John Haskins, political analyst for the Parents' Rights Coalition, comments on Sandy Rios's great new column (excerpt below):
As so often before, Sandy boldly stands up and tells the unvarnished truth -- when so many mercenary "pro-family leaders" and "conservative" super-lawyers remain silent about one of the biggest, best funded and most socially destructive cover-ups in modern American politics. If you are too lazy to read the letter Sandy references, and see how Romney brilliantly trashed the oldest functioning constitution in the world, I sure hope you are also too lazy to vote!
What Sandy is reporting here is the absolute truth. I can personally vouch for the fact that it's been affirmed by numerous constitutional experts. They include Professor Herbert Titus and Alan Keyes, whose Harvard Ph.D. in constitutional governance makes him far more qualified than the celebrity "conservative" lawyers who are dishonestly steering people away from the plain English in the state constitution that Romney gutted. Much of the pro-family establishment is failing in their sacred duty at this decisive moment in American history. As I've written before, our constitutions are not for "legal experts" to lock away from your prying eyes. They were written for you --for ordinary citizens as protection against the lawyers, judges and politicians who are telling you that judges make the law and have absolute tyrannical power over our elected representatives.
Romney has spread huge amounts of money around the conservative and "pro-family" movement to buy silence and even loyalty. The financial incentives and other pressure to keep the people's eyes off the absolute proof in the Massachusetts Constitution are intense! One reason is that so many respected "conservative" lawyers committed gross malpractice by failing to do due diligence and actually read the Massachusetts Constitution. Once they went on record in support of Romney's blatant lies, they found themselves unable to publicly backtrack without a huge loss of prestige. They are now putting their own reputations over their sacred duty to defend the rule of law under our state and federal constitutions, from outlaw politicians and judges who routinely lie to the people.
Here's the letter Sandy referred to -- that she signed, with many other social conservatives and veteran pro-family leaders and activists. It seems TownHall.com removed the link from Sandy's letter to discourage people from reading it. TownHall, National Review, Human Events, Fox News and most of the blindly pro-Republican establishment media have betrayed conservatives and constitutionalists by refusing to inform people about how Romney brilliantly used the court's non-binding opinion as a smokescreen to illegally impose "gay marriage." They are dominated by career "conservatives" including lawyers like Hugh Hewitt, who have been aggressively steering people away from the absolute proof in the Massachusetts Constitution that Mitt Romney misrepresented his constitutional duty and gave illegal orders to town clerks and justices of the peace and thereby, himself unconstitutionally imposed homosexual "marriage."
As Sandy points out, while desperately seeking the endorsement of the homosexual activist group the Log Cabin Republicans in 2002, Romney secretly promised to ignore the state constitution and violate his solemn oath to defend it against arrogant judges. That's right, folks. Mitt Romney, according to eyewitnesses -- including one of his own former staff members -- secretly promised homosexual activists that he would step aside and let the court reach far beyond its constitutional jurisdiction and unconstitutionally get sodomy-based "marriage" past the legislature and the people.
Mitt Romney May Have Had No Choice, But I Do
By Sandy Rios
Monday, December 10, 2007
Exactly one year ago I signed a letter of challenge to Mitt Romney along with Paul Weyrich and 42 other pro-family leaders asking the governor to use the time he had left in office to “reverse the damage that has been done to the sacred institution of marriage.” We urged him to “declare immediately that homosexual ‘marriage’ licenses issued in violation of the law are illegal and to issue an order to all state and local officials to cease violating the law.”
Why did we make such a difficult and uncomfortable request? After all, Governor Romney had done everything he could to stop homosexual marriage, hadn’t he? And as he explained to the people of Massachusetts and to the country, he had “no choice” but to “execute the law.” He had no choice when he ordered marriage licenses changed from “husband and wife” to “party A and party B”… no choice when he ordered city officials to immediately begin performing same-sex marriages … no choice when he threatened them with losing their jobs if they didn’t comply … no choice but to be the very instrument, the expeditor, the person responsible for ushering in same-sex marriage.
You will find our letter filled with passages from the Massachusetts Constitution quite convincing, but you can also read the words penned by Hugh Hewitt at the time in an article he wrote in The Weekly Standard on November 20, 2003.
It was titled “Just Say ‘No.’ ” Hugh begins with a quote attributed to President Andrew Jackson in the aftermath of a Supreme Court decision he disliked: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” “Romney should seriously consider indifference,” Hugh wrote. “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. Romney and the legislature ought to stand back and say no.” Hugh continued, “In fact, if the court threatens with penalties, they ought to threaten back.” ... (Read more of Sandy Rios's column.)
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Monday, December 10, 2007
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.
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.” ...
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Rev. John Rankin Gets It: Romney Failed on "Gay Marriage" in Mass.
[Update 11-8-06: The entire article referenced below has been posted on the Christian Civic Leage of Maine web site.]
How refreshing to see this piece by a prominent Christian commentator who gets it: Romney blew it in Massachusetts on "homosexual marriage"!
Rev. John C. Rankin, President of the Theological Education Institute (TEI) and the Mars Hill Society, bases his analysis on the important work by Atty . "Robert Paine" and John Haskins, published by MassResistance. In the TEI Update #189 (11/6/07, not yet posted on their web site), he gives an excellent summary of how Romney failed in his oath to uphold the Massachusetts Constitution and its separation of powers mandate. He agrees with our "Article 8 Alliance" effort to remove the Supreme Judicial Court Judges who defied the Constitution in the Goodridge "homosexual marriage" ruling -- which Romney ignominiously failed to support.
"Could Romney Have Stopped Same-Sex Marriage?" Rev. Rankin answers, "YES!" Excerpts from his analysis:
... A good Christian friend of mine contacted me several months ago, asking if I would be willing to serve on the "National Faith and Values Steering Committees" of the Romney Presidential Campaign. Now apart from other reasons, one reason I could not do so is due to Romney's failure to take his constitutional executive power to hold an out-of-control Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court accountable. So I was put in touch with the Romney campaign, hoping first to raise my concerns with Governor Romney himself. That did not happen, but I was able to communicate with a member of his staff, who was very gracious as he sought answers to my questions from the campaign's legal staff. I was unsatisfied with their answers.
