$10 million spent by Mitt Romney in Iowa. (Outspending Huckabee 10 to 1.) For what? Ambition, power. And a big loss.
So much money, so little conviction. And that's the key. All that money couldn't make up for Romney's lack of conviction ... which the voters could SMELL a mile away.
It wasn't that voters resented Romney's wealth. There would have been a very different reaction if he had used it to underwrite conservative convictions in previous years. His only small (public) donations to Mass. Family Institute and Mass. Citizens for Life came very recently, when he wanted their support for his Presidential run.
What Romney really needed to do as Governor was give us REAL CONSERVATIVES a little face time, and listen to what we had to say. (We barely got an hour-long appointment with his Deputy Chief of Staff, Peter Flaherty, who will remember that event -- which we'll write about in detail in the near future.) Romney didn't have any problem finding time to meet with the Log Cabin (homosexual) Republicans, or even the editorial staff of the extremist GLBT Boston newspaper, Bay Windows. (And oh yes, he apparently was scheming with "moderates" to cook up a compromised marriage amendment back in 2005.)
Showing posts with label Mass. Citizens for Life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mass. Citizens for Life. Show all posts
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Radio Interviews with John Haskins on Romney's Violation of Mass. Constitution
Do the people have a right to know who is selling off their state and federal constitutions -- and their right of self-government? The process of outing the "social conservatives," "pro-family" leaders, pundits, lawyers and law professors who are busy covering up Mitt Romney's dirty deed continues apace! Outed in Haskins' interview are: Mass. Family Institute, Mass. Citizens for Life, and Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ (American Center for Law & Justice).
Sandy Rios (Culture Campaign), Gregg Jackson (Pundit Review), and WorldNetDaily are some of the rare media personalities and outlets with the courage to speak the truth on Romney.
Don't miss this interview from the Sandy Rios show out of Chicago:
Download MP3 Tue 11/06/2007 Hour #2: John Haskins of the Parents' Rights Coalition re: Paul Weyrich endorsement of Mitt Romney, GOP presidential candidate.
And from Pundit Review Radio, with Gregg Jackson (on Boston's WRKO AM680):
Posted by Gregg on Dec 4, 2007 @ 09:00
John Haskins of the Parents Rights Coalition
I had the pleasure of speaking with pro-family activist and political analyst for the Parents’ Rights Coalition Mr. John Haskins regarding how Mitt Romney shredded the Massachusetts’ Constitution by illegally imposing same sex marriage on the citizens of the Commonwealth and how he signed a healtcare bill that included tax payer subsidized abortion after his supposed “pro-life epiphany.” ...
Sandy Rios (Culture Campaign), Gregg Jackson (Pundit Review), and WorldNetDaily are some of the rare media personalities and outlets with the courage to speak the truth on Romney.
Don't miss this interview from the Sandy Rios show out of Chicago:
Download MP3 Tue 11/06/2007 Hour #2: John Haskins of the Parents' Rights Coalition re: Paul Weyrich endorsement of Mitt Romney, GOP presidential candidate.
And from Pundit Review Radio, with Gregg Jackson (on Boston's WRKO AM680):
Posted by Gregg on Dec 4, 2007 @ 09:00
John Haskins of the Parents Rights Coalition
I had the pleasure of speaking with pro-family activist and political analyst for the Parents’ Rights Coalition Mr. John Haskins regarding how Mitt Romney shredded the Massachusetts’ Constitution by illegally imposing same sex marriage on the citizens of the Commonwealth and how he signed a healtcare bill that included tax payer subsidized abortion after his supposed “pro-life epiphany.” ...
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Former Gov. Bill Weld, Mentor to Romney, Will Make Calls vs. Marriage Amendment
We continue to wonder why the supposed pro-real-marriage crowd (Mass. Family Institute, Mass. Catholic Conference, Mass. Citizens for Life) didn't stand up for the first and BETTER* marriage amendment, instead of letting the Legislature and acting Gov. Swift throw it in the trash in 2002?
And why didn't our supposedly pro-marriage former Governor, Mitt Romney, ever address the issue when he took office in January 2003? The first marriage amendment was arguably still alive then, but Romney said it was "too extreme" -- because it banned civil unions! (Romney went on to twist arms among Republican legislators, getting them to vote for the failed Travaglini-Lees amendment which would have created civil unions.)
Romney's mentor, former Gov. Bill Weld, has decided to stick his nose into the current marriage amendment mess. State House News reports:
Former Gov. Bill Weld held an afternoon visit with House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, whose chamber is home to the vast majority of the pro-amendment votes. The two-term Republican governor said he might call legislators Wednesday in an effort to influence votes against the ban, which was generated by about 170,000 Bay State citizens' signatures. ...
Weld said he hopes the measure doesn't advance to the popular ballot because "I think it's going be a distraction for the next 18 months if it does get put on the ballot, and I think the best way to handle it is just to get rid of it right now." Weld infuriated gay marriage supporters two years ago when he was running for governor of New York by saying he opposed the expansion of gay marriage outside Massachusetts. Making at least his second appearance in the State House in the last week, Weld said he was in the capitol on behalf of Lehman Brothers, the global finance firm, but said it was not to lobby. In 2003, shortly after the state Supreme Judicial Court delivered the ruling that led to the practice of gay marriage here, Weld endorsed the decision, and later officiated at a same-sex marriage.
Why would a nominal Republican be concerned if the amendment were still an issue for the next 18 months? We thought it was just the Democrats who wanted it to go away, so as not to hurt their vote in the 2008 election.
