Correction 8-31-07: This column was actually written by Joseph Farah, editor of WorldNetDaily, not by a Massachusetts Republican activist, as stated by the site where we first saw it. See Farah's article. But a major Mass. Republican is quoted at the end.
How can Romney dupe Republican voters so easily? Excerpts:
The Many Faces of Mitt Romney
By Joseph Farah
I'm astounded.
I don't know how else to say it.
I just continue to be amazed at the number of Republicans who are so easily conned, duped and hoodwinked by Willard Mitt Romney.
I'm not sure there are any facts I could offer that would dissuade his minions from supporting their messiah. It's an emotional thing. They have found their political savior, and nothing he has ever said or done previously or in the future is likely to convince them they saddled the wrong pony.
Here's the latest bulletin that will fall on deaf ears: The born-again pro-lifer, who swears he had a Damascus Road experience on the issue of abortion, currently owns stock in two companies involved in embryonic stem cell research....
This list of flip-flops by Mitt Romney is legendary – enough to get him a regular role in Doonesbury. But let's review a few of the classics:
Immigration ... Gun control ... Minimum wage ... Same-sex marriage ... Homosexuals in the military ... Tax cutting ...
I could go on. This list is virtually never-ending with this charlatan. But it won't matter to the Romney faithful, who now accuse me of religious bigotry for pointing out the obvious flaws in this man's worldview, his character and his political record. They say I am only doing this because I hate Mormons.
Amazing.
But I'll keep sounding the alarm, just like John MacMillan, Republican town committee chairman in Billerica, Mass., who supported Romney when he first ran for office as the state's governor in 2003.
"He's as phony as a three-dollar bill," said MacMillan. "When I started to look at his positions – gun control, pro-gay – I found out that he's just as bad as (Teddy) Kennedy. I've been a Republican all my life, and leopards don't change their spots. He'll change his position, say anything, to get votes."
Showing posts with label Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romney. Show all posts
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Romney's Portfolio Hypocrisy, cont'd
[A bit late with this update on Mitt Romney's portfolio, but it's important:]
While He criticized Senator Ted Kennedy in 1994 for what was in his blind trust when running against him, Romney claims he couldn't have controlled how his own blind trust was set up in 2002. So it ended up with investments in companies researching human embryonic stem cells -- as well as casinos and a questionable oil company. In Thursday's Boston Herald:
Romney, who holds assets worth between $190 million and $250 million, also invests in casino operators, an oil company that does business with Iran and a firm with cash linked to the genocidal Sudanese government. Romney has said the investments were held in a blind trust that prevented him from directing the use of his money, or scrubbing stock transactions for conflicts with his political beliefs.
However, the former governor previously chastised Bay State Sen. Edward M. Kennedy for mounting the same defense during a 1994 campaign for U.S. Senate. “The blind trust is an age-old ruse,” Romney was quoted as saying at the time. “You give a blind trust rules. You can say to a blind trust, don’t invest in properties which would be in conflict of interest or where the seller might think they’re going to get an advantage from me.”
While He criticized Senator Ted Kennedy in 1994 for what was in his blind trust when running against him, Romney claims he couldn't have controlled how his own blind trust was set up in 2002. So it ended up with investments in companies researching human embryonic stem cells -- as well as casinos and a questionable oil company. In Thursday's Boston Herald:
Romney, who holds assets worth between $190 million and $250 million, also invests in casino operators, an oil company that does business with Iran and a firm with cash linked to the genocidal Sudanese government. Romney has said the investments were held in a blind trust that prevented him from directing the use of his money, or scrubbing stock transactions for conflicts with his political beliefs.
However, the former governor previously chastised Bay State Sen. Edward M. Kennedy for mounting the same defense during a 1994 campaign for U.S. Senate. “The blind trust is an age-old ruse,” Romney was quoted as saying at the time. “You give a blind trust rules. You can say to a blind trust, don’t invest in properties which would be in conflict of interest or where the seller might think they’re going to get an advantage from me.”
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Romney Profits on Human Embryo Research
The Boston Herald reports that Mitt Romney's blind trust, set up in 2002, has stock in two companies using human embryos for research, Millipore and Novo Nordisk. An honorable person with true convictions on human life issues would not have allowed such companies in his portfolio.
Mitt owns stock in stem cell research (8-15-07)
Despite his “pro-life” campaign pitch, former Gov. Mitt Romney owns stock in two companies involved in embryonic stem cell research, a controversial field of study he previously cited as the reason for his rightward shift on abortion. Romney holds stock in the biomedical firms Novo Nordisk and Millipore Corp., both of which use human embryos to research cures for chronic diseases, records show. Many conservatives fiercely oppose the research because it destroys the embryos in the process. . . .
Romney’s assets are held in a blind trust created after he was elected governor in late 2002. The manager of that trust, Brad Malt of the law firm Ropes & Gray, said Romney had no way of knowing how his funds were invested. “He lost that ability once the trust was created,” he said.
While many candidates sell stocks held in blind trust because of potential political problems, Romney did not do so before he launched his bid for the presidency. Candidates also can set restrictions on their investments when a blind trust is created, but Malt said Romney did not take that step in 2002.
Mitt owns stock in stem cell research (8-15-07)
Despite his “pro-life” campaign pitch, former Gov. Mitt Romney owns stock in two companies involved in embryonic stem cell research, a controversial field of study he previously cited as the reason for his rightward shift on abortion. Romney holds stock in the biomedical firms Novo Nordisk and Millipore Corp., both of which use human embryos to research cures for chronic diseases, records show. Many conservatives fiercely oppose the research because it destroys the embryos in the process. . . .
Romney’s assets are held in a blind trust created after he was elected governor in late 2002. The manager of that trust, Brad Malt of the law firm Ropes & Gray, said Romney had no way of knowing how his funds were invested. “He lost that ability once the trust was created,” he said.
While many candidates sell stocks held in blind trust because of potential political problems, Romney did not do so before he launched his bid for the presidency. Candidates also can set restrictions on their investments when a blind trust is created, but Malt said Romney did not take that step in 2002.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Romney's Posing on Parents' Rights and Sex Ed
Romney's recent statements on sex ed (see YouTube) are laughable. Look, we're in Massachusetts, and we're the group behind the current Parents' Rights law that guarantees parents advance notice and the right to opt their child out of any school instruction involving human sexuality issues. So we know about this issue of sex ed in the schools. What a joke that Romney is acting as the defender of parents' rights in this matter!
When the rubber hit the road with the David Parker case, then-Gov. Mitt Romney did NOT ENFORCE THE LAW through his Department of Education. All Lexington parent Parker asked for was advance notice when his kindergartner would be exposed to homosexuality and transgender issues, and so he could opt his child out (as Mass. law allows). The school system denied him this legal right. Romney should then have instructed his Commissioner of Education to enforce the law, but he did nothing other than say Parker's demands were within the law. Thanks, Mitt.
Just as bad, Romney's "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" promoted the homosexual extremist agenda in high schools across Massachusetts. Romney only paid attention when WE went to him in 2006 documenting outrages of its Youth Pride event in May 2005, and even then he caved to the homosexual lobby in the State House and backed off disbanding the Commission!
So who is Romney to pontificate against Obama's mention that sex education is the "right thing to do" and should be "age appropriate"? Romney now says that "zero" is the right amount of sex ed for kindergartners. So, why didn't he come to David Parker's defense, and enforce the law (the job of the executive branch), when Parker's son was being given storybooks on "families" with two mommies or two daddies?
Romney: Obama's sex-ed support wrong
Associated Press (7-19-07)
Republican Mitt Romney directly appealed to social conservatives in South Carolina on Thursday, criticizing Democratic rival Barack Obama for supporting age-appropriate sex education for children as young as kindergartners. "Senator Obama is wrong if he thinks science-based sex education has any place in kindergarten," Romney said. "We should be working to clean up the filthy waters our kids are swimming in."
"Romney targets Obama - with a twist," Chicago Sun-Times (7-20-07)
When the rubber hit the road with the David Parker case, then-Gov. Mitt Romney did NOT ENFORCE THE LAW through his Department of Education. All Lexington parent Parker asked for was advance notice when his kindergartner would be exposed to homosexuality and transgender issues, and so he could opt his child out (as Mass. law allows). The school system denied him this legal right. Romney should then have instructed his Commissioner of Education to enforce the law, but he did nothing other than say Parker's demands were within the law. Thanks, Mitt.
Just as bad, Romney's "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" promoted the homosexual extremist agenda in high schools across Massachusetts. Romney only paid attention when WE went to him in 2006 documenting outrages of its Youth Pride event in May 2005, and even then he caved to the homosexual lobby in the State House and backed off disbanding the Commission!
So who is Romney to pontificate against Obama's mention that sex education is the "right thing to do" and should be "age appropriate"? Romney now says that "zero" is the right amount of sex ed for kindergartners. So, why didn't he come to David Parker's defense, and enforce the law (the job of the executive branch), when Parker's son was being given storybooks on "families" with two mommies or two daddies?
