Are we surprised? Today, Governor Deval Patrick will announce his choice to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Judicial Court: jurist Margot Botsford, who shares his "liberal positions on controversial social issues such as abortion, the death penalty, and gay marriage, as well as on civil liberties." Botsford's husband, S. Stephen Rosenfeld, served in Michael Dukakis administration and "has been a campaign contributor to Patrick." See "Jurist Botsford seen as SJC pick," Boston Globe (7-26-07). We are told that she has an "intellectual grasp of legal issues."
Botsford is cited for her ruling in a high-profile case on "a controversial runway at Logan International Airport." She has the "intellectual firepower to handle some of the state's most complex cases," says a past president of the American Bar Association. Problem is that abortion and runways are not equivalent. In fact, abortion is quite simple: It's the pre-meditated murder of an innocent human being. Can Botsford handle that?
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
Truth-Telling About the Culture of Death
From a first-trimester abortion [photo: Priests for Life]
Are graphic images legitimate in the abortion battle? Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life says YES: They are both legitimate and absolutely necessary.
Fr. Pavone underlined what we said last week, about the need for anti-abortion protesters to use the graphic images that show the reality of little babies being violently murdered. LifeSite News reported on his recent talk to young Canadian pro-lifers.
You can't pussyfoot with the culture of death. You can't allow that destructive force to choose the terms of the debate. How can killing a human baby be a "choice" or a "right"? (Similarly, how can we allow sexual perversion such as sodomy be called a proper basis for state-sanctioned "marriage", or homosexual "marriage" be called a "right"?) And you can't let that mindset infiltrate your forces, and hint that you should moderate your tone, oppose with gentleness and politeness.
You can't pussyfoot with the culture of death. You can't allow that destructive force to choose the terms of the debate. How can killing a human baby be a "choice" or a "right"? (Similarly, how can we allow sexual perversion such as sodomy be called a proper basis for state-sanctioned "marriage", or homosexual "marriage" be called a "right"?) And you can't let that mindset infiltrate your forces, and hint that you should moderate your tone, oppose with gentleness and politeness.
From LifeSite News, "Father Frank Pavone on the Power of Graphic Abortion Images" (7-20-07):
... Let me leave for you what I am convinced is the most powerful tool to change someone's mind about abortion. I told you that I had been involved in this since I was your age, been working on this fulltime across the world, worked with the Holy Father, and Mother Teresa and all these people, worked with the pro-life movement on every level. There is no single thing that I have seen more powerful to change people on abortion than simply showing them the pictures.
Show them what it looks like. I have challenged the media over and over again. Show the public what an abortion is because we can justify anything with our language. If you are a smooth talker, if you know how to manipulate language and logic - you can convince anyone of anything. But pictures, that is another story.When people see what abortion does to a baby, they are stung to the heart and their consciences are awakened. I am not just talking about showing pictures of the baby living in the womb. People understand, by and large, that this is a baby in the womb. Now, they will be very surprised at how much the baby looks like a baby, so early in pregnancy when they do see the pictures, the ultrasound or other ways that we have of viewing the child. Many people will be very surprised to see how well-developed that baby is. But, even if you show them the baby, that still doesn't tell them what abortion does to the baby.
That is a big difference. Some people think abortion just makes the baby kind of disappear. They still don't appreciate that it is an act of violence. It is only the pictures of the aborted children, torn apart, limb from limb that convince people that abortion is an act of violence. Now, at my website, we have one of the largest collections of these pictures - it is priestforlife.org. Right on the front we have a statement on our front page that says, "America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion." And that is true for every country. ...
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Pro-Life Activists Who Don't Hold Back the Truth
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that pro-life protesters were exercising their First Amendment rights in showing a graphic photo of an aborted baby. (It's encouraging to hear about a good ruling once in a while!) But the attorney for the defendants noted that, "Graphic photos are controversial even among pro-lifers," and urged "they be used prudently and sparingly – with warning signs wherever possible."
Huh? One reason we still have millions of abortions is that such truthful images are used TOO SPARINGLY! In a somewhat contradictory statement, the attorney goes on to admit that "... our society has to confront the brutal, bloody realities of this murderous atrocity, as mere abstract rhetoric too often fails to trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome contemporary America's bland indifference to this carnage."
That's what we often say about homosexuality and transsexuality: The reality of the sexual perversions needs to be discussed, or there will be a failure to "trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome" this harmful movement. But the establishment "conservative" groups definitely want to stay away from "the ick factor" -- this is equivalent to not showing photos of ripped up babies -- and they've essentially complied with the radical homosexual plan to enforce silence concerning homosexual practices and health risks.
The establishment "conservatives" have allowed the debate to move to abstract, positive emotional issues like "families" and "love" and "rights". For example, VoteOnMarriage never said homosexual "marriage" was wrong because it sanctioned sodomy and spread dangerous disease; just that every child needed a father and mother, and the people should be allowed to vote.
See the WorldNetDaily article, "Court allows display of 'bloody' aborted babies; Case addresses 'America's bland indifference to this carnage' " (7-19-07).
... The decision reversed the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad, who displayed the signs on an overpass in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka during the run-up to the 2004 national elections. One sign displayed a large color photograph of an aborted infant; the other branded a local congressional candidate as "pro-abortion." The two were jailed by police, their signs were taken away, and they were convicted of causing a "criminal nuisance." But the state's highest court unanimously reversed the convictions, determining that prosecutors simply failed to prove their case: that the signs created any danger to the public. ...
... But the court's conclusion in the case said the prosecution hadn't proven the signs were a criminal "nuisance" or that the city's sign ordinance even applied. Two other justices agreed with former NFL star-turned-judge Alan Page that the defendants' First Amendment rights were violated because the prosecution was "content-based," or targeting the pro-life message. "[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content," the concurrence said. ... In Page's concurring opinion, he noted that "it is clear on this record that the state's prosecution of appellants under that statute was content-based and therefore barred by the First Amendment."
Huh? One reason we still have millions of abortions is that such truthful images are used TOO SPARINGLY! In a somewhat contradictory statement, the attorney goes on to admit that "... our society has to confront the brutal, bloody realities of this murderous atrocity, as mere abstract rhetoric too often fails to trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome contemporary America's bland indifference to this carnage."