Earlier, he writes:
The greatest strength of our nation is rooted in the fruit of the Reformation and the First Great Awakening. The appeal in the Declaration of Independence to unalienable rights given by the Creator is unique in the history of modern nations. And too, rooted in a biblical understanding of the sin nature, the U.S. Constitution, as well as state constitutions, put into place a series of checks and balances so that power could not be centralized. The executive, legislative and judicial branches of government each had their prescribed duties and limits of power.
Sadly, over the years, the power of the state and federal judiciaries have slowly taken too much power, making law instead of interpreting it, and especially because of weak legislatures. The Supreme Judicial Court forced same-sex marriage upon the Massachusetts Legislature in its 2003 Goodridge decision, being emboldened by the same Legislature which had just mocked and denied the will of the people calling for a statewide referendum on the definition of marriage [referring to the first marriage amendment, unconstitutionally blocked by Senate President Birmingham in 2002]. And as I argue elsewhere, same-sex marriage redefines rights, and effectively gets rid of unalienable rights from the Creator, thus making rights a subjective definition where "might makes right."
In the face of this judicial usurpation, what could Governor Mitt Romney have done in late 2003 or early 2004, prior to the Legislature's action? ... I would like to see Governor Romney show why he could not have pursued the following course of action. ... Governor Romney could have called the four members of the SJC who voted for Goodridge into public session before a joint assembly of the Senate and House. He could have thus challenged their unconstitutional usurpation of power, and dismissed any from the bench who would not recognize the SJC's constitutional limits, and/or for lack of "good behavior." This is a rarely invoked clause, indicating moral failure, but Goodridge was a rare violation of due process.
... here was the most marvelous opportunity in the nation, in many years, for a Governor to defend and strengthen the constitutional separation of powers, and to check runaway judicial activism. But Romney not only caved to the SJC, and to the onslaught the Boston Globe and New York Times would have given him, but I saw no articulation on his part concerning the gravity of the separation of powers issue staring him in the face.
How refreshing to see this piece by a prominent Christian commentator who gets it: Romney blew it in Massachusetts on "homosexual marriage"!
Rev. John C. Rankin, President of the Theological Education Institute (TEI) and the Mars Hill Society, bases his analysis on the important work by Atty . "Robert Paine" and John Haskins, published by MassResistance. In the TEI Update #189 (11/6/07, not yet posted on their web site), he gives an excellent summary of how Romney failed in his oath to uphold the Massachusetts Constitution and its separation of powers mandate. He agrees with our "Article 8 Alliance" effort to remove the Supreme Judicial Court Judges who defied the Constitution in the Goodridge "homosexual marriage" ruling -- which Romney ignominiously failed to support.
"Could Romney Have Stopped Same-Sex Marriage?" Rev. Rankin answers, "YES!" Excerpts from his analysis:
... A good Christian friend of mine contacted me several months ago, asking if I would be willing to serve on the "National Faith and Values Steering Committees" of the Romney Presidential Campaign. Now apart from other reasons, one reason I could not do so is due to Romney's failure to take his constitutional executive power to hold an out-of-control Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court accountable. So I was put in touch with the Romney campaign, hoping first to raise my concerns with Governor Romney himself. That did not happen, but I was able to communicate with a member of his staff, who was very gracious as he sought answers to my questions from the campaign's legal staff. I was unsatisfied with their answers.
Earlier, he writes:
The greatest strength of our nation is rooted in the fruit of the Reformation and the First Great Awakening. The appeal in the Declaration of Independence to unalienable rights given by the Creator is unique in the history of modern nations. And too, rooted in a biblical understanding of the sin nature, the U.S. Constitution, as well as state constitutions, put into place a series of checks and balances so that power could not be centralized. The executive, legislative and judicial branches of government each had their prescribed duties and limits of power.
Sadly, over the years, the power of the state and federal judiciaries have slowly taken too much power, making law instead of interpreting it, and especially because of weak legislatures. The Supreme Judicial Court forced same-sex marriage upon the Massachusetts Legislature in its 2003 Goodridge decision, being emboldened by the same Legislature which had just mocked and denied the will of the people calling for a statewide referendum on the definition of marriage [referring to the first marriage amendment, unconstitutionally blocked by Senate President Birmingham in 2002]. And as I argue elsewhere, same-sex marriage redefines rights, and effectively gets rid of unalienable rights from the Creator, thus making rights a subjective definition where "might makes right."
In the face of this judicial usurpation, what could Governor Mitt Romney have done in late 2003 or early 2004, prior to the Legislature's action? ... I would like to see Governor Romney show why he could not have pursued the following course of action. ... Governor Romney could have called the four members of the SJC who voted for Goodridge into public session before a joint assembly of the Senate and House. He could have thus challenged their unconstitutional usurpation of power, and dismissed any from the bench who would not recognize the SJC's constitutional limits, and/or for lack of "good behavior." This is a rarely invoked clause, indicating moral failure, but Goodridge was a rare violation of due process.
... here was the most marvelous opportunity in the nation, in many years, for a Governor to defend and strengthen the constitutional separation of powers, and to check runaway judicial activism. But Romney not only caved to the SJC, and to the onslaught the Boston Globe and New York Times would have given him, but I saw no articulation on his part concerning the gravity of the separation of powers issue staring him in the face.
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!
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Romney Will Stiff Values Voter Debate Monday; Will Hold Own Web Forum Instead
Romney is doing his best to deflect possible supporters' attention from the Values Voter Republican debate set for tomorrow night (Monday, 9-17, at 7:30 p.m.), in which he's refused to participate.
It's telling that four Republican candidates have now declined to take part in that event: Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson. (And all the Democrat candidates refused a Values Voter debate.) Clearly they don't want to have to answer pointed questions on abortion, homosexual "marriage", illegal immigration, etc.
Romney has the gall to set his "first town meeting on the Web" at exactly the same time as the Values Voter debate. We'll be watching the latter, streamed live on http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/ and http://www.afa.net/.