Meanwhile, Senate President Murray is still counting heads, and won't decide until Thursday morning whether or not to hold the vote.
State House News reports (June 12):
Murray said she expected to vote Thursday, but didn't know whether the gay marriage proponents have swayed the handful of votes needed to draw support for the amendment below the 50-vote threshold. ...
Asked if she would still call for a vote if she were unsure of the result, Murray replied, "We'll decide on Thursday." In May, Murray, responding to reporters' questions about whether she thought there would be a vote on the amendment in June, said, "Well, we're going to ask for one." Asked about the discrepancy, Murray spokeswoman Samantha Dallaire said, "The decision is up to the membership" on how to proceed Thursday.
And why didn't our supposedly pro-marriage former Governor, Mitt Romney, ever address the issue when he took office in January 2003? The first marriage amendment was arguably still alive then, but Romney said it was "too extreme" -- because it banned civil unions! (Romney went on to twist arms among Republican legislators, getting them to vote for the failed Travaglini-Lees amendment which would have created civil unions.)
Romney's mentor, former Gov. Bill Weld, has decided to stick his nose into the current marriage amendment mess. State House News reports:
Former Gov. Bill Weld held an afternoon visit with House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, whose chamber is home to the vast majority of the pro-amendment votes. The two-term Republican governor said he might call legislators Wednesday in an effort to influence votes against the ban, which was generated by about 170,000 Bay State citizens' signatures. ...
Weld said he hopes the measure doesn't advance to the popular ballot because "I think it's going be a distraction for the next 18 months if it does get put on the ballot, and I think the best way to handle it is just to get rid of it right now." Weld infuriated gay marriage supporters two years ago when he was running for governor of New York by saying he opposed the expansion of gay marriage outside Massachusetts. Making at least his second appearance in the State House in the last week, Weld said he was in the capitol on behalf of Lehman Brothers, the global finance firm, but said it was not to lobby. In 2003, shortly after the state Supreme Judicial Court delivered the ruling that led to the practice of gay marriage here, Weld endorsed the decision, and later officiated at a same-sex marriage.
Why would a nominal Republican be concerned if the amendment were still an issue for the next 18 months? We thought it was just the Democrats who wanted it to go away, so as not to hurt their vote in the 2008 election.
Meanwhile, Senate President Murray is still counting heads, and won't decide until Thursday morning whether or not to hold the vote.
State House News reports (June 12):
Murray said she expected to vote Thursday, but didn't know whether the gay marriage proponents have swayed the handful of votes needed to draw support for the amendment below the 50-vote threshold. ...
Asked if she would still call for a vote if she were unsure of the result, Murray replied, "We'll decide on Thursday." In May, Murray, responding to reporters' questions about whether she thought there would be a vote on the amendment in June, said, "Well, we're going to ask for one." Asked about the discrepancy, Murray spokeswoman Samantha Dallaire said, "The decision is up to the membership" on how to proceed Thursday.
[*Our position on the current VoteOnMarriage amendment: We DON'T like the wording (allowing current homosexual "marriages" to stand; not banning civil unions). But we DO respect the process: The Constitution provides for referendum petitions, VoteOnMarriage got the signatures, and the legislators are required to vote. And bribery is against the law. But its passage would not solve our problem. We'd still have "homosexual marriages" recognized by the Mass. Constitution, and civil unions could follow.]
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Romney Not Pro-Life: Letter to Mass. Citizens for Life Directors
Mitt Romney is NOT pro-life. So says a director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL), John O'Gorman. He is calling on MCFL's voting members to speak out at their annual meeting this Friday, June 8, 7 p.m. at Boston College against the erroneous award made to Romney for "political leadership" (at their western Massachusetts dinner on May 10). Here is the open letter from Mr. O'Gorman to MCFL members, concerning both his efforts to expose pro-abortion elected officials in the Knights of Columbus, and Romney's false identification as "pro-life":
31/May/2007
DEAR MASSACHUSETTS CITIZENS FOR LIFE DIRECTORS,
At the Directors' Meeting on Friday 11/May/2007, MCFL President Joe Reilly again attempted to have me removed as a director because of my efforts to expose Pro-Abortion politicians in the Knights of Columbus. His previous effort was on Friday 9/Feb/2007.
Joe Reilly, a K of C member, refused to address the issue of Pro-Abortion politicians in the K of C. His wife, MCFL Director Evelyn Reilly, who works for Mass Family Institute - a state associate of Focus on the Family - proposed a motion seeking to have me removed for "cause". Curiously, she failed to mention what the "cause" was! Evelyn Reilly’s motion failed by a 10-7 majority. I wish to thank those 10 MCFL directors who took a principled stand, and also those directors who chose to ignore Joe and Evelyn Reilly by abstaining, remembering that MCFL is an affiliate only of National Right to Life.
Earlier, the directors heard a report of the previous evening's dinner (10/May/2007) held by the Pioneer Valley branch of MCFL in western Massachusetts . Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts and a recent "convert" to Pro-Life, was a speaker and was given a "political leadership award".
