Romney's Pro-"Gay Rights" Legal Counsel Endorsed by Radical GLBT Lobby

The GLBT lobby – including its transgender members – have just unanimously endorsed former Gov. Mitt Romney’s Chief Legal Counsel for State Representative. That would be Daniel Winslow, Esq.

We always knew that Romney’s legal staff was really working for “gay rights” while pretending to just enforce the “law” (the unconstitutional Goodridge marriage Court ruling). It was Winslow who himself made law (with the Governor’s assent), changing the marriage licenses in May 2004 – without the required Legislative authorization – to read “Party A & Party B” instead of “Bride & Groom”. Unbelievable.

 

For those new to MassResistance, we’ve pointed out since 2004 that same-sex marriage is still not legal in Massachusetts. The marriage statute still reads “man/woman”, and the GLBT lobby can’t get their bill allowing marriage “regardless of gender” to a vote (as confirmed by Winslow). The Court told the Legislature (not Winslow and Romney) to make that change, but they never have!

Winslow’s website makes no mention of social issues. (He’s right in line with the state Republican establishment on that!) He does show off his old bike in a sappy nod to the Scott Brown truck.

That’s all we need: another RINO in the State House! Our old friend, Tom Lang (another RINO) at KnowThyNeighbor.org had a long conversation with Winslow at the Mass. Gay & Lesbian (& Tranny) Political Caucus meeting recently:

Massachusetts Gay Lobby Endorses Mitt Romney's Attorney for 2010 House Seat

The Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus (MGLPC), the Leading LGBT Lobby Organization and Key Architect for the Strategy Securing Marriage Equality, Has Endorsed Republican Daniel Winslow (9th Norfolk) And Former Mitt Romney's Chief Legal Counsel Over Democrat Challenger Stanley Nacewicz For the Massachusetts House of Representatives

Led by Co-Chair Arline Isaacson, the MGLPC voted unanimously in last week's annual meeting to endorse the Republican, Daniel Winslow over his Democratic challenger, Stan Nacewicz for the Massachusetts House Seat representing the 9th Norfolk District in Fall 2010. This District seat was formerly held by Richard Ross (R) [who marched in Boston Pride this year] who vacated it when he succesfully ran for Scott Brown's (R) Massachusetts Senate Seat after Brown's historic victory took him to Washington, DC.

Arline Isaacson touted Republican Dan Winslow for his support of The Goodridge Decision, his zero tolerance of hate crimes and told the Caucus gathering, "Winslow is what we need," in terms of a Republican that understands LGBT issues.  Isaacson also gave a bit of insight into Winslow's history as the Romney attorney that changed our state's marriage license wording from "Bride and Groom" to "Party A and Party B" …

But what was interesting was that Isaacson provided the Caucus with Winslow's answers to her standard nine topic questionnaire on civil rights issues that all candidates are given.  Dan Winslow answered "Yes" to all subjects ranging from Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights to HIV Funding to Opposition of DOMA to Choice except one...the Transgender Civil Rights and Hate Crimes Bill. …

So what does KnowThyNeighbor [Tom Lang] think about this?  I interviewed Dan Winslow extensively after the Caucus endorsement meeting.  On the subject of Marriage Equality post Goodridge, Winslow says that Massachusetts needs legal updates.  Winslow told me that during the Romney days many within the administration insisted that MA marriage licenses continue to read "Bride and Groom" as, according to Winslow, some wanted same gender couples to "have to decide which would be the bride and which would be the groom" or in other words force same-sex couples to humiliate themselves.  Winslow was the one who pushed the "Party A/Party B" nomenclature as one of respect and dignity for same sex couples and a general equality for all parties entering into marriage.  Winslow wanted to make me understand that he has 3 important legal changes to state laws post Goodridge that to him are of the utmost urgency.  One, changes to current birth certificates which would recognize same sex couples.  Two, the inclusion of "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" as impediments to MA marriages (currently, two people of the same gender could be married to one another in MA while being part of a dom partnership in Washington State to another person).  And Three, that MA courts must retain the jurisdiction of divorce when it comes to our same-sex marriages. … [emphasis in original]

(Read the complete post here.)

Winslow is even moving towards supporting the Transgender Rights bill. Now that’s what we call extreme. (We thought the Republican Party didn’t want to associate with “extremists”.)  

Why do these guys have an R next to their name? They’re really fifth columnists, working to undermine traditional values from within the Republican Party.

What more is needed than this to prove that Mitt Romney was actively working for “gay rights” while Governor? He surely understood his Chief Counsel’s bias, and most likely, shared it. Lots more on that soon.

Meanwhile, Romney has the gall to continue to present himself to the gullible conservatives attending Family Research Council’s “Values Voters” conference in D.C. this weekend. “Protect Marriage” and “Champion Life”!!! Yeah, right.

++++++++++

P.S. Dan Winslow commented on Tom Lang's post on 9/17:

Dan Winslow said...

Many thanks Tom. Just to clarify, the "bride/groom" discussion refers to others outside the administration who were lobbying me against changing the form. I was not referring to conversations within the administration. This endorsement means a lot to me personally and I am proud to have the support of Democrats as well as Independents and Republicans on these issues as well. We need to work together to move forward.

Taxpayer-Funded Abortions: Massachusetts RomneyCare Leads the Way for ObamaCare

Massachusetts has led the way for ObamaCare taxpayer-funded abortions. Governor Mitt Romney (with guidance from the still proud, would-be conservative think tank Heritage Foundation!) allied himself with the corrupt Democrat legislature (and its godfather Ted Kennedy) to pass a hideous mandated health insurance program here. 