That's what we often say about homosexuality and transsexuality: The reality of the sexual perversions needs to be discussed, or there will be a failure to "trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome" this harmful movement. But the establishment "conservative" groups definitely want to stay away from "the ick factor" -- this is equivalent to not showing photos of ripped up babies -- and they've essentially complied with the radical homosexual plan to enforce silence concerning homosexual practices and health risks.
The establishment "conservatives" have allowed the debate to move to abstract, positive emotional issues like "families" and "love" and "rights". For example, VoteOnMarriage never said homosexual "marriage" was wrong because it sanctioned sodomy and spread dangerous disease; just that every child needed a father and mother, and the people should be allowed to vote.
See the WorldNetDaily article, "Court allows display of 'bloody' aborted babies; Case addresses 'America's bland indifference to this carnage' " (7-19-07).
... The decision reversed the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad, who displayed the signs on an overpass in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka during the run-up to the 2004 national elections. One sign displayed a large color photograph of an aborted infant; the other branded a local congressional candidate as "pro-abortion." The two were jailed by police, their signs were taken away, and they were convicted of causing a "criminal nuisance." But the state's highest court unanimously reversed the convictions, determining that prosecutors simply failed to prove their case: that the signs created any danger to the public. ...
... But the court's conclusion in the case said the prosecution hadn't proven the signs were a criminal "nuisance" or that the city's sign ordinance even applied. Two other justices agreed with former NFL star-turned-judge Alan Page that the defendants' First Amendment rights were violated because the prosecution was "content-based," or targeting the pro-life message. "[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content," the concurrence said. ... In Page's concurring opinion, he noted that "it is clear on this record that the state's prosecution of appellants under that statute was content-based and therefore barred by the First Amendment."
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.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Catholics Across America Outraged at Pseudo-Catholic Mass. Legislators
There's outrage nationally among faithful Catholics over recent votes by Massachusetts legislators. From the Concerned Roman Catholics of America:
MORE ON GRAVE SCANDAL WITHIN THE "KNIGHTS" OF COLUMBUS- FOUR MORE ADDED TO LIST OF JUDAS KNIGHTS IN MASS.
I have just heard from John O’Gorman, the Fighting Knight of Columbus from Massachusetts , that the 170,000 signature Initiative Petition to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman was thwarted by the Legislature, meeting in joint Constitutional Convention, on Thursday, June 14 2007. The sad part is it would have passed to go on the ballot in 2008 had it not been for the votes of at least sixteen men who call themselves Knights of Columbus who voted against the Church they are supposed to be Knights of, and for the sodomites they support! They are:
Massachusetts Speaker of the House Sal Dimasi, and House Majority Leader John Rogers.
State Reps: Garrett Bradley, Bob Deleo, Stephen Di Natale, Chris Donelan, Christopher Fallon, Kevin Honan, Charles Murphy, Angelo Puppolo and Bob Spellane, Bob Nyman, and Paul McMurtry.
State Senators: Tom McGee, Michael Knapik, and Michael Morrissey.
It only required 50 votes to bring this to the people of Massachusetts for a vote. The vote was 45 to do so. If the sixteen so called Knights had voted with the Church, and for the good of society, they would have had SIXTY ONE! God have mercy on their much compromised souls!
Seven of these Judases have PRO-CHOICE RATINGS FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MASS,, they are: The Speaker Dimasi, Bradley, Donelan, Honan , Murphy, Spellane, and McGee!
It seems that the Knights of Columbus, like the Bishops they follow, like to write nice things but run when they are asked to back up their writings with actions! In 2003, they actually passed a Resolution to in effect expel from the Order any Knight who supports abortion by forbidding these persons any honors or speaking platforms. WHAT A JOKE! Actually it is worse than a joke, because we have been told that whenever a Council tried to enforce the Resolution, that Council was quickly told not to do so by either their State or Supreme Offices!
Our Divine Savior had a great deal to say about such as these "Knights" when he said "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you are like to whited sepulchers, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within, are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness. So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."—Matt. XXIII. 25-28. Does anyone wonder what the Lord will say to these men when they stand before His Judgment seat?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher,
Founder & Chairman Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Anaheim, CA
June 16, 2007
MORE ON GRAVE SCANDAL WITHIN THE "KNIGHTS" OF COLUMBUS- FOUR MORE ADDED TO LIST OF JUDAS KNIGHTS IN MASS.
I have just heard from John O’Gorman, the Fighting Knight of Columbus from Massachusetts , that the 170,000 signature Initiative Petition to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman was thwarted by the Legislature, meeting in joint Constitutional Convention, on Thursday, June 14 2007. The sad part is it would have passed to go on the ballot in 2008 had it not been for the votes of at least sixteen men who call themselves Knights of Columbus who voted against the Church they are supposed to be Knights of, and for the sodomites they support! They are:
Massachusetts Speaker of the House Sal Dimasi, and House Majority Leader John Rogers.
State Reps: Garrett Bradley, Bob Deleo, Stephen Di Natale, Chris Donelan, Christopher Fallon, Kevin Honan, Charles Murphy, Angelo Puppolo and Bob Spellane, Bob Nyman, and Paul McMurtry.
State Senators: Tom McGee, Michael Knapik, and Michael Morrissey.
It only required 50 votes to bring this to the people of Massachusetts for a vote. The vote was 45 to do so. If the sixteen so called Knights had voted with the Church, and for the good of society, they would have had SIXTY ONE! God have mercy on their much compromised souls!
Seven of these Judases have PRO-CHOICE RATINGS FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MASS,, they are: The Speaker Dimasi, Bradley, Donelan, Honan , Murphy, Spellane, and McGee!
It seems that the Knights of Columbus, like the Bishops they follow, like to write nice things but run when they are asked to back up their writings with actions! In 2003, they actually passed a Resolution to in effect expel from the Order any Knight who supports abortion by forbidding these persons any honors or speaking platforms. WHAT A JOKE! Actually it is worse than a joke, because we have been told that whenever a Council tried to enforce the Resolution, that Council was quickly told not to do so by either their State or Supreme Offices!