From the Boston Globe (9-16-07):
Romney plans his first town meeting on Web
Mitt Romney, already one of the more eager presidential candidates when it comes to working the Web, plans his first online-only town meeting tomorrow. It will be held live at 7:30 p.m. via streaming video, giving people anywhere in the country a chance to ask Romney about issues and priorities. Web surfers will have to register by 7:15 p.m. to take part, the Romney campaign said. Tomorrow is also the deadline to submit entries in a TV ad contest that Romney touts as the first time an amateur-produced spot will air on behalf of a presidential candidate.
For those who choose to tune into the Romney web meeting, here's where you can submit your questions: http://www.visualwebcaster.com/Romney/42280/reg.html And we suggest you ask:
- Why did you order Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to implement homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts, when the Constitution and current statutes don't allow it? Since the Court (without authority!) told only the Legislature to change the statutes, why did you step in? Weren't you violating the Constitution with your order?
- Do you, or do you not, believe homosexuality is immoral? How does your belief impact your public policy positions on homosexuality? Homosexual "marriage"? Adoption of children by homosexual couples?
It's telling that four Republican candidates have now declined to take part in that event: Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson. (And all the Democrat candidates refused a Values Voter debate.) Clearly they don't want to have to answer pointed questions on abortion, homosexual "marriage", illegal immigration, etc.
Romney has the gall to set his "first town meeting on the Web" at exactly the same time as the Values Voter debate. We'll be watching the latter, streamed live on http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/ and http://www.afa.net/.
From the Boston Globe (9-16-07):
Romney plans his first town meeting on Web
Mitt Romney, already one of the more eager presidential candidates when it comes to working the Web, plans his first online-only town meeting tomorrow. It will be held live at 7:30 p.m. via streaming video, giving people anywhere in the country a chance to ask Romney about issues and priorities. Web surfers will have to register by 7:15 p.m. to take part, the Romney campaign said. Tomorrow is also the deadline to submit entries in a TV ad contest that Romney touts as the first time an amateur-produced spot will air on behalf of a presidential candidate.
For those who choose to tune into the Romney web meeting, here's where you can submit your questions: http://www.visualwebcaster.com/Romney/42280/reg.html And we suggest you ask:
- Why did you order Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to implement homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts, when the Constitution and current statutes don't allow it? Since the Court (without authority!) told only the Legislature to change the statutes, why did you step in? Weren't you violating the Constitution with your order?
- Do you, or do you not, believe homosexuality is immoral? How does your belief impact your public policy positions on homosexuality? Homosexual "marriage"? Adoption of children by homosexual couples?
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....
Monday, July 30, 2007
"No-Free-Speech Zones" -- the Left's New Silencing Technique
We've observed a trend used by law enforcement officials over the past few years: a new speech-control device at public events called the "Free-Speech Zone." This of course means there's also a "No-Free-Speech Zone" -- that would be exactly where one wants to be when trying to get the word out at a public event! Needless to say, the "zone" is selectively enforced.
Just last weekend, Lowell implemented a "No-Free-Speech Zone" -- at least for one conservative candidate. Kevin Thompson, Constitution Party candidate for Congress in the 5th District (Marty Meehan's old seat), ran into an unexpected problem as he was trying to gather signatures at Lowell's Folk Festival. He was told he had to move away from City Hall Plaza into a "Free-Speech Zone". Check out Thompson's amazing report:
Well, we had a most interesting time at the Lowell Folk Festival this past weekend. I was there on Saturday collecting signatures for ballot access, when I was approached by the park police. This official approached as I was talking with a couple from Lowell who were willing to sign. The official stood there for a moment and waited till they were about to pick up the pen and she then informed me that I would have to leave the particular area. I was in City Hall Plaza (in front of, not in, the stage area). She asked me to move into the “Free Speech Zone.” Yes, apparently in this woman’s mind, free speech can only take place in designated zones. I could not believe what I was hearing! So, I took out my camera and shot some footage. You will want to see this for yourself. http://www.thompson07.com/folkfestival.htm
We first encountered a "free speech zone" at the Democrat National Convention in Boston in 2004. (Even the ACLU objected then.) It was hideously located under a still-standing segment of the expressway -- a small area caged in by 12-foot chain-link fence. We gave a great speech about our eroding Constitutional freedoms that a few young Leftists seemed to appreciate. (Sadly, it wasn't recorded for posterity.) Also posted some really great signs about John Kerry and Margaret Marshall and homosexual "marriage".
Our second experience with a "free-speech zone" was later that week in the birthplace of American liberty, Lexington. Some town fools had an idea of breaking tradition to honor the Democrat Convention, and put on a special re-enactment of the battle. (This was a sacrilege for anyone into the specialness of the Patriots' Day re-enactment! And it was fitting that hardly anyone showed up for that July show.) A great crowd of our Article 8 activists showed up with banners advocating the removal of our tyrannical "gay marriage" judges. The police corralled us into a little pen off on the other side of the street -- the "free speech zone" -- and wouldn't even allow any standing or walking in the closed-off street (where nothing else was scheduled to happen).
Expect to see more of this ... depending on which side you're on.
Just last weekend, Lowell implemented a "No-Free-Speech Zone" -- at least for one conservative candidate. Kevin Thompson, Constitution Party candidate for Congress in the 5th District (Marty Meehan's old seat), ran into an unexpected problem as he was trying to gather signatures at Lowell's Folk Festival. He was told he had to move away from City Hall Plaza into a "Free-Speech Zone". Check out Thompson's amazing report:
Well, we had a most interesting time at the Lowell Folk Festival this past weekend. I was there on Saturday collecting signatures for ballot access, when I was approached by the park police. This official approached as I was talking with a couple from Lowell who were willing to sign. The official stood there for a moment and waited till they were about to pick up the pen and she then informed me that I would have to leave the particular area. I was in City Hall Plaza (in front of, not in, the stage area). She asked me to move into the “Free Speech Zone.” Yes, apparently in this woman’s mind, free speech can only take place in designated zones. I could not believe what I was hearing! So, I took out my camera and shot some footage. You will want to see this for yourself. http://www.thompson07.com/folkfestival.htm
We first encountered a "free speech zone" at the Democrat National Convention in Boston in 2004. (Even the ACLU objected then.) It was hideously located under a still-standing segment of the expressway -- a small area caged in by 12-foot chain-link fence. We gave a great speech about our eroding Constitutional freedoms that a few young Leftists seemed to appreciate. (Sadly, it wasn't recorded for posterity.) Also posted some really great signs about John Kerry and Margaret Marshall and homosexual "marriage".