Here is how the "Four Women, Inc." abortion clinic (in Attleboro, Mass.) advertises its abortion services, as funded by RomneyCare:

Abortion Care:
Convenient day and evening appointments are available for abortion care. Surgical Abortion from 5.5 to 20 weeks. Medicaton Abortions from 5.5 to 7.5 weeks.

Mass Health:
Most Mass Health programs cover pregnancy termination services. Please call your Mass Health worker or the clinic for further information.

Four Women does not provide abortion services over twenty weeks, although our physicians can make referrals to a network of leading hospitals for additional assessment and care. Our goal is to work with you to find the best doctor for your individual situation.

Four Women, Inc. was recently cited for sanitary code violations by the Mass. Department of Public Health after improper, unsanitary disposal of biological waste. Now what might that waste have been?

That’s what ObamaCare will bring to the country. Abortions at “convenient day and evening appointments.” And a growing bureaucracy concerned with “sanitary violations” rather than murder of fellow human beings. All paid for by your tax dollars.

Nice looking men in suits work out the murder of babies and force you to pay. On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the mandatory health insurance bill into law in historic Faneuil Hall as Ted Kennedy, later disgraced Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi (right), and Senate President Robert Travaglini (yellow necktie) look on. 

Romney Strikes Again: Pushes "Gay & Transgender Rights" Ordinance in Salt Lake City

When we heard the news that the city council in Salt Lake City just approved a "gay rights" ordinance (covering both "sexual orientation" and "gender identity"), we knew in our gut that Mitt Romney was behind it. Remember, he's running for President in 2012. He wouldn't want to appear a "bigot".

Sure enough... A homosexual blog connected to an anti-Mormon documentary  ("8: The Mormon Proposition") on the Proposition 8 defeat of "gay marriage" in California posted this:

On November 10, 2009 several highly placed people featured in the upcoming documentary film 8: THE MORMON PROPOSITION were contacted by well-placed people inside the Mormon Church in anticipation of an "historic statement against discrimination" to be made by the Mormon Church.



They were told, "Watch what we are about to do. You will be pleased."



At this hour gays and lesbians all over the world hope that the Mormon Church's announcement will not be yet another Mormon public relations smoke screen and result in action that will result in full marriage equality for the LGBT community world-wide.



Since the release of the trailer for 8: THE MORMON PROPOSITION, intense scrutiny has been focused on Mormon involvement in the passage of Proposition 8 and allegations that the Mormon Church set up the infamous NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE which was the key player in Maine's recent ban on gay marriage.



Sources close to those who called our cast and production team alerting us to the upcoming Mormon statement on discrimination say that Mormon Mitt Romney has recently put pressure on his own church to extend an olive branch to the gay community to try and deflate the anticipated negative press that will come from the release of 8: THE MORMON PROPOSITION that would likely damage his hope for a successful 2012 presidential bid.



Ironically (and we suspect in step with the Mormon's anticipated statement on discrimination) Mormon-owned KSL TV released an article on their web site saying "Romney appears to be front-runner in 2012 election."




The homosexual blog Towleroad picked up the Mitt Romney connection.

Proof: "Gay Marriage" Still NOT Legal in Massachusetts (July 2009)

Today (July 14, 2009), the Massachusetts Judiciary Committee will consider the bill to legalize "gay marriage". That's right -- "gay marriage" is still NOT LEGAL in Massachusetts!

The current Massachusetts marriage statute allows only man/woman, husband/wife couples. So Rep. Byron Rushing has filed a bill, every session since 2004, to change the law to allow same-sex couples to marry. His bill reads:

H1708: Chapter 207 is hereby amended by adding the
following new section:—
Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender.

Why has the Legislature never voted on this? Why has the press never recognized that the law was never changed?

Legal means permitted by law.

Rep. Byron Rushing smiles as he sponsors the most radical bills

in the Mass. legislature, including legalization of "gay marriage"

and decriminalization of sodomy.

Even the Supreme Judicial Court recognized that, and told the Legislature to change the marriage statute back in 2003, which it never did. Only because of Mitt Romney's promise to the Log Cabin Republicans do we have phony "gay marriage" -- now celebrated by 16,000 couples. Romney's orders to his executive branch officials to implement such "marriages" was unconstitutional, lacking statutory authority. So those "marriage" licenses aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

One reason MassResistance is so hated by the GLBT movement is that we've pointed this out for years. And the 16,000 "married" same-sex couples just don't want to admit that they're part of a Big Lie.

Note: The law criminalizing sodomy has still not been overturned either. Since sodomy is the basis for "gay marriage," the GLBT lobby's bill to decriminalize sodomy will also be heard today. Can't have a "marriage" without consummation!

Sodomy:
- Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
- Copulation with a member of the same sex.
- Bestiality.
- Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.

Judiciary Committee Hearing Will Expose Lies by Mass. Family Institute, Romney, and Mainstream Media

But will the mainstream media report it? Of course not, because they don't want their LIE exposed, that "same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts."

See Gregg Jackson's excellent blog on this today at Pundit Review: Who’s Delusional Mitt?