MCFL's endorsement of Mitt Romney is wrong. To see where Mitt Romney stands, one only needs to visit his own website at mittromney.com [see: Issue Watch/Affirming America's Culture and Values]. It reads: Governor Romney: "I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother...I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws, and not have them dictated through judicial mandate." This does not reflect a genuine conversion to Pro-Life principles, but rather a transition to a mainstream Republican Party position on abortion in anticipation of his presidential run. Mitt Romney is wrong on 2 counts:
1. ROMNEY'S EXCEPTIONS AMOUNT TO ABORTION ON DEMAND. UNDER THESE EXCEPTIONS ANY WOMAN CAN CLAIM SHE WAS RAPED, OR THREATEN SUICIDE, THEN DEMAND AN ABORTION. MITT ROMNEY FAILS TO SEE THAT EVERY CHILD HAS THE RIGHT TO LIFE WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CONCEPTION.
2. Roe v Wade needs to be overturned by the Supreme Court, but foremost by an amendment to the United States Constitution outlawing abortion. Letting the states decide is NOT THE ANSWER. Abortion, the murder of unborn children, is wrong everywhere. We need a decision at the federal level to make this clear to the people in every state, and to the whole world.
Yours in Pro-Life,
John O’Gorman
Winthrop, MA
cc: Others
31/May/2007
DEAR MASSACHUSETTS CITIZENS FOR LIFE DIRECTORS,
At the Directors' Meeting on Friday 11/May/2007, MCFL President Joe Reilly again attempted to have me removed as a director because of my efforts to expose Pro-Abortion politicians in the Knights of Columbus. His previous effort was on Friday 9/Feb/2007.
Joe Reilly, a K of C member, refused to address the issue of Pro-Abortion politicians in the K of C. His wife, MCFL Director Evelyn Reilly, who works for Mass Family Institute - a state associate of Focus on the Family - proposed a motion seeking to have me removed for "cause". Curiously, she failed to mention what the "cause" was! Evelyn Reilly’s motion failed by a 10-7 majority. I wish to thank those 10 MCFL directors who took a principled stand, and also those directors who chose to ignore Joe and Evelyn Reilly by abstaining, remembering that MCFL is an affiliate only of National Right to Life.
Earlier, the directors heard a report of the previous evening's dinner (10/May/2007) held by the Pioneer Valley branch of MCFL in western Massachusetts . Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts and a recent "convert" to Pro-Life, was a speaker and was given a "political leadership award".
MCFL's endorsement of Mitt Romney is wrong. To see where Mitt Romney stands, one only needs to visit his own website at mittromney.com [see: Issue Watch/Affirming America's Culture and Values]. It reads: Governor Romney: "I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother...I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws, and not have them dictated through judicial mandate." This does not reflect a genuine conversion to Pro-Life principles, but rather a transition to a mainstream Republican Party position on abortion in anticipation of his presidential run. Mitt Romney is wrong on 2 counts:
1. ROMNEY'S EXCEPTIONS AMOUNT TO ABORTION ON DEMAND. UNDER THESE EXCEPTIONS ANY WOMAN CAN CLAIM SHE WAS RAPED, OR THREATEN SUICIDE, THEN DEMAND AN ABORTION. MITT ROMNEY FAILS TO SEE THAT EVERY CHILD HAS THE RIGHT TO LIFE WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CONCEPTION.
2. Roe v Wade needs to be overturned by the Supreme Court, but foremost by an amendment to the United States Constitution outlawing abortion. Letting the states decide is NOT THE ANSWER. Abortion, the murder of unborn children, is wrong everywhere. We need a decision at the federal level to make this clear to the people in every state, and to the whole world.
Yours in Pro-Life,
John O’Gorman
Winthrop, MA
cc: Others
Friday, May 11, 2007
"Pro-Life" Multi-millionaire Romney Pays $15,000 for Chicken Dinner!
So sorry we weren't able to attend the Mass. Citizens for Life dinner last night in Agawam. We wanted to see the chicken dinner that cost Romney $15,000. Check out the American Spectator post on the event: "Buy 'Em If You Can."
After today's AP article on Romney's multi-millions, we were just wondering why this "pro-lifer" never gave anything to the pro-life cause prior to his December 2006 donation (a measly $15K -- pocket change for a multimillionaire) to Mass. Citizens for Life. He could at least have bought a ticket to one of their earlier dinners -- probably about $40? But now, because he never attended ANY pro-life event before, he had to pay $15,000 for admission last night!
Prof. Larry Sabato of University of Virginia said it succinctly (commenting on Romney's appearance at Pat Robertson's Regent University). "Romney would have to address the issue of his faith eventually. 'Mormonism is hurting him,' he said, adding that Romney's switch on abortion was a political move. 'An adult in his 40s and 50s having this overnight conversion -- nobody buys that.' "
What plum posts are being offered in a possible future Romney administration? $15K doesn't seem to be a high enough price for the cover he's getting from the purportedly "pro-life" organizations in Massachusetts. But then, Judas sold Jesus out for only 30 pieces of silver.
Speaking of Mormonism, WorldNetDaily reported today on the beginning of the Evangelical challenge to Romney's refusal to address his religion.
After today's AP article on Romney's multi-millions, we were just wondering why this "pro-lifer" never gave anything to the pro-life cause prior to his December 2006 donation (a measly $15K -- pocket change for a multimillionaire) to Mass. Citizens for Life. He could at least have bought a ticket to one of their earlier dinners -- probably about $40? But now, because he never attended ANY pro-life event before, he had to pay $15,000 for admission last night!
