An excellent summary of Mitt Romney's failure to act as a conservative when he was Governor here. Listen up, New Hampshire and Iowa!!! You cannot trust this guy. Posted on Renew America, by R. T. Neary, Director of Pro-Life Massachusetts and past president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. (Excerpts:)
Please Mitt, at least a mea culpa
An open letter to our former Massachusetts governor
By R.T. Neary (12-17-07)
... On the campaign trail, you're asserting that you are "pro-life" because you are now in favor of overturning Roe v Wade. Are you asking us to believe that this posture is tantamount to being Pro-Life? Your current stance, which is the same as some of your competitors, is a states' rights position which doesn't interfere at all with the right to abort the life of a newly created human being. Why don't you make a firm pronouncement in favor of a Human Life Amendment, an uncompromising call for the protection of all innocent human life? This would be a genuine Pro-life position — and there's still time.
For decades, there has been a culture war raging nationally, and this state where you governed has been the site of major battles. During your tenure, over 100,000 of our future citizens were legally destroyed in this so-called commonwealth. Close to 10,000 couples of the same gender were issued "marriage" licenses, children were subjected to the vilest of sexual practices in tax-funded public schools, and one parent was jailed for voicing objections to it. Mitt, were you blind to all of this?
Are you still blind to the fact that to allow parents to donate embryos for scientific stem cell research is to sanction the willful destruction of an innocent human being? Yet, you're trying to make a fine point that you are opposed to "creating" embryos for scientific stem cell research. Sorry, it skirts the moral issue and doesn't wash. Even the scientists involved in the research have not denied to us that an embryo has all its DNA in place. All that is needed for him or her to breath like you or I do is that two conditions be met: provide the proper environment and the necessary time....
With regard to your opposition on the presidential campaign trail to same-sex "marriage," as Governor of Massachusetts, you literally had your finger on the switch. And you pushed the full speed ahead, rather than locking in the stop lever. You, as a Harvard Law School graduate, knew that the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) had no authority under the Massachusetts constitution to pervert this millennia-old cornerstone of our society....
I reflect on the many calls I made under that Golden Dome on Beacon Hill, attempting to get support from your office for Pro-Life bills and especially a bill which would require advance parental permission for subjecting children to gross perversion in Sex Education in public schools. Never once could we get beyond the lowest contact level. Nor could we get even a discussion about the need for curriculum transparency, and the need for signed parental approval before subjecting children's minds to psychologically damaging material....
Read more ...
Showing posts with label Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romney. Show all posts
Monday, December 17, 2007
Romney's Bargain Abortions
Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review online commented on receiving a press release from the Thompson campaign about this last week. And now LifeSite News has linked to it. It was MassResistance that first put out the info on this. (See our report, "Gov. Romney's universal health care program for Massachusetts includes taxpayer-funded abortions.")
Romney supposedly became pro-life long before signing the Massachusetts health care law --which offers baby-killing services for a mere $50.
Romney -- $50 Abortions in Massachusetts
Contact: Press Office, 571-730-1010; www.Fred08.com
MC LEAN, Va., Dec. 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- Romney claims to be pro-life. But under his health care plan, Massachusetts residents now have access to taxpayer-funded abortions for $50.
Romney's Health Care Plan:
Provides Taxpayer-Funded Abortions. Abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program that Romney created as Governor. Under the program, abortions are available for a copay of $50. (Menu of Health Care Services: www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf)
Guarantees Planned Parenthood A Seat At The Table. Romney's legislation created an advisory board and guarantees, by law, that Planned Parenthood has a seat at the table. Romney's plan established a MassHealth payment policy advisory board, and one member of the Board must be from Planned Parenthood. No pro-life organization is represented. (Chapter 58 Section 3 (q) Section 16M (a), www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw06/sl060058.htm)
Romney used his line-item veto authority to strike eight sections of the bill that he found objectionable, including the expansion of dental benefits to Medicaid recipients. Yet, he did not strike Planned Parenthood's guaranteed Board representation and he did nothing to prohibit taxpayer-funded abortions as part of his plan. ("Romney's Health Care Vetoes," Associated Press, 4/12/06)
Romney supposedly became pro-life long before signing the Massachusetts health care law --which offers baby-killing services for a mere $50.
Romney -- $50 Abortions in Massachusetts
Contact: Press Office, 571-730-1010; www.Fred08.com
MC LEAN, Va., Dec. 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- Romney claims to be pro-life. But under his health care plan, Massachusetts residents now have access to taxpayer-funded abortions for $50.
Romney's Health Care Plan:
Provides Taxpayer-Funded Abortions. Abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program that Romney created as Governor. Under the program, abortions are available for a copay of $50. (Menu of Health Care Services: www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf)
Guarantees Planned Parenthood A Seat At The Table. Romney's legislation created an advisory board and guarantees, by law, that Planned Parenthood has a seat at the table. Romney's plan established a MassHealth payment policy advisory board, and one member of the Board must be from Planned Parenthood. No pro-life organization is represented. (Chapter 58 Section 3 (q) Section 16M (a), www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw06/sl060058.htm)
Romney used his line-item veto authority to strike eight sections of the bill that he found objectionable, including the expansion of dental benefits to Medicaid recipients. Yet, he did not strike Planned Parenthood's guaranteed Board representation and he did nothing to prohibit taxpayer-funded abortions as part of his plan. ("Romney's Health Care Vetoes," Associated Press, 4/12/06)
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
National Review's Romney Endorsement -- Our Challenge
After their fawning endorsement of their donor, Mitt Romney, we sent this note to the National Review Online editors (for whom we had emails):
You have a whole blog dedicated to judicial activism … yet your magazine just endorsed Mitt Romney, who is guilty of causing the worst incidence of judicial activism since Roe v Wade to be treated as “law”. Professor Hadley Arkes even wrote an important piece in NATIONAL REVIEW highly critical of Romney on the day the “homosexual marriages” began in Massachusetts (thanks to Romney’s orders): "The Missing Governor" by Hadley Arkes (May 17, 2004). Arkes asked: "Have Republican leaders lost their confidence on moral matters?"
Does no one remember that prominent conservatives pleaded with Romney in 2003-4 to uphold the Mass. Constitution, and defy the illegitimate Court ruling on homosexual "marriage"? Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan, Mat Staver (Liberty Counsel), and even HUGH HEWITT (Weekly Standard, 11-20-03) told Romney to stand up against judicial tyranny. But Romney ignored them and singlehandedly began homosexual "marriage" in Mass. (The Legislature still has not changed our statutes to allow it, as ordered by the Court...which didn't even tell Romney to do anything!)
Why did Romney issue orders to his executive branch officials to change the marriage licenses and perform the marriages? There was no new LAW to enforce! If we couldn't trust Romney with the Mass. Constitution, how can we trust him with the U.S. Constitution? See our report: http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/
Only one of the 19 editors contacted, Jim Geraghty of their "Campaign Spot" blog, has responded: "Mass e-mailing editors who had nothing to do with the endorsement just pisses them off."
We answered: "I would love to know how NR arrived at a decision to endorse, if the editors weren't involved? Seriously, what was the process? (P.S. I don't appreciate language like "p off" – lots of us regular people still don't talk like that.)"
He then said: "I think I don't appreciate mass e-mails berating me for a decision I had no role in about as much as you don't appreciate the term 'pisses them off.' " (He just had to repeat that.) And then he sent us to his earlier post:
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
MIKE HUCKABEE, MITT ROMNEY
Another Thought On The Endorsement [by Jim Geraghty, on NRO's Campaign Spot]
Last night Rich [Lowry, editor-in-chief] explained a bit about NR's endorsement process to Hugh Hewitt:
HH: Take me inside first the process by which National Review arrived at its endorsement.
RL: (laughing) I don’t know, Hugh. It’s a really tightly held process here. It’s like selecting the Pope. We can’t reveal too much, but…
HH: How many people got a say in this?
RL: Well, it’s our senior editors, our publisher, our president and our Washington editor and myself. And we’ve been talking about it the last two weeks or so, just because this is our, through the quirks of our publication schedule, this is our last issue before people vote in Iowa and New Hampshire.