How revealing: Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) contradicts itself on two bills regarding "homosexual marriage" before the Judiciary Committee tomorrow:

• The first, Bill H1720 (also S918) filed by the homosexual lobby, would legalize “homosexual marriages” (changing the marriage statute to allow two people of either gender to marry) -- something never done after the SJC’s Goodridge ruling made that suggestion in November 2003.
• The second, Bill S926, filed by MassResistance, would declare all supposed “homosexual marriages,” contracted from May 17, 2004 on, “NULL & VOID” -- since there was never any change in the statutes to permit such “marriages.”

While MFI tells its people to oppose the legalization of "homosexual marriage" in the first bill, it doesn't tell them to support the MassResistance bill. Why not?

Logically, if you oppose the first bill, you would also support the second. Clearly, if “homosexual marriage” was never legalized, such supposed “marriages” in Massachusetts have not been legal. So why not so declare them “NULL & VOID” as the bill says?

Sadly, Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) has tied itself up in knots on this one. They admit the first bill exists, and therefore they must understand that “homosexual marriage” is still not legal. So why did their hero Mitt Romney issue fraudulent “marriage licenses” to homosexual couples (starting May 2004), and order state office holders to comply? Romney was violating the Constitution by ordering his executive branch to implement a fantasy that was never made law. Only the Legislature can rewrite the marriage statute, and that was necessary before the Governor could constitutionally change the marriage licenses!

Yet MFI refuses to support the second bill, filed by MassResistance, which recognizes this reality. Don’t they want clarity in the Massachusetts marriage laws? The problem is, they can't have that -- and defend Romney's actions too.

MFI supporters must realize that they've been lied to and misled by that organization. It's a disgrace.

"The Underground Journal" Exposes Betrayal by "Pro-Family" Leadership

With all the rumors of Romney becoming a Vice Presidential nominee, it's time for everyone to review his impeachable crimes against the Massachusetts Constitution. Check out John Haskins' and Gregg Jackson's 3-part series, "It's Not a Conspiracy. It's Just a Cover-Up" in The Underground Journal.

The Underground Journal understands what few have yet grasped, that "pro-life, pro-family conservatism has been hijacked by 'leaders' obsessed with money and power." And yes, that includes some of the "pro-family" groups here in Massachusetts, such as the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI), which eagerly joined in the cover-up of Romney's constitutional violations (in his implementing homosexual "marriage").

MFI also sold out in its compromise on the VoteOnMarriage amendment wording (even claiming we could "dialogue" with MassEquality!); its failure to support the removal of the Goodridge-majority judges; its failure to support bills filed by MassResistance (including the Parents' Rights bill); and its pattern of hijacking work and research from MassResistance without accreditation, while publicly denouncing our "tone".

From the Underground Journal:

FACT: People We Trusted Are Lying To Us.

The Cover-Up for Mitt Romney Is One of the Biggest Scandals Of Our Lifetimes.

Distrust and anger toward the "conservative" elites are building among American conservatives. Donors to conservative groups, conservative talk radio audiences and voters who identify as Republicans are dwindling. Who can blame them? The "conservative" elites are failing to defend any boundary in the culture war or in our constitutions.

Grassroots conservatives sense that their real agenda is to defend their own perks. Real pro-family, moral conservative candidates are being undermined. Politicians who stand for nothing but pretend to stand for everything buy endorsements from trusted "conservatives." The grassroots are figuring out why election victories turn into betrayals on policy. There has been no greater betrayal in our lifetime than in the cover-up of Mitt Romney's actions in Massachusetts:

*Today, foster and adoptive children are given to homosexuals, and mother-father families are turned away because of Romney's blatant lie about the law.

*Romney also lies when he claims judges "forced" him to order local officials to perform homosexual "marriages." Americans needn't blindly trust Romney's lawyers. They can read the plain English that we are quoting directly from the Massachusetts Constitution. To fulfill his 2002 campaign promises to the homosexual Republican elites of Massachusetts, Romney flagrantly violated the Supreme Law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that he had sworn to defend.

*Romney boasts: "Every bill that crossed my desk I came down on the side of life." However, photos of him signing his health care law – after his "conversion" -- reveal a happy Ted Kennedy and the godfathers of the Democrat mafia of Massachusetts drooling with delight.

We are witnessing a massive cover-up. But the grassroots are figuring it out: Romney seduced and outright bought the "conservative" establishment. If you have not yet figured this out you are dangerously misinformed. Three articles just posted on UndergroundJournal.net will prove all this to you and much more.

Part 1 reveals how the Reagan revolution and much of the pro-family establishment have been taken over by mercenaries and opportunists who are cashing in and surrendering parents' rights and religious freedom to liberals and the powerful homosexual movement. In Parts 2 and 3, at the impeachment trial of Governor Willard Mitt Romney, our Founding Fathers John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Massachusetts Court Justice Robert Paine ask Romney the shocking questions you are entitled to hear answered -- but which the conservative elites refuse to mention.

What they haven't told you WILL hurt you, your children and your grandchildren! Click here to read the rest at the UndergroundJournal.net.

It's Not a Conspiracy. It's Just a Cover-Up

By John Haskins and Gregg Jackson

Part 1: What are Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham and Coulter hiding about Romney? And Why?

Part 2: Impeachment of Willard Mitt Romney: Adams, Jefferson & Paine ask Romney what Rush, Sean, Laura and Ann won't

Part 3: The Impeachment of Willard Mitt Romney: Adams, Jefferson and Madison ask what Rush, Sean, Laura and Ann won't.