Romney: Obama's sex-ed support wrong
Associated Press (7-19-07)
Republican Mitt Romney directly appealed to social conservatives in South Carolina on Thursday, criticizing Democratic rival Barack Obama for supporting age-appropriate sex education for children as young as kindergartners. "Senator Obama is wrong if he thinks science-based sex education has any place in kindergarten," Romney said. "We should be working to clean up the filthy waters our kids are swimming in."
"Romney targets Obama - with a twist," Chicago Sun-Times (7-20-07)
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Focus on the Family Still Delusional About Romney?
The Denver Post reported recently that Mitt Romney met with James Dobson and other top officers of Focus on the Family. See "Romney faces skepticism" (7-16-07):
... "I don't believe that conservative Christians in large numbers will vote for a Mormon, but that remains to be seen," James Dobson, founder of the Colorado Springs-based but nationally influential Focus on the Family evangelical ministry, said in a radio interview in October. The observation is momentous. Dobson's first-ever endorsement to the Christian faithful of a presidential candidate is cited by political operatives as crucial to President Bush's 2004 re-election.
Dobson currently is "sequestered," busy writing his latest book and unavailable for interviews. But a top Focus on the Family official said Dobson's observation remains valid, despite a recent visit Romney paid to Dobson at his offices this spring.
During a round of fundraising in Colorado Springs, Romney spoke with Dobson, Focus on the Family senior vice president Tom Minnery and others for a little more than 30 minutes. ... "If Mitt is the (Republican) nominee, I think he'll get a large portion of evangelical votes," Minnery said. ... "I think he's doing a pretty good job so far," Minnery said. "He's asked people to judge him on how he lives his life and how he leads his family and the decisions he's made on social issues. From that standpoint, he's obviously very conservative." ...
John Haskins comments:
Is Tom Minnery still delusional about Slick Willard? So sad, and so destructive. What would it take to open this man's eyes?
"I think he's doing a pretty good job so far," Minnery said. "He's asked people to judge him on how he lives his life and how he leads his family and the decisions he's made on social issues. From that standpoint, he's obviously very conservative."
Huh? Mitt Romney? "Obviously very conservative"? "On social issues"?
Based on decisions he's made? On which planet?
Here on planet Earth, in full public view, while we and our "legal experts" had our eyes tightly shut, Mitt Romney made illegal, unconstitutional decisions tearing down religious freedom, destroying marriage, nullifying parents' rights. He:
* forced public officials to perform sodomy-based "marriages" or resign;
* forced Catholic Charities to give children to homosexuals or close down -- citing a law that, as even liberal former governor Mike Dukakis pointed out, does not exist;
* forced Catholic hospitals to issue abortifacients, violating their Constitutional freedom of religion and reversing the ruling of his own Commissioner of Health that no law required such orders;
* designed and signed a law creating a state health care system that will kill not fewer, but more, babies in the womb, and permanently and unconstitutionally gives Planned Parenthood an official voice as part of state government;
* expanded government funding for pro-homosexuality propaganda for children;
* failed to enforce, even once, the parents' rights law intended to guarantee that parents can protect their children from monstrous, evil homosexual brainwashing.
Romney's anti-moral, anti-parent, anti-constitution, anti-marriage record goes on and on. The sheer volume and cravenness of it sickens the stomach. Never in my years of following politics closely have I known of any candidate whose record offered more abundant and meticulously documented proof that he is NOT conservative, than the record of Willard Mitt Romney. Yet Focus On the Family's Tom Minnery still calls Romney, "obviously very conservative on social issues"!
Malcolm Muggeridge observed that we believe political lies not because they are believable, but because we want to. It is truly sad and discouraging to read that someone with the influence that Minnery is so completely in denial about Mitt Romney's willing role in the relentless debauching of childhood, the natural human family, and our constitutional form of government. This is freakish, tragic denial, utterly divorced from reality. What terrible damage such public statements do to Americans' -- and especially Christians' -- efforts to identify moral leadership. Every such public denial of the proven facts about Romney is instantly seized upon by the pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, anti-Christian establishment and by their enablers in the "conservative" establishment. If a Democrat had done such things he would be opposed at every turn by "pro-family conservatives." Only a clean-cut Republican with a photogenic family and "great presidential hair" could have pulled this off and still have the Minnerys, Sekulows, David Frenches and Hugh Hewitts covering up for him.
We are witnessing a truly poisoned placebo "conservatism" collaborating in its own destruction. This "pro-family social conservatism" has many of the characteristics which George Orwell, Whittaker Chambers and Malcolm Muggeridge found among the writers, clergy. lawyers and intellectuals of the first half of the 20th Century, whose relentless, aggressive, self-righteous denial served communism's liquidation of over 100 million human beings. Imagined intellectual and moral superiority is a truly addictive and dangerous thing. Facts no longer mean anything, as Orwell, Muggeridge and others warned.
Whittaker Chambers' biographer Sam Tanenhaus wrote that Lenin's authoritarianism was "precisely what attracts Chambers… He had at last found his church." We are witnessing something very similar as "conservative" and "pro-family" careerists deny the provable anti-constitutional, anti-child, anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-morality legacy of Willard Mitt Romney. What is the fatal attraction? It is Romney's utter moral emptiness -- beautified by the total aesthetic picture of his wealth, Ivy League credentials, photogenic family, endless repetition of assigned conservative mantras, and that great hair. These are precisely what attracts many "conservatives" to him. This moral hollowness, dignified by the lovely and seductive picture of worldly success, is the essence of the church that calls itself "conservatism."
How revealing of the obsession with outward appearances that has made spiritually impotent the elite of what we trusted as "social conservatism," the pro-family movement and the Christian Church. Orwell, Chambers and Muggeridge at least finally saw and accepted the obvious truth and escaped the ambush their own willful delusions had prepared for them. The will to be seduced that Muggeridge described is exactly what the reaction will be among many when the Antichrist finally gets his turn to seduce them: "And power was given to him to deceive the peoples."
Other than that, this is just another article shifting attention from Romney's rampage through the Massachusetts Constitution, his sodomy-based "marriages," etc. to the unrelated issue of his Mormonism -- a win-win for liberals, since they mock Mormonism, but they get to paint Christians as intolerant bigots for rejecting Mormonism as a cult.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Boston Parents' Paper Normalizing GLBT "Families" -- Part II
The July issue of the Boston Parents' Paper (PP) uses a typical propaganda ploy in its attempt to normalize homosexual "parenting": It focuses on the innocent beauty of children, and the child's emotions regarding his "parents." The PP starts with the glowing face of a strawberry blonde imp on their cover, whose sideways smile leads your eye directly to the feature headline, "Gay Parenting: 'See Us as Family'." And whose heart wouldn't go out to the smiling boy "who is happy his parents got married" in a half-page color photo of a smiling "family" -- two men and a boy -- on the beach. We learn the boy was adopted from Russia. And we respond: "What a wonderful thing!"
But who are the "parents"? One assumes the two men partake of anal intercourse. If they were habitual smokers, or drug users, what would the PP say? Would they hold them up as model "parents"? Yet it is medical fact that anal intercourse and other typical homosexual sex practices are inherently unhealthy, even if the couple is monogamous and "committed." And the boy will of course accept it as normal, and perhaps be drawn into the very unhealthy and dangerous GLBT world. (Studies show children of homosexual parents are more likely to identify as homosexual themselves.) What sort of role models are they for the boy?
State Senator Jarrett Barrios, who has adopted two sons with "his spouse," Democrat consultant Doug Hattaway, is quoted. Why didn't the PP say "his husband"? Would that be unpalatable to most of their readership? Somehow the word "spouse" softens the conjured image a bit ... And there is no challenge to Barrios' claim that homosexual "marriage" is about "civil rights." This after the editor carefully states the PP takes no stand on "gay marriage."
Then we get to the part about special support groups for "gay and lesbian parents," sponsored by Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Jewish Family & Children's Service, and Fenway Community Health Services. PFLAG and COLAGE are listed as resources. But PP wouldn't dare mention the support groups for "poly" parented families ... at least not for a few years!
What's really going on here is a propaganda assault on hetero parents, because the "gay and lesbian parents" already know about their special support groups! There is no need for the PP to write about these for that limited, already informed audience. You don't go through an adoption process without already knowing all the support systems available for your special case! This is also just a lot of whining from the "gay and lesbian parents" who are facing many of the same emotional issues heterosexual adoptive parents face. But this article is all about building sympathy for the former.
We read about the Home for Little Wanderers in Boston, which places many children with homosexual couples. But nothing is said about its "Waltham House," which actually encourages transgenderism in teenagers. It's well known that the Dept. of Social Services, also connected to Waltham House, favors placement of children including those without special needs with homosexual couples. Adoptions to "gay and lesbian parents" have been going on for many years, and gave a major political weapon to homosexual activists, who could then lobby in the State House with babies and children in tow: "You can't break up our family by banning gay marriage!" (Even VoteOnMarriage bought this line.)
