSpin: Ken Verdoia Makes A Funny

SLCSpin: Hannity’s America Shows Up At Kingsbury Hall

SLCSpin: If Any Of You Are Listening To The Debate Online

SLCSPIN: The Crowd At The Debate

Tom Gregory: Not tonight

SLCSpin: Ken Verdoia: Lethal Enforcer

SLCSpin: The Stomping, The Stomping

SLCSpin: The Hecklers

SLCSpin: Ross

SLCSpin: The Only Quiet Moment

SLCSpin: Just Turn The Thing Off!

SLCSpin: “You People”

SLCSpin“What’s The Question, Mayor?”

SLCSpin: The Format Goes Out The Window

SLCSpin: Strengths, Weaknesses

SLCSpin: “I Would Throw This Watch Away But It Was A Gift From My Wife”

SLCSpin: Well, That’s No Real Surprise

SLCSpin: One Person Kicked Out So Far

KVNU's For The People: Hannity's Best Shot

KVNU's For The People: Hannity guilt by association

SLCSpin: Tom Grover Is Listening To The Debate

KVNU's For The People: SLCSpin live on the ground

KVNU's For The People: And the winner of tonights Hannity/Rocky “debate” was….

KVNU's For The People: Best of the Bloghive: Hannity v. Rocky “Debate”

Dee's Dotes: Rocky vs. Hannity

Utah Conservative Democrat: Anderson, Hannity Smackdown my Thoughts.

Green Jello: Hannity v. Rocky -- The Showdown (or the Smackdown)

A Liberal Mormon: Rocky vs. Hannity

One Utah: Rocky Wins!

Watch for more..., ticket stolen from One Utah