Prof. Larry Sabato of University of Virginia said it succinctly (commenting on Romney's appearance at Pat Robertson's Regent University). "Romney would have to address the issue of his faith eventually. 'Mormonism is hurting him,' he said, adding that Romney's switch on abortion was a political move. 'An adult in his 40s and 50s having this overnight conversion -- nobody buys that.' "
What plum posts are being offered in a possible future Romney administration? $15K doesn't seem to be a high enough price for the cover he's getting from the purportedly "pro-life" organizations in Massachusetts. But then, Judas sold Jesus out for only 30 pieces of silver.
Speaking of Mormonism, WorldNetDaily reported today on the beginning of the Evangelical challenge to Romney's refusal to address his religion.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Romney's "Flip-Flop Conservative" Backers
Watch this video before reading further:
Ann & Mitt on preserving & protecting abortion "rights" (2002)
Mitt Romney gave a $15,000 donation to Mass. Citizens for Life (MCFL) and $10,000 to Mass. Family Institute (MFI) this past December. Prior to that, he basically didn't give any pro-life or pro-family organization in Massachusetts any support. Now suddenly, he and his wife Ann are guests of honor at MCFL events! On April 13, Ann Romney was the "special guest" at the MCFL statewide fundraiser. On May 10, Mitt Romney will both speak and receive a "political leadership award" at the Pioneer Valley (Western Mass. chapter) MCFL dinner.
From the New York Times:
The recipients of Mr. Romney’s donations said the money had no influence on them. But some of the groups, notably Citizens for Life and the Family Institute, have turned supportive of Mr. Romney after criticizing him in the past. Coming on the eve of his presidential campaign, Mr. Romney’s contributions could create the appearance of a conflict of interest for groups often asked to evaluate him. All the groups said he had never contributed before, and his foundation’s public tax filings show no previous gifts to similar groups.
The Springfield Republican reported:
Melissa R. Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, said she was "a little surprised" Romney is being honored [by MCFL], given his shifted positions on abortion. "Mitt Romney hasn't been clear what he really stands for," she said.
And Mass. Family Institute is apparently upset by our reporting on Romney's failure to uphold the Constitution in implementing homosexual marriage, and his assorted flip-flops, to say nothing of his extension of taxpayer-funded abortions in his Mass. health insurance plan. So now MFI is calling us"right-wing conservatives" -- apparently a bad thing! Does that make MFI "left-wing conservatives"? Or "moderate conservatives"? Or "let-the-people-vote" conservatives" or "Romney conservatives" or "flip-flop conservatives"? Or is it the word "conservative" we should delete from their description? From MFI's email alert:
Event: Romney to speak at pro-life banquet
Former Governor Mitt Romney is scheduled to be the main speaker at the annual dinner of the Pioneer Valley Region of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The dinner, set to take place on May 10, is expected to attract around 800 people. In addition to addressing the crowd, Gov. Romney will also be the recipient of the group's "political leadership award" for his pro-life work as governor.
The chairman of the dinner, Holyoke City Councilor Kevin Jourdain, told the Springfield Republican newspaper that Romney's position on abortion evolved after he became governor. "He served as a pro-life governor," Jourdain said. "Where he stands now is most important."
Romney has come under fire by some right-wing conservatives for saying as a candidate for governor in 2002 that he was personally against abortion but that he supported the court decision that legalized abortion....
Ann & Mitt on preserving & protecting abortion "rights" (2002)
Mitt Romney gave a $15,000 donation to Mass. Citizens for Life (MCFL) and $10,000 to Mass. Family Institute (MFI) this past December. Prior to that, he basically didn't give any pro-life or pro-family organization in Massachusetts any support. Now suddenly, he and his wife Ann are guests of honor at MCFL events! On April 13, Ann Romney was the "special guest" at the MCFL statewide fundraiser. On May 10, Mitt Romney will both speak and receive a "political leadership award" at the Pioneer Valley (Western Mass. chapter) MCFL dinner.
From the New York Times:
The recipients of Mr. Romney’s donations said the money had no influence on them. But some of the groups, notably Citizens for Life and the Family Institute, have turned supportive of Mr. Romney after criticizing him in the past. Coming on the eve of his presidential campaign, Mr. Romney’s contributions could create the appearance of a conflict of interest for groups often asked to evaluate him. All the groups said he had never contributed before, and his foundation’s public tax filings show no previous gifts to similar groups.
The Springfield Republican reported:
Melissa R. Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, said she was "a little surprised" Romney is being honored [by MCFL], given his shifted positions on abortion. "Mitt Romney hasn't been clear what he really stands for," she said.
And Mass. Family Institute is apparently upset by our reporting on Romney's failure to uphold the Constitution in implementing homosexual marriage, and his assorted flip-flops, to say nothing of his extension of taxpayer-funded abortions in his Mass. health insurance plan. So now MFI is calling us"right-wing conservatives" -- apparently a bad thing! Does that make MFI "left-wing conservatives"? Or "moderate conservatives"? Or "let-the-people-vote" conservatives" or "Romney conservatives" or "flip-flop conservatives"? Or is it the word "conservative" we should delete from their description? From MFI's email alert:
Event: Romney to speak at pro-life banquet
Former Governor Mitt Romney is scheduled to be the main speaker at the annual dinner of the Pioneer Valley Region of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The dinner, set to take place on May 10, is expected to attract around 800 people. In addition to addressing the crowd, Gov. Romney will also be the recipient of the group's "political leadership award" for his pro-life work as governor.
The chairman of the dinner, Holyoke City Councilor Kevin Jourdain, told the Springfield Republican newspaper that Romney's position on abortion evolved after he became governor. "He served as a pro-life governor," Jourdain said. "Where he stands now is most important."