Last but not least, the article errs in saying that "gay marriage" was "legalized" in Massachusetts. Governor Romney issued Partner A/Partner B marriage licenses, but no laws changed to allow for this alteration of the marriage statutes.
[Coming soon: Part III on the PP article's sidebars: parents' rights, and resources.]
Contacts page: http://boston.parenthood.com/articles.html?article_id=8872
Editor: alison.murray@parenthood.com
Publisher: deirdre.wilson@parenthood.com
Email: boston.parentspaper@parenthood.com
But who are the "parents"? One assumes the two men partake of anal intercourse. If they were habitual smokers, or drug users, what would the PP say? Would they hold them up as model "parents"? Yet it is medical fact that anal intercourse and other typical homosexual sex practices are inherently unhealthy, even if the couple is monogamous and "committed." And the boy will of course accept it as normal, and perhaps be drawn into the very unhealthy and dangerous GLBT world. (Studies show children of homosexual parents are more likely to identify as homosexual themselves.) What sort of role models are they for the boy?
State Senator Jarrett Barrios, who has adopted two sons with "his spouse," Democrat consultant Doug Hattaway, is quoted. Why didn't the PP say "his husband"? Would that be unpalatable to most of their readership? Somehow the word "spouse" softens the conjured image a bit ... And there is no challenge to Barrios' claim that homosexual "marriage" is about "civil rights." This after the editor carefully states the PP takes no stand on "gay marriage."
Then we get to the part about special support groups for "gay and lesbian parents," sponsored by Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Jewish Family & Children's Service, and Fenway Community Health Services. PFLAG and COLAGE are listed as resources. But PP wouldn't dare mention the support groups for "poly" parented families ... at least not for a few years!
What's really going on here is a propaganda assault on hetero parents, because the "gay and lesbian parents" already know about their special support groups! There is no need for the PP to write about these for that limited, already informed audience. You don't go through an adoption process without already knowing all the support systems available for your special case! This is also just a lot of whining from the "gay and lesbian parents" who are facing many of the same emotional issues heterosexual adoptive parents face. But this article is all about building sympathy for the former.
We read about the Home for Little Wanderers in Boston, which places many children with homosexual couples. But nothing is said about its "Waltham House," which actually encourages transgenderism in teenagers. It's well known that the Dept. of Social Services, also connected to Waltham House, favors placement of children including those without special needs with homosexual couples. Adoptions to "gay and lesbian parents" have been going on for many years, and gave a major political weapon to homosexual activists, who could then lobby in the State House with babies and children in tow: "You can't break up our family by banning gay marriage!" (Even VoteOnMarriage bought this line.)
Last but not least, the article errs in saying that "gay marriage" was "legalized" in Massachusetts. Governor Romney issued Partner A/Partner B marriage licenses, but no laws changed to allow for this alteration of the marriage statutes.
[Coming soon: Part III on the PP article's sidebars: parents' rights, and resources.]
Contacts page: http://boston.parenthood.com/articles.html?article_id=8872
Editor: alison.murray@parenthood.com
Publisher: deirdre.wilson@parenthood.com
Email: boston.parentspaper@parenthood.com
Monday, July 16, 2007
Defining Treason Down: Alliance Defense Fund & Romney
More on Saturday's big story in WorldNetDaily, "Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage; 'What he did was exercise illegal legislative authority' " featured in our July 14 post.
Defining treason down: Why Did the ADF's Stovall hold back on Romney's criminal actions?
By John Haskins
Alliance Defense Fund attorney Chris Stovall presumably told WorldNetDaily reporter Robert Unruh more than ended up in the blockbuster WND article, "Experts: Credit Romney for Homosexual Marriage." One hopes Stovall had the courage and integrity to go on the record as Dr. Titus did, in stating the obvious: Romney used authority he did not have when he ordered homosexual marriage after Goodridge rendered a merely "declaratory judgment" with "no consequential relief."
Stovall undoubtedly feels bound to understate Romney's pro-active -- almost certainly criminal -- role in illegally ordering public officials to perform these void homosexual "marriages." After all, his firm, the Alliance Defense Fund, like Jay Sekulow, Cardinal O'Malley's attorneys, the Massachusetts Family Institute, and radio lawyer Hugh Hewitt, bungled this catastrophically -- either failing to read the Massachusetts Constitution at all, or if they bothered to consult it at some point, by treating it as irrelevant, since it so totally contradicts Mitt Romney's entire story and the snickering Boston Globe's flood of propaganda supporting Romney's lies about reluctantly enforcing "the law."
Stovall's colleague at Alliance Defense Fund, Atty. David French -- who has sold his soul ingratiating himself to such placebo "conservatives" as Slick Willard Romney, the National Review kids and Jay Sekulow -- is proceeding full speed ahead with his gross and flagrant malpractice, subverting the oldest functioning constitution in the world. Messrs. French, Sekulow and Hewitt are post-constitutional legal nihilists who claim a preference for "conservatism," but for whom constitutions can be nullified by judges drunk with power and seething with malice toward Judeo-Christian morality. These ruthless, arrogant and frankly, quite incompetent attorneys are doing such damage to the ragged remnants of constitutionalism that they ought, in my view, to be disbarred from the practice of law. Notice that at no point do these mercenaries dare mention the Massachusetts Constitution in their marketeering for "Slick Willard" Romney, Founding Father of Sodomy-Based "Marriage."
So if Stovall failed to explicitly agree with Professor Titus about the grossly illegal nature of Romney's actions, he cited the Alaska situation as a roundabout way of agreeing with Titus, Atty. Robert Paine and others (including us), that constitutionally, Romney was not forced to impose homosexual "marriage."
Of course that's not nearly good enough.
It is true to say that a governor is not forced to impose slavery tomorrow. But that is pantywaist silliness and requires neither thought nor courage. Neither courts nor governors have authority to impose things that statutes and/or constitutions have outlawed. When they impose them they are acting criminally, as tyrants.
If the plain words of the Massachusetts Constitution are binding, Romney not only was not forced (by a declaratory opinion -- meaning "without consequential relief"!) he chose an option he legally did not have. Romney was absolutely obliged to do exactly the opposite of what he did. This is simply too shocking and too painful for people to face, though it is proven beyond honest debate in the Letter by 44 Pro-Family Leaders to Romney. The cowardice and denial in the body politic, including the "conservative" end of it, are symptoms of an apparently fatal disease that the Founding Fathers warned about.
So-called "conservatives" and "constitutionalists" are in total and rapid breakdown, having surrendered the very rules of the game (constitutions) to the ravenous left, and everything from here on out is merely protracted surrender, sprinkled with illusory successes here and there to justify the steady pro-family and GOP fundraising.
The Massachusetts Constitution is so explicit in proving Romney's orders to be grossly illegal, null and void, and French's, Hewitt's and Sekulow's propaganda to be malpractice (if they are bound by their oath on joining the bar to uphold constitutionalism), that the only possibly debatable question is this: Does the oath of office that Romney and the neo-Bolshevik judges of the Massachusetts high court took on entering office tell us that their failure to uphold the state constitution is a felony? Did the Founding Fathers, in particular, John Adams, the original Robert Paine, et al. intend for actions like Romney's to be prosecuted in criminal court? Having examined the oath, I think the answer is that they did (although, technically speaking, "treason" is probably not the correct charge, constitutionally).
Apparently, when Romney got away with what the Founding Fathers regarded as criminal subversion of the state constitution he swore to uphold, the Alaska governor following suit, ignored her solemn duty to execute the law as ratified by the legislature, rather than judges' non-binding fantasy opinions. I've not read the Alaska judges' opinion, but one of the most striking things about the Goodridge opinion that Romney cynically used as a Trojan horse to impose sodomy-based "marriage" is that (as Professors Titus and Fitzgibbon point out) it contains no order that Romney could even assert forced him to act. Moreover, the Massachusetts court has repeatedly admitted it has no power to order the governor or the legislature to do anything.
The layers upon layers of legal deception that Romney, the ADF, Sekulow, Hugh Hewitt, and National Review have used to sell their lies are simply mind-boggling. This is why Benjamin Franklin warned as he emerged from the Constitutional Convention "[It's] a republic, Madame, if you can keep it."
Here are the comments from ADF's Stovall, in reporter Unruh's context:
Titus noted the 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court had declared a slave was the property of the master, even if they both were physically in a free state. But President Lincoln rejected the authority of that opinion.
"[I]f the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made – the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of the eminent tribunal," he said.
Lincoln simply declined to enforce the court's opinion.
Stovall told WND that a much more recent confrontation between branches of government played out recently in Alaska.
After a statewide vote, executive branch officials refused to grant benefits to partners of state employees in same-sex duos; a lawsuit was filed and the state Supreme Court sided with the same-sex couples. The governor, Frank Murkowski, called the Legislature into special session, but lawmakers didn't want to be hurried. They approved legislation that no such changes to the state benefits could be made until they met in general session.
The court then refused to extend its deadline, and lawmakers refused to yield.