Our second experience with a "free-speech zone" was later that week in the birthplace of American liberty, Lexington. Some town fools had an idea of breaking tradition to honor the Democrat Convention, and put on a special re-enactment of the battle. (This was a sacrilege for anyone into the specialness of the Patriots' Day re-enactment! And it was fitting that hardly anyone showed up for that July show.) A great crowd of our Article 8 activists showed up with banners advocating the removal of our tyrannical "gay marriage" judges. The police corralled us into a little pen off on the other side of the street -- the "free speech zone" -- and wouldn't even allow any standing or walking in the closed-off street (where nothing else was scheduled to happen).
Expect to see more of this ... depending on which side you're on.
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.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Experts Say Romney Created Homosexual "Marriage" -- WorldNetDaily
(from our 12-21-06 posting:)DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS
MassResistance at the State House, Boston, November 19, 2006
[photo (c) 2006 MassResistance]
MassResistance at the State House, Boston, November 19, 2006
[photo (c) 2006 MassResistance]
In November 2006, Governor Mitt Romney held a phony "marriage rally" on the steps of the Massachusetts State House. MassResistance was there, calling on the Governor to reverse his unconstitutional orders (before leaving office in January 2007) to his Department of Public Health, Town Clerks, and Justices of the Peace that implemented illegal "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts. We received no response from the Governor either in November, or to a formal letter signed by 44 prominent national conservative leaders in December. Finally, the national conservative press is beginning to understand and report the truth about Mitt Romney's subversion of Constitutional government in Massachusetts. It's amazing how, in this world of controlled media, it took three years to get this "NEWS" out. Thanks to WorldNetDaily for their courage in reporting the truth! In today's WorldNetDaily:
Breaking News!
ELECTION 2008
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Experts: Credit Romney
for homosexual marriage
'What he did was exercise illegal legislative authority'
--WND
Friday, April 20, 2007
Virginia Tech & the Constitution
Yes, there is a Constitutional angle on the sad events at Virginia Tech. Our Founding Fathers understood that the basic right to self-defense had to be protected. The Second Amendment is one statement of that. As a strong supporter of the right to bear arms, it was refreshing to see Alan Keyes's take on the incident in Virginia:
Excerpt from Defending ourselves: The constitutional strategy
Lessons from Virginia Tech shootings
Alan Keyes, 4-19-07
Right now, the American people are understandably caught up in the emotional reaction to the horrifying events at Virginia Tech University. Leftist pols and media manipulators around the country and the world fanatically clamor that we should round up the usual "suspects" — that is, the guns responsible for all this violence. They want to distract us from the issues of human responsibility that are at its core. The responsibility of the killer. The responsibility of the police and university officials. The responsibility of gun-ban advocates whose success at Virginia Tech made certain that no one in Norris Hall was armed to interrupt the killer's methodical spree by forcing him to defend himself, or slow down in fear of his own life....
Far from suggesting that we should restrict or ban possession of firearms, the Virginia Tech killing spree illustrates two points often made by supporters of the Second Amendment: 1) Disarming the population leads to a higher death toll from violence. 2) The police cannot or will not protect people from deadly assault. They are organized mainly to enforce the law, not to protect our persons from harm....
Given the very real likelihood of terrorist infiltration and action, nothing we do by law can eliminate the gunmen. They will always be a threat. Instead of pretending to do what we can never achieve, we should concentrate on doing what is certainly within our power. We can make sure that our population is enriched with a leaven of defenders, so that no gunmen, lone or otherwise, could ever again act with the calm assurance that he is in no danger from his intended victims....
Our Constitution already provides the concept we need to achieve this strategic objective — the militia. In its proper constitutional sense, the term means all the able-bodied people who can be trained and disciplined to act in the community's defense when it's attacked. Since it encompasses every able-bodied person, it does not refer to those — such as the police, the military, or even the National Guard — who formally compose the official defense forces of the nation. Every citizen able and willing to act in an emergency becomes a potential defender against attacks aimed at the general population....
Read more ...
Excerpt from Defending ourselves: The constitutional strategy
Lessons from Virginia Tech shootings
Alan Keyes, 4-19-07
Right now, the American people are understandably caught up in the emotional reaction to the horrifying events at Virginia Tech University. Leftist pols and media manipulators around the country and the world fanatically clamor that we should round up the usual "suspects" — that is, the guns responsible for all this violence. They want to distract us from the issues of human responsibility that are at its core. The responsibility of the killer. The responsibility of the police and university officials. The responsibility of gun-ban advocates whose success at Virginia Tech made certain that no one in Norris Hall was armed to interrupt the killer's methodical spree by forcing him to defend himself, or slow down in fear of his own life....
Far from suggesting that we should restrict or ban possession of firearms, the Virginia Tech killing spree illustrates two points often made by supporters of the Second Amendment: 1) Disarming the population leads to a higher death toll from violence. 2) The police cannot or will not protect people from deadly assault. They are organized mainly to enforce the law, not to protect our persons from harm....
Given the very real likelihood of terrorist infiltration and action, nothing we do by law can eliminate the gunmen. They will always be a threat. Instead of pretending to do what we can never achieve, we should concentrate on doing what is certainly within our power. We can make sure that our population is enriched with a leaven of defenders, so that no gunmen, lone or otherwise, could ever again act with the calm assurance that he is in no danger from his intended victims....
Our Constitution already provides the concept we need to achieve this strategic objective — the militia. In its proper constitutional sense, the term means all the able-bodied people who can be trained and disciplined to act in the community's defense when it's attacked. Since it encompasses every able-bodied person, it does not refer to those — such as the police, the military, or even the National Guard — who formally compose the official defense forces of the nation. Every citizen able and willing to act in an emergency becomes a potential defender against attacks aimed at the general population....