Transgender Rights Bill H1722 Would Force Catholic Hospitals to Perform "Sex-Change" Surgeries

In California, a man who wants to be a woman is suing a Catholic hospital for refusing to allow his “breast augmentation” surgery there. (photo left)

Get ready: If the Mass. Transgender Rights Bill H1722 is passed, it would make it illegal for any hospital here, including a religious hospital, to refuse such “sex-change” surgeries. Freedom of religion would go out the window, since hospitals are named in Massachusetts law as “public accommodations.” (Ch. 272, Sec. 92A) Bill H1722 would ban discrimination on the basis of “gender identity or expression” in all public accommodations, including hospitals. There is no exemption in the bill for religiously-affiliated hospitals, businesses, or organizations.

In the past few years, we saw former Governor Romney allow homosexual demands to overtake our supposed freedom of religion: First, Catholic Charities’ ban on adoptions by same-sex couples was disallowed (though there was not even a law requiring this, just administrative regulations!). Then, Romney’s Dept. of Public Health forced Catholic hospitals to dispense morning-after pills. In both of those cases, even former Governor Dukakis said there were no laws requiring those policies. So, given that hospitals are specifically named in the existing public accommodations law, this new situation would be even more cut and dried.

Existing Mass. law, Section 98 of chapter 272 (here including the proposed new phrase, "gender identity or expression"), seems to imply that even speaking publicly against the non-discrimination law could result in fines &/or imprisonment:

“Whoever makes any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, which shall not include persons whose sexual orientation involves minor children as the sex object, deafness, blindness or any physical or mental disability or ancestry relative to the admission of any person to, or his treatment in any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, as defined in section ninety-twoA, or whoever aids or incites such distinction, discrimination or restriction shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, and shall be liable to any person aggrieved thereby for such damages …” [emphasis added]

From the Fox News story (1-18-08):

... Hastings, who already has had one major sex-change surgery, claims that Seton Medical Center in Daly City, Calif., would not allow her plastic surgeon to operate on a transgender person.
"I honestly believe that God has plans for me to have this surgery," Hastings told FOXNews.com.
"I felt simply less than equal," she said. "Here I am, a woman. I had the reassignment surgery, and not to allow me this right, I felt violated."...

The Catholic hospital does not allow transgender surgery, [the hospital's] statement says.
"Seton Medical Center, a Catholic hospital and a member of the Daughters of Charity Health System, provides services to all individuals. However, the hospital does not perform surgical procedures contrary to Catholic teaching; for example, abortion, direct euthanasia, transgender surgery or any of its related components."
Shannon Minter, legal director for the Center for Lesbian Rights and an expert on transgender rights, said California law protects Hastings.
"It's against California law, and it's wrong," Minter said. "They should be ashamed of themselves for turning away anybody because of their identity."
Minter said the Unruh Civil Rights Act protects Hastings against discrimination based on gender identity, adding that there is no exception for religious-affiliated businesses. [emphasis added]

Romney Tells "Gay" Republicans He Will Not Oppose "Gay" Rights

Would a true conservative candidate send a representative from his campaign to meet with homosexual activists in his party? The "big tent" idea is contrary to a conservative view of the Republican Party.

As of now, yours truly is a registered Republican. But we're getting sick of "big tenters." No, real Republicans do NOT like big government (as in Romney's state health insurance plan). No, we do NOT like raising taxes (disguised by Romney as fees). No, we do NOT like experiments on human embryos, or the state/taxpayer funding abortions. No, we do NOT believe in special rights for homosexuals.

From the Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper:

Romney rep’s remarks disappoint audience (1-25-08)

Remarks made by a representative for Romney’s campaign during a forum hosted by the D.C. chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans Jan. 16 had at least one attendee feeling disappointed.
During the forum, representatives from the campaigns of four Republican presidential contenders expressed views on why the Log Cabin Republicans should endorse their candidate.
Michael Cleary made remarks on Romney’s behalf. During his presentation he did not mention gay issues, instead focusing on how Romney revived several failing companies during his business career.
David Lampo, vice president of Virginia Log Cabin Republicans and attendee at the forum, criticized Cleary for neglecting to address gay issues and asked him to state where Romney stood on them.
Cleary responded that he could not recall a time in recent years when Romney went “out of his way” to emphasize gay rights. Cleary added that, “I want to make the point that he won’t oppose them.”
Noting Romney’s endorsement for an amendment defining marriage in the U.S. Constitution, Cleary told attendees that they should not interpret his position as being “prejudicial towards gays.”
[emphasis added]

Romney's Temper Flairs When Challenged by Inconvenient Facts

Yesterday, Mitt Romney lost it when an AP reporter challenged him on his statement that he didn't have Washington lobbyists running his campaign. In fact, he does: Ron Kaufman and Vin Weber. See "Romney, reporter tussle over truth" in today's Boston Herald. Don't miss his spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom's arrogant tongue-lashing of the reporter at the end. The video is very revealing.

We've documented another incident when Romney totally lost it with Chicago talk show host, Sandy Rios, at an event in that city some months back. Rios challenged his illegal implementation of "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts. Rios had spent a lot of time closely monitoring the developments here from the Goodridge ruling on, as President of Concerned Women for America, and she knew what she was talking about. Hear the audio broadcast from WYLL radio in Chicago, March 9, as Sandy Rios explains what happened.