The standoff collapsed when a new governor was inaugurated and without benefit of authorizing legislation, instituted the changes demanded by the court.
Mass Resistance leaders note that to this day, the Massachusetts Legislature still has not authorized a change in the state's marriage laws.
Defining treason down: Why Did the ADF's Stovall hold back on Romney's criminal actions?
By John Haskins
Alliance Defense Fund attorney Chris Stovall presumably told WorldNetDaily reporter Robert Unruh more than ended up in the blockbuster WND article, "Experts: Credit Romney for Homosexual Marriage." One hopes Stovall had the courage and integrity to go on the record as Dr. Titus did, in stating the obvious: Romney used authority he did not have when he ordered homosexual marriage after Goodridge rendered a merely "declaratory judgment" with "no consequential relief."
Stovall undoubtedly feels bound to understate Romney's pro-active -- almost certainly criminal -- role in illegally ordering public officials to perform these void homosexual "marriages." After all, his firm, the Alliance Defense Fund, like Jay Sekulow, Cardinal O'Malley's attorneys, the Massachusetts Family Institute, and radio lawyer Hugh Hewitt, bungled this catastrophically -- either failing to read the Massachusetts Constitution at all, or if they bothered to consult it at some point, by treating it as irrelevant, since it so totally contradicts Mitt Romney's entire story and the snickering Boston Globe's flood of propaganda supporting Romney's lies about reluctantly enforcing "the law."
Stovall's colleague at Alliance Defense Fund, Atty. David French -- who has sold his soul ingratiating himself to such placebo "conservatives" as Slick Willard Romney, the National Review kids and Jay Sekulow -- is proceeding full speed ahead with his gross and flagrant malpractice, subverting the oldest functioning constitution in the world. Messrs. French, Sekulow and Hewitt are post-constitutional legal nihilists who claim a preference for "conservatism," but for whom constitutions can be nullified by judges drunk with power and seething with malice toward Judeo-Christian morality. These ruthless, arrogant and frankly, quite incompetent attorneys are doing such damage to the ragged remnants of constitutionalism that they ought, in my view, to be disbarred from the practice of law. Notice that at no point do these mercenaries dare mention the Massachusetts Constitution in their marketeering for "Slick Willard" Romney, Founding Father of Sodomy-Based "Marriage."
So if Stovall failed to explicitly agree with Professor Titus about the grossly illegal nature of Romney's actions, he cited the Alaska situation as a roundabout way of agreeing with Titus, Atty. Robert Paine and others (including us), that constitutionally, Romney was not forced to impose homosexual "marriage."
Of course that's not nearly good enough.
It is true to say that a governor is not forced to impose slavery tomorrow. But that is pantywaist silliness and requires neither thought nor courage. Neither courts nor governors have authority to impose things that statutes and/or constitutions have outlawed. When they impose them they are acting criminally, as tyrants.
If the plain words of the Massachusetts Constitution are binding, Romney not only was not forced (by a declaratory opinion -- meaning "without consequential relief"!) he chose an option he legally did not have. Romney was absolutely obliged to do exactly the opposite of what he did. This is simply too shocking and too painful for people to face, though it is proven beyond honest debate in the Letter by 44 Pro-Family Leaders to Romney. The cowardice and denial in the body politic, including the "conservative" end of it, are symptoms of an apparently fatal disease that the Founding Fathers warned about.
So-called "conservatives" and "constitutionalists" are in total and rapid breakdown, having surrendered the very rules of the game (constitutions) to the ravenous left, and everything from here on out is merely protracted surrender, sprinkled with illusory successes here and there to justify the steady pro-family and GOP fundraising.
The Massachusetts Constitution is so explicit in proving Romney's orders to be grossly illegal, null and void, and French's, Hewitt's and Sekulow's propaganda to be malpractice (if they are bound by their oath on joining the bar to uphold constitutionalism), that the only possibly debatable question is this: Does the oath of office that Romney and the neo-Bolshevik judges of the Massachusetts high court took on entering office tell us that their failure to uphold the state constitution is a felony? Did the Founding Fathers, in particular, John Adams, the original Robert Paine, et al. intend for actions like Romney's to be prosecuted in criminal court? Having examined the oath, I think the answer is that they did (although, technically speaking, "treason" is probably not the correct charge, constitutionally).
Apparently, when Romney got away with what the Founding Fathers regarded as criminal subversion of the state constitution he swore to uphold, the Alaska governor following suit, ignored her solemn duty to execute the law as ratified by the legislature, rather than judges' non-binding fantasy opinions. I've not read the Alaska judges' opinion, but one of the most striking things about the Goodridge opinion that Romney cynically used as a Trojan horse to impose sodomy-based "marriage" is that (as Professors Titus and Fitzgibbon point out) it contains no order that Romney could even assert forced him to act. Moreover, the Massachusetts court has repeatedly admitted it has no power to order the governor or the legislature to do anything.
The layers upon layers of legal deception that Romney, the ADF, Sekulow, Hugh Hewitt, and National Review have used to sell their lies are simply mind-boggling. This is why Benjamin Franklin warned as he emerged from the Constitutional Convention "[It's] a republic, Madame, if you can keep it."
Here are the comments from ADF's Stovall, in reporter Unruh's context:
Titus noted the 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court had declared a slave was the property of the master, even if they both were physically in a free state. But President Lincoln rejected the authority of that opinion.
"[I]f the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made – the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of the eminent tribunal," he said.
Lincoln simply declined to enforce the court's opinion.
Stovall told WND that a much more recent confrontation between branches of government played out recently in Alaska.
After a statewide vote, executive branch officials refused to grant benefits to partners of state employees in same-sex duos; a lawsuit was filed and the state Supreme Court sided with the same-sex couples. The governor, Frank Murkowski, called the Legislature into special session, but lawmakers didn't want to be hurried. They approved legislation that no such changes to the state benefits could be made until they met in general session.
The court then refused to extend its deadline, and lawmakers refused to yield.
The standoff collapsed when a new governor was inaugurated and without benefit of authorizing legislation, instituted the changes demanded by the court.
Mass Resistance leaders note that to this day, the Massachusetts Legislature still has not authorized a change in the state's marriage laws.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Experts Say Romney Created Homosexual "Marriage" -- WorldNetDaily
(from our 12-21-06 posting:)DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS
MassResistance at the State House, Boston, November 19, 2006
[photo (c) 2006 MassResistance]
MassResistance at the State House, Boston, November 19, 2006
[photo (c) 2006 MassResistance]
In November 2006, Governor Mitt Romney held a phony "marriage rally" on the steps of the Massachusetts State House. MassResistance was there, calling on the Governor to reverse his unconstitutional orders (before leaving office in January 2007) to his Department of Public Health, Town Clerks, and Justices of the Peace that implemented illegal "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts. We received no response from the Governor either in November, or to a formal letter signed by 44 prominent national conservative leaders in December. Finally, the national conservative press is beginning to understand and report the truth about Mitt Romney's subversion of Constitutional government in Massachusetts. It's amazing how, in this world of controlled media, it took three years to get this "NEWS" out. Thanks to WorldNetDaily for their courage in reporting the truth! In today's WorldNetDaily:
Breaking News!
ELECTION 2008
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Experts: Credit Romney
for homosexual marriage
'What he did was exercise illegal legislative authority'
--WND
Friday, July 13, 2007
Romney Doesn't Fool WorldNetDaily
This is big in the conservative world: WorldNetDaily's founder/editor Joseph Farah hits Mitt right between the eyes. See "Don't Be Fooled by Romney" (7-13-07). MassResistance's work over the past year, exposing Romney's injury to our Constitution, has paid off! Excerpts from Farah's article, on Romney's implementation of homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts:
He claims today to be a supporter of traditional marriage and an opponent of same-sex marriage. Yet, as governor of Massachusetts, he did more than any other person alive in the United States to ensure same-sex marriage would be the law of the land in his state. How?
When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the state Legislature to write a new law permitting same-sex marriages, Romney, the governor, the chief executive of the state's government, fell all over himself to do something that was not required of him – issuing homosexual marriage licenses. Not only did this action reveal his gutlessness and lack of knowledge of the separation of powers in our system of government, it also suggests he is merely masquerading as someone committed to defending marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. ...
Romney is one of those politicians – not unlike Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband – who will do anything and say anything to get elected. That's what certain politicians believe is more important than principle – getting themselves elected. ...
If President George W. Bush set back the Republican Party years, perhaps decades, a politician like Romney, an empty suit with lots of money and good looks, could prove to be the death of the GOP if he should ever be elected president. Today I pledge earnestly and without reservation that I will not vote for Romney under any circumstances, no matter who his opponent might be. That's how bad he is. That's how unacceptable he is as a presidential candidate. ...
He claims today to be a supporter of traditional marriage and an opponent of same-sex marriage. Yet, as governor of Massachusetts, he did more than any other person alive in the United States to ensure same-sex marriage would be the law of the land in his state. How?