Read more ...
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Conservative Policy Analyst Doubts Romney
Mitt Romney's not playing well on an important conservative web news site. Check out this excellent article just posted by J. Matt Barber on WorldNetDaily. Mr. Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America, is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law.
"The Mitt split" (2-3-07)
by J. Matt Barber
Wearing his 2008 presidential aspirations on his sleeve and appearing the ever humble, yet iron-jawed and selflessly devoted, champion of the GOP's must-have conservative, pro-family base, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finds himself struggling to salvage his conservative credentials.... [S]erious concerns are beginning to mount relative to the sincerity of Romney's commitment to traditional values....
[On abortion:] OK, you might say, that's fine. Romney was "pro-choice." This is America – people can change their opinion, right? Well, that may be true. Only one question – on the issues most important to conservative voters, why do Romney's opinions appear malleable, shifting in the wind as political expediency would seem to dictate? In 2006, just four short years after he ran for governor and as his presidential ambitions were reaching a boiling point, Romney seemed to pull a 180....
[On homosexual "marriage":] Was Gov. Romney the 'Father of "gay" marriage'? While there's disagreement even within the pro-family legal community, there is a strong argument to be made that Romney, contrary to his pro-traditional marriage rhetoric, was chiefly responsible for unconstitutionally imposing "same-sex" marriage on Massachusetts and the rest of the country. Let's lay out the roadmap....
"The Mitt split" (2-3-07)
by J. Matt Barber
Wearing his 2008 presidential aspirations on his sleeve and appearing the ever humble, yet iron-jawed and selflessly devoted, champion of the GOP's must-have conservative, pro-family base, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finds himself struggling to salvage his conservative credentials.... [S]erious concerns are beginning to mount relative to the sincerity of Romney's commitment to traditional values....
[On abortion:] OK, you might say, that's fine. Romney was "pro-choice." This is America – people can change their opinion, right? Well, that may be true. Only one question – on the issues most important to conservative voters, why do Romney's opinions appear malleable, shifting in the wind as political expediency would seem to dictate? In 2006, just four short years after he ran for governor and as his presidential ambitions were reaching a boiling point, Romney seemed to pull a 180....
[On homosexual "marriage":] Was Gov. Romney the 'Father of "gay" marriage'? While there's disagreement even within the pro-family legal community, there is a strong argument to be made that Romney, contrary to his pro-traditional marriage rhetoric, was chiefly responsible for unconstitutionally imposing "same-sex" marriage on Massachusetts and the rest of the country. Let's lay out the roadmap....
Saturday, January 20, 2007
National Leaders Called Romney on His Violation of Constitution
The news is continuing to get out. Life Site News just posted this article on the letter from 44 prominent national conservatives to Romney on December 20, 2006.
Romney Violated Massachusetts Constitution by Ordering ‘Same-Sex Marriage’; 44 U.S. pro-family leaders signed letter asking him to recant illegal orders
HARRISBURG, PA, January 19, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A letter addressed to Massachusetts’ ex-governor Mitt Romney has just been made public in which 44 conservative, pro-family leaders from across the nation requested that before stepping down from office, Romney would adhere to the Massachusetts Constitution and repeal his order directing public officials to perform ‘same-sex marriages’. The letter was hand delivered to members of Romney’s staff on December 20th, 2006 at his office. Romney took no action to adhere to the letter’s requests before he left office at the beginning of the New Year.
The letter cited numerous, historical cases and the Massachusetts’ Constitution to assert that Romney’s actions in implementing ‘gay marriage’ were beyond the bounds of his authority as governor. The authors further asserted that his actions were unconstitutional as were the actions of the four initial judges who formulated the official opinion on the matter in the ‘Goodridge’ case, the case that originally brought the matter to national attention.
Commenting on the ‘Goodridge’ opinion, Judge Robert Bork said that it was “untethered to either the Massachusetts or United States Constitution.”
As quoted in the letter, the MA Constitution denies the judicial branch of its government any authority over the state’s marriage policies. So it was that three of the seven judges that heard the Goodrich case strongly dissented that the court did not have authority to formulate laws.The letter also outlined how the MA Constitution forbids judges from establishing or altering law. According to the Constitution, such a task is to be left to the legislature. The judges’ opinion in the Goodrich case admitted that they were not altering the standing marriage statute in MA. Instead, Governor Romney took it upon himself, despite legal counsel to do otherwise, to order officials across the state that they would have to perform ‘gay marriages’, even though, according to Massachusetts law, to do so is a crime. Officials who refused were advised to resign their position.
Throughout the whole ordeal, Romney maintained that he was personally against ‘homosexual marriage’ but that he must “execute the law.” The conservatives’ letter clearly illustrates how Romney was not “executing the law” but merely facilitating the agenda of activist judges – beyond even the judges’ own expectations.
READ MORE...
Romney Violated Massachusetts Constitution by Ordering ‘Same-Sex Marriage’; 44 U.S. pro-family leaders signed letter asking him to recant illegal orders
HARRISBURG, PA, January 19, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A letter addressed to Massachusetts’ ex-governor Mitt Romney has just been made public in which 44 conservative, pro-family leaders from across the nation requested that before stepping down from office, Romney would adhere to the Massachusetts Constitution and repeal his order directing public officials to perform ‘same-sex marriages’. The letter was hand delivered to members of Romney’s staff on December 20th, 2006 at his office. Romney took no action to adhere to the letter’s requests before he left office at the beginning of the New Year.
The letter cited numerous, historical cases and the Massachusetts’ Constitution to assert that Romney’s actions in implementing ‘gay marriage’ were beyond the bounds of his authority as governor. The authors further asserted that his actions were unconstitutional as were the actions of the four initial judges who formulated the official opinion on the matter in the ‘Goodridge’ case, the case that originally brought the matter to national attention.
Commenting on the ‘Goodridge’ opinion, Judge Robert Bork said that it was “untethered to either the Massachusetts or United States Constitution.”