[Geraghty continues:]
So complaining to anybody else at NR or NRO is not really going to do any good. In fact, complaining won't do any good, period. If the magazine endorsed somebody besides your guy, you say, "I disagree," you hope it does Romney as much good as it did Phil Gramm, and then life goes on....
In other words, no feedback, no discussion welcome. The court has ruled, and that's that. (And he even continues with silly putdowns of Ron Paul's and Mike Huckabee's campaigns.) But these people rarely answer the substance of the question. Maybe Geraghty could do a little research on this all-important fact in Romney's record as Governor, then get back to us with a little more thoughtful response. He is the editor of NR's Campaign blog, after all.
You have a whole blog dedicated to judicial activism … yet your magazine just endorsed Mitt Romney, who is guilty of causing the worst incidence of judicial activism since Roe v Wade to be treated as “law”. Professor Hadley Arkes even wrote an important piece in NATIONAL REVIEW highly critical of Romney on the day the “homosexual marriages” began in Massachusetts (thanks to Romney’s orders): "The Missing Governor" by Hadley Arkes (May 17, 2004). Arkes asked: "Have Republican leaders lost their confidence on moral matters?"
Does no one remember that prominent conservatives pleaded with Romney in 2003-4 to uphold the Mass. Constitution, and defy the illegitimate Court ruling on homosexual "marriage"? Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan, Mat Staver (Liberty Counsel), and even HUGH HEWITT (Weekly Standard, 11-20-03) told Romney to stand up against judicial tyranny. But Romney ignored them and singlehandedly began homosexual "marriage" in Mass. (The Legislature still has not changed our statutes to allow it, as ordered by the Court...which didn't even tell Romney to do anything!)
Why did Romney issue orders to his executive branch officials to change the marriage licenses and perform the marriages? There was no new LAW to enforce! If we couldn't trust Romney with the Mass. Constitution, how can we trust him with the U.S. Constitution? See our report: http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/
Only one of the 19 editors contacted, Jim Geraghty of their "Campaign Spot" blog, has responded: "Mass e-mailing editors who had nothing to do with the endorsement just pisses them off."
We answered: "I would love to know how NR arrived at a decision to endorse, if the editors weren't involved? Seriously, what was the process? (P.S. I don't appreciate language like "p off" – lots of us regular people still don't talk like that.)"
He then said: "I think I don't appreciate mass e-mails berating me for a decision I had no role in about as much as you don't appreciate the term 'pisses them off.' " (He just had to repeat that.) And then he sent us to his earlier post:
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
MIKE HUCKABEE, MITT ROMNEY
Another Thought On The Endorsement [by Jim Geraghty, on NRO's Campaign Spot]
Last night Rich [Lowry, editor-in-chief] explained a bit about NR's endorsement process to Hugh Hewitt:
HH: Take me inside first the process by which National Review arrived at its endorsement.
RL: (laughing) I don’t know, Hugh. It’s a really tightly held process here. It’s like selecting the Pope. We can’t reveal too much, but…
HH: How many people got a say in this?
RL: Well, it’s our senior editors, our publisher, our president and our Washington editor and myself. And we’ve been talking about it the last two weeks or so, just because this is our, through the quirks of our publication schedule, this is our last issue before people vote in Iowa and New Hampshire.
[Geraghty continues:]
So complaining to anybody else at NR or NRO is not really going to do any good. In fact, complaining won't do any good, period. If the magazine endorsed somebody besides your guy, you say, "I disagree," you hope it does Romney as much good as it did Phil Gramm, and then life goes on....
In other words, no feedback, no discussion welcome. The court has ruled, and that's that. (And he even continues with silly putdowns of Ron Paul's and Mike Huckabee's campaigns.) But these people rarely answer the substance of the question. Maybe Geraghty could do a little research on this all-important fact in Romney's record as Governor, then get back to us with a little more thoughtful response. He is the editor of NR's Campaign blog, after all.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Rhode Island Gets It: Laws Are Passed by Legislatures Only
Rhode Island's high court has just ruled that a lesbian couple supposedly "married" in Massachusetts may not be granted a divorce in Rhode Island, because R.I. does not recognize the validity of their "marriage."
The only thing missing from this story is the recognition, by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys involved (and other "conservatives") that this "marriage" wasn't valid in Massachusetts either, for the same reason it wasn't valid in Rhode Island: THE LEGISLATURE NEVER CHANGED THE LAW to allow same-sex "marriage" here!
The majority on the R.I. Court, the R.I. Governor, and even the attorney for GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who pushed "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts), understood that only the R.I. legislature could change the law there.
So why is it any different in Massachusetts??? That's the question we've been asking for three years now. Our legislature NEVER changed our law, which clearly recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman. Why did the Alliance Defense Fund not point that out in this case? Could it have something to do with some of their members' support for Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who sneaked "homosexual marriage" through here without it ever being legalized?
See the Boston Globe, "R.I. won't let gay couple divorce" (12-8-07; emphasis added):
... The court concluded that a key 1961 Rhode Island law defines marriage as an legal union between a man and a woman, not same-sex couples. Unless and until the Legislature changes the wording, same-sex couples married in Massachusetts cannot get divorced in Rhode Island family courts, it said.
Cassandra Ormiston, who married Margaret Chambers in Fall River in 2004 after Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriages, denounced the ruling, saying it discriminates against same-sex couples....
In a statement, Governor Donald L. Carcieri of Rhode Island and at least one group that opposes gay marriage praised the ruling. "I believe this is the appropriate result based on Rhode Island law," Carcieri said. "It has always been clear to me that Rhode Island law was designed to permit marriage, and therefore divorce, only between a man and a woman."
The lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian-based group, said the ruling affirms that marriage is between a man and woman and anything else is "counterfeit." "Not only is today's ruling a victory for marriage, it's also a tremendous step forward against judicial activism," Austin R. Nimocks, a lawyer for the Arizona group, said in a statement....
Karen Loewy, a staff lawyer with GLAD, which filed an amicus brief siding with the couple, said she was "incredibly distressed" for them. Short of persuading the Rhode Island General Assembly to legalize gay marriage, she said, the only certain way the couple can get a divorce is for one of the spouses to move to Massachusetts and establish legal residency....
The court's majority said the Legislature, not the courts, should change state law.
The only thing missing from this story is the recognition, by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys involved (and other "conservatives") that this "marriage" wasn't valid in Massachusetts either, for the same reason it wasn't valid in Rhode Island: THE LEGISLATURE NEVER CHANGED THE LAW to allow same-sex "marriage" here!
The majority on the R.I. Court, the R.I. Governor, and even the attorney for GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who pushed "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts), understood that only the R.I. legislature could change the law there.
So why is it any different in Massachusetts??? That's the question we've been asking for three years now. Our legislature NEVER changed our law, which clearly recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman. Why did the Alliance Defense Fund not point that out in this case? Could it have something to do with some of their members' support for Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who sneaked "homosexual marriage" through here without it ever being legalized?
See the Boston Globe, "R.I. won't let gay couple divorce" (12-8-07; emphasis added):
... The court concluded that a key 1961 Rhode Island law defines marriage as an legal union between a man and a woman, not same-sex couples. Unless and until the Legislature changes the wording, same-sex couples married in Massachusetts cannot get divorced in Rhode Island family courts, it said.
Cassandra Ormiston, who married Margaret Chambers in Fall River in 2004 after Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriages, denounced the ruling, saying it discriminates against same-sex couples....
In a statement, Governor Donald L. Carcieri of Rhode Island and at least one group that opposes gay marriage praised the ruling. "I believe this is the appropriate result based on Rhode Island law," Carcieri said. "It has always been clear to me that Rhode Island law was designed to permit marriage, and therefore divorce, only between a man and a woman."
The lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian-based group, said the ruling affirms that marriage is between a man and woman and anything else is "counterfeit." "Not only is today's ruling a victory for marriage, it's also a tremendous step forward against judicial activism," Austin R. Nimocks, a lawyer for the Arizona group, said in a statement....
Karen Loewy, a staff lawyer with GLAD, which filed an amicus brief siding with the couple, said she was "incredibly distressed" for them. Short of persuading the Rhode Island General Assembly to legalize gay marriage, she said, the only certain way the couple can get a divorce is for one of the spouses to move to Massachusetts and establish legal residency....