Our Divine Savior had a great deal to say about such as these "Knights" when he said "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you are like to whited sepulchers, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within, are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness. So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."—Matt. XXIII. 25-28. Does anyone wonder what the Lord will say to these men when they stand before His Judgment seat?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher,
Founder & Chairman Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Anaheim, CA
June 16, 2007
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.
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 ...
Slick Willard Romney's "Conservative" Resume
By John Haskins
Here's Mitt Romney's "social conservative" resume that Jay Sekulow (ACLJ), David French (Evangelicals for Mitt), Hugh Hewitt (TownHall.com, Salem Radio), Jim Bopp (Romney pro-life advisor), et al. are boasting about. He accomplished more than our new communist governor --Deval "Baby Doc" Patrick (Janet Reno's accomplice in the Ruby Ridge massacre aftermath) --could have fantasized about accomplishing.
Romney's "Conservative" Resume
Here's Mitt Romney's "social conservative" resume that Jay Sekulow (ACLJ), David French (Evangelicals for Mitt), Hugh Hewitt (TownHall.com, Salem Radio), Jim Bopp (Romney pro-life advisor), et al. are boasting about. He accomplished more than our new communist governor --Deval "Baby Doc" Patrick (Janet Reno's accomplice in the Ruby Ridge massacre aftermath) --could have fantasized about accomplishing.
Romney's "Conservative" Resume
* Compulsory government-run central heath care system, with ... massive boost in funding for abortions, and ... a new and unconstitutional role for Planned Parenthood as a permanent and unelected voice in our government.
* Looking the other way as an extra-constitutional fourth branch of government called the "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" was set up with no accountability to the people.
* Refusal to enforce the parents' rights law when hardened criminal David Parker (really just a regular parent protecting his rights as a father) was taken in handcuffs to a jail cell. Parker's crime: daring to say to the sodomy brainwashers: "Not to my little boy, you don't!" (Come to think of it, not once did Slick Willard enforce the parents' rights law.)
* Increased state funding for pro-homosexuality lessons starting in kindergarten.
* Turning a deaf ear to protests of massive irregularities at the Department of Social Services, which takes children from their parents on the basis of unsubstantiated charges, routinely ignores constitutional rights and due process, places children with homosexuals, and has recklessly put a child in a situation where he or she was killed.
* Ignored fathers' rights activists who are defending men being treated by the courts and the bureacracy like Blacks were treated under Jim Crow laws.
* Illegally "legalized" the sodomy-based family.
So, our new communist governor starts off with most of his objectives already accomplished by Slick Willard (the "pro-family, constitutionalist" Republican). So Gov. Patrick can now turn the political, social, and constitutional ratchets even further to the left than the Founding Fathers ever could have imagined in their wildest nightmares.
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?
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Romney Not Pro-Life: Letter to Mass. Citizens for Life Directors
Mitt Romney is NOT pro-life. So says a director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL), John O'Gorman. He is calling on MCFL's voting members to speak out at their annual meeting this Friday, June 8, 7 p.m. at Boston College against the erroneous award made to Romney for "political leadership" (at their western Massachusetts dinner on May 10). Here is the open letter from Mr. O'Gorman to MCFL members, concerning both his efforts to expose pro-abortion elected officials in the Knights of Columbus, and Romney's false identification as "pro-life":
31/May/2007
DEAR MASSACHUSETTS CITIZENS FOR LIFE DIRECTORS,
At the Directors' Meeting on Friday 11/May/2007, MCFL President Joe Reilly again attempted to have me removed as a director because of my efforts to expose Pro-Abortion politicians in the Knights of Columbus. His previous effort was on Friday 9/Feb/2007.
Joe Reilly, a K of C member, refused to address the issue of Pro-Abortion politicians in the K of C. His wife, MCFL Director Evelyn Reilly, who works for Mass Family Institute - a state associate of Focus on the Family - proposed a motion seeking to have me removed for "cause". Curiously, she failed to mention what the "cause" was! Evelyn Reilly’s motion failed by a 10-7 majority. I wish to thank those 10 MCFL directors who took a principled stand, and also those directors who chose to ignore Joe and Evelyn Reilly by abstaining, remembering that MCFL is an affiliate only of National Right to Life.
Earlier, the directors heard a report of the previous evening's dinner (10/May/2007) held by the Pioneer Valley branch of MCFL in western Massachusetts . Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts and a recent "convert" to Pro-Life, was a speaker and was given a "political leadership award".
MCFL's endorsement of Mitt Romney is wrong. To see where Mitt Romney stands, one only needs to visit his own website at mittromney.com [see: Issue Watch/Affirming America's Culture and Values]. It reads: Governor Romney: "I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother...I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws, and not have them dictated through judicial mandate." This does not reflect a genuine conversion to Pro-Life principles, but rather a transition to a mainstream Republican Party position on abortion in anticipation of his presidential run. Mitt Romney is wrong on 2 counts:
1. ROMNEY'S EXCEPTIONS AMOUNT TO ABORTION ON DEMAND. UNDER THESE EXCEPTIONS ANY WOMAN CAN CLAIM SHE WAS RAPED, OR THREATEN SUICIDE, THEN DEMAND AN ABORTION. MITT ROMNEY FAILS TO SEE THAT EVERY CHILD HAS THE RIGHT TO LIFE WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CONCEPTION.
2. Roe v Wade needs to be overturned by the Supreme Court, but foremost by an amendment to the United States Constitution outlawing abortion. Letting the states decide is NOT THE ANSWER. Abortion, the murder of unborn children, is wrong everywhere. We need a decision at the federal level to make this clear to the people in every state, and to the whole world.
Yours in Pro-Life,
John O’Gorman
Winthrop, MA
cc: Others
31/May/2007
DEAR MASSACHUSETTS CITIZENS FOR LIFE DIRECTORS,
At the Directors' Meeting on Friday 11/May/2007, MCFL President Joe Reilly again attempted to have me removed as a director because of my efforts to expose Pro-Abortion politicians in the Knights of Columbus. His previous effort was on Friday 9/Feb/2007.