Romney has come under fire by some right-wing conservatives for saying as a candidate for governor in 2002 that he was personally against abortion but that he supported the court decision that legalized abortion....
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Romney Video 2002: Ann Says "TRUST" Mitt to Protect Abortion
Another video gem has been uncovered. In the 2002 Governor's race, Ann Romney (soon to be the "special guest" at the Mass. Citizens for Life fundraiser!) assures the liberal ladies of Massachusetts that they can TRUST Mitt on the social issues! Mitt assures them he'll preserve and protect the right to choose. Then Mitt offers some little children -- presumably his grandchildren -- some bananas.
Now we must ask: Would it have been acceptable to Ann & Mitt if their daughter-in-law had decided to abort these lovely little children? Apparently, some such thought must have come to Ann Romney sometime in the last year or so, and converted her to pro-life --an "epiphany" that just happened to coincide with Mitt's.
Watch this brief video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKwVNUz52vo
Transcript from 2002 video --
Ann Romney: I think women also recognize that they want someone that is going to manage the state well. I think they may be more nervous about him on social issues. They shouldn't be, because he's gonna be just fine. But the perception is that he won't be. It's an incorrect perception.
Mitt Romney: So when asked, will I preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, I make an unequivocal answer: Yes.
Mitt to children: Do you want some banana?
Now we must ask: Would it have been acceptable to Ann & Mitt if their daughter-in-law had decided to abort these lovely little children? Apparently, some such thought must have come to Ann Romney sometime in the last year or so, and converted her to pro-life --an "epiphany" that just happened to coincide with Mitt's.
Watch this brief video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKwVNUz52vo
Transcript from 2002 video --
Ann Romney: I think women also recognize that they want someone that is going to manage the state well. I think they may be more nervous about him on social issues. They shouldn't be, because he's gonna be just fine. But the perception is that he won't be. It's an incorrect perception.
Mitt Romney: So when asked, will I preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, I make an unequivocal answer: Yes.
Mitt to children: Do you want some banana?
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Mitt's Latest Hits
Mitt's taking some more BIG hits.
Like Sunday's New York Times article on how he's buying conservative groups: "In Romney’s Bid, His Wallet Opens to the Right" (3-11-07).
And Janet Folger's commentary today in WorldNetDaily on the same: "Straw poll and the straw man" (3-14-07).
And Virginia Buckingham in the Boston Herald on Mitt's flip-flops on illegal aliens: "Immigration stance improv: From Mitt, another dubious act" (3-14-07).
We take some credit for getting this ball rolling. Of course, the problem for Mitt Romney is that there is SO MUCH of this, just waiting to be revealed. The real question for conservatives now is how long some of their supposed leaders will play along. We're thinking of National Review, Human Events, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Jay Sekulow. The obvious question: Since Mass. Citizens for Life and Mass. Family Institute are documented to have received gifts from Mitt, and even National Review apparently had help with a party, what does this imply about all his other endorsers?
And hey, how come Mitt didn't give us a Christmas gift? Oh yeah, he calls us "extremists." It's extreme to want to protect parental rights in the schools. It's extreme to say "no homosexual marriage & no civil unions." And it's extreme to say abortion is not something that can be put up to a vote in the states. He only gives gifts to compromisers.
Like Sunday's New York Times article on how he's buying conservative groups: "In Romney’s Bid, His Wallet Opens to the Right" (3-11-07).
And Janet Folger's commentary today in WorldNetDaily on the same: "Straw poll and the straw man" (3-14-07).
And Virginia Buckingham in the Boston Herald on Mitt's flip-flops on illegal aliens: "Immigration stance improv: From Mitt, another dubious act" (3-14-07).
We take some credit for getting this ball rolling. Of course, the problem for Mitt Romney is that there is SO MUCH of this, just waiting to be revealed. The real question for conservatives now is how long some of their supposed leaders will play along. We're thinking of National Review, Human Events, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Jay Sekulow. The obvious question: Since Mass. Citizens for Life and Mass. Family Institute are documented to have received gifts from Mitt, and even National Review apparently had help with a party, what does this imply about all his other endorsers?
And hey, how come Mitt didn't give us a Christmas gift? Oh yeah, he calls us "extremists." It's extreme to want to protect parental rights in the schools. It's extreme to say "no homosexual marriage & no civil unions." And it's extreme to say abortion is not something that can be put up to a vote in the states. He only gives gifts to compromisers.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Mass. Citizens for Life Changed Its Tune on Romney after Donation
Outrageous. Mitt Romney gave Mass. Citizens for Life (MCFL) a nice $15,000 donation in December 2006. Prior to that time, he'd given them nothing, and the organization had been critical of his lack of support for pro-life issues.
Now in March 2007 -- after his donation -- Romney can get away with handing out a flyer to the thousands of conservative activists at CPAC in D.C. last weekend that reads:
Massachusetts Citizens for Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis: "Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts. His actions concerning life issues have been consistent and he has been helpful down the line for us in the Bay State."
But in 2002 when Romney was running for Governor, Sturgis "said that her group had never offered an endorsement to Romney. Romney is 'not pro-life and does not meet their requirements.' (MIT News, 11-1-02)
In March 2005, Sturgis "said she hasn't detected any change in Romney's stance. The group considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, as do national antiabortion groups such as the Family Research Council." (Boston Globe, 3-05)
In May 2005, MCFL doubted the sincerity of Romney's move to pro-life positions: "Massachusetts Citizens for Life says it considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, and it is unimpressed with those moves." (Boston Globe, 5-25-05).