As quoted in the letter, the MA Constitution denies the judicial branch of its government any authority over the state’s marriage policies. So it was that three of the seven judges that heard the Goodrich case strongly dissented that the court did not have authority to formulate laws.The letter also outlined how the MA Constitution forbids judges from establishing or altering law. According to the Constitution, such a task is to be left to the legislature. The judges’ opinion in the Goodrich case admitted that they were not altering the standing marriage statute in MA. Instead, Governor Romney took it upon himself, despite legal counsel to do otherwise, to order officials across the state that they would have to perform ‘gay marriages’, even though, according to Massachusetts law, to do so is a crime. Officials who refused were advised to resign their position.
Throughout the whole ordeal, Romney maintained that he was personally against ‘homosexual marriage’ but that he must “execute the law.” The conservatives’ letter clearly illustrates how Romney was not “executing the law” but merely facilitating the agenda of activist judges – beyond even the judges’ own expectations.
READ MORE...
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Romney Scares Libertarians
From John Haskins:
So even libertarians are in on the open secret: Mitt Romney is the Father of sodomy-based "marriage".
Rich Aucoin has posted an excellent article -- a very revealing one, in the bizarre context of sycophantic "social conservatives" covering up for the politician who single-handedly imposed "homosexual marriage." In Massachusetts many libertarians disdain social conservatives as lepers. But apparently some are willing to say publicly what is now uncomfortably obvious: Mitt Romney trashed the Massachusetts constitution and the form of government he swore to uphold.
Aucoin is a Libertarian, in a state where many libertarians are homosexuals or pro-homosexuality. He was the Libertarian candidate for Lt. Governor in 2002 against Romney/Healey (see his bio "About Rich").
His article shatters the Romney staff's amateurish attempt on their campaign website to convince everyone that Brian Camenker and anyone else who reads state constitutions must be hateful, religious right "extremists."
How then, to dismiss prominent Massachusetts libertarian Rich Aucoin? Also as an intolerant "Religious Right" bogeyman? Could such a "hater" have gotten the nomination of the socially hyper-liberal Massachusetts Libertarian Party?
Apparently, the state constitution and decades of previous court rulings have the same clear meaning when a libertarian reads them as when I do.
Bottom line: all you have to do to pass this civics exam is ... well, read the homework assignment. This exam is a very important one, but it has only one question on it. The correct answer: "He is the governor who illegally imposed sodomy-based 'marriage' while blaming four winking judges for making him do it." The question: "Who is Mitt Romney?"
Romney's boast, "I will be a more effective advocate for gay rights than my opponent," made while debating Ted Kennedy was a promise he kept ten years later -- in 2004 when he sidestepped the American form of government and issued illegal homosexual "marriage" licenses.
Propaganda has a way of fading away as "news" gives way to facts. Here's a historical fact that will endure long after all the slick lawyers and spinmeisters have gone home: No American ever, Republican or Democrat, has done more to kick the homosexual revolution into overdrive than Mitt Romney. Ted Kennedy can eat his heart out.
--John Haskins
Parents' Rights Coalition
john@ParentsRightsCoalition.org
Excerpts from the article by Rich Aucoin:
"Mitt Romney swings both ways on same-sex marriage: How the Massachusetts GOP, not the Democrats, changed the definition of marriage...and what America can do about it"
In November of 2003, the mostly Republican-appointed Massachusetts Supreme Court "ordered" an overwhelmingly Democratic state legislature to legalize same-sex marriage, and to do so no later than May 17, 2004. In response, the Democrat legislature - which, by law, answers to the people, not the courts - ignored the court's demand. It simply refused to act.
As the GOP court's "deadline" loomed, it appeared that a constitutional crisis would be inevitable. But then, five weeks before the court's May 17th diktat, Republican Governor Mitt Romney saved the day, unilaterally issuing the following alteration to the state’s marriage license application: "Bride" and "Groom" were to be replaced by "Party A" and "Party B."
Thanks to Mitt, homosexual couples in Massachusetts immediately began planning their weddings, while equality advocates from across America rejoiced!
King Romney then issued an ultimatum to the commonwealth's justices of the peace, telling them to either begin marrying same-sex couples or else resign. Then, to mollify outraged "traditional marriage" advocates, Romney began citing an antiquated 1913 law (designed to forbid interracial couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their home states wouldn't recognize their unions) as a way of denying marriage licenses to out-of-state homosexuals.
This political back flip, predictably, turned homosexuals' joy into anger, sparking accusations of discrimination against the Romney administration - which, conveniently for Mitt, obscured the fact that he was the one who had implemented same-sex marriage across Massachusetts in the first place.
Read more...
So even libertarians are in on the open secret: Mitt Romney is the Father of sodomy-based "marriage".
Rich Aucoin has posted an excellent article -- a very revealing one, in the bizarre context of sycophantic "social conservatives" covering up for the politician who single-handedly imposed "homosexual marriage." In Massachusetts many libertarians disdain social conservatives as lepers. But apparently some are willing to say publicly what is now uncomfortably obvious: Mitt Romney trashed the Massachusetts constitution and the form of government he swore to uphold.
Aucoin is a Libertarian, in a state where many libertarians are homosexuals or pro-homosexuality. He was the Libertarian candidate for Lt. Governor in 2002 against Romney/Healey (see his bio "About Rich").
His article shatters the Romney staff's amateurish attempt on their campaign website to convince everyone that Brian Camenker and anyone else who reads state constitutions must be hateful, religious right "extremists."
How then, to dismiss prominent Massachusetts libertarian Rich Aucoin? Also as an intolerant "Religious Right" bogeyman? Could such a "hater" have gotten the nomination of the socially hyper-liberal Massachusetts Libertarian Party?
Apparently, the state constitution and decades of previous court rulings have the same clear meaning when a libertarian reads them as when I do.
Bottom line: all you have to do to pass this civics exam is ... well, read the homework assignment. This exam is a very important one, but it has only one question on it. The correct answer: "He is the governor who illegally imposed sodomy-based 'marriage' while blaming four winking judges for making him do it." The question: "Who is Mitt Romney?"