And then there's the tape from Romney's appearance on the Howie Carr show on WRKO in December, where he not only changed the subject when he couldn't answer honestly, but insulted Gregg Jackson, host of another WRKO show, calling him "delusional." See our report, and listen to the audio.

Romney Stories That Make You Go "Hmm..."

Hmm ... we were about to post this, then decided to take a little detour to Michigan. Now back home, we find that Romney's campaign staff has written yet another letter, supposedly from the Mass. Family Institute president, Kris Mineau, calling us names. Hmm ... Romney's paid staff -- apparently including Mass. Family Institute -- weren't too pleased with our trip! (They're just like leftists, aren't they? Since they can't shoot down the facts, they call us names. More on that soon. But for now ...) here's what we were about to post on Saturday before we took our trip.

From RedState.com:

Romney in Seven Words (1-11-08)
On Wednesday, after his loss in the New Hampshire primary, Gov. Mitt Romney returned to Boston to lick his wounds and conduct a telephone fundraiser before heading off to his next must win state of Michigan. ABC Radio microphones were there ... "Hit the phones today make all the promises you have to, and…make sure that we get the funds that we need to keep on propelling this campaign forward with power and energy." [emphasis added]

On the very weird goings-on in Wyoming, here's from Wyoming Star-Tribune:

Some question Romney 'victory' (1-8-08)
The results of Republican nonbinding straw polls in some Wyoming counties Saturday don't jibe with the statewide delegate selection results in favor of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. In Johnson County , for example, former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee came in first in the straw poll, while Romney was in fourth place.... Johnson County Republicans who contacted the Star-Tribune ... questioned why statewide straw poll results had not been publicized....
Of the 12 delegates selected statewide Saturday, Romney won eight, Thompson three, and Duncan Hunter one. Tom Sansonetti of Cheyenne, who coordinated the county conventions, said Monday there was no mandatory poll. "There was no statewide organized straw poll. Each county was given the option of holding a straw poll if they wanted to," Sansonetti said. He said about eight to 10 of the 23 counties did hold straw polls. He said he talked to Republican officials in five counties that conducted straw polls. Romney won four and Texas Congressman Ron Paul won one, he said.The counties that took straw polls weren't required to turn in their numbers to the state party headquarters.

And more Romney election weirdness in Rhode Island, from EyeOn08.com:

Romney and Giuliani delegate operations fail in Rhode Island (1-10-08)
The Rhode Island Secretary of State just released the list of filed delegates. Delegates then need to get signatures to get on the ballots. But… John McCain and Mike Huckabee filed 40 delegates. Fred Thompson 8. Mitt Romney 7. And Rudy Giuliani 0.
... The first one is that Romney’s delegate operation failed. They have the Governor, one of the delegates. The head of Students for Romney is one of the delegates. And that was all they could get.... This sounds like wheels coming off an organization.

Romney's Socialist Health Care Crackup

Always scheming, here's Romney surrounded by Massachusetts Democrat Socialists, including Teddy Kennedy: "Romney signed the healthcare bill at an elaborate ceremony at Faneuil Hall, but he angered Democrats by vetoing eight sections of it, including a fee on employers that didn't provide health coverage for their workers. The move allowed him to take credit for a landmark law while washing his hands of something resembling a tax increase." - Boston Globe, "The Making of Mitt Romney" (2006).

Speaking of health care in Massachusetts, don't miss this update on Romney's health care plan here, from BizzyBlog (drawing on an AP report by Steve LeBlanc yesterday):

The RomneyCare Crackup Is Arriving Early (Heavy Fines and Rationing; Also See the Various Updates) OVERVIEW: After one year, Commonwealth Care (aka RomneyCare) in Massachusetts is imploding even earlier than I predicted, due to “spiraling costs.” Punitive fines of $912 - $1,824 are to be imposed on those who would rather not participate in the so-called “grand experiment.”

In mid-October of last year, well before I learned how Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney is to serve as president, I predicted this (fourth item at link):
Let me be the first to say it: It’s becoming painfully clear (link requires subscription) that Mitt RomneyCare in Massachusetts is blowing up, and will get nothing but worse between now and November 2008. If he’s the nominee, he’ll be playing the same game Michael Dukakis played unsuccessfully in 1988 — covering up the Bay State’s disastrous financial situation. Except this time, the other party controls the Governor’s Office. Deval Patrick will gleefully point to the mess he has inherited, and will then tout HillaryCare II as the “better, more comprehensive” solution.
For this reason alone, I believe that Mitt Romney should NOT be the GOP nominee. Period.

Why is Romney's socialist plan -- which he intended to be his crowning achievement as Governor -- not being targeted by the other Republican candidates? Back in 2005, Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute put it well: ''All around us, we see signs that government mandates and heavy-handed, command-and-control models of providing healthcare don't work and people are abandoning those, and yet the governor seems to be running toward them."

Good for Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee for going after the $50 abortion benefit (which Romney did NOT veto). But now, they should be going after the big-government aspect.

Romney Can't Be Trusted with National Security

Left: J. Cofer Black, Romney's pick for top adviser on national security, who has been discredited in the 9/11 Commission Report.

In today's Boston Herald, Deroy Murdock reports this bombshell.