When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the state Legislature to write a new law permitting same-sex marriages, Romney, the governor, the chief executive of the state's government, fell all over himself to do something that was not required of him – issuing homosexual marriage licenses. Not only did this action reveal his gutlessness and lack of knowledge of the separation of powers in our system of government, it also suggests he is merely masquerading as someone committed to defending marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. ...
Romney is one of those politicians – not unlike Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband – who will do anything and say anything to get elected. That's what certain politicians believe is more important than principle – getting themselves elected. ...
If President George W. Bush set back the Republican Party years, perhaps decades, a politician like Romney, an empty suit with lots of money and good looks, could prove to be the death of the GOP if he should ever be elected president. Today I pledge earnestly and without reservation that I will not vote for Romney under any circumstances, no matter who his opponent might be. That's how bad he is. That's how unacceptable he is as a presidential candidate. ...
Thursday, July 12, 2007
The National Review "Mothership" and Romney
Left: The MothershipDon't miss this in WorldNetDaily today:
"Romney's 'constitutional bungling' criticized: Leaders say he ordered 'homosexual marriage' even though court never asked him to" (7-12-07). National Review's puffy coverage of Romney is the topic.
The article contains hysterically funny quotes from Kathryn Jean Lopez (Romney cheerleader) of National Review Online. She claims NRO provides in-depth coverage, yet we've NEVER seen anything there approaching the detail of this WND story. In fact, Lopez reverts to childish name-calling, continuing the NR pattern of complete avoidance of the constitutional issues. From WND:
The publication responded that the criticism was nothing more than a public relations stunt. "National Review Online has run pieces and blog posts criticizing and lauding Governor Romney on marriage and a whole host of other issues, as we have with others of the Republicans up for primary consideration next year. ..." Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review Online's editor, told WND. "Both marriage and the presidential election deserve more serious treatment than Mass Resistance's public-relations stunt. That's what we strive to do here at National Review Online and our mothership, National Review," she said.
We suggest that NR take lessons from WND on thoughtful political reporting! And maybe it's time for Kathryn Jean to return to the "mothership" -- National Review magazine -- in some more controlled role. Maybe the mothership needs to clean house. We suggest the mothership hire a few more real conservatives (and grown-ups). And maybe it's time for NR to stop taking big donations from Presidential candidates and their surrogates.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
The Myth of "Gays" Wanting "Gay Marriage"
[Graph from Boston Globe, 5-17-07]We posted on the dramatic decline in homosexual "marriages" taking place in Massachusetts a few months back. People are starting to notice. At Boston Pride, the Ramrod anonymous sodomy bar and the "Bears" with their folding chairs made a lot louder statements than that dishonest lobbying organization called MassEquality. Now we hear that in Toronto (a very "gay" city), hardly any homosexual "marriages" are taking place!
Along these lines, see this piece by Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America: " 'Gays' don't want 'marriage' after all" (WorldNetDaily, 7-6-07). Excerpts from Barber:
The homosexual lobby has fine-tuned its rhetoric in recent years. Through the hyperbolic and repetitive use of such concocted expressions as "marriage equality" and "gay rights," the left has dishonestly but effectively framed the debate over homosexual behaviors.
...But getting married isn't even on the radar screen for the vast majority of homosexuals who choose to engage in a lifestyle largely delineated by short-lived and unstable relationships at best – and more often by casual and promiscuous sexual encounters.
Consider that according to the latest Massachusetts Department of Public Health statistics, there have been only 9,695 total "gay marriages" in Massachusetts since 2004 when then-Gov. Mitt Romney began issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals. Of those 9,000 plus, some 6,121 took place in just over the first six months while the "gay marriage" novelty toy still had its sheen.
In 2005, only 2,060 same-sex couples took the "gay-pride" plunge; and in 2006 only 1,427 tied that queer little knot. By the end of April of this year, a mere 87 "gay" couples had "married" in Massachusetts.
Even more telling – though not particularly surprising – are statistics coming out of Canada where "gay marriage" is now legal nationwide. For instance, in the city of Toronto – which boasts of having one of the world's largest homosexual populations –only one Canadian "gay" couple has "married" so far this year, according to a report by Reuters....
The good news is Americans are catching on to the disingenuous motives behind the homosexual activist push for "same-sex marriage." A recent survey by the Pew Center ...
Thursday, July 05, 2007
More on Romney & Marriott Porn
We were pleased to see James Dobson's Focus on the Family has addressed the Romney-Marriott Hotels-porn issue. See our post on this yesterday. And listen to the audio of today's "Family News in Focus" (7-5-07): Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, an outspoken critic of pornography, is called to task for his ties to Marriott hotels; a chain that makes money by providing porn to guests.
Then we saw this AP report: "Romney criticized for hotel pornography" which includes the usual Romney prevarications. Note that he's not against the porn in the hotel rooms, but is only worried about kids accidentally stumbling on it!
During a recent Associated Press interview, Romney said he did not recall pornography coming up for discussion while he was on the Marriott board from 1992 to 2001. Despite being chairman of the board's audit committee, he also said he was unaware of how much revenue pornography may have generated for the hotel chain.
Romney said his current concern is not about pornography per se, but children unwittingly stumbling upon it on the Internet or television. "I am not pursuing an effort to try and stop adults from being able to acquire or see things that I find objectionable; that's their right. But I do vehemently oppose practices or business procedures that will allow kids to be exposed to obscenity," the former Massachusetts governor said.
Funny, he didn't have a problem with his Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth introducing Massachusetts children to obscenity.
Then we saw this AP report: "Romney criticized for hotel pornography" which includes the usual Romney prevarications. Note that he's not against the porn in the hotel rooms, but is only worried about kids accidentally stumbling on it!
During a recent Associated Press interview, Romney said he did not recall pornography coming up for discussion while he was on the Marriott board from 1992 to 2001. Despite being chairman of the board's audit committee, he also said he was unaware of how much revenue pornography may have generated for the hotel chain.
Romney said his current concern is not about pornography per se, but children unwittingly stumbling upon it on the Internet or television. "I am not pursuing an effort to try and stop adults from being able to acquire or see things that I find objectionable; that's their right. But I do vehemently oppose practices or business procedures that will allow kids to be exposed to obscenity," the former Massachusetts governor said.
Funny, he didn't have a problem with his Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth introducing Massachusetts children to obscenity.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Mitt Romney and Marriott Hotels Pornography
How much money has Romney made on hotel porn sales?
By John Haskins
While Mitt Romney served on the Marriott Hotels Board of Directors for ten years in the 1990s, he benefitted financially from the chain's profiteering on hard-core pornography (available via in-room TV). If we break down Marriott profits during the period when Romney was involved, how much money did this devout Mormon make from porn purchases?
Romney has broken all records for talking out of all sides of his many mouths. Consider, he:
* is supposedly a devout Mormon, yet has shown not one consistent commitment on any single moral issue in his entire career;
* promised to "be more effective in advancing the homosexual revolution than ..." Ted Kennedy -- the one promise in his entire political career which he clearly has followed through on -- yet he now campaigns as a hero of traditional values;
* said both that homosexuals have a right to be scoutmasters, and conversely, that the Scouts have a right to exclude homosexual adults;
* says both that homosexuals have a right to adopt children, and conversely, that children have a right to both a father and a mother;
* claims to oppose "activist judges" and called the Goodridge decision "tyrannical," yet conversely, treated it not as the mere declaratory judgment it admitted to be, but as if it were a law overriding statutes and binding on the people (against the Massachusetts Constitution);
* claims to be "pro-life" yet opposes protecting human life with a federal amendment -- citing strangely enough a states' rights federalism that he contradicts by pretending to back a federal marriage amendment (which merely draws attention away from his unconstitutional orders to public officials to perform sodomy-based "marriage" though they still violate the law).
Mitt Romney is among the most the most obviously fraudulent, demagogic liars in over two centuries of American politics. His polish and brazenness exceeds that of the infamous "Slick Willie" Clinton. Those falling for his surreal p.r. campaign will someday realize that Romney and his political handlers are snickering at the endless ability of pro-establishment social conservatives to swallow lies.
Appearances aside, Romney's true religion has never been Mormonism, but mammonism. And as he quietly spreads around his lucre buying support, he's been finding out how easily the "elite" of social conservatism can be bought off. And that is one reason why he gets the kid-gloves treatment from "pro-family" media, pundits, lawyers and groups that purport to have a pro-family, socially conservative, constitutionalist commitment and world view.
See the story at MSNBC (7-3-07), First Read: The Day in Politics
"Oh-eight (R): More on McCain's Day"
by Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director
ROMNEY: CBN's Brody reports on an issue that could get traction in evangelical circles in the South: "Some anti-pornography groups are demanding answers as to how much presidential candidate Mitt Romney knew about the Marriott hotel chain's profits of pornography sales during his nearly ten years on the Board of Directors in the 1990s. The hotel chain is one of many that offer pay-per-view sex videos for sale through in-room entertainment."