Romney's boast, "I will be a more effective advocate for gay rights than my opponent," made while debating Ted Kennedy was a promise he kept ten years later -- in 2004 when he sidestepped the American form of government and issued illegal homosexual "marriage" licenses.
Propaganda has a way of fading away as "news" gives way to facts. Here's a historical fact that will endure long after all the slick lawyers and spinmeisters have gone home: No American ever, Republican or Democrat, has done more to kick the homosexual revolution into overdrive than Mitt Romney. Ted Kennedy can eat his heart out.
--John Haskins
Parents' Rights Coalition
john@ParentsRightsCoalition.org
Excerpts from the article by Rich Aucoin:
"Mitt Romney swings both ways on same-sex marriage: How the Massachusetts GOP, not the Democrats, changed the definition of marriage...and what America can do about it"
In November of 2003, the mostly Republican-appointed Massachusetts Supreme Court "ordered" an overwhelmingly Democratic state legislature to legalize same-sex marriage, and to do so no later than May 17, 2004. In response, the Democrat legislature - which, by law, answers to the people, not the courts - ignored the court's demand. It simply refused to act.
As the GOP court's "deadline" loomed, it appeared that a constitutional crisis would be inevitable. But then, five weeks before the court's May 17th diktat, Republican Governor Mitt Romney saved the day, unilaterally issuing the following alteration to the state’s marriage license application: "Bride" and "Groom" were to be replaced by "Party A" and "Party B."
Thanks to Mitt, homosexual couples in Massachusetts immediately began planning their weddings, while equality advocates from across America rejoiced!
King Romney then issued an ultimatum to the commonwealth's justices of the peace, telling them to either begin marrying same-sex couples or else resign. Then, to mollify outraged "traditional marriage" advocates, Romney began citing an antiquated 1913 law (designed to forbid interracial couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their home states wouldn't recognize their unions) as a way of denying marriage licenses to out-of-state homosexuals.
This political back flip, predictably, turned homosexuals' joy into anger, sparking accusations of discrimination against the Romney administration - which, conveniently for Mitt, obscured the fact that he was the one who had implemented same-sex marriage across Massachusetts in the first place.
Read more...
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Romney Failed to Respond to Pro-Family Groups
From WorldNetDaily:
Nearly four dozen pro-family leaders and activists have made public their direct challenge to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has assembled a committee to explore a run at the presidency in 2008, to document his opposition to homosexual marriages. And they say he ignored them.
According to the organization MassResistance.org, the leaders hand-delivered a letter to the former governor on Dec. 22 [correction: delivered on Dec. 20], before he left office, documenting why they believe he voluntarily instituted directives that created homosexual "marriages" in that state, even though he did not have to. They asked him to act in response, and they say he didn't even acknowledge the letter.
Among those challenging Romney were Paul Weyrich, of the Free Congress Foundation; Sandy Rios, of Culture Campaign; Robert Knight, who drafted the federal Defense of Marriage Act; Linda Harvey, of Mission America; Rev. Ted Pike, of the National Prayer Network; Randy Thomasson, of Campaign for Children and Families; Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth; David E. Smith, of the Illinois Family Institute; Joe Glover, of the Family Policy Network; Paul Cameron, of the Family Research Institute; John Haskins' of the Parents' Rights Coalition, and others.
The group's letter cited state constitutional provisions and court rulings, showing that while the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the creation of homosexual marriages, it did not have the authority to order the governor to institute them or the legislature to create them. The letter had called on Romney to reverse his "erroneous directives which began homosexual 'marriages' through an executive order" but signers noted that Romney declined to act.
READ MORE ...
Nearly four dozen pro-family leaders and activists have made public their direct challenge to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has assembled a committee to explore a run at the presidency in 2008, to document his opposition to homosexual marriages. And they say he ignored them.
According to the organization MassResistance.org, the leaders hand-delivered a letter to the former governor on Dec. 22 [correction: delivered on Dec. 20], before he left office, documenting why they believe he voluntarily instituted directives that created homosexual "marriages" in that state, even though he did not have to. They asked him to act in response, and they say he didn't even acknowledge the letter.
Among those challenging Romney were Paul Weyrich, of the Free Congress Foundation; Sandy Rios, of Culture Campaign; Robert Knight, who drafted the federal Defense of Marriage Act; Linda Harvey, of Mission America; Rev. Ted Pike, of the National Prayer Network; Randy Thomasson, of Campaign for Children and Families; Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth; David E. Smith, of the Illinois Family Institute; Joe Glover, of the Family Policy Network; Paul Cameron, of the Family Research Institute; John Haskins' of the Parents' Rights Coalition, and others.
The group's letter cited state constitutional provisions and court rulings, showing that while the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the creation of homosexual marriages, it did not have the authority to order the governor to institute them or the legislature to create them. The letter had called on Romney to reverse his "erroneous directives which began homosexual 'marriages' through an executive order" but signers noted that Romney declined to act.
READ MORE ...
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Romney Campaign's Personal Attacks Have Begun
From Peter LaBarbera -- who's been covering the radical GLBT movement before most Americans even knew it existed -- comes a call for Mitt Romney to apologize for attacking "pro-family hero Brian Camenker", president of MassResistance.
Romney is desperately trying to discredit Camenker’s publication of the “Mitt Romney Deception,” detailing the Republican politician’s past liberal record.
News Release
Americans For Truth www.americansfortruth.org
January 12, 2007
NAPERVILLE, IL—Americans For Truth President Peter LaBarbera expressed dismay at former Republican Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s public attack against Brian Camenker, the head of Mass Resistance and “an American hero in the fight against the radical homosexual agenda.”
In a web posting by Romney’s presidential exploratory committee, ominously entitled, “Meet the Real Brian Camenker,” Romney uses liberal media stories to portray Camenker as an extremist troublemaker. Camenker is widely respected among pro-family advocates nationwide for his untiring efforts to expose pro-homosexual indoctrination of public school students.