Red alert on a Romney adviser
J. Cofer Black is Mitt Romney’s chief weapon against Islamo-fascism. The former CIA official chairs Romney’s Counterterrorism Policy Advisory Group.
However, the 9/11 Commission, the Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11 and the CIA’s inspector general all condemn Black for dropping the ball before Sept. 11, 2001. Thus, Black’s spot in Romney’s brain trust raises grave doubts about the Bay Stater’s national-security judgment.
At CNN/YouTube’s Nov. 28 debate, Romney said that when pondering terrorist interrogation, “I get that advice from Cofer Black, who is a person who was responsible for counterterrorism in the CIA for some 35 years.” Actually, this is false. Black served the CIA for 28 years and directed its Counterterrorist Center (CTC) for less than three - from June 1999 to May 2002.
[emphasis added]

Read more ...

Romney Thrilled with His "Silver Medal"

Our latest letter from Mitt, received this afternoon with the subject line "The Beginning":

Dear [Supporter],
As you’ve likely seen by now, we finished a strong second place in Iowa and the mainstream press has been quick to call this devastating.
Well, I’m here to tell you that just like in the Olympics, winning the silver in the first event does not mean you’re not going to come back and win the gold in the final event. And we’re going to win the presidential nomination, by pulling together....
Remember – Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush also finished second in Iowa and went on to win the Republican nomination, and I will too. I’m the only candidate who is competitive in all of the early primary or caucus states – South Carolina, Michigan, Nevada, Florida…and of course New Hampshire.
You know as well as I do that Iowa represents the beginning of the process, and we’re on our way to New Hampshire to win – with your help.
My sincere thanks,
Mitt

Romney Learning that Money Won't Buy Him Love

$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.)

Romney's FlipFlop on Civil Unions

Here's a Romney flip-flop we need to revisit now: His position on "civil unions."

Romney is busy in New Hampshire bad-mouthing the newly legal civil unions there. (The NH Legislature actually voted for them, unlike the mythical "homosexual marriages" here.)

But while Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney worked for civil unions.

Check the news from late 2003 (just after the Goodridge marriage ruling) and early 2004 (during the Legislature's phony attempt to come up with a marriage amendment to send to the voters). Romney wanted to be able to say later that he fought for real marriage, and claimed that only a constitutional amendment could solve the problem. He joined Legislative leaders pushing an unrealistic, doomed compromise: the absurd Travaglini-Lees amendment (proposed in early 2004), which would have banned homosexual "marriage" while writing civil unions into the Mass. constitution!

Surely, Romney knew this proposal was doomed to failure. But it allowed him to take everyone's eyes off the real constitutional issues while he illegally implemented homosexual "marriage" behind the scenes. So in March 2004 (according to the Boston Globe), he twisted the arms of hesitant Republican legislators, and convinced them to vote for the phony amendment (which would have established civil unions)!

If that's not supporting civil unions, what is?

• AP (11-20-03), "Massachusetts governor urges gay civil unions, not marriage" -- ... Romney said Wednesday he believes the state could adopt civil unions similar to those allowed in Vermont -- then continue working toward a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.... "I believe their [the Court's] decision indicates that a provision which provides that benefits, obligations, rights and responsibilities which are consistent with marriage but perhaps could be called by a different name would be in conformity with their decision," Romney said. "Under that opinion, I believe a civil-union type provision would be sufficient."
  
• Boston Globe (3-30-04), "In crucial shift, governor sways 15 in GOP to support measure" Through all the twists and shifts during the gay-marriage debate this year, there was one constant: 22 Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed every measure that would grant gay couples civil unions in the constitution. That all changed yesterday, however, when 15 of that 22-member bloc broke away at the urging of Governor Mitt Romney and voted in favor of a proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage but create Vermont-style civil unions. Those 15 members provided the margin of victory, observers from both camps said yesterday after the measure passed by just five votes.... it was clear that the Republican governor had a major effect on the fracturing of the 22-member bloc....


• Letter from Mitt Romney in April 2004, praising the Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment (which would have written civil unions into the Mass. constitution), reported on MassResistance blog (12-07).


• Boston Globe (2-25-05), "Romney's stance on civil unions draws fire; Activists accuse governor of 'flip-flopping' on issue" -- ... Yesterday the Log Cabin Republicans sharply rebuked the Massachusetts governor, saying his remarks indicate he is backsliding on his 2002 campaign commitment to support some benefits for gay couples. He had also urged GOP lawmakers to vote for a proposed constitutional amendment last spring that would ban same-sex marriage but allow gay couples to enter into civil unions.... A review of Romney's remarks shows that at an October 2002 campaign debate, he said: "Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union." Then, after the SJC decision legalizing same-sex marriage, he told WCVB on Dec. 17, 2003, that if he had to choose, he would favor civil unions over full-fledged gay marriage. However, he added: "But that is not my preference overall. My preference overall would be neither civil union or marriage." Last March, Romney's staff told House Republicans he supported the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions....


• Chris Matthews, MSNBC "Hardball" (8-26-05): "Romney plays 'Hardball' on gay marriage; Mass. governor discusses civil unions..." [a must-read interview, as Romney is incoherent] -- ... MATTHEWS: Help me understand Massachusetts politics here.... Why doesn't the state of Massachusetts, through its elected officials, simply overrule the Supreme Court up there and say, there's not going to be any gay marriage; I don't care what some judge says about the Constitution written 200 years ago? Why don't they just do that?
  ROMNEY: Well, well, as you know, it's not that easy. When a court overreaches its bounds and decides to legislate from the bench, it's pretty hard to overturn that. In our case, we have to pass a constitutional amendment. And my legislature is in, some respects, liberal. It has a conservative wing as well. But the liberal wing is fighting very hard for same-sex marriage or its legal equivalent, civil union. And so, as this has gone before the legislature in the past, they've said that the people ought to decide. I agree with them. Let's let the people decide. So, we will have a constitutional convention this year. Hopefully, the decision of our legislature will be to let the people decide. And, specifically, I hope that people will be able to decide that neither civil union, nor same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts.... Of course, if we find ourselves in a setting where the only choice is between civil union and marriage, I will prefer civil union. But I would prefer neither. [This is right after he says same-sex marriage and civil unions are legally equivalent!]