From CBN's Brody:
During his run for President, Romney has campaigned on a platform of "family values" recently telling a graduation class, "Pornography and violence poison our music and movies and television and video games." Some of these conservative grassroots activists want to know whether he spoke up or tried to put a stop to Marriott's business dealings back then.
Phil Burress, founder of Citizens for Community Values has been fighting hotel chains for decades on this issue. He tells The Brody File that every month a group of roughly 15 anti-pornography leaders meet in Washington to discuss the latest happenings. Mitt Romney's Marriott connection has come up repeatedly. "Ever since he announced president, it's been a topic of discussion."
Mitt Romney's campaign told CBN the following: "Governor Romney's role as board member was in an advisory capacity on financial matters related to the company and, obviously, he did not have a role in the day-to-day operations or decisions of individual franchise holders."
John Harmer, President of the anti-pornography group The Lighted Candle Society and the former Lieutenant Governor of California under Ronald Reagan isn't buying it. He wants to hear more. "My attitude toward board members is that they are fully responsible," Harmer said. "They knew exactly what they were receiving. I don't think any board member under any rationale could claim ignorance. You're either a board member or not. I can't imagine a board member going a full year and not receiving a revenue report from the company."
Previous news accounts researched by The Brody File show that Romney was paid more than $100,000 per year while on the board of Marriott. When he left in 2002, J.W. Marriott, Jr., chairman and chief executive officer of Marriott International, called him, "an active, hands-on Director… From his first days on our Board nine years ago, Mitt has been an extraordinarily effective director and visionary leader."
Mitt Romney has a very close relationship with the Marriott family.
Note: One Michael Marriott is a big-time homosexual activist in Salt Lake City, and was largely responsible for bringing GLBT volunteers into the Salt Lake City Olympics while Mitt Romney was in charge. And oh yes, the Boy Scouts were denied a big role in that same Olympics for some reason.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Mitt Romney, His Dog & His Wife
Everyone's up in arms over Mitt Romney's treatment of his dog back in the '80s: strapping him on the top of the family car for a 12-hour trip to their vacation home. The poor creature had a bout of diarrhea, due very possibly due to the undue stress of his travel circumstances. Why, we wonder, didn't he travel inside the car with the boys?
The Boston Globe has thrown a lot of dirt out there in the last seven days' series on Mitt, waiting to see what sticks. The pet-lover nation was aroused by Seamus the Dog's ordeal.
But we were struck (and noted earlier) that AMBITION seems to roll over people as well as dogs. Back in February, we noted that Ann Romney's diagnosis with multiple sclerosis made most puzzling Mitt's decision to go forward with his presidential run. MS is a lot more serious than a dog with diarrhea jitters. Why is no one commenting on it?
In the Globe's Friday Romney report, "Taking office while remaining an outsider," we read this:
Ann Romney's health was a factor in the decision [to run for Governor]. A day before returning to Massachusetts, she told a Globe reporter that she had reservations about the move [from Utah] because her multiple sclerosis symptoms had abated during three years in Utah. ''It's the one thing that's keeping us .....'' she said before her husband interjected: ''Careful. Hold it. Don't finish that sentence .....'' But she did, saying she had ''huge qualms because I've been healthy out here.'' The next day, March 17, the Romneys flew to Massachusetts, met at the airport by reporters and a Boston Herald poll that showed Romney crushing Swift by a 75 percent to 12 percent in a race for the GOP nomination.
Now we think MS is a lot more serious than a dog's travelling conditions.
The same Globe series also notes that after the 2004 rout of Republican state legislature candidates in Massachusetts, Romney told the Globe editorial board he was tired of trying to promote the Republican Party here. ''From now on, it's me-me-me,'' he said. ("Ambitious goals, shifting stances"). Of course the Globe didn't report that one reason the Republicans did so poorly in that state election is that Romney ordered that the issue of "gay marriage" not be brought up in the local campaigns!
The Boston Globe has thrown a lot of dirt out there in the last seven days' series on Mitt, waiting to see what sticks. The pet-lover nation was aroused by Seamus the Dog's ordeal.
But we were struck (and noted earlier) that AMBITION seems to roll over people as well as dogs. Back in February, we noted that Ann Romney's diagnosis with multiple sclerosis made most puzzling Mitt's decision to go forward with his presidential run. MS is a lot more serious than a dog with diarrhea jitters. Why is no one commenting on it?
In the Globe's Friday Romney report, "Taking office while remaining an outsider," we read this:
Ann Romney's health was a factor in the decision [to run for Governor]. A day before returning to Massachusetts, she told a Globe reporter that she had reservations about the move [from Utah] because her multiple sclerosis symptoms had abated during three years in Utah. ''It's the one thing that's keeping us .....'' she said before her husband interjected: ''Careful. Hold it. Don't finish that sentence .....'' But she did, saying she had ''huge qualms because I've been healthy out here.'' The next day, March 17, the Romneys flew to Massachusetts, met at the airport by reporters and a Boston Herald poll that showed Romney crushing Swift by a 75 percent to 12 percent in a race for the GOP nomination.
Now we think MS is a lot more serious than a dog's travelling conditions.
The same Globe series also notes that after the 2004 rout of Republican state legislature candidates in Massachusetts, Romney told the Globe editorial board he was tired of trying to promote the Republican Party here. ''From now on, it's me-me-me,'' he said. ("Ambitious goals, shifting stances"). Of course the Globe didn't report that one reason the Republicans did so poorly in that state election is that Romney ordered that the issue of "gay marriage" not be brought up in the local campaigns!
Friday, June 22, 2007
Multiple Surrenders on Marriage Issue in Mass.
Great piece by R. T. Neary of ProLife Massachusetts on the meaning of the VoteOnMarriage amendment defeat last week at the State House -- and Mitt Romney's earlier surrender which paved the way. See Renew America's site: "Reflections on Flag Day 2007 in Massachusetts: John Adams RIP." Neary is past president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. He gets the big picture on the flawed amendment, and Mitt Romney's constitutional violations in implementing homosexual "marriage" in 2004.
Neary was at the State House on June 14, when ...
Only 45 legislators of the 50 necessary voted to continue moving the issue to this vote. The process died in its tracks! In the wake, however, I wonder how many interpret the Constitutional Convention's brazen action as one of Divine Providence. I do.
The amendment's wording would allow 99 percent of the camel into the tent by permitting what would be a "marriage" arrangement under a different label. Then, in only a short period of time, it would morph legally into the same relationship that has been preserved for millennia, one involving only one man and one woman. But above and beyond this gaping flaw, worse still was a grandfather clause which would allow and affirm 10,000-plus "marriages" which would have been performed up to Nov. 4, 2008--and then deny any after that date. A prompt challenge would have ipso facto relegated the dual status to the legal trash bin. And then folks: Go back to Square One!
What also has been sadly overlooked in the surreal political world in which we have been living is that "Same Sex Marriage" still does not exist in this once-proud Commonwealth. And yes, we do owe a monumental apology to John Adams for these last few years. In the Goodridge decision on Nov. 18, 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court never established SSM; they ruled that the Legislature had the right to do so, but that was never done. The Legislature knew that it did not have the votes to pass SSM into law in 2003-04, so the 180 days the SJC gave to them came and went on May 17, 2004.
Herein started the legal tailspin that gave us the pseudo-marriage situation which exists today. Governor Mitt Romney, a Harvard Law School graduate, tacked 180 degrees off course as he instructed Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace to start issuing "marriage licenses" to applicants of the same gender. What he clearly should have done at this point was exercise bold leadership by issuing an Executive Order prohibiting any such action until the Legislature took appropriate constitutional steps. Herein lies the genesis of this unconstitutional tailspin, one which has started rapidly to re-design the social, political, and religious underpinnings of our society from early education throughout our entire social framework.
READ MORE...
Neary was at the State House on June 14, when ...
Only 45 legislators of the 50 necessary voted to continue moving the issue to this vote. The process died in its tracks! In the wake, however, I wonder how many interpret the Constitutional Convention's brazen action as one of Divine Providence. I do.
The amendment's wording would allow 99 percent of the camel into the tent by permitting what would be a "marriage" arrangement under a different label. Then, in only a short period of time, it would morph legally into the same relationship that has been preserved for millennia, one involving only one man and one woman. But above and beyond this gaping flaw, worse still was a grandfather clause which would allow and affirm 10,000-plus "marriages" which would have been performed up to Nov. 4, 2008--and then deny any after that date. A prompt challenge would have ipso facto relegated the dual status to the legal trash bin. And then folks: Go back to Square One!
What also has been sadly overlooked in the surreal political world in which we have been living is that "Same Sex Marriage" still does not exist in this once-proud Commonwealth. And yes, we do owe a monumental apology to John Adams for these last few years. In the Goodridge decision on Nov. 18, 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court never established SSM; they ruled that the Legislature had the right to do so, but that was never done. The Legislature knew that it did not have the votes to pass SSM into law in 2003-04, so the 180 days the SJC gave to them came and went on May 17, 2004.