Now in March 2007 -- after his donation -- Romney can get away with handing out a flyer to the thousands of conservative activists at CPAC in D.C. last weekend that reads:
Massachusetts Citizens for Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis: "Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts. His actions concerning life issues have been consistent and he has been helpful down the line for us in the Bay State."
But in 2002 when Romney was running for Governor, Sturgis "said that her group had never offered an endorsement to Romney. Romney is 'not pro-life and does not meet their requirements.' (MIT News, 11-1-02)
In March 2005, Sturgis "said she hasn't detected any change in Romney's stance. The group considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, as do national antiabortion groups such as the Family Research Council." (Boston Globe, 3-05)
In May 2005, MCFL doubted the sincerity of Romney's move to pro-life positions: "Massachusetts Citizens for Life says it considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, and it is unimpressed with those moves." (Boston Globe, 5-25-05).
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Compromisers Wherever We Turn
Kris Mineau, spokesman for VoteOnMarriage (VOM) and president of Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI), has announced his desire to "dialogue" with the homofascist leaders -- the same people who advocated violence to the constitution and blocking a vote "by any means necessary" on VOM's own citizens' petition! Mineau thinks he has an "excellent relationship" with the leadership of the extremist GLBT groups. From the MFI press release:
[Jan. 9, 2007] Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) today announced an initiative that seeks to build mutual respect and dialogue between those who support and those who oppose same sex marriage in Massachusetts. Advocates for same sex marriage routinely have called supporters of the marriage amendment hateful and bigoted, while amendment supporters say they are simply following the constitutional process to have their voice heard on what they view as an important social issue.
"The tone and rhetoric around this public policy issue has escalated to a frenzied level, too often with shouting that does nothing promote [sic] understanding. Denouncing individuals as bigots does not bring people with honest differences together. We would like to work with our opponents to raise the quality of the dialogue," said Kris Mineau. [meaning: Please don't call us names! It hurts our feelings!]
"I have come to know my political opponent Marc Solomon, executive director of MassEquality as a gentleman who has strong personal convictions," Mineau added. "I believe that if asked he would come to the table in good faith to advance meaningful dialogue that his supporters also would embrace-today begins the process of asking." [emphasis added]
Are we seeing political naivete here, or just plain simple-mindedness? Mineau is clearly in denial about the behavior and tactics of Marc Solomon and Arline Isaacson, the GLBT extremist group leaders, who cheered on their troopers in the most disruptive behaviors imaginable short of violence, protesting VOM's rally at the State House (Nov. 19).
The president of the MassEquality Board of Directors (Solomon's boss) said MassEquality "will redouble its efforts to protect marriage equality and defeat this discriminatory amendment in the legislature.... We are not going away. We are going to get bigger and stronger and do whatever is necessary to make sure that our families, our rights and our communities are safe.”
Mineau began his dialogue by giving an interview to the GLBT newspaper, Bay Windows ("Calling for a cease fire", 1-17-07), which immediately turned on him, snidely dismissing his proposal. From Bay Windows:
Following the Jan. 2 vote by the legislature to advance the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage into the new legislative session, activists on both sides of the marriage debate put out public calls for dialogue to encourage an end to offensive rhetoric and a de-escalation of the war of words. Yet in an interview with Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) and spokesperson for VoteOnMarriage.org, he made it clear that opponents of same-sex marriage would make no effort to rein in some of the most egregious offenders, members of the clergy speaking out in favor of the amendment....
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE, STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JAN. 8, 2007
Legislation mandating K-12 health education, cutting off federal funding for abstinence-only education and repealing outmoded anti-abortion statutes drew dozens of legislators to a strategy session and bill-signing hosted by the Massachusetts Coalition for Choice on Monday morning. A packed hearing room listened as coalition members, who hail from Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice and other public health groups, rallied legislators to support their agenda and discussed a game plan for dealing with opposition. The young 2007-2008 legislative session is just getting underway.
The health education bill, sponsored by Sen. Edward Augustus (D-Worcester) and Rep. Alice Wolf (D-Cambridge), would add health education to the “core curriculum” at primary and secondary schools. The bill reintroduces legislation that died in committee at the end of the last session, but “the prospects for this bill are very good,” according to Angus McQuilken, vice president for public affairs for Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. McQuilken, who heads the Massachusetts Coalition for Choice, cited the founding of the Coalition Advocating Responsible Education for Youth, a broad-based coalition lobbying for the education law, as a sign that momentum has turned in favor of the bill....
[And the supposedly conservative pro-family abstinence educators seem to be caving:]
Healthy Futures, a faith-based health education advocate, believes that the state should shed a common misconception that federal funding for abstinence education would limit the sexual education students receive. Rebecca Ray, the group’s director, said that while federal funding must be used for abstinence education, the state can still supplement that education with its own curriculum. Responding to the notion that schools that couldn’t afford their own health curriculum would only teach abstinence, Ray said that “presumably” the new mandatory health education law “would come with some funding.” Ray said her group could get behind both of the laws pertaining to health education as long as neither one was limited what children were taught – including the idea that “abstinence is a realistic option.” ...
Massachusetts Citizens for Life could not be reached for comment.
Attendees at the bill-signing event said they were excited to have a pro-choice governor, Deval Patrick, in the Corner Office, placing every branch of state government firmly in the pro-choice column. Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, said that Patrick, in conjunction with a heavily pro-choice Legislature, would offer “new opportunities to promote access to reproductive health services” and to advance more comprehensive health education.