• New York Sun, 4-27-07 --Mr. Giuliani's position on the New Hampshire law [to legalize civil unions] puts him in the company of the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, the only other major presidential candidate from either party who opposes the New Hampshire law. "Governor Romney opposes the New Hampshire bill," Mr. Romney's campaign said yesterday. "He is a champion of traditional marriage. As governor of Massachusetts, he has a clear record opposing same sex marriage and civil unions."

Romney in 1994: No Homosexual Agenda Threat

In 1994, Mitt Romney denied the serious threat to social stability posed by the radical homosexual movement. He still seems to think that "diversity" is just about respecting all people, whatever the choices they may make in their lives. Yeah, and "gay marriage" and "transgender rights" aren't transforming America now.

Here again, Romney's judgment was seriously flawed. Who would have denied -- even back in 1994 -- that the radical homosexuals had a plan to "proselytize a gay lifestyle"? Romney denied it, and went on to say that Republicans should adopt his view.

Quoted in the Boston Globe:
On whether he would have supported ... the 1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act to ban federal funding to public schools that encourage or support “homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative”:

“I would have opposed that amendment. I don’t think the federal government has any business dictating to local school boards what their curriculum or practices should be. I think that’s a dangerous precedent in general. I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there’s an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it’s wrong-headed and unfortunate and hurts the party by being identified with the Republican party.”

[emphasis added]

Romney's Endorsements Reveal Uncomfortable Truth

By John Haskins
Parents' Rights Coalition

Slick Willard's endorsements come from the strangest places. Consider the extreme cognitive dissonance in the following:

Romney has been endorsed by self-styled "evangelicals" like Jay Sekulow, "Evangelical" radio lawyer-pundit Hugh Hewitt, the Alliance Defense Fund's David French, and Right to Life's Jim Bopp -- all ambitious lawyers from the judicial-supremacy wing of "conservatism" who have actively betrayed Judge Roy Moore, Dr. Alan Keyes and many others. Add, Rev. Bob Jones and, shockingly, Paul Weyrich, to Romney's endorsers.

But nestled among them is the unabashedly militant pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-homosexual "marriage" former Massachusetts governor, William Weld. Weld appointed Margaret Marshall, the driving force behind the Goodridge decision. Romney publicly asked for Weld's endorsement, just as he twice sought the endorsements of the homosexual "Log Cabin" Republicans and the militant abortion lobby.

As governor, Weld not only appointed the most radical, post-constitutional, tyrannical liberal judges in the nation, he backed partial-birth abortion, and poured taxpayer funding into militant gay groups and into pro-homosexuality brainwashing of other people's children.

Weld's lieutenant governor Paul Cellucci, who succeeded him, was identified by James Dobson as someone who opposes "virtually everything we believe in." George Bush's nomination of Cellucci as U. S. Ambassador to Canada provoked perhaps the greatest uprising against any presidential appointment ever, easily exceeding the manufactured "resistance" to Clarence Thomas and Attorney General John Ashcroft. The media mostly refused to report that some fifty U.S. and some fifteen Canadian groups bombarded the White House and the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee with outrage. I know about it because I wrote the petition and built the U.S. Canadian coalition and led the resistance with Peter LaBarbera in 2001. Nevertheless, Romney publicly recently ridiculed the opposition to Cellucci and asked former Governor Paul Cellucci for his endorsement!

But Romney is apparently too untrustworthy and too liberal socially for Cellucci, which says quite a bit, because Cellucci gave Margaret Marshall a promotion to Chief Justice, he boosted government spending on gay propaganda to levels unmatched by any governor until Romney, and he put a Planned Parenthood lawyer on the Supreme Judicial Court.

Instead, Cellucci has endorsed Rudy Giuliani. Romney currently "positions" himself to the right of Giuliani on social issues, but his actual record is even more left-wing than Giuliani's and Cellucci's. Cellucci has privately told people that Romney cleverly imposed gay marriage unnecessarily, and that he (Cellucci) does not support same-sex "marriage" because it will weaken and harm the traditional family. A lawyer himself, Cellucci is aware that Romney used the Goodridge decision and the willing gullibility of "conservatives" to push an agenda he couldn't otherwise have gotten away with.

How do Paul Weyrich, Bob Jones, Jay Sekulow, Hugh Hewitt, David French, Jim Bopp and Rev. Bob Jones feel about being on a list of endorsers with Bill Weld -- the man who appointed the judge who crafted the Goodridge decision, helped illegally impose homosexual adoption and many radical pro-abortion rulings?

Politics do make strange bedfellows.

See "Former Mass. governor endorses Romney," Boston Globe, 12-4-07.