Herein started the legal tailspin that gave us the pseudo-marriage situation which exists today. Governor Mitt Romney, a Harvard Law School graduate, tacked 180 degrees off course as he instructed Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace to start issuing "marriage licenses" to applicants of the same gender. What he clearly should have done at this point was exercise bold leadership by issuing an Executive Order prohibiting any such action until the Legislature took appropriate constitutional steps. Herein lies the genesis of this unconstitutional tailspin, one which has started rapidly to re-design the social, political, and religious underpinnings of our society from early education throughout our entire social framework.
READ MORE...
Monday, June 18, 2007
Romney's Socialist Health Care Starts in Mass.
Romney is no conservative. He is, in fact, a big-government Socialist. Proof: Look at his mandatory health insurance law, which goes into effect July 1. This is the plan that guarantees abortion coverage, and gives Planned Parenthood a role in managing that coverage. From today's Boston Globe:
Countdown to coverage: On July 1, state law requires every adult to have health insurance if affordable plans are available. There are many options. The following is a guide to those choices.
More than 135,000 Massachusetts residents who were previously uninsured have gotten free or subsidized coverage under the state's landmark health insurance law. The initiative established Massachusetts as the first state to require every resident to have coverage. An estimated 250,000 to 350,000 people remain uninsured. The law mandated the expansion of Medicaid and the establishment of new state-subsidized insurance and lower-cost private plans. It also pressed businesses to provide insurance for their workers. Here are answers to some key questions about the insurance requirement. ... [Read more...]
Also in today's Globe, a Swiss advocate for socialized medicine reviews the failings of Switzerland's mandatory health insurance, instituted in 1996. ("The Swiss example on health insurance reform.") This provides a preview of the problems Romney's law will bring to Massachusetts. While "[e]veryone has access to the same comprehensive health insurance coverage, at the same premiums, and to the same quality of medical care" in Switzerland, the author continues:
So, why did a coalition of stakeholders -- mainly the Socialist Party and the Popular Group of Families -- propose in March to vote on a radical restructuring of the system: the adoption of a single payer system?
First, affordability of health coverage has become a major issue, particularly for middle income people who do not qualify for government subsidies. Some Swiss families are paying as much as 16 percent of household income for health coverage.
Second, the availability of high-deductible health plans, promoted as a panacea to the problem of affordability for middle income people by the right wing of the Swiss parliament, has brought no relief from rising health insurance premiums. Premium rates for all types of health insurance, including high-deductible plans, have continued to rise at rates that far exceed general inflation. There is growing concern that people enrolled in these plans are more likely to avoid, skip, or delay needed care because of costs.
Finally, there is growing public concern and distrust of private non profit health insurers. Swiss citizens believe that insurers have profited unduly from the individual mandate, in part by adopting a range of pernicious practices to hunt for good insurance risks and avoid people in poorer health, in violation of Swiss law.
Countdown to coverage: On July 1, state law requires every adult to have health insurance if affordable plans are available. There are many options. The following is a guide to those choices.
More than 135,000 Massachusetts residents who were previously uninsured have gotten free or subsidized coverage under the state's landmark health insurance law. The initiative established Massachusetts as the first state to require every resident to have coverage. An estimated 250,000 to 350,000 people remain uninsured. The law mandated the expansion of Medicaid and the establishment of new state-subsidized insurance and lower-cost private plans. It also pressed businesses to provide insurance for their workers. Here are answers to some key questions about the insurance requirement. ... [Read more...]
Also in today's Globe, a Swiss advocate for socialized medicine reviews the failings of Switzerland's mandatory health insurance, instituted in 1996. ("The Swiss example on health insurance reform.") This provides a preview of the problems Romney's law will bring to Massachusetts. While "[e]veryone has access to the same comprehensive health insurance coverage, at the same premiums, and to the same quality of medical care" in Switzerland, the author continues:
So, why did a coalition of stakeholders -- mainly the Socialist Party and the Popular Group of Families -- propose in March to vote on a radical restructuring of the system: the adoption of a single payer system?
First, affordability of health coverage has become a major issue, particularly for middle income people who do not qualify for government subsidies. Some Swiss families are paying as much as 16 percent of household income for health coverage.
Second, the availability of high-deductible health plans, promoted as a panacea to the problem of affordability for middle income people by the right wing of the Swiss parliament, has brought no relief from rising health insurance premiums. Premium rates for all types of health insurance, including high-deductible plans, have continued to rise at rates that far exceed general inflation. There is growing concern that people enrolled in these plans are more likely to avoid, skip, or delay needed care because of costs.
Finally, there is growing public concern and distrust of private non profit health insurers. Swiss citizens believe that insurers have profited unduly from the individual mandate, in part by adopting a range of pernicious practices to hunt for good insurance risks and avoid people in poorer health, in violation of Swiss law.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Another Video on Romney's Pro-Choice Stance
LifeSiteNews.com has another good report on Romney's posturing as a pro-life candidate:
Youtube Video Questions Romney’s Pro-Life Conversion Story: Romney said he was "absolutely committed" towards keeping pro-abortion laws, six months after his alleged pro-life conversion
ALEXANDRIA, Va., June 15, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) — While presidential candidate Mitt Romney is appearing today at a National Right to Life Conference, a new YouTube video released a few days ago appears to show that Romney's alleged pro-life conversion story is chronologically false and misleading. (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxV-QNXoRIc) ... Read more.
Earlier, LifeSite News issued The Romney Report: An Analysis of Republican Mitt Romney’s Legacy on Life and Family and The Romney Report: Part II. One of our pet peeves with Romney is his "federalist" approach on abortion, i.e. that it's OK for each state to decide whether or not it will allow abortions. From LifeSite's Romney Report:
However Romney’s “federalist approach” has been criticized as more of an “anti-Roe” position, rather than the position of a leader championing pro-life federal laws. Romney again reiterated his “federalist approach” in a Feb. 10 interview with the National Journal in which he declined to go on the record to support the Human Life Amendment, a key feature of the Republican Party platform since 1980 ...
Youtube Video Questions Romney’s Pro-Life Conversion Story: Romney said he was "absolutely committed" towards keeping pro-abortion laws, six months after his alleged pro-life conversion
ALEXANDRIA, Va., June 15, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) — While presidential candidate Mitt Romney is appearing today at a National Right to Life Conference, a new YouTube video released a few days ago appears to show that Romney's alleged pro-life conversion story is chronologically false and misleading. (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxV-QNXoRIc) ... Read more.
Earlier, LifeSite News issued The Romney Report: An Analysis of Republican Mitt Romney’s Legacy on Life and Family and The Romney Report: Part II. One of our pet peeves with Romney is his "federalist" approach on abortion, i.e. that it's OK for each state to decide whether or not it will allow abortions. From LifeSite's Romney Report:
However Romney’s “federalist approach” has been criticized as more of an “anti-Roe” position, rather than the position of a leader championing pro-life federal laws. Romney again reiterated his “federalist approach” in a Feb. 10 interview with the National Journal in which he declined to go on the record to support the Human Life Amendment, a key feature of the Republican Party platform since 1980 ...
Meltdown in Massachusetts
Check out the Boston Herald's photo gallery from the ConCon on June 15. Our favorites:
This photo says it all. VoteOnMarriage, partner in the grand Romney/Focus on the Family/Alliance Defense Fund/Mass. Family Institute compromise approach, goes down in ignominious defeat. Dejection in the grassroots. All those sincere, regular people taken down this path in pursuit of an amendment which would have allowed civil unions and left intact the homosexual "marriages" before enactment of the amendment. Yet their amendment was still portrayed as "hateful" by the homosexual lobby VoteOnMarriage hoped to appease.
A sensual kiss by two men on the State House steps. What's next? If the "transgender rights and hate crimes bill" is passed, undefined "gender expression" will be protected. Does that mean we'll see acts of live sodomy on the State House steps? (If that seems far-fetched, ask yourself who imagined just a decade ago that sodomy would be enshrined as a basis for "marriage".) What could be a more perfect expression of "gay" male sexuality than the act of sodomy? And given many homosexuals' desire to flaunt their sexuality in public ... Who's to object? Rather, it seems that 3/4 of our legislators would be ready to celebrate it. It's all about preserving others' "rights" to "happiness", isn't it?
Note the banner in the background: "Church of the Sacred Earth - A Union of Pagan Congregations." We've said all along that the pagans were a big part of this movement. And all those GLBT activists posing as Christians? Don't be fooled.
This photo says it all. VoteOnMarriage, partner in the grand Romney/Focus on the Family/Alliance Defense Fund/Mass. Family Institute compromise approach, goes down in ignominious defeat. Dejection in the grassroots. All those sincere, regular people taken down this path in pursuit of an amendment which would have allowed civil unions and left intact the homosexual "marriages" before enactment of the amendment. Yet their amendment was still portrayed as "hateful" by the homosexual lobby VoteOnMarriage hoped to appease.
