Goodridge Ruling Anniversary: Celebrating 3 Years of Sodomy "Marriage"?

Intercepted from the forces of evil . . . On the fourth year since the ruling, and 3+ years since the first "marriages" . . . Will the recently "divorced" Goodridge couple be in attendance?

You're Invited! Goodridge Decision Anniversary Party
What: Party celebrating 4th anniversary of Goodridge decision
Where: Home of Lynn Nadeau, 10 Surf Street, Marblehead, MA
When: Sunday, November 18, 4-6pm

Join Aaron Toleos (featured this month as a "cool straight guy" by The Advocate) and Tom Lang of KnowThyNeighbor.org, the authors of Courting Equality, and other marriage equality leaders from the North Shore for an afternoon of fun, food, & drink!

The guest of honor will be Representative Doug Petersen (D-Marblehead), an unwavering advocate for equality in the state house who will soon be leaving his elected position to become the commissioner of the MA Department of Agriculture.

Bring your copy of Courting Equality and have it signed by the authors and some of those profiled within its pages! This is NOT a fundraiser -- it's a celebration!

RSVP: authors@courtingequality.com
Tom Lang & Aaron Toleos, DirectorsKnowThyNeighbor.org

Romney Again Manipulates Straw Poll

10/21/07 UPDATE on Values Voter/Family Research Council

Here are the real numbers from the FRC Briefing/Values Voter straw poll, for those in attendance:
Huckabee 488
Romney 99
Thompson 77
Giuliani 60
See: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=601

+++++++++++++++++++

10-20-07

Mitt Romney is proving that money can't buy him love, only some fraudulent straw polls. He continues to slump in the more honest outside polls.

For the third time now (the first occasion being the CPAC conference in D.C. last March; the second with his fleet of buses in Iowa), it appears Romney sleazed a victory in a straw poll -- this time at this weekend's Values Voter Summit, a gathering of Christian social conservatives. ("Opponents say Romney is stacking straw poll," Boston Globe, 10-20-07)

The Politico just reported that Romney won today's poll over Huckabee by a handful of votes, but goes on to say:

Here’s something important to remember about the poll: The results reflect not just the 2,000-plus attendees at the three-day conference, but also anyone who went online and contributed as little as $1 to join FRC Action, the legislative action arm of the Family Research Council. . . .

Doesn't this tell us all we need to know about Slick Mitt? A Romney campaign official (Mark DeMoss) told his Romney supporter list