For enlightening background on the legacy of Weld and Cellucci see several of my articles:
Insight magazine: "It's 1984 In Massachusetts -- And Big Brother Is Gay"
WorldNetDaily: "Cellucci: wrong man for the job"
WorldNetDaily: "Read Our Lips, Mr. President"

Romney's Governing Style Not Trustworthy: Too Little Oversight, Too Much Absenteeism

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is always assuring us he'll appoint excellent advisors (or judges) to help him run our government according to his supposedly conservative principles. This is highly questionable.

Look what happened here: MassDevelopment, the state's economic development agency, just granted a big loan to Planned Parenthood for a new abortion clinic in Worcester. Though the deal was finalized in February 2007, just after Romney left office, crucial earlier action was taken while Romney was still Governor in November 2006, when a $5 million tax-exempt bond was approved that "laid the groundwork for Planned Parenthood to begin planning the center..." Where was Romney's oversight then? The Romney campaign said the Governor "was not aware [the loan] was under consideration" in November.

The economic development agency, MassDevelopment, "is an autonomous authority, [but] it was controlled by Romney appointees," according to the Boston Globe. "Several of its 11-member board were top officials in the Romney administration..."

His agency appointees must not have shared his supposed pro-life views. Maybe he appointed them before he converted? And Romney's abseenteeism while Governor was a continuing concern here in Massachusetts. How would he know what was going on in his agencies if he was never around? Romney was out of Massachusetts for most of his last year in office (at least 219 days out of 365). So much for his vaunted oversight of complex organizations.

"Romney officials approved clinic loan; Worcester facility to provide abortions," Boston Globe, 12-29-07.

See also, on Romney's absenteeism while Governor:

"Report: Romney out of state 212 days so far in 2006," Boston Globe, 12-25-06:
Gov. Mitt Romney, who is preparing for a possible run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, has spent all or part of 212 days outside Massachusetts in 2006 ... Romney plans to spend the rest of the year vacationing with his family in Utah, putting him on track to be away from Massachusetts for all or part of 219 days this year. Since announcing he would not seek re-election a year ago, Romney has traveled to 35 states and eight countries -- and been out of the state an average of more than four days each week ... New Hampshire, home to the first presidential primary contest and Romney's summer home, is one of the states he visited more than 10 times in 2005....

"Romney says new post won't hinder duties; Named vice chair of GOP group," Boston Globe, 11-20-04:
...the chair of the state Democratic Party criticized him as an absentee governor interested only in furthering his ambitions...."I've been around for 30 years, and I can't remember any governor traveling this much, except when Dukakis was actually running for president," he said.... Romney has repeatedly emphasized his commitment to serving out all of his first term, which ends in 2006.... He has said he expects to run for reelection, but has not committed to a second term....

Romney Exposed as Big Government Governor

Time to reread this piece by Carla Howell from last May. Her group has just gotten enough signatures to get an income-tax repeal question on the Massachusetts ballot in 2008 [hooray!]:

"Mitt Romney: Champion of Big Government" [topics Howell addresses:]

• Mitt Romney has been a champion of new taxes....
• [N]ot only did Mitt Romney refuse to cut the overall Massachusetts budget, he expanded it. Dramatically.... Romney initiated massive new spending – without any prodding....
• But his grande finale was the worst of all: RomneyCare, Mitt Romney's version of socialized medicine....Ted Kennedy has pushed for socialized medicine for decades. Romney fulfilled his dream. Kennedy lobbied the legislature hard to get Romney's bill passed. It was a Romney-Kennedy alliance....

Carla Howell was the Libertarian candidate for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. She sponsored the 2002 Massachusetts ballot initiative to End the State Income Tax – which Romney opposed. Her initiative nearly won with 45% of the vote. She is Co-Founder and President of the Center For Small Government.

Mitt Romney Favors Overturning Laws against Sodomy

In January 2002, early in his run for Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney told the extremist homosexual publication Bay Windows that he favored overturning laws criminalizing sodomy. (That Romney would even grant an interview to this publication is telling.) Romney's position on sodomy laws, an issue of morality as well as public health, is clearly not conservative.

Romney answered a questionnaire from Bay Windows, so this was not an off-the-cuff answer:

“19 questions for Mitt Romney” January 1, 2002
Bay Windows asked: “What is your position on each of the following issues? … Repeal of sodomy laws -- ”
Romney answered: “I don’t think government should interfere in the private lives of consenting adults.”

Does Romney consider sodomy laws to concern just what goes on in private? Does Romney also believe that the state has no interest in outlawing other “private” sexual behaviors such as prostitution, incest, bigamy, or polygamy -- if they are between “consenting adults”?

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Texas law that criminalized sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Antonin Scalia recognized in his dissent the far-reaching impact that ruling would have: “Scalia … averred that, State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of [previous ruling] Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices…. The Court has not ruled on statutes prohibiting adult incest, polygamy, adultery, prostitution, and other forms of sexual intimacy between consenting adults. Lawrence may have created a slippery slope for these laws to eventually fall.” (Wikipedia)

Scalia was right. Just months later, the Goodridge ruling in Massachusetts (which said that it was unconstitutional to ban homosexual “marriage”) cited the Lawrence sodomy ruling as precedent.

Not only is decriminalizing sodomy serious as a legal precedent, it also has public health ramifications Romney apparently wishes to ignore. It is established fact that the high-risk behavior of anal intercourse (sodomy) plays a huge role in the spread of AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases.

In Massachusetts, sodomy is still on the books as a "crime against nature":
Ch 272, Section 34: Crime against nature. Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.