The court's majority said the Legislature, not the courts, should change state law.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Bishop Gene Robinson: "I always wanted to be a June bride!"
"I always wanted to be a June bride," gushed Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire recently at a speech in Florida. Robinson is going to be legally joined to his long-time sodomy partner next June. New Hampshire legalized "civil unions" there starting this January.Unlike New Hampshire, Massachusetts has still not legalized either "civil unions" or "homosexual marriage." They're just a fiction of some GLBT activists, four judges, and a former Massachusetts governor named Romney. So Bishop Robinson must be thanking his god that he's in a state where he can legally become a bride this June.
(photo source: Nova Southeastern Shepard Broad Law Center)
by Priscilla Greear
U/Miami News Service
Tuesday Dec 4, 2007
The nation’s first openly gay Episcopal bishop told a crowd of about 200 that come June he’s marching down the aisle with his longtime male partner Mark Andrew. "I always wanted to be a June bride," said Bishop Gene Robinson at a talk on Nov. 27 at Nova Southeastern University.
"It may take many years for religious institutions to add their blessing for same-sex marriages and no church, mosque or synagogue should be forced to do so. But that should not slow down progress for the full civil right to marry," Robinson said. "Because New Hampshire will have legal unions beginning in January, my partner of 20 years and I will enter into such a legal union next June." ...
Wearing a raspberry clergy shirt with a cleric collar and pectoral cross, Robinson characterized the "religious right" as close-minded, taking a literal interpretation of Bible condemnation of homosexuality."The greatest single hindrance to achievement of full rights for gays and lesbians can be laid at the doorstep of the three Abrahamic faiths-- Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It’s going to take people of faith to end discrimination," said Robinson, who was invested as the ninth bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire in 2004.... [emphasis added]
Now if an Episcopal Bishop slams the supposed foundation of his own faith ("the three Abrahamic faiths -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam"), to what faith does he now plan to appeal to bolster his belief in sodomy "marriage"?
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Mitt Romney's Legacy in Massachusetts
By John Haskins
This insight of T. S. Eliot, Christian convert and great poet of the 20th Century, explains so perfectly the stubborn, self-serving, relentless whitewashing of Willard Mitt Romney's actions in Massachusetts by placebo conservatives, pundits, "legal experts," and surrender-addicted "pro-family leaders":
“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm – but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.”
- T. S. Eliot
These mercenaries have squandered -- or sold -- every last remnant of moral or intellectual authority they may once have had. First as a clique, then a cabal, now almost a political mafia, they've hijacked organized moral conservatism in America and turned it into a string of commercial franchises like MacDonald's. They are capping two or three decades of blind, vision-less, rationalized faux-pragmatism (read "capitulation") with their current cover-up of the massive and fundamental damage Mitt Romney did to constitutionalism, marriage, the natural human family, and indisputable the right of children not to be laboratory rats injected with the poisonous Stalinist brainwashing of the most fanatical sexual anarchists on earth -- the scandalously over-funded sodomy "tolerance" revolution, before whose blitzkrieg all constitutional rights are being flattened.
As governor, Mitt Romney held a political auction and sold to the highest bidders the very things he now claims to have heroically defended. His lies are not marginal. They are not "spin." They are black and white falsehoods with only the faintest veneer of justification. He is a master of the "Big Lie."
He liquidated the heart and soul of oldest functioning constitution in the world. He liquidated the inalienable right of the people to rule themselves free of judicial dictatorship. He liquidated the right of every child to have a mother and a father. He liquidated the right of Catholic hospitals not to issue abortifacients, the right of citizens not to fund the killing of human babies in the womb, and the right of citizens with common sense and moral boundaries to withhold their official seal of approval from sodomy-based marriage, homosexual adoption and all the consequences that these will bring. With these he auctioned off freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.
In Massachusetts, Mitt Romney held a going-out-of-business sale for Western Civilization, and pocketed the political capital he got in return. But his precious proceeds are now slipping through his desperate fingers like worthless sand. The people are saying "NO" to Slick Willard and his "elite" Praetorian Guard of mercenary faux-conservatives.
I voted for Mitt Romney, then watched him betray everything he solemnly swore in the name of God to defend. His actual record is beyond the pale. To endorse him or vote for him -- or to even remain silent as friends and colleagues do -- is a betrayal of constitutional governance and the needs of children, and mocks the deaths of soldiers and sailors who defend our inalienable right to govern ourselves according to the values that preserve society and families.
John Haskins is a political analyst for the Parents' Rights Coalition of Massachusetts.
This insight of T. S. Eliot, Christian convert and great poet of the 20th Century, explains so perfectly the stubborn, self-serving, relentless whitewashing of Willard Mitt Romney's actions in Massachusetts by placebo conservatives, pundits, "legal experts," and surrender-addicted "pro-family leaders":
“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm – but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.”
- T. S. Eliot
These mercenaries have squandered -- or sold -- every last remnant of moral or intellectual authority they may once have had. First as a clique, then a cabal, now almost a political mafia, they've hijacked organized moral conservatism in America and turned it into a string of commercial franchises like MacDonald's. They are capping two or three decades of blind, vision-less, rationalized faux-pragmatism (read "capitulation") with their current cover-up of the massive and fundamental damage Mitt Romney did to constitutionalism, marriage, the natural human family, and indisputable the right of children not to be laboratory rats injected with the poisonous Stalinist brainwashing of the most fanatical sexual anarchists on earth -- the scandalously over-funded sodomy "tolerance" revolution, before whose blitzkrieg all constitutional rights are being flattened.
As governor, Mitt Romney held a political auction and sold to the highest bidders the very things he now claims to have heroically defended. His lies are not marginal. They are not "spin." They are black and white falsehoods with only the faintest veneer of justification. He is a master of the "Big Lie."
He liquidated the heart and soul of oldest functioning constitution in the world. He liquidated the inalienable right of the people to rule themselves free of judicial dictatorship. He liquidated the right of every child to have a mother and a father. He liquidated the right of Catholic hospitals not to issue abortifacients, the right of citizens not to fund the killing of human babies in the womb, and the right of citizens with common sense and moral boundaries to withhold their official seal of approval from sodomy-based marriage, homosexual adoption and all the consequences that these will bring. With these he auctioned off freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.
In Massachusetts, Mitt Romney held a going-out-of-business sale for Western Civilization, and pocketed the political capital he got in return. But his precious proceeds are now slipping through his desperate fingers like worthless sand. The people are saying "NO" to Slick Willard and his "elite" Praetorian Guard of mercenary faux-conservatives.
I voted for Mitt Romney, then watched him betray everything he solemnly swore in the name of God to defend. His actual record is beyond the pale. To endorse him or vote for him -- or to even remain silent as friends and colleagues do -- is a betrayal of constitutional governance and the needs of children, and mocks the deaths of soldiers and sailors who defend our inalienable right to govern ourselves according to the values that preserve society and families.
John Haskins is a political analyst for the Parents' Rights Coalition of Massachusetts.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Radio Interviews with John Haskins on Romney's Violation of Mass. Constitution
Do the people have a right to know who is selling off their state and federal constitutions -- and their right of self-government? The process of outing the "social conservatives," "pro-family" leaders, pundits, lawyers and law professors who are busy covering up Mitt Romney's dirty deed continues apace! Outed in Haskins' interview are: Mass. Family Institute, Mass. Citizens for Life, and Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ (American Center for Law & Justice).
Sandy Rios (Culture Campaign), Gregg Jackson (Pundit Review), and WorldNetDaily are some of the rare media personalities and outlets with the courage to speak the truth on Romney.
Don't miss this interview from the Sandy Rios show out of Chicago:
Download MP3 Tue 11/06/2007 Hour #2: John Haskins of the Parents' Rights Coalition re: Paul Weyrich endorsement of Mitt Romney, GOP presidential candidate.
And from Pundit Review Radio, with Gregg Jackson (on Boston's WRKO AM680):
Posted by Gregg on Dec 4, 2007 @ 09:00
John Haskins of the Parents Rights Coalition
I had the pleasure of speaking with pro-family activist and political analyst for the Parents’ Rights Coalition Mr. John Haskins regarding how Mitt Romney shredded the Massachusetts’ Constitution by illegally imposing same sex marriage on the citizens of the Commonwealth and how he signed a healtcare bill that included tax payer subsidized abortion after his supposed “pro-life epiphany.” ...
Sandy Rios (Culture Campaign), Gregg Jackson (Pundit Review), and WorldNetDaily are some of the rare media personalities and outlets with the courage to speak the truth on Romney.
Don't miss this interview from the Sandy Rios show out of Chicago:
Download MP3 Tue 11/06/2007 Hour #2: John Haskins of the Parents' Rights Coalition re: Paul Weyrich endorsement of Mitt Romney, GOP presidential candidate.
And from Pundit Review Radio, with Gregg Jackson (on Boston's WRKO AM680):
Posted by Gregg on Dec 4, 2007 @ 09:00
John Haskins of the Parents Rights Coalition
I had the pleasure of speaking with pro-family activist and political analyst for the Parents’ Rights Coalition Mr. John Haskins regarding how Mitt Romney shredded the Massachusetts’ Constitution by illegally imposing same sex marriage on the citizens of the Commonwealth and how he signed a healtcare bill that included tax payer subsidized abortion after his supposed “pro-life epiphany.” ...
Romney Leads In Staw Poll Corruption
Watch these videos from a recent straw poll in Florida, and make your own judgment. Not a Ron Paul supporter here, but these videos are revealing.
ReasonTV, "How to buy a straw poll:: http://reason.tv/roughcut/show/180.html
See also: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZzFnrLvszFw
Ron Paul supporters' video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8wjJieSib0
We know from Mitt Romney's record in Massachusetts that he doesn't follow the rules ... like the supreme rule book, the Constitution.
ReasonTV, "How to buy a straw poll:: http://reason.tv/roughcut/show/180.html
See also: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZzFnrLvszFw
Ron Paul supporters' video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8wjJieSib0
We know from Mitt Romney's record in Massachusetts that he doesn't follow the rules ... like the supreme rule book, the Constitution.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Hugh Hewitt Told Romney to Defy Mass. Marriage Ruling in 2003, Now Fully Backs Romney
[photo: BizzyBlog.com]So ... in November 2003, Hugh Hewitt, pseudo-conservative talk show host and columnist, told then Governor Mitt Romney to defy the unconstitutional Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court homosexual "marriage" ruling.
Could this be the same Hewitt who has written a fawning biography of Romney (which for some reason is not on his list of books on his TownHall site)? The same Hewitt who constantly sings his praises? The same Hewitt who has demeaned the MassResistance "Romney Deception" report? What could po$$ibly have changed hi$ mind on $omething a$ ba$ic a$ whether a pre$idential candidate re$pect$ and uphold$ the Constitution he $wore to uphold? Maybe Hewitt doesn't think constitutions matter any more?
It's always fun going through old files. Here's what we found, written just two days after the Goodridge ruling from the Massachusetts Court. (Excerpts; emphasis added:)
Just Say "No": Calling Governor Romney and the elected representatives of Massachusetts
by Hugh Hewitt
The Weekly Standard
11/20/2003
"JOHN MARSHALL has made his decision," Andrew Jackson is said to have remarked in the aftermath of a Supreme Court decision he disliked, "now let him enforce it."
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney would be well advised to ponder that line long and hard over the Thanksgiving holidays.
It is an interesting time for the Massachusetts Supreme Court to have seized control of the elected branches in its state, given the connection between Thanksgiving and the Bay State....Now, in the aftermath of Tuesday's radical diktat from four justices to Massachusetts' elected representatives, Americans are interested in the state's future as well.
Romney should seriously consider indifference. The governor noted that the ruling declaring same-sex marriage a mandate of the Massachusetts constitution is contrary to the sweep of recorded history, but it is more than that. The ruling is also absurd in its reasoning and breathtaking in its arrogance....
The decision is illegitimate, and the appropriate response will be to ignore it.... Editorial writers will shout. Senator Kennedy may even brand Romney a Neanderthal, as he did Justices Brown, Owen, and Judge Kuhl earlier this month.
But the storm will pass and the people of Massachusetts will applaud. They didn't sign up for a banana republic run by pretenders in robes, and no one in the state's illustrious history ever sacrificed life or limb--from Boston Harbor to Concord, Antietam or the battlefields of Europe and Asia--for the proposition that four judges get to change everything when they decide to conjure up a reason for doing so.
Romney and the legislature ought to stand back and say no. In fact, if the court threatens with penalties, they ought to threaten back. An outrageous overreach is only as strong as the passivity with which it is greeted.
This isn't primarily about gay marriage, and it isn't primarily about Massachusetts. It is primarily about self-government and limiting courts to their constitutional duties. And Massachusetts, again, has a central role to play.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Is Romney Working with Log Cabin Republicans to Remove Stories from Web?
What's happened to the 2002 Bay Windows story on Mitt Romney and his "gay" Log Cabin Republican supporters? (Bay Windows is the Boston GLBT newspaper.) It used to be readily available on the web. (And Bay Windows used to have a neat section called "The Romney Files" -- which they've also removed, along with their archives search page! Hmm...) Now, a search for "Gay GOP touts Romney as good for the community" pulls up a blank page... But we've saved it! And we're reprinting it here for all you Republican primary voters.
Bay Windows
Gay GOP touts Romney as good for the community
By Laura Kiritsy, 3/28/2002
Mitt Romney rode his wild success organizing this year's Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, all the way back to Massachusetts and right onto center stage as the Republican candidate for governor. But the Olympic gold dust has begun to settle -- Democrats have already taken aim at his inconsistent stance on abortion and criticized his positions on a host of other issues, from fixing the state's budget crisis to managing the Big Dig. And now that gay-friendly Governor Jane Swift has bowed out of the running, gay voters may also be wondering: Is Mitt good for gays?
Good enough, said several gay Republicans who spoke with Bay Windows, including Abner Mason, Swift's deputy chief of staff. "I am absolutely confident that as governor he would continue the commitment to gay equality that was started with [former Republican Governor William] Weld and continued with [former Republican Governor Paul] Cellucci and Swift," said Mason. "He will equal, if not better, the record of Weld, Cellucci and Swift." Mason recently met with Romney in his capacity as Swift's chief policy adviser, and said they discussed ``a wide range of policy issues including gay rights." He declined to disclose the details of that conversation.
Lt. Governor candidate Patrick Guerriero, Swift's gay former running mate, agreed that Romney would be appealing to gay voters. Guerriero noted that Romney did receive support from gay Republicans in his failed 1994 bid for U.S. Senate and currently has gay Republican Jon Spampinato, who actively worked to recruit Romney in the governor's race, on his campaign staff. "The reality is there's a difference between 1994 and now," Guerriero told Bay Windows. "The issues are much more talked about. All the candidates will be called upon to clearly state their positions on gay issues" and the next few months will be a defining period, said Guerriero. "I think you'll see that his policies and stands are going to be rooted in the party of Abraham Lincoln."
Romney got his first chance to prove himself when, just days after announcing his candidacy in the driveway of his Belmont home, it was revealed that his wife, son and daughter-in-law had signed a petition to put the anti-gay "Protection of Marriage" constitutional amendment on the statewide ballot in 2004. Romney campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom told Bay Windows that the family members signed the amendment petition -- which would not only ban gay marriage, but all legal protections for same-sex couples in Massachusetts -- without realizing how restrictive the amendment actually is. "They read the bold print," said Fehrnstrom. "They did not read the fine print."
Romney was unaware his family members had signed the amendment petition, said Fehrnstrom, and he does not support the "Protection of Marriage" amendment. "He is opposed to gay marriage, but in the case of the 'defense of marriage' amendment Mitt believes it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept." Asked whether Romney supported the domestic-partnership legislation -- which would provide health insurance benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees and give municipalities the choice to do the same -- currently pending before the state legislature's House Ways and Means Committee, Fehrnstrom said he was unsure. In the week since announcing his candidacy, he added, Romney has been involved in "an intense series of issues briefings" intended to bring him up to speed on issues currently facing Massachusetts citizens.
"I think it's very good that Mitt Romney came out and said he opposes the ballot initiative because it goes too far and is extreme," said Gary Daffin, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, a non-partisan organization. But he also adds, "I think we have some more work to do with Mitt Romney" on gay issues.
While Romney's stance against gay marriage -- which is consistent with his position during his '94 senate campaign -- is typical of many political candidates of both major parties, Daffin may have a point. Romney has had to fend off accusations from his fellow members of the Mormon Church that he called gays "perverse" in 1993, and has repeatedly denied the charge. In 1994 he expressed support for "don't ask, don't tell," the U.S. military's ban on openly gay soldiers.
He did, however, pledge to support the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban job discrimination based on sexual orientation, and other civil rights protections for gays in the areas of housing and credit. He also promised to bring the initiatives begun in Massachusetts to protect gay and lesbian youth to the federal level.
But what struck the gay GOP during that campaign, according to Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans (LCR), was Romney's accessibility to and comfort within the local gay community. Romney and his Republican primary opponent, John Lakian, attended an LCR-sponsored candidate's forum during the campaign, where they both competitively vied for the organization's endorsement -- which Romney eventually won. During the course of his campaign, LCR member and former president Mark Goshko told Bay Windows, Romney held several meetings with group members and at least two LCR members joined his staff. Though gay Republicans were by no means running Romney's campaign, "it was really a multi-level involvement," Goshko stated. "Our people were very involved officially and outside of [the campaign]." Given that past level of involvement, said Goshko, "I have no reason to think that things won't develop similarly this time." Goshko and LCR's current president Chris Ferguson, said they have spoken with Romney campaign advisers and are hoping to schedule a sit-down meeting in the coming weeks.
Romney has also come under suspicion for his Mormon beliefs, given the church's leadership on anti-gay efforts in the U.S., and its generally conservative reputation. His opponents have attempted to use his religion to paint him as conservative on social issues, a characterization both Fehrnstrom and Ferguson said is unfair. "There's a rush to characterize Mitt Romney as a right-wing social conservative. I don't think that's entirely fair," said Ferguson. "There may be a lot of reasons at the end of the day not to support him or not to like him, but he should have the opportunity to define for himself what his positions are and not to have people mischaracterize him," he said.
Bay Windows
Gay GOP touts Romney as good for the community
By Laura Kiritsy, 3/28/2002
Mitt Romney rode his wild success organizing this year's Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, all the way back to Massachusetts and right onto center stage as the Republican candidate for governor. But the Olympic gold dust has begun to settle -- Democrats have already taken aim at his inconsistent stance on abortion and criticized his positions on a host of other issues, from fixing the state's budget crisis to managing the Big Dig. And now that gay-friendly Governor Jane Swift has bowed out of the running, gay voters may also be wondering: Is Mitt good for gays?
Good enough, said several gay Republicans who spoke with Bay Windows, including Abner Mason, Swift's deputy chief of staff. "I am absolutely confident that as governor he would continue the commitment to gay equality that was started with [former Republican Governor William] Weld and continued with [former Republican Governor Paul] Cellucci and Swift," said Mason. "He will equal, if not better, the record of Weld, Cellucci and Swift." Mason recently met with Romney in his capacity as Swift's chief policy adviser, and said they discussed ``a wide range of policy issues including gay rights." He declined to disclose the details of that conversation.
Lt. Governor candidate Patrick Guerriero, Swift's gay former running mate, agreed that Romney would be appealing to gay voters. Guerriero noted that Romney did receive support from gay Republicans in his failed 1994 bid for U.S. Senate and currently has gay Republican Jon Spampinato, who actively worked to recruit Romney in the governor's race, on his campaign staff. "The reality is there's a difference between 1994 and now," Guerriero told Bay Windows. "The issues are much more talked about. All the candidates will be called upon to clearly state their positions on gay issues" and the next few months will be a defining period, said Guerriero. "I think you'll see that his policies and stands are going to be rooted in the party of Abraham Lincoln."
Romney got his first chance to prove himself when, just days after announcing his candidacy in the driveway of his Belmont home, it was revealed that his wife, son and daughter-in-law had signed a petition to put the anti-gay "Protection of Marriage" constitutional amendment on the statewide ballot in 2004. Romney campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom told Bay Windows that the family members signed the amendment petition -- which would not only ban gay marriage, but all legal protections for same-sex couples in Massachusetts -- without realizing how restrictive the amendment actually is. "They read the bold print," said Fehrnstrom. "They did not read the fine print."
Romney was unaware his family members had signed the amendment petition, said Fehrnstrom, and he does not support the "Protection of Marriage" amendment. "He is opposed to gay marriage, but in the case of the 'defense of marriage' amendment Mitt believes it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept." Asked whether Romney supported the domestic-partnership legislation -- which would provide health insurance benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees and give municipalities the choice to do the same -- currently pending before the state legislature's House Ways and Means Committee, Fehrnstrom said he was unsure. In the week since announcing his candidacy, he added, Romney has been involved in "an intense series of issues briefings" intended to bring him up to speed on issues currently facing Massachusetts citizens.
"I think it's very good that Mitt Romney came out and said he opposes the ballot initiative because it goes too far and is extreme," said Gary Daffin, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, a non-partisan organization. But he also adds, "I think we have some more work to do with Mitt Romney" on gay issues.
While Romney's stance against gay marriage -- which is consistent with his position during his '94 senate campaign -- is typical of many political candidates of both major parties, Daffin may have a point. Romney has had to fend off accusations from his fellow members of the Mormon Church that he called gays "perverse" in 1993, and has repeatedly denied the charge. In 1994 he expressed support for "don't ask, don't tell," the U.S. military's ban on openly gay soldiers.
He did, however, pledge to support the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban job discrimination based on sexual orientation, and other civil rights protections for gays in the areas of housing and credit. He also promised to bring the initiatives begun in Massachusetts to protect gay and lesbian youth to the federal level.
But what struck the gay GOP during that campaign, according to Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans (LCR), was Romney's accessibility to and comfort within the local gay community. Romney and his Republican primary opponent, John Lakian, attended an LCR-sponsored candidate's forum during the campaign, where they both competitively vied for the organization's endorsement -- which Romney eventually won. During the course of his campaign, LCR member and former president Mark Goshko told Bay Windows, Romney held several meetings with group members and at least two LCR members joined his staff. Though gay Republicans were by no means running Romney's campaign, "it was really a multi-level involvement," Goshko stated. "Our people were very involved officially and outside of [the campaign]." Given that past level of involvement, said Goshko, "I have no reason to think that things won't develop similarly this time." Goshko and LCR's current president Chris Ferguson, said they have spoken with Romney campaign advisers and are hoping to schedule a sit-down meeting in the coming weeks.
Romney has also come under suspicion for his Mormon beliefs, given the church's leadership on anti-gay efforts in the U.S., and its generally conservative reputation. His opponents have attempted to use his religion to paint him as conservative on social issues, a characterization both Fehrnstrom and Ferguson said is unfair. "There's a rush to characterize Mitt Romney as a right-wing social conservative. I don't think that's entirely fair," said Ferguson. "There may be a lot of reasons at the end of the day not to support him or not to like him, but he should have the opportunity to define for himself what his positions are and not to have people mischaracterize him," he said.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Happy Thanksgiving!
We don't want to mar a national holiday with commentary on the decline of American civilization. (And how depressing that Massachusetts, where the Pilgrims landed, should be the launching pad for some of the worst attacks!) So we decided this was a good week to take a break.Don't worry folks -- and that includes our good friends at Bay Windows (Hi Ethan!), QT (Have a blessed day, Mark -- our thoughts and prayers are with you!), and associated haters on the GLBTQQ left -- we're just on vacation. Back soon with our detailed analysis of the "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes" Bill H1722; a few new bombshells on our friend Mitt; and other good stuff!
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
New Web Site: Republicans for Family Values
From Peter LaBarbera's new web site, Republicans for Family Values:
John Haskins Discusses Gov. Mitt Romney’s ‘Unconstitutional’ Order to Award ‘Gay Marriage’ Licenses in Mass.
Listen HERE to John Haskins of the Parents Rights Coalition in Massachusetts explain how then-Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney made the unnecessary and, according to Haskins, illegal decision to pass out “same-sex marriage” licenses. Haskins says Romney’s “gay marriage” act violated the state constitution and, perhaps most shockingly, fulfilled a 2002 campaign promise he made to Massachusetts Log Cabin Republican activists not to lead the charge against homosexual “marriage” — as the New York Times reports HERE. (The New York Times story is a devastating revelation of Romney’s late conversion to crusader against “same-sex marriage”/”civil unions.”)
John Haskins Discusses Gov. Mitt Romney’s ‘Unconstitutional’ Order to Award ‘Gay Marriage’ Licenses in Mass.
Listen HERE to John Haskins of the Parents Rights Coalition in Massachusetts explain how then-Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney made the unnecessary and, according to Haskins, illegal decision to pass out “same-sex marriage” licenses. Haskins says Romney’s “gay marriage” act violated the state constitution and, perhaps most shockingly, fulfilled a 2002 campaign promise he made to Massachusetts Log Cabin Republican activists not to lead the charge against homosexual “marriage” — as the New York Times reports HERE. (The New York Times story is a devastating revelation of Romney’s late conversion to crusader against “same-sex marriage”/”civil unions.”)
To listen to Chicago talk show host and FOX News contributor Sandy Rios’ interview with Haskins, click HERE. Parents Rights Coalition is affiliated with MassResistance.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
"Romney for President" Ads on Gay.com
Need we say more? Romney has proven he is without principle.
"Romney for President" Ads Appear on Gay.com
by Bryan Ochalla
Gaywired.com
Thursday Nov 8, 2007
Being the presidential hopeful with the heaviest Web advertising presence can be a difficult position to be in-sometimes it means your campaign ads will show up in unexpected places. Republican candidate Mitt Romney is finding that out the hard way, according to a recent article in the New York Times.
Apparently, banner ads saying "Mitt Romney for President-Vote Team Mitt!" appeared on Gay.com for two days this past August-appearing at least 32,000 times. Romney’s aides claimed to not know about the ads when contacted by the newspaper, which received its information from the Nielsen Online AdRelevance monitoring service. The same report indicated thousands of "Romney for President" ads also have appeared on FanFiction.net, a site used by those who like to write stories about their favorite fictional characters (some of which involve X-rated situations between the likes of Harry Potter and Hermione Granger).
Romney’s aides told the New York Times campaign ads are not supposed to appear dating or "alternative lifestyle" sites, nor should they be appear on sites with pornographic images, gambling or left-leaning political content.
Copyright Gaywired.com.
"Romney for President" Ads Appear on Gay.com
by Bryan Ochalla
Gaywired.com
Thursday Nov 8, 2007
Being the presidential hopeful with the heaviest Web advertising presence can be a difficult position to be in-sometimes it means your campaign ads will show up in unexpected places. Republican candidate Mitt Romney is finding that out the hard way, according to a recent article in the New York Times.
Apparently, banner ads saying "Mitt Romney for President-Vote Team Mitt!" appeared on Gay.com for two days this past August-appearing at least 32,000 times. Romney’s aides claimed to not know about the ads when contacted by the newspaper, which received its information from the Nielsen Online AdRelevance monitoring service. The same report indicated thousands of "Romney for President" ads also have appeared on FanFiction.net, a site used by those who like to write stories about their favorite fictional characters (some of which involve X-rated situations between the likes of Harry Potter and Hermione Granger).
Romney’s aides told the New York Times campaign ads are not supposed to appear dating or "alternative lifestyle" sites, nor should they be appear on sites with pornographic images, gambling or left-leaning political content.
Copyright Gaywired.com.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Romney & Kennedy Can't Get Names Straight
We knew that Romney shared a lot of views with Sen. Ted Kennedy. Now we know he shares the problem of name confusion as well. This is a common problem in the over-50 crowd ... but Presidential candidates really should take extra care not to confuse a Democrat candidate for President with the Islamofascist terrorist leader. In today's Boston Globe:
Romney mixes up Osama, Obama during S.C. speech
In an apparent slip of the tongue on the campaign trail yesterday, Mitt Romney mixed up the names of Al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
The former Massachusetts governor was criticizing Democrats on foreign policy when he said, according to the Associated Press, "Actually, just look at what Osam - Barack Obama - said just yesterday. Barack Obama, calling on radicals, jihadists of all different types, to come together in Iraq....
Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts said something similar while answering questions at the National Press Club in January 2005, just after Obama took office. He was asked why Obama's campaign was so much more successful than Senator John F. Kerry's presidential bid.
"Why don't we just ask Osama bin - Osama Obama - Obama what - since he won by such a big amount," Kennedy said. "Seriously, Senator Obama is really unique and special."
Romney mixes up Osama, Obama during S.C. speech
In an apparent slip of the tongue on the campaign trail yesterday, Mitt Romney mixed up the names of Al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
The former Massachusetts governor was criticizing Democrats on foreign policy when he said, according to the Associated Press, "Actually, just look at what Osam - Barack Obama - said just yesterday. Barack Obama, calling on radicals, jihadists of all different types, to come together in Iraq....
Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts said something similar while answering questions at the National Press Club in January 2005, just after Obama took office. He was asked why Obama's campaign was so much more successful than Senator John F. Kerry's presidential bid.
"Why don't we just ask Osama bin - Osama Obama - Obama what - since he won by such a big amount," Kennedy said. "Seriously, Senator Obama is really unique and special."
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Romney Again Manipulates Straw Poll
10/21/07 UPDATE on Values Voter/Family Research Council
Here are the real numbers from the FRC Briefing/Values Voter straw poll, for those in attendance:
Huckabee 488
Romney 99
Thompson 77
Giuliani 60
See: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=601
+++++++++++++++++++
10-20-07
Mitt Romney is proving that money can't buy him love, only some fraudulent straw polls. He continues to slump in the more honest outside polls.
For the third time now (the first occasion being the CPAC conference in D.C. last March; the second with his fleet of buses in Iowa), it appears Romney sleazed a victory in a straw poll -- this time at this weekend's Values Voter Summit, a gathering of Christian social conservatives. ("Opponents say Romney is stacking straw poll," Boston Globe, 10-20-07)
The Politico just reported that Romney won today's poll over Huckabee by a handful of votes, but goes on to say:
Here’s something important to remember about the poll: The results reflect not just the 2,000-plus attendees at the three-day conference, but also anyone who went online and contributed as little as $1 to join FRC Action, the legislative action arm of the Family Research Council. . . .
Doesn't this tell us all we need to know about Slick Mitt? A Romney campaign official (Mark DeMoss) told his Romney supporter list to do the $1 thing.
Interesting that the homosexual extremist Log Cabin Republicans were at the Values Voter Summit, handing out proof that Romney once openly supported their demands and was pro-abortion. But we can't figure out why the Log Cabinites are so upset with him. After all, Romney was the reason "homosexual marriage" began in Massachusetts. If he hadn't illegally changed the licenses and ordered state officials to implement the "marriages", nothing would have happened. What is this Log Cabin charade all about?
We're also seeing lots of stories on evangelical Christians distrusting him, despite the various big-name conservative leaders endorsing him . . . but then they're widely suspected of selling out for present money and possible future power for their groups. How sad to read today's news of Dr. John Willke's blind allegiance to this dishonest candidate:
Romney’s campaign distributed a news release announcing he had been endorsed by Dr. John Willke, founder and former president of the National Right to Life Committee. Willke said on the release: “I know he will be the strong pro-life president we need in the White House.” [The Politico]
One of our favorite columnists, Pastor Chuck Baldwin, just wrote on Romney's crazy new alliance with Bob Jones III, and his duplicity on the homosexual marriage issue. We're happy to see Baldwin citing the research from our Romney Report, by Atty. Robert Paine and John Haskins.)
Here are the real numbers from the FRC Briefing/Values Voter straw poll, for those in attendance:
Huckabee 488
Romney 99
Thompson 77
Giuliani 60
See: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=601
+++++++++++++++++++
10-20-07
Mitt Romney is proving that money can't buy him love, only some fraudulent straw polls. He continues to slump in the more honest outside polls.
For the third time now (the first occasion being the CPAC conference in D.C. last March; the second with his fleet of buses in Iowa), it appears Romney sleazed a victory in a straw poll -- this time at this weekend's Values Voter Summit, a gathering of Christian social conservatives. ("Opponents say Romney is stacking straw poll," Boston Globe, 10-20-07)
The Politico just reported that Romney won today's poll over Huckabee by a handful of votes, but goes on to say:
Here’s something important to remember about the poll: The results reflect not just the 2,000-plus attendees at the three-day conference, but also anyone who went online and contributed as little as $1 to join FRC Action, the legislative action arm of the Family Research Council. . . .
Doesn't this tell us all we need to know about Slick Mitt? A Romney campaign official (Mark DeMoss) told his Romney supporter list to do the $1 thing.
Interesting that the homosexual extremist Log Cabin Republicans were at the Values Voter Summit, handing out proof that Romney once openly supported their demands and was pro-abortion. But we can't figure out why the Log Cabinites are so upset with him. After all, Romney was the reason "homosexual marriage" began in Massachusetts. If he hadn't illegally changed the licenses and ordered state officials to implement the "marriages", nothing would have happened. What is this Log Cabin charade all about?
We're also seeing lots of stories on evangelical Christians distrusting him, despite the various big-name conservative leaders endorsing him . . . but then they're widely suspected of selling out for present money and possible future power for their groups. How sad to read today's news of Dr. John Willke's blind allegiance to this dishonest candidate:
Romney’s campaign distributed a news release announcing he had been endorsed by Dr. John Willke, founder and former president of the National Right to Life Committee. Willke said on the release: “I know he will be the strong pro-life president we need in the White House.” [The Politico]
One of our favorite columnists, Pastor Chuck Baldwin, just wrote on Romney's crazy new alliance with Bob Jones III, and his duplicity on the homosexual marriage issue. We're happy to see Baldwin citing the research from our Romney Report, by Atty. Robert Paine and John Haskins.)
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Why Romney Is Losing
Good piece in the New York Observer:
Romney Can’t Believe He’s Losing to These Guys by Jennifer Rubin (10-16-07).
... his chance to win the nomination is slipping away. His national poll numbers barely hit double digits, his New Hampshire lead is vanishing, and he’s spending millions of dollars just to keep afloat.... Mr. Romney has the highest unfavorable rating of any candidate. He doesn’t seem to like his audience much, and they don’t like him....
Read more on why...
Romney Can’t Believe He’s Losing to These Guys by Jennifer Rubin (10-16-07).
... his chance to win the nomination is slipping away. His national poll numbers barely hit double digits, his New Hampshire lead is vanishing, and he’s spending millions of dollars just to keep afloat.... Mr. Romney has the highest unfavorable rating of any candidate. He doesn’t seem to like his audience much, and they don’t like him....
Read more on why...
Saturday, September 22, 2007
News Media Still Catching Up on Romney's Outrages
WorldNetDaily has just posted Romney's pro-homosexual 2002 campaign flyer, first made public by Bay Windows, then included in our November 2006 report, "The Mitt Romney Deception." It's not as if it's news, but the more exposure, the better! Clearly, the drip-drip-drip of Romney's unconservative record is having an effect, as Romney continues to fall in the polls.
WorldNetDaily
2002 Romney flier promotes 'gay' rights; Candidate reportedly handed out leaflet at Boston 'Pride' parade (9-21-07)
A website paid for and authorized by the Massachusetts Democratic Party has posted a picture of a flier reportedly passed out at a 2002 'gay pride' event by then-gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney expressing support for homosexual rights.
The flier, on red paper, claims to have been paid for by "the Romney for Governor Committee and the Kerry Murphy Healey Committee" and reads, "Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride Weekend. All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of sexual preference." ...
As WND reported, Romney's claims he did everything possible "within the law" to throttle homosexual marriage after the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued an opinion saying denial of marriage to same-sex couples violated the state constitution have been refuted by several constitutional experts who say that just isn't so.
See some of WND's earlier stories (using research by MassResistance, John Haskins, and Attorney "Robert Paine") on Romney's role in promoting "homosexual rights" and unconstitutionally implementing homosexual "marriages":
Romney's 'constitutional bungling' criticized; Leaders say he ordered 'homosexual marriage' even though court never asked him to (7-12-07) -- Discusses National Review's biased coverage of Romney, and avoidance of this important Constitutional issue.
Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage; 'What he did was exercise illegal legislative authority' (7-14-07) -- Includes quotes from law professors Herb Titus and Scott FitzGibbon, and analyses by Chris Stovall, senior general counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund; attorney Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum; and Hadley Arkes, a professor of jurisprudence at Amherst, who wrote about the situation in National Review shortly after the implementation of the law.
" 'Conservative' Romney buckles and blunders" (12-24-05) by John Haskins -- Yes, way back in 2005 we were trying to inform the country!
WorldNetDaily
2002 Romney flier promotes 'gay' rights; Candidate reportedly handed out leaflet at Boston 'Pride' parade (9-21-07)
A website paid for and authorized by the Massachusetts Democratic Party has posted a picture of a flier reportedly passed out at a 2002 'gay pride' event by then-gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney expressing support for homosexual rights.
The flier, on red paper, claims to have been paid for by "the Romney for Governor Committee and the Kerry Murphy Healey Committee" and reads, "Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride Weekend. All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of sexual preference." ...
As WND reported, Romney's claims he did everything possible "within the law" to throttle homosexual marriage after the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued an opinion saying denial of marriage to same-sex couples violated the state constitution have been refuted by several constitutional experts who say that just isn't so.
See some of WND's earlier stories (using research by MassResistance, John Haskins, and Attorney "Robert Paine") on Romney's role in promoting "homosexual rights" and unconstitutionally implementing homosexual "marriages":
Romney's 'constitutional bungling' criticized; Leaders say he ordered 'homosexual marriage' even though court never asked him to (7-12-07) -- Discusses National Review's biased coverage of Romney, and avoidance of this important Constitutional issue.
Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage; 'What he did was exercise illegal legislative authority' (7-14-07) -- Includes quotes from law professors Herb Titus and Scott FitzGibbon, and analyses by Chris Stovall, senior general counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund; attorney Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum; and Hadley Arkes, a professor of jurisprudence at Amherst, who wrote about the situation in National Review shortly after the implementation of the law.
" 'Conservative' Romney buckles and blunders" (12-24-05) by John Haskins -- Yes, way back in 2005 we were trying to inform the country!
Monday, September 10, 2007
Mitt Romney & Senator Craig: What's the Problem?
More thoughts on Mitt Romney's de facto promotion of homosexuality . . .We don't understand why Romney asked Senator Craig to step down as the head of his Senatorial campaign committee. Romney has said over and over that we must respect all people, no matter what choices they make in their lives. In June 2005, he called for a “high degree of respect and tolerance for people whose lifestyle and choices and orientation is as they may choose.”
In his Boise news conference, Senator Craig said: "I did nothing wrong at the Minneapolis airport." We ask Mitt Romney: Was Craig's typical homosexual behavior at that bathroom OK, or wrong? If you asked him to step down from your campaign, you must think it's wrong.
But the homosexual "lifestyle" very commonly includes anonymous sexual encounters in public bathrooms. So, what's the problem with Sen. Craig's behavior, Mitt? We thought you advised us to respect all lifestyles and choices? Why aren't you respecting Senator Craig's lifestyle and choices? Craig was accused as far back as 1982 of such behavior, in the Congressional page sex & drugs scandal. See YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RntWGPEjoo Were you unaware of this, Mitt?
More questions for candidate Romney: Is homosexuality wrong? Is it morally wrong? Are there public health and decency considerations accompanying the homosexual "lifestyle" choice? Is there a middle ground on this issue?
Who's guilty of hypocrisy here: Senator Craig, or Mitt Romney?
Sunday, September 09, 2007
NY Times: Romney Kept Promise to Gays to Allow "Gay Marriage"
The New York Times is finally looking into Romney's "gay rights" record in Massachusetts. See "Romney’s tone on gay rights is seen as shift" (New York Times, 9-8-07). Romney doesn't want this to come out:
[I]n the aftermath of the Massachusetts court decision, Mr. Romney, though aligning himself with the supporters of a constitutional amendment [banning homosexual "marriage" but establishing civil unions], did order town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some members of Log Cabin Republicans say that in doing so, he ultimately fulfilled his promise to them despite his own moral objections.
In the year prior to the Court's marriage ruling, Romney promised homosexual activists he'd "keep his head low" and do whatever the Court ordered. From the Times:
Calling Mr. Romney a flip-flopper on gay rights would be overly simplistic, Mr. Spampinato [a homosexual activist and former aide) said. But he conceded that his old boss had promised the Log Cabin members that he would not champion a fight against same-sex marriage. ...
Mitt Romney seemed comfortable as a group of gay Republicans quizzed him over breakfast one morning in 2002. Running for governor of Massachusetts, he was at a gay bar in Boston to court members of Log Cabin Republicans. Mr. Romney explained to the group that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector, where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon. When the discussion turned to a court case on same-sex marriage that was then wending its way through the state’s judicial system, he said he believed that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman.
But, according to several people present, he promised to obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue. “I’ll keep my head low,” he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer, one participant recalled.
Romney has never been an advocate for real marriage, but in fact a facilitator for the establishment of homosexual "marriage", or its twin, "civil unions." But the Times reports,"Mr. Romney bristles when he is accused of shifting on the issue, as he has on abortion, pointing out that he has been consistent in personally opposing both marriage and civil unions between people of the same sex." No -- Romney has NOT always opposed civil unions. Our Romney Report documents that he immediately went to work with legislative leaders after the Mass. court ruling (Fall 2003) to craft a civil-unions style law (Washington Post report, 11-20-03). Then in 2004 he strong-armed conservative Republican legislators into supporting a constitutional amendment that included civil unions, while banning homosexual "marriage." From the Boston Globe(3/30/2004):
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. In the end, the 15 agreed that approving a measure that they viewed as highly undesirable was preferable to the possibility that nothing would be sent to the state ballot for voters to weigh in on.
Also, Romney refused to support the original proposed Massachusetts marriage amendment in 2002, absolutely defining marriage as one man and one woman, apparently now wanting to ban domestic partnerships and civil unions. Bay Windows reported at the time (3-28-02):
"Romney was unaware his family members had signed the amendment petition, said [spokesman] Fehrnstrom, and he does not support the "Protection of Marriage" amendment. "He is opposed to gay marriage, but in the case of the 'defense of marriage' amendment Mitt believes it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept."
[I]n the aftermath of the Massachusetts court decision, Mr. Romney, though aligning himself with the supporters of a constitutional amendment [banning homosexual "marriage" but establishing civil unions], did order town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some members of Log Cabin Republicans say that in doing so, he ultimately fulfilled his promise to them despite his own moral objections.
In the year prior to the Court's marriage ruling, Romney promised homosexual activists he'd "keep his head low" and do whatever the Court ordered. From the Times:
Calling Mr. Romney a flip-flopper on gay rights would be overly simplistic, Mr. Spampinato [a homosexual activist and former aide) said. But he conceded that his old boss had promised the Log Cabin members that he would not champion a fight against same-sex marriage. ...
Mitt Romney seemed comfortable as a group of gay Republicans quizzed him over breakfast one morning in 2002. Running for governor of Massachusetts, he was at a gay bar in Boston to court members of Log Cabin Republicans. Mr. Romney explained to the group that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector, where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon. When the discussion turned to a court case on same-sex marriage that was then wending its way through the state’s judicial system, he said he believed that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman.
But, according to several people present, he promised to obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue. “I’ll keep my head low,” he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer, one participant recalled.
Romney has never been an advocate for real marriage, but in fact a facilitator for the establishment of homosexual "marriage", or its twin, "civil unions." But the Times reports,"Mr. Romney bristles when he is accused of shifting on the issue, as he has on abortion, pointing out that he has been consistent in personally opposing both marriage and civil unions between people of the same sex." No -- Romney has NOT always opposed civil unions. Our Romney Report documents that he immediately went to work with legislative leaders after the Mass. court ruling (Fall 2003) to craft a civil-unions style law (Washington Post report, 11-20-03). Then in 2004 he strong-armed conservative Republican legislators into supporting a constitutional amendment that included civil unions, while banning homosexual "marriage." From the Boston Globe(3/30/2004):
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. In the end, the 15 agreed that approving a measure that they viewed as highly undesirable was preferable to the possibility that nothing would be sent to the state ballot for voters to weigh in on.
Also, Romney refused to support the original proposed Massachusetts marriage amendment in 2002, absolutely defining marriage as one man and one woman, apparently now wanting to ban domestic partnerships and civil unions. Bay Windows reported at the time (3-28-02):
"Romney was unaware his family members had signed the amendment petition, said [spokesman] Fehrnstrom, and he does not support the "Protection of Marriage" amendment. "He is opposed to gay marriage, but in the case of the 'defense of marriage' amendment Mitt believes it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept."
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Romney to Be Cornered in Next GOP Debate?
The next GOP presidential debate on September 17 will be most interesting. Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WorldNetDaily, will be the moderator. Farah was highly critical of candidate Mitt Romney in his recent column, "The Many Faces of Mitt Romney." WorldNetDaily has frequently reported MassResistance's revelations on Romney's flawed record in Massachusetts.
The debate will focus on VALUES . . . Romney's universally acknowledged weakness. Voters may submit questions through the ValuesVoter Debate web site.
Check out the ValuesVoters' Contract with Congress, and the list of national leaders behind this effort. Many of these leaders have a full understanding of Romney's violation of the Massachusetts constitution in implementing sodomy "marriage," as well as his problematic record in other areas. So we at MassResistance have high expectations from the panelists!
Those behind ValuesVoters who have written critically of Romney include: Janet Folger ("Straw Poll and Brick Values"), Don Feder ("Mitt Happens"), Dr. Alan Keyes ("Keyes cites Romney as sole author of Massachusetts gay marriage policy: Nov. 5 'God and Country' speech"), and (back in 2003) Phyllis Schlafly ("It's Time To Rebuke The Judicial Oligarchy").
From WorldNetDaily, on the upcoming September 17 debate:
... Regarding the selection of WND's Farah, debate organizer Janet Folger said, "As long as I can remember I've been hearing complaints about the liberal media. I've heard about their power and undue influence. For too long the pundits have made their proclamations and people have fallen into lock step. But, not anymore."
Looking forward to the event, Farah said, "So often in presidential debates, questions are asked and answers don't address the questions. When that happens, I'm going to try to persuade the candidates to focus more precisely on what was asked."
Questions will also come from 40 of America's leaders including: Paul Weyrich, founder and president of the Free Congress Foundation; Phyllis Schlafly, founder and president of Eagle Forum; Don Wildmon, founder and chairman of the American Family Association; Judge Roy Moore, a WND columnist with the Foundation for Moral Law; Rick Scarborough of Vision America; and Mat Staver of Liberty Council....
The debate will focus on VALUES . . . Romney's universally acknowledged weakness. Voters may submit questions through the ValuesVoter Debate web site.
Check out the ValuesVoters' Contract with Congress, and the list of national leaders behind this effort. Many of these leaders have a full understanding of Romney's violation of the Massachusetts constitution in implementing sodomy "marriage," as well as his problematic record in other areas. So we at MassResistance have high expectations from the panelists!
Those behind ValuesVoters who have written critically of Romney include: Janet Folger ("Straw Poll and Brick Values"), Don Feder ("Mitt Happens"), Dr. Alan Keyes ("Keyes cites Romney as sole author of Massachusetts gay marriage policy: Nov. 5 'God and Country' speech"), and (back in 2003) Phyllis Schlafly ("It's Time To Rebuke The Judicial Oligarchy").
From WorldNetDaily, on the upcoming September 17 debate:
... Regarding the selection of WND's Farah, debate organizer Janet Folger said, "As long as I can remember I've been hearing complaints about the liberal media. I've heard about their power and undue influence. For too long the pundits have made their proclamations and people have fallen into lock step. But, not anymore."
Looking forward to the event, Farah said, "So often in presidential debates, questions are asked and answers don't address the questions. When that happens, I'm going to try to persuade the candidates to focus more precisely on what was asked."
Questions will also come from 40 of America's leaders including: Paul Weyrich, founder and president of the Free Congress Foundation; Phyllis Schlafly, founder and president of Eagle Forum; Don Wildmon, founder and chairman of the American Family Association; Judge Roy Moore, a WND columnist with the Foundation for Moral Law; Rick Scarborough of Vision America; and Mat Staver of Liberty Council....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)