[emphasis added]
[Jan. 9, 2007] Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) today announced an initiative that seeks to build mutual respect and dialogue between those who support and those who oppose same sex marriage in Massachusetts. Advocates for same sex marriage routinely have called supporters of the marriage amendment hateful and bigoted, while amendment supporters say they are simply following the constitutional process to have their voice heard on what they view as an important social issue.
"The tone and rhetoric around this public policy issue has escalated to a frenzied level, too often with shouting that does nothing promote [sic] understanding. Denouncing individuals as bigots does not bring people with honest differences together. We would like to work with our opponents to raise the quality of the dialogue," said Kris Mineau. [meaning: Please don't call us names! It hurts our feelings!]
"I have come to know my political opponent Marc Solomon, executive director of MassEquality as a gentleman who has strong personal convictions," Mineau added. "I believe that if asked he would come to the table in good faith to advance meaningful dialogue that his supporters also would embrace-today begins the process of asking." [emphasis added]
Are we seeing political naivete here, or just plain simple-mindedness? Mineau is clearly in denial about the behavior and tactics of Marc Solomon and Arline Isaacson, the GLBT extremist group leaders, who cheered on their troopers in the most disruptive behaviors imaginable short of violence, protesting VOM's rally at the State House (Nov. 19).
The president of the MassEquality Board of Directors (Solomon's boss) said MassEquality "will redouble its efforts to protect marriage equality and defeat this discriminatory amendment in the legislature.... We are not going away. We are going to get bigger and stronger and do whatever is necessary to make sure that our families, our rights and our communities are safe.”
Mineau began his dialogue by giving an interview to the GLBT newspaper, Bay Windows ("Calling for a cease fire", 1-17-07), which immediately turned on him, snidely dismissing his proposal. From Bay Windows:
Following the Jan. 2 vote by the legislature to advance the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage into the new legislative session, activists on both sides of the marriage debate put out public calls for dialogue to encourage an end to offensive rhetoric and a de-escalation of the war of words. Yet in an interview with Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) and spokesperson for VoteOnMarriage.org, he made it clear that opponents of same-sex marriage would make no effort to rein in some of the most egregious offenders, members of the clergy speaking out in favor of the amendment....
Mineau said VoteOnMarriage.org believes the most hateful language in the marriage debate has come not from the lead advocates on either side but from rank-and-file supporters at events from either side.
“I cannot attribute anything to MassEquality or the Religious Coalition [for the Freedom to Marry], and again the leadership of those organizations, I think we have an excellent relationship,” said Mineau.... When asked for examples when he felt same-sex marriage supporters crossed the line he pointed to the counter-protestors at the series of rallies VoteOnMarriage.org held across the state last month urging lawmakers to vote on their amendment....
Mineau said he envisions the dialogue consisting of a series of public forums where the leaders of the different organizations on both sides come together to talk about how to have a more civil debate. He said VoteOnMarriage.org is still planning out its proposal for the dialogue and has not yet formally reached out to same-sex marriage activists.
“We’re right at the gestation point of this initiative. We want to do this, and that’s the point that we’re at. We have some ideas where hopefully we can have some constructive forums to discuss, not necessarily to debate, to discuss, not necessarily the pros and cons of same-sex marriage but the pros and cons of how the debate should be conducted on both sides,” said Mineau.
For their part, the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry (RCFM) has put out its own call for dialogue, aimed not at VoteOnMarriage.org but at the most powerful member of the clergy working to advance the amendment, Catholic Archbishop Sean O’Malley.
Meanwhile the assault on parents' rights and children in the public schools has begun in the legislature. Planned Parenthood and the homosexual lobby held a press conference before a packed hearing room in the State House on Jan. 8, and announced their three-pronged attack on in Massachusetts coming in this legislative session:
- mandatory K-12 health education, including pro-abortion, pro-promiscuity, pro-homosexual indoctrination (MassResistance helped mobilize the opposition to this last session, along with MCFL);
- ending federal funding to abstinence-only sex education; and
- overturning "outmoded anti-abortion statutes" in Massachusetts.
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE, STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JAN. 8, 2007
Legislation mandating K-12 health education, cutting off federal funding for abstinence-only education and repealing outmoded anti-abortion statutes drew dozens of legislators to a strategy session and bill-signing hosted by the Massachusetts Coalition for Choice on Monday morning. A packed hearing room listened as coalition members, who hail from Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice and other public health groups, rallied legislators to support their agenda and discussed a game plan for dealing with opposition. The young 2007-2008 legislative session is just getting underway.
The health education bill, sponsored by Sen. Edward Augustus (D-Worcester) and Rep. Alice Wolf (D-Cambridge), would add health education to the “core curriculum” at primary and secondary schools. The bill reintroduces legislation that died in committee at the end of the last session, but “the prospects for this bill are very good,” according to Angus McQuilken, vice president for public affairs for Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. McQuilken, who heads the Massachusetts Coalition for Choice, cited the founding of the Coalition Advocating Responsible Education for Youth, a broad-based coalition lobbying for the education law, as a sign that momentum has turned in favor of the bill....
[And the supposedly conservative pro-family abstinence educators seem to be caving:]
Healthy Futures, a faith-based health education advocate, believes that the state should shed a common misconception that federal funding for abstinence education would limit the sexual education students receive. Rebecca Ray, the group’s director, said that while federal funding must be used for abstinence education, the state can still supplement that education with its own curriculum. Responding to the notion that schools that couldn’t afford their own health curriculum would only teach abstinence, Ray said that “presumably” the new mandatory health education law “would come with some funding.” Ray said her group could get behind both of the laws pertaining to health education as long as neither one was limited what children were taught – including the idea that “abstinence is a realistic option.” ...