Romney is desperately trying to discredit Camenker’s publication of the “Mitt Romney Deception,” detailing the Republican politician’s past liberal record. Forty-four conservative leaders including LaBarbera have signed on to a letter challenging Romney’s claim that as governor he did all he could to defend against “gay marriage” in Massachusetts....
“Brian Camenker is a bona fide American pro-family hero,” LaBarbera said. “Brian, who is Jewish, has refused to sell out his religious beliefs like so many around him in Boston. Now comes along a politician — who once boasted that he was better than Ted Kennedy on ‘gay’ issues — to trash him as an extremist gadfly. This is establishment Republican attack-politics at its very worst....
“It’s not Camenker who is extreme but Romney’s (former) ‘gay’ Log Cabin Republican friends, who wouldn’t even endorse President Bush for re-election in 2004,” LaBarbera said.
He urged Romney to retract the anti-Camenker web posting and apologize to the pro-family advocate, noting that Camenker has done nothing wrong in “reminding the American public that Romney has flip-flopped from being a very committed pro-abortion and pro-homosexual-activist politician.”
Romney is desperately trying to discredit Camenker’s publication of the “Mitt Romney Deception,” detailing the Republican politician’s past liberal record.
News Release
Americans For Truth www.americansfortruth.org
January 12, 2007
NAPERVILLE, IL—Americans For Truth President Peter LaBarbera expressed dismay at former Republican Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s public attack against Brian Camenker, the head of Mass Resistance and “an American hero in the fight against the radical homosexual agenda.”
In a web posting by Romney’s presidential exploratory committee, ominously entitled, “Meet the Real Brian Camenker,” Romney uses liberal media stories to portray Camenker as an extremist troublemaker. Camenker is widely respected among pro-family advocates nationwide for his untiring efforts to expose pro-homosexual indoctrination of public school students.
Romney is desperately trying to discredit Camenker’s publication of the “Mitt Romney Deception,” detailing the Republican politician’s past liberal record. Forty-four conservative leaders including LaBarbera have signed on to a letter challenging Romney’s claim that as governor he did all he could to defend against “gay marriage” in Massachusetts....
“Brian Camenker is a bona fide American pro-family hero,” LaBarbera said. “Brian, who is Jewish, has refused to sell out his religious beliefs like so many around him in Boston. Now comes along a politician — who once boasted that he was better than Ted Kennedy on ‘gay’ issues — to trash him as an extremist gadfly. This is establishment Republican attack-politics at its very worst....
“It’s not Camenker who is extreme but Romney’s (former) ‘gay’ Log Cabin Republican friends, who wouldn’t even endorse President Bush for re-election in 2004,” LaBarbera said.
He urged Romney to retract the anti-Camenker web posting and apologize to the pro-family advocate, noting that Camenker has done nothing wrong in “reminding the American public that Romney has flip-flopped from being a very committed pro-abortion and pro-homosexual-activist politician.”
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Conservative Leaders Across America Challenge Romney
Here is the press release sent out by MassResistance/Parents' Rights Coalition earlier today:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Confidential letter from 44 conservative leaders across America challenged Romney on claim he ‘defended’ marriage and the constitution
WALTHAM, MA, Jan. 11, 2007 -- The Parents’ Rights Coalition and MassResistance will release a letter this Friday which was sent to former Governor W. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts in December just before he left office. The letter was signed by a diverse group of 44 pro-family and conservative leaders, including both national and influential state-level activists. It reveals a broader and more profound rejection of Romney’s pro-family claims than social conservatives have previously expressed, and directly challenges his assertion that he truly opposed homosexual “marriage.” The conservative leaders called on Romney to reverse his erroneous directives which began homosexual “marriages” through an executive order prior to his leaving office on Jan. 3. But Romney declined to act, though he had both authority and obligation to reverse the damage done to the institution of marriage and the rule of law.
Citing the state constitution and court rulings, the letter shows that Romney actually exceeded his legal authority -- and even the expectations of the Massachusetts court -- by ordering public officials to treat homosexual marriage as if it were law, though the marriage statute has never been changed in Massachusetts. Romney was not “executing the law,” but the opinion of four judges, and he therefore violated his oath to uphold the state Constitution – which explicitly denies judges any authority over marriage policy.
Of his own volition, Romney issued constitutionally fraudulent “homosexual marriage” licenses. With no authorizing legislation, he ordered marriage licenses to be changed from "husband" and "wife," to "Party A" and "Party B." Stunningly, he later admitted that without enabling legislation he couldn’t change the gender on birth certificates. Then Romney ordered officials to perform homosexual marriages (or resign if they were unwilling), violating the marriage statute (a crime under c. 207 §48), and the oath of office. Under the Massachusetts Constitution, only the Legislature may change the statutes.
Prominent signers include Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation; Robert H. Knight, veteran Washington political activist and a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Act; Linda Harvey, Mission America; Rev. Ted Pike, National Prayer Network; Randy Thomasson, Campaign for Children and Families; Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth; Dr. Chuck Baldwin, radio host and columnist; Paul Likoudis, The Wanderer; Phil Lawler, Catholic World News; David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute; Michael Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine; Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan; Joe Glover, Family Policy Network; and Bill Cotter, Operation Rescue Boston.
Behind the letter is exhaustive legal and constitutional research by attorney “Robert Paine” (www.RobertPaine.blogspot.com), who has arguably done more research into the legal issues behind the unconstitutional imposition of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts than any other legal scholar in the country.
“Mitt Romney is not the ‘Defender of Marriage and the Constitution' he is posing as,” said John Haskins of the Parents’ Rights Coalition, signer and coordinator of the effort. “There is no question that awareness of Romney’s abuse of power, in not even waiting for the legislature to change the law, is growing among conservative leaders and in the pro-family grass roots nationally.”
Haskins said, “The letter is part of an ongoing, multi-point plan to remove the shroud of deception and disinformation in Romney’s claims about his actions and beliefs on social issues. All that remains is for responsible people to investigate his history and the legal and constitutional facts contained in the letter.”
The full text of the letter and complete list of signers will be made available on Friday, Jan. 12 on www.MassResistance.org.
Names and titles of individuals and organizations are for identification purposes only.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)