A sensual kiss by two men on the State House steps. What's next? If the "transgender rights and hate crimes bill" is passed, undefined "gender expression" will be protected. Does that mean we'll see acts of live sodomy on the State House steps? (If that seems far-fetched, ask yourself who imagined just a decade ago that sodomy would be enshrined as a basis for "marriage".) What could be a more perfect expression of "gay" male sexuality than the act of sodomy? And given many homosexuals' desire to flaunt their sexuality in public ... Who's to object? Rather, it seems that 3/4 of our legislators would be ready to celebrate it. It's all about preserving others' "rights" to "happiness", isn't it?
Note the banner in the background: "Church of the Sacred Earth - A Union of Pagan Congregations." We've said all along that the pagans were a big part of this movement. And all those GLBT activists posing as Christians? Don't be fooled.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Foul Speech from Romney Campaign
Great stuff on EyeOn08 on our least favorite Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. A Romney campaign official has called Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas a "bottom feeder" and posted a photo of an ugly bottom-feeding fish alongside the silly commentary. This from one Jason Bonham (Illinois State Director, Legacy Law Foundation, Illinois), who is allied with the infamous David French, a Senior Counsel with the nominally conservative Alliance Defense Fund and "Evangelicals for Mitt". (Legacy Law is a Mormon group based in Utah, and is linked to VoteOnMarriage through Romney.)
(Some of these "conservative" legal foundations are becoming a joke, ready to give in on crucial principles. For instance, the Alliance Defense Fund is behind the wording of the compromised and failed VoteOnMarriage amendment here in Massacusetts. See our posting from October 2005: "Amateur Hour: Immigrant Law Student Behind Flawed "VoteOnMarriage" Research". ADF and Romney like civil unions -- not a conservative position.)
See also EyeOn08 "Romney on His 2002 Campaign Promise" -- to uphold abortion "rights" in Massachusetts. Excellent analysis and links.
Back to the mess Romney left for us here in Massachusetts, the homosexual "marriages" he ESTABLISHED through his Legal Counsel's office. Romney says he's disappointed in the outcome of Friday's marriage amendment vote, because the people are denied a say in defining marriage.
What a sham! Romney single-handedly implemented an illegitimate Court ruling, violated the Constitution by changing the marriage licenses, and ordered Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to follow a "law" that's now a law. (Remember that all the Court said was that the Legislature should act, which it had not right to tell them, and the Legislature did not act to change the statutes.) Why did Romney implement the "marriages"? Yet now he pretends to care so much about protecting marriage and the people's voice. Does anyone really believe him?
[Boston Globe, 6-15-07:] "Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate," he said in a statement. Romney reiterated his call for Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage ... The vote yesterday helps Romney, West [Brown U political scientist] said. "It gives him credibility in other parts of the country as something other than a Massachusetts politician."
As we've said all along, Romney should have no credibility when people hear the truth about his role in the marriage debacle here in Massachusetts. BTW, why does Romney think a federal amendment is needed for marriage, but that it's OK to leave abortion laws up to the states? If something is wrong, shouldn't it be wrong in every state?
(Some of these "conservative" legal foundations are becoming a joke, ready to give in on crucial principles. For instance, the Alliance Defense Fund is behind the wording of the compromised and failed VoteOnMarriage amendment here in Massacusetts. See our posting from October 2005: "Amateur Hour: Immigrant Law Student Behind Flawed "VoteOnMarriage" Research". ADF and Romney like civil unions -- not a conservative position.)
See also EyeOn08 "Romney on His 2002 Campaign Promise" -- to uphold abortion "rights" in Massachusetts. Excellent analysis and links.
Back to the mess Romney left for us here in Massachusetts, the homosexual "marriages" he ESTABLISHED through his Legal Counsel's office. Romney says he's disappointed in the outcome of Friday's marriage amendment vote, because the people are denied a say in defining marriage.
What a sham! Romney single-handedly implemented an illegitimate Court ruling, violated the Constitution by changing the marriage licenses, and ordered Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to follow a "law" that's now a law. (Remember that all the Court said was that the Legislature should act, which it had not right to tell them, and the Legislature did not act to change the statutes.) Why did Romney implement the "marriages"? Yet now he pretends to care so much about protecting marriage and the people's voice. Does anyone really believe him?
[Boston Globe, 6-15-07:] "Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate," he said in a statement. Romney reiterated his call for Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage ... The vote yesterday helps Romney, West [Brown U political scientist] said. "It gives him credibility in other parts of the country as something other than a Massachusetts politician."
As we've said all along, Romney should have no credibility when people hear the truth about his role in the marriage debacle here in Massachusetts. BTW, why does Romney think a federal amendment is needed for marriage, but that it's OK to leave abortion laws up to the states? If something is wrong, shouldn't it be wrong in every state?
Thursday, June 14, 2007
VoteOnMarriage Failed the People
The VoteOnMarriage amendment went down in flames today, with an even more appalling result than anyone could have imagined. Prayers without compromising the truth may work. Prayers when the truth is compromised cannot.
VoteOnMarriage's campaign failed because the debate was boiled down to "letting the people vote" and ensuring "children have both a mother and a father." But it left out the important truth about homosexual "marriage": It's based on immoral and unhealthy sexual perversions. Morality and public health needed to be part of the debate.
But VoteOnMarriage (and its prime actor, Massachusetts Family Institute) never spoke about these issues. Why didn't they say plainly that disordered sexuality cannot become an accepted basis for "marriage"? And after compromising with Mitt Romney, they could hardly address preserving the integrity of our constitution, and the common accepted meaning of the words therein.
VoteOnMarriage depleted our side's energy and financial resources in pursuit of a terribly flawed amendment. We've warned about their failing strategy ("Be polite! Dialogue with the other side!") and compromised amendment wording for two years now. We said: "Don't feed the bears! They'll just come back for more and more. They'll smell your weakness. And they'll eat you alive."
But VoteOnMarriage said they had a good relationship with MassEquality. They spoke to the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows, badmouthed MassResistance to them and to people on Beacon Hill (including the last several governors) and to pro-family conservatives around the nation. They rigidly controlled what people said in their demonstrations, including their signs. It was a top-down movement, no real grassroots sentiments allowed. Time and again, as we walked through the VoteOnMarriage demonstrators, we would hear individuals corrected if they stepped out of line, said something "inappropriate" or with a little too much emotion.
Their strategy of endless compromise with evil, their attempted appeasement of those destroying the minds of children, and their puerile censorship of pro-family rhetoric has no origin in the Old or New Testament, and anyone who thinks otherwise has subconsciously blacked out the most powerful parts of the Holy Scriptures.
We hear from an MFI insider that they plan to regroup! How do you regroup with failed leadership, and a failed vision? Just a week ago, we heard that another MFI insider said the homosexual lobby was tiring out! They are detached from reality. They don't understand the foe we're facing.
When leaders fail to achieve their goal, they should be fired. VoteOnMarriage and the Massachusetts Family Institute have been discredited, they have failed the faithful pro-family people of Massachusetts. So we say to them: Don't ask for another penny, another drop of our blood and sweat.
VoteOnMarriage's campaign failed because the debate was boiled down to "letting the people vote" and ensuring "children have both a mother and a father." But it left out the important truth about homosexual "marriage": It's based on immoral and unhealthy sexual perversions. Morality and public health needed to be part of the debate.
But VoteOnMarriage (and its prime actor, Massachusetts Family Institute) never spoke about these issues. Why didn't they say plainly that disordered sexuality cannot become an accepted basis for "marriage"? And after compromising with Mitt Romney, they could hardly address preserving the integrity of our constitution, and the common accepted meaning of the words therein.
VoteOnMarriage depleted our side's energy and financial resources in pursuit of a terribly flawed amendment. We've warned about their failing strategy ("Be polite! Dialogue with the other side!") and compromised amendment wording for two years now. We said: "Don't feed the bears! They'll just come back for more and more. They'll smell your weakness. And they'll eat you alive."
But VoteOnMarriage said they had a good relationship with MassEquality. They spoke to the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows, badmouthed MassResistance to them and to people on Beacon Hill (including the last several governors) and to pro-family conservatives around the nation. They rigidly controlled what people said in their demonstrations, including their signs. It was a top-down movement, no real grassroots sentiments allowed. Time and again, as we walked through the VoteOnMarriage demonstrators, we would hear individuals corrected if they stepped out of line, said something "inappropriate" or with a little too much emotion.
Their strategy of endless compromise with evil, their attempted appeasement of those destroying the minds of children, and their puerile censorship of pro-family rhetoric has no origin in the Old or New Testament, and anyone who thinks otherwise has subconsciously blacked out the most powerful parts of the Holy Scriptures.
We hear from an MFI insider that they plan to regroup! How do you regroup with failed leadership, and a failed vision? Just a week ago, we heard that another MFI insider said the homosexual lobby was tiring out! They are detached from reality. They don't understand the foe we're facing.
When leaders fail to achieve their goal, they should be fired. VoteOnMarriage and the Massachusetts Family Institute have been discredited, they have failed the faithful pro-family people of Massachusetts. So we say to them: Don't ask for another penny, another drop of our blood and sweat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)