Massachusetts Citizens for Life could not be reached for comment.
Attendees at the bill-signing event said they were excited to have a pro-choice governor, Deval Patrick, in the Corner Office, placing every branch of state government firmly in the pro-choice column. Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, said that Patrick, in conjunction with a heavily pro-choice Legislature, would offer “new opportunities to promote access to reproductive health services” and to advance more comprehensive health education.
[emphasis added]
Friday, January 12, 2007
Mass. Citizens for Life's Flip-Flop on Romney
Mass. Citizens for Life (MCFL) used to be disappointed in Gov. Romney's failure to support their pro-family efforts. The Globe reported in March 2005,
"Marie Sturgis, legislative director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said she hasn't detected any change in Romney's stance. The group considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, as do national antiabortion groups such as the Family Research Council."
Then last week were surprised by this flip-flop by MCFL in its assessment of Romney. Regarding a letter signed by a few "conservative" leaders in Massachusetts supporting Romney, the new president of MCFL is quoted:
One activist who agreed to sign the letter was Joseph Reilly, president of the group Massachusetts Citizens for Life, a group that opposes abortion. "It just told the truth," Reilly said of the letter, describing Romney as "a man of honesty."
"I would describe the letter as a testimony of the help that Governor Romney has given to profamily values during his tenure," added Tom Shields, chairman of the Coalition for Marriage and Family [the group behind the VoteOnMarriage amendment].
Shields is a close personal friend of Romney's.
Then we read this on yesterday's Pro-Life Romney Watch blog (1-11-07):
Update
I spoke with Marie Sturgis [former president] at Mass Citizens for Life earlier this afternoon. She confirmed for me that Romney wrote a check to [MCFL] just before Christmas in the amount of $15,000.
I told her that I saw her quote at National Review Online ... and that that quote was contrary to what she has been saying about Romney all along – and that her statements on the record about his proabort record were consistent with the truth. Because her name does now not appear on the Romney endorsement, I asked her whether the Romney camp had asked her to refrain from signing it. She would neither confirm nor deny - and said she would "rather not open that can of worms".
She also told me that she has been fielding phone calls from irate Catholics who are very upset that Joe Reilly (wife is Evelyn Reilly who works with Kris Mineau [head of Mass. Family Institute and spokeman for VoteOnMarriage] ) has signed onto the letter. She said "This might not be an issue if Sam Brownback were not running – but everyone is upset because Sam has the stronger prolife/profamily record."
Of course. If prolifers do not back the man with the stronger prolife record – what message does that send to future politicians?
This all has nothing to do with whether or not Romney's conversion is genuine or it is not genuine. It's immaterial. Three months ago, Romney appointed an anti family judge on his court to rule against us. This is not a man we can trust at this juncture. For fifteen thousand dollars, Joe Reilly was willing to contradict their previous statements on the record.
That's pretty discouraging to people who are relying on the integrity that this is about advancing the best prolife environment for our country.
"Marie Sturgis, legislative director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said she hasn't detected any change in Romney's stance. The group considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, as do national antiabortion groups such as the Family Research Council."
Then last week were surprised by this flip-flop by MCFL in its assessment of Romney. Regarding a letter signed by a few "conservative" leaders in Massachusetts supporting Romney, the new president of MCFL is quoted:
One activist who agreed to sign the letter was Joseph Reilly, president of the group Massachusetts Citizens for Life, a group that opposes abortion. "It just told the truth," Reilly said of the letter, describing Romney as "a man of honesty."
"I would describe the letter as a testimony of the help that Governor Romney has given to profamily values during his tenure," added Tom Shields, chairman of the Coalition for Marriage and Family [the group behind the VoteOnMarriage amendment].
Shields is a close personal friend of Romney's.
Then we read this on yesterday's Pro-Life Romney Watch blog (1-11-07):
Update
I spoke with Marie Sturgis [former president] at Mass Citizens for Life earlier this afternoon. She confirmed for me that Romney wrote a check to [MCFL] just before Christmas in the amount of $15,000.
I told her that I saw her quote at National Review Online ... and that that quote was contrary to what she has been saying about Romney all along – and that her statements on the record about his proabort record were consistent with the truth. Because her name does now not appear on the Romney endorsement, I asked her whether the Romney camp had asked her to refrain from signing it. She would neither confirm nor deny - and said she would "rather not open that can of worms".
She also told me that she has been fielding phone calls from irate Catholics who are very upset that Joe Reilly (wife is Evelyn Reilly who works with Kris Mineau [head of Mass. Family Institute and spokeman for VoteOnMarriage] ) has signed onto the letter. She said "This might not be an issue if Sam Brownback were not running – but everyone is upset because Sam has the stronger prolife/profamily record."
Of course. If prolifers do not back the man with the stronger prolife record – what message does that send to future politicians?
This all has nothing to do with whether or not Romney's conversion is genuine or it is not genuine. It's immaterial. Three months ago, Romney appointed an anti family judge on his court to rule against us. This is not a man we can trust at this juncture. For fifteen thousand dollars, Joe Reilly was willing to contradict their previous statements on the record.
That's pretty discouraging to people who are relying on the integrity that this is about advancing the best prolife environment for our country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)