Joe Reilly, a K of C member, refused to address the issue of Pro-Abortion politicians in the K of C. His wife, MCFL Director Evelyn Reilly, who works for Mass Family Institute - a state associate of Focus on the Family - proposed a motion seeking to have me removed for "cause". Curiously, she failed to mention what the "cause" was! Evelyn Reilly’s motion failed by a 10-7 majority. I wish to thank those 10 MCFL directors who took a principled stand, and also those directors who chose to ignore Joe and Evelyn Reilly by abstaining, remembering that MCFL is an affiliate only of National Right to Life.
Earlier, the directors heard a report of the previous evening's dinner (10/May/2007) held by the Pioneer Valley branch of MCFL in western Massachusetts . Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts and a recent "convert" to Pro-Life, was a speaker and was given a "political leadership award".
MCFL's endorsement of Mitt Romney is wrong. To see where Mitt Romney stands, one only needs to visit his own website at mittromney.com [see: Issue Watch/Affirming America's Culture and Values]. It reads: Governor Romney: "I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother...I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws, and not have them dictated through judicial mandate." This does not reflect a genuine conversion to Pro-Life principles, but rather a transition to a mainstream Republican Party position on abortion in anticipation of his presidential run. Mitt Romney is wrong on 2 counts:
1. ROMNEY'S EXCEPTIONS AMOUNT TO ABORTION ON DEMAND. UNDER THESE EXCEPTIONS ANY WOMAN CAN CLAIM SHE WAS RAPED, OR THREATEN SUICIDE, THEN DEMAND AN ABORTION. MITT ROMNEY FAILS TO SEE THAT EVERY CHILD HAS THE RIGHT TO LIFE WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CONCEPTION.
2. Roe v Wade needs to be overturned by the Supreme Court, but foremost by an amendment to the United States Constitution outlawing abortion. Letting the states decide is NOT THE ANSWER. Abortion, the murder of unborn children, is wrong everywhere. We need a decision at the federal level to make this clear to the people in every state, and to the whole world.
Yours in Pro-Life,
John O’Gorman
Winthrop, MA
cc: Others
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Mitt Romney Is No Ronald Reagan
Thanks to Janet Folger for her recent column on Mr. Ambition, Mitt Romney: "Will the real Ronald Reagan please stand up?" It's beyond us how otherwise reasonable commentators, like Peggy Noonan, Chris Wallace, and the staff at National Review are so shallow that Romney's looks and voice weigh more heavily than his unprincipled record.
... And of course, there's Former Gov. Mitt Romney, whom the media clamored over, including Peggy Noonan, who called him "statuesque" with a"presidential voice." Lenin was "statuesque" too. Thankfully, that Communist statue came tumbling down. And forget the voice; take a look at the words.
No, forget the words; take a look at his actions. Interesting that Romney,the most anti-Catholic candidate of all, got a question regarding Catholics and their freedom of conscience to withhold communion. Romney said Catholics should be able to "do whatever they want." Really? Then why did Romney: Force Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts to hand out the abortion drug "Plan B" or close their doors?
Ignore the Catholic Action League who lobbied for a conscience clause so Catholic civil service workers wouldn't be forced to perform same-sex "marriage" ceremonies? Romney's position: Perform homosexual "marriages" or you're fired.
Tell Boston's largest adoption agency, Catholic Charities, they had to place vulnerable orphan children in the homes of homosexual activists or go out of business? Rather than bow to the Romney-enforced homosexual agenda, Boston Catholic Charities closed their doors. Even Michael Dukakis said Romney was wrong to force Catholics to violate their beliefs.
Force Catholics (and other pro-life people) to fund abortions in his (post-conversion) health-care plan that he's so "very proud" of?
And what about Terri Schiavo, who Romney agreed should be starved to death? She was a Catholic, too. As Ronald Reagan said, "Facts are stubborn things." Sit down, Mr. Romney. I don't care whom you've paid to say nice things about you; you're disqualified.
... And of course, there's Former Gov. Mitt Romney, whom the media clamored over, including Peggy Noonan, who called him "statuesque" with a"presidential voice." Lenin was "statuesque" too. Thankfully, that Communist statue came tumbling down. And forget the voice; take a look at the words.
No, forget the words; take a look at his actions. Interesting that Romney,the most anti-Catholic candidate of all, got a question regarding Catholics and their freedom of conscience to withhold communion. Romney said Catholics should be able to "do whatever they want." Really? Then why did Romney: Force Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts to hand out the abortion drug "Plan B" or close their doors?
Ignore the Catholic Action League who lobbied for a conscience clause so Catholic civil service workers wouldn't be forced to perform same-sex "marriage" ceremonies? Romney's position: Perform homosexual "marriages" or you're fired.
Tell Boston's largest adoption agency, Catholic Charities, they had to place vulnerable orphan children in the homes of homosexual activists or go out of business? Rather than bow to the Romney-enforced homosexual agenda, Boston Catholic Charities closed their doors. Even Michael Dukakis said Romney was wrong to force Catholics to violate their beliefs.
Force Catholics (and other pro-life people) to fund abortions in his (post-conversion) health-care plan that he's so "very proud" of?
And what about Terri Schiavo, who Romney agreed should be starved to death? She was a Catholic, too. As Ronald Reagan said, "Facts are stubborn things." Sit down, Mr. Romney. I don't care whom you've paid to say nice things about you; you're disqualified.
Friday, May 11, 2007
"Pro-Life" Multi-millionaire Romney Pays $15,000 for Chicken Dinner!
So sorry we weren't able to attend the Mass. Citizens for Life dinner last night in Agawam. We wanted to see the chicken dinner that cost Romney $15,000. Check out the American Spectator post on the event: "Buy 'Em If You Can."
After today's AP article on Romney's multi-millions, we were just wondering why this "pro-lifer" never gave anything to the pro-life cause prior to his December 2006 donation (a measly $15K -- pocket change for a multimillionaire) to Mass. Citizens for Life. He could at least have bought a ticket to one of their earlier dinners -- probably about $40? But now, because he never attended ANY pro-life event before, he had to pay $15,000 for admission last night!
Prof. Larry Sabato of University of Virginia said it succinctly (commenting on Romney's appearance at Pat Robertson's Regent University). "Romney would have to address the issue of his faith eventually. 'Mormonism is hurting him,' he said, adding that Romney's switch on abortion was a political move. 'An adult in his 40s and 50s having this overnight conversion -- nobody buys that.' "
What plum posts are being offered in a possible future Romney administration? $15K doesn't seem to be a high enough price for the cover he's getting from the purportedly "pro-life" organizations in Massachusetts. But then, Judas sold Jesus out for only 30 pieces of silver.
Speaking of Mormonism, WorldNetDaily reported today on the beginning of the Evangelical challenge to Romney's refusal to address his religion.
After today's AP article on Romney's multi-millions, we were just wondering why this "pro-lifer" never gave anything to the pro-life cause prior to his December 2006 donation (a measly $15K -- pocket change for a multimillionaire) to Mass. Citizens for Life. He could at least have bought a ticket to one of their earlier dinners -- probably about $40? But now, because he never attended ANY pro-life event before, he had to pay $15,000 for admission last night!
Prof. Larry Sabato of University of Virginia said it succinctly (commenting on Romney's appearance at Pat Robertson's Regent University). "Romney would have to address the issue of his faith eventually. 'Mormonism is hurting him,' he said, adding that Romney's switch on abortion was a political move. 'An adult in his 40s and 50s having this overnight conversion -- nobody buys that.' "
What plum posts are being offered in a possible future Romney administration? $15K doesn't seem to be a high enough price for the cover he's getting from the purportedly "pro-life" organizations in Massachusetts. But then, Judas sold Jesus out for only 30 pieces of silver.
Speaking of Mormonism, WorldNetDaily reported today on the beginning of the Evangelical challenge to Romney's refusal to address his religion.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Romney's "Flip-Flop Conservative" Backers
Watch this video before reading further:
Ann & Mitt on preserving & protecting abortion "rights" (2002)
Mitt Romney gave a $15,000 donation to Mass. Citizens for Life (MCFL) and $10,000 to Mass. Family Institute (MFI) this past December. Prior to that, he basically didn't give any pro-life or pro-family organization in Massachusetts any support. Now suddenly, he and his wife Ann are guests of honor at MCFL events! On April 13, Ann Romney was the "special guest" at the MCFL statewide fundraiser. On May 10, Mitt Romney will both speak and receive a "political leadership award" at the Pioneer Valley (Western Mass. chapter) MCFL dinner.
From the New York Times:
The recipients of Mr. Romney’s donations said the money had no influence on them. But some of the groups, notably Citizens for Life and the Family Institute, have turned supportive of Mr. Romney after criticizing him in the past. Coming on the eve of his presidential campaign, Mr. Romney’s contributions could create the appearance of a conflict of interest for groups often asked to evaluate him. All the groups said he had never contributed before, and his foundation’s public tax filings show no previous gifts to similar groups.
The Springfield Republican reported:
Melissa R. Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, said she was "a little surprised" Romney is being honored [by MCFL], given his shifted positions on abortion. "Mitt Romney hasn't been clear what he really stands for," she said.
And Mass. Family Institute is apparently upset by our reporting on Romney's failure to uphold the Constitution in implementing homosexual marriage, and his assorted flip-flops, to say nothing of his extension of taxpayer-funded abortions in his Mass. health insurance plan. So now MFI is calling us"right-wing conservatives" -- apparently a bad thing! Does that make MFI "left-wing conservatives"? Or "moderate conservatives"? Or "let-the-people-vote" conservatives" or "Romney conservatives" or "flip-flop conservatives"? Or is it the word "conservative" we should delete from their description? From MFI's email alert:
Event: Romney to speak at pro-life banquet
Former Governor Mitt Romney is scheduled to be the main speaker at the annual dinner of the Pioneer Valley Region of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The dinner, set to take place on May 10, is expected to attract around 800 people. In addition to addressing the crowd, Gov. Romney will also be the recipient of the group's "political leadership award" for his pro-life work as governor.
The chairman of the dinner, Holyoke City Councilor Kevin Jourdain, told the Springfield Republican newspaper that Romney's position on abortion evolved after he became governor. "He served as a pro-life governor," Jourdain said. "Where he stands now is most important."
Romney has come under fire by some right-wing conservatives for saying as a candidate for governor in 2002 that he was personally against abortion but that he supported the court decision that legalized abortion....
Ann & Mitt on preserving & protecting abortion "rights" (2002)
Mitt Romney gave a $15,000 donation to Mass. Citizens for Life (MCFL) and $10,000 to Mass. Family Institute (MFI) this past December. Prior to that, he basically didn't give any pro-life or pro-family organization in Massachusetts any support. Now suddenly, he and his wife Ann are guests of honor at MCFL events! On April 13, Ann Romney was the "special guest" at the MCFL statewide fundraiser. On May 10, Mitt Romney will both speak and receive a "political leadership award" at the Pioneer Valley (Western Mass. chapter) MCFL dinner.
From the New York Times:
The recipients of Mr. Romney’s donations said the money had no influence on them. But some of the groups, notably Citizens for Life and the Family Institute, have turned supportive of Mr. Romney after criticizing him in the past. Coming on the eve of his presidential campaign, Mr. Romney’s contributions could create the appearance of a conflict of interest for groups often asked to evaluate him. All the groups said he had never contributed before, and his foundation’s public tax filings show no previous gifts to similar groups.
The Springfield Republican reported:
Melissa R. Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, said she was "a little surprised" Romney is being honored [by MCFL], given his shifted positions on abortion. "Mitt Romney hasn't been clear what he really stands for," she said.
And Mass. Family Institute is apparently upset by our reporting on Romney's failure to uphold the Constitution in implementing homosexual marriage, and his assorted flip-flops, to say nothing of his extension of taxpayer-funded abortions in his Mass. health insurance plan. So now MFI is calling us"right-wing conservatives" -- apparently a bad thing! Does that make MFI "left-wing conservatives"? Or "moderate conservatives"? Or "let-the-people-vote" conservatives" or "Romney conservatives" or "flip-flop conservatives"? Or is it the word "conservative" we should delete from their description? From MFI's email alert:
Event: Romney to speak at pro-life banquet
Former Governor Mitt Romney is scheduled to be the main speaker at the annual dinner of the Pioneer Valley Region of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The dinner, set to take place on May 10, is expected to attract around 800 people. In addition to addressing the crowd, Gov. Romney will also be the recipient of the group's "political leadership award" for his pro-life work as governor.
The chairman of the dinner, Holyoke City Councilor Kevin Jourdain, told the Springfield Republican newspaper that Romney's position on abortion evolved after he became governor. "He served as a pro-life governor," Jourdain said. "Where he stands now is most important."
Romney has come under fire by some right-wing conservatives for saying as a candidate for governor in 2002 that he was personally against abortion but that he supported the court decision that legalized abortion....
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Romney Burning Through His Millions
After personally receiving 8 or 10 campaign mailings from the Romney campaign already, it's not surprising to see the Boston Globe this morning: "Romney money going fast" (4-14-07). The latest mailing was a glossy photo of the Romney family with a response page headed "Family Photo Confirmation" and we're asked to check off this statement along with the donation amount:
"Thank you so much for your family photo. It's good to know that someone who asks for my trust on such important matters has the family background to support his words!"
But one look at that family photo, with those adorable grandchildren, brings to mind the incongruity of Romney's past (and recent, and current?) support of abortion "rights". How could a loving husband, father, and grandfather who is religiously grounded ever have subscribed to such a horrific position?
Back to Romney's high "burn rate" on his campaign spending:
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney burned through more than half of the $20.7 million he raised for his presidential bid in the first three months of this year ... Romney's fund-raising total placed him first in the GOP presidential money race in the first quarter of 2007. But his spending left him with $11.9 million in the bank at the beginning of this month -- a figure that includes a $2.35 million loan Romney himself floated to his campaign....
Kevin Madden, a Romney campaign spokesman, said the campaign's early expenditures have helped build a fund-raising operation that will allow Romney to bring in far greater sums in the months to come. "We're building a national campaign and investing the resources needed to sustain its growth and its continued success," Madden said. "The resources we've invested in building the grass-roots network and the fund-raising infrastructure are designed to yield a greater return."
Also this week, we noticed in the Weekly Standard that Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina was unusual for his early endorsement of Romney:
As for the future of the party, while most politicians have refrained from taking sides in the '08 primaries this early, DeMint has already pitched his stake in Mitt Romney's tent. He calls Romney a "values-based conservative," saying "no one stands taller" in terms of character and record. DeMint especially praises Romney's original health care plan.
That would be Romney's socialist "universal" health insurance plan that greatly expands taxpayer-funded abortions in Massachusetts, and which is reported to have a serious new problem every week. For example, the Globe just reported (4-12-07):
To remove the threat of a public backlash, the state plans to exempt nearly 20 percent of uninsured adults from the state's new requirement that everyone have health insurance. The proposal, expected to be approved by a state board today, is based on calculations that even the lowest-cost insurance would not be affordable for an estimated 60,000 people with low and moderate incomes who do not qualify for state subsidies. [So the poorest citizens still won't be covered, and Romney's promise of a workable "universal" plan falls flat.]
And back to DeMint, no mention by the Weekly Standard that Romney's Commonwealth PAC gave DeMint's campaign fund a donation of $5,000 in 2006 ... even though DeMint's not up for re-election till 2010. Of course, South Carolina is a very important Republic primary state. From the Boston Globe (12-24-06):
The stated purpose of the Commonwealth PAC is to elect GOP candidates, but its indirect goal of raising Romney's profile and amassing chits, or at the very least good will, is apparent from an analysis of PAC spending this year. For example, the PAC chipped in $5,000 to the campaign committee of freshman US Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who wasn't on the ballot this year and won't be until 2010.
Another good business investment.
"Thank you so much for your family photo. It's good to know that someone who asks for my trust on such important matters has the family background to support his words!"
But one look at that family photo, with those adorable grandchildren, brings to mind the incongruity of Romney's past (and recent, and current?) support of abortion "rights". How could a loving husband, father, and grandfather who is religiously grounded ever have subscribed to such a horrific position?
Back to Romney's high "burn rate" on his campaign spending:
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney burned through more than half of the $20.7 million he raised for his presidential bid in the first three months of this year ... Romney's fund-raising total placed him first in the GOP presidential money race in the first quarter of 2007. But his spending left him with $11.9 million in the bank at the beginning of this month -- a figure that includes a $2.35 million loan Romney himself floated to his campaign....
Kevin Madden, a Romney campaign spokesman, said the campaign's early expenditures have helped build a fund-raising operation that will allow Romney to bring in far greater sums in the months to come. "We're building a national campaign and investing the resources needed to sustain its growth and its continued success," Madden said. "The resources we've invested in building the grass-roots network and the fund-raising infrastructure are designed to yield a greater return."
Also this week, we noticed in the Weekly Standard that Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina was unusual for his early endorsement of Romney:
As for the future of the party, while most politicians have refrained from taking sides in the '08 primaries this early, DeMint has already pitched his stake in Mitt Romney's tent. He calls Romney a "values-based conservative," saying "no one stands taller" in terms of character and record. DeMint especially praises Romney's original health care plan.
That would be Romney's socialist "universal" health insurance plan that greatly expands taxpayer-funded abortions in Massachusetts, and which is reported to have a serious new problem every week. For example, the Globe just reported (4-12-07):
To remove the threat of a public backlash, the state plans to exempt nearly 20 percent of uninsured adults from the state's new requirement that everyone have health insurance. The proposal, expected to be approved by a state board today, is based on calculations that even the lowest-cost insurance would not be affordable for an estimated 60,000 people with low and moderate incomes who do not qualify for state subsidies. [So the poorest citizens still won't be covered, and Romney's promise of a workable "universal" plan falls flat.]
And back to DeMint, no mention by the Weekly Standard that Romney's Commonwealth PAC gave DeMint's campaign fund a donation of $5,000 in 2006 ... even though DeMint's not up for re-election till 2010. Of course, South Carolina is a very important Republic primary state. From the Boston Globe (12-24-06):
The stated purpose of the Commonwealth PAC is to elect GOP candidates, but its indirect goal of raising Romney's profile and amassing chits, or at the very least good will, is apparent from an analysis of PAC spending this year. For example, the PAC chipped in $5,000 to the campaign committee of freshman US Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who wasn't on the ballot this year and won't be until 2010.
Another good business investment.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Romney Video 2002: Ann Says "TRUST" Mitt to Protect Abortion
Another video gem has been uncovered. In the 2002 Governor's race, Ann Romney (soon to be the "special guest" at the Mass. Citizens for Life fundraiser!) assures the liberal ladies of Massachusetts that they can TRUST Mitt on the social issues! Mitt assures them he'll preserve and protect the right to choose. Then Mitt offers some little children -- presumably his grandchildren -- some bananas.
Now we must ask: Would it have been acceptable to Ann & Mitt if their daughter-in-law had decided to abort these lovely little children? Apparently, some such thought must have come to Ann Romney sometime in the last year or so, and converted her to pro-life --an "epiphany" that just happened to coincide with Mitt's.
Watch this brief video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKwVNUz52vo
Transcript from 2002 video --
Ann Romney: I think women also recognize that they want someone that is going to manage the state well. I think they may be more nervous about him on social issues. They shouldn't be, because he's gonna be just fine. But the perception is that he won't be. It's an incorrect perception.
Mitt Romney: So when asked, will I preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, I make an unequivocal answer: Yes.
Mitt to children: Do you want some banana?
Now we must ask: Would it have been acceptable to Ann & Mitt if their daughter-in-law had decided to abort these lovely little children? Apparently, some such thought must have come to Ann Romney sometime in the last year or so, and converted her to pro-life --an "epiphany" that just happened to coincide with Mitt's.
Watch this brief video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKwVNUz52vo
Transcript from 2002 video --
Ann Romney: I think women also recognize that they want someone that is going to manage the state well. I think they may be more nervous about him on social issues. They shouldn't be, because he's gonna be just fine. But the perception is that he won't be. It's an incorrect perception.
Mitt Romney: So when asked, will I preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, I make an unequivocal answer: Yes.
Mitt to children: Do you want some banana?
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Romney, Straw Polls, and Deceit
Janet Folger, nationally syndicated talk show host, has a good piece in today's WorldNetDaily on the nonsense of straw polls, "Straw poll and brick values." (And see our report, "Romney campaign buys victory in CPAC presidential straw poll.") Folger:
And now the "Republicans" everyone's talking about. The RINOs (Republican in Name Only)....
And then there's Mitt Romney, making a convenient flip from his ardent pro-abortion stance just in time to run for president. It just seems to me that if you really come to the realization that dismembering children is not good public policy, you'd remember not to FUND it with taxpayer dollars in your state health-care plan … after such a conversion. Oh yeah, suddenly he's pro-marriage, too. So why did Romney publicly beat up on pro-marriage activist Brian Camenker last month? If that's how he treats people on our side of the issue, that doesn't bode well for future White House relations. And finally, mandating that homosexual "marriage licenses" be issued without any change in the law requiring it (in direct violation of the Massachusetts State Constitution) isn’t very convincing, either.
But here's what I find even more troubling. Our conservative leaders who are willing to flush away everything we stand for to "get on the bandwagon" and support one of these up front. I know the "tent" is big and everything, but is it really too much to ask for a candidate from the Republican Party that actually agrees with the party platform? Oh, wait a minute; there are candidates like that in the race. You just don't hear much about them.... Read more.
And now the "Republicans" everyone's talking about. The RINOs (Republican in Name Only)....
And then there's Mitt Romney, making a convenient flip from his ardent pro-abortion stance just in time to run for president. It just seems to me that if you really come to the realization that dismembering children is not good public policy, you'd remember not to FUND it with taxpayer dollars in your state health-care plan … after such a conversion. Oh yeah, suddenly he's pro-marriage, too. So why did Romney publicly beat up on pro-marriage activist Brian Camenker last month? If that's how he treats people on our side of the issue, that doesn't bode well for future White House relations. And finally, mandating that homosexual "marriage licenses" be issued without any change in the law requiring it (in direct violation of the Massachusetts State Constitution) isn’t very convincing, either.
But here's what I find even more troubling. Our conservative leaders who are willing to flush away everything we stand for to "get on the bandwagon" and support one of these up front. I know the "tent" is big and everything, but is it really too much to ask for a candidate from the Republican Party that actually agrees with the party platform? Oh, wait a minute; there are candidates like that in the race. You just don't hear much about them.... Read more.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Mass. Citizens for Life Changed Its Tune on Romney after Donation
Outrageous. Mitt Romney gave Mass. Citizens for Life (MCFL) a nice $15,000 donation in December 2006. Prior to that time, he'd given them nothing, and the organization had been critical of his lack of support for pro-life issues.
Now in March 2007 -- after his donation -- Romney can get away with handing out a flyer to the thousands of conservative activists at CPAC in D.C. last weekend that reads:
Massachusetts Citizens for Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis: "Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts. His actions concerning life issues have been consistent and he has been helpful down the line for us in the Bay State."
But in 2002 when Romney was running for Governor, Sturgis "said that her group had never offered an endorsement to Romney. Romney is 'not pro-life and does not meet their requirements.' (MIT News, 11-1-02)
In March 2005, Sturgis "said she hasn't detected any change in Romney's stance. The group considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, as do national antiabortion groups such as the Family Research Council." (Boston Globe, 3-05)
In May 2005, MCFL doubted the sincerity of Romney's move to pro-life positions: "Massachusetts Citizens for Life says it considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, and it is unimpressed with those moves." (Boston Globe, 5-25-05).
Now in March 2007 -- after his donation -- Romney can get away with handing out a flyer to the thousands of conservative activists at CPAC in D.C. last weekend that reads:
Massachusetts Citizens for Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis: "Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts. His actions concerning life issues have been consistent and he has been helpful down the line for us in the Bay State."
But in 2002 when Romney was running for Governor, Sturgis "said that her group had never offered an endorsement to Romney. Romney is 'not pro-life and does not meet their requirements.' (MIT News, 11-1-02)
In March 2005, Sturgis "said she hasn't detected any change in Romney's stance. The group considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, as do national antiabortion groups such as the Family Research Council." (Boston Globe, 3-05)
In May 2005, MCFL doubted the sincerity of Romney's move to pro-life positions: "Massachusetts Citizens for Life says it considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, and it is unimpressed with those moves." (Boston Globe, 5-25-05).
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Rev. Rob Schenck Mistaken About Romney
There weren't too many people at the protest of Advanced Cell Technologies (ACT) in Worcester in 2001. ACT was working on cloning humans for "therapeutic" uses. About 100 people who understood the ominous implications of human cloning showed up. We were covering the event for MassNews as well as protesting. Also present were Bill Cotter of Operation Rescue, Ray Neary formerly of Mass. Citizens for Life, and pro-life activist Laurie Letourneau. And that's where we met the Rev. Rob Schenck. He was one of the "Pro-Life Leaders Denied Meeting with Advanced Cell Technologies."
What a shock, then, that Schenck should now be falling for Mitt Romney's act, including that it was stem cell research and cloning issues that converted Romney to his new pro-life position -- a tale which just doesn't ring true.
So -- what's up with Rev. Schenck? From Christian Newswire (2-20-07):
Schenck Returns from Private Meetings with Romney and McCain
WASHINGTON -- The Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK), president of the National Clergy Council and its affiliate, Faith and Action in the Nation's Capital, returned today to Washington from Orlando, Florida, where he participated in small private meetings with Republican presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Schenck, who also serves as chair of the Committee on Church and Society for the Evangelical Church Alliance, America's oldest association of Evangelical clergy, said about the Romney and McCain meetings:
"I was able to get a read of these two men away from the cameras, the reporters and rah-rah audiences. These were honest, candid dialogues on critically important aspects of Governor Romney's and Senator McCain's personal and political principles. We got a pretty good assessment of where they are on the key issues for traditional Christians and particularly for Evangelicals. I was impressed by both, but especially Mitt Romney."
Schenck has met previously with Sam Brownback of Kansas, another Republican candidate. He says the Kansas senator remains the gold standard for the top three concerns of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and the family and the public acknowledgment of God.
Schenck is seeking similar meetings with the other '08 presidential candidates from all parties. He is available for further comment beginning Thursday, February 22.
What a shock, then, that Schenck should now be falling for Mitt Romney's act, including that it was stem cell research and cloning issues that converted Romney to his new pro-life position -- a tale which just doesn't ring true.
So -- what's up with Rev. Schenck? From Christian Newswire (2-20-07):
Schenck Returns from Private Meetings with Romney and McCain
WASHINGTON -- The Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK), president of the National Clergy Council and its affiliate, Faith and Action in the Nation's Capital, returned today to Washington from Orlando, Florida, where he participated in small private meetings with Republican presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Schenck, who also serves as chair of the Committee on Church and Society for the Evangelical Church Alliance, America's oldest association of Evangelical clergy, said about the Romney and McCain meetings:
"I was able to get a read of these two men away from the cameras, the reporters and rah-rah audiences. These were honest, candid dialogues on critically important aspects of Governor Romney's and Senator McCain's personal and political principles. We got a pretty good assessment of where they are on the key issues for traditional Christians and particularly for Evangelicals. I was impressed by both, but especially Mitt Romney."
Schenck has met previously with Sam Brownback of Kansas, another Republican candidate. He says the Kansas senator remains the gold standard for the top three concerns of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and the family and the public acknowledgment of God.
Schenck is seeking similar meetings with the other '08 presidential candidates from all parties. He is available for further comment beginning Thursday, February 22.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Romney Is Not Pro-Life: More Proof
Mitt Romney is not pro-life. If he were, he wouldn't think we could vote on abortion.
Abortion either is, or is not, murder. If Romney believes it is murder -- the definition of "pro-life" -- how can he say it's something that can and should be decided by popular vote? Some states choose to allow baby murder, others don't. Sounds "pro-choice" to us. A pro-life leader would not take this position.
Further, pro-lifers respect the innocence of the baby, and do not make the exceptions that it's OK to abort in cases of rape or incest -- as Romney does. (Plus, Romney views Roe v. Wade as "law" -- when it's an illegitimate court ruling.)
Did President Lincoln think the individual states should be able to decide whether or not slavery would be allowed in their state? Or was slavery a moral wrong that had to be dealt with on a national level? Lincoln acted like a man and provided real leadership. Where are the real men today?
We ask Presidential candidate Romney: Is abortion a moral wrong equivalent to slavery? He apparently doesn't think so. He thinks there's some wiggle room. He recommends leaving it to voters in individual states to decide whether or not they'll allow the murder of innocent babies within their borders. Even with the (unacceptable) exceptions for rape and incest built in, Romney does not support a national right-to-life amendment.
Romney earlier explained this in his December schmooze with Kathryn Lopez at National Review. And he was foolish enough to repeat it here:
NATIONAL JOURNAL
February 10, 2007
Q: You would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Is that correct?
Romney: What I've indicated is that I am pro-life, and that my hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decisions with regard to their own abortion law.
Q: If a state wanted unlimited abortion?
Romney: The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn't be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation -- a one-size-fits-all approach -- but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.
Abortion either is, or is not, murder. If Romney believes it is murder -- the definition of "pro-life" -- how can he say it's something that can and should be decided by popular vote? Some states choose to allow baby murder, others don't. Sounds "pro-choice" to us. A pro-life leader would not take this position.
Further, pro-lifers respect the innocence of the baby, and do not make the exceptions that it's OK to abort in cases of rape or incest -- as Romney does. (Plus, Romney views Roe v. Wade as "law" -- when it's an illegitimate court ruling.)
Did President Lincoln think the individual states should be able to decide whether or not slavery would be allowed in their state? Or was slavery a moral wrong that had to be dealt with on a national level? Lincoln acted like a man and provided real leadership. Where are the real men today?
We ask Presidential candidate Romney: Is abortion a moral wrong equivalent to slavery? He apparently doesn't think so. He thinks there's some wiggle room. He recommends leaving it to voters in individual states to decide whether or not they'll allow the murder of innocent babies within their borders. Even with the (unacceptable) exceptions for rape and incest built in, Romney does not support a national right-to-life amendment.
Romney earlier explained this in his December schmooze with Kathryn Lopez at National Review. And he was foolish enough to repeat it here:
NATIONAL JOURNAL
February 10, 2007
Q: You would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Is that correct?
Romney: What I've indicated is that I am pro-life, and that my hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decisions with regard to their own abortion law.
Q: If a state wanted unlimited abortion?
Romney: The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn't be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation -- a one-size-fits-all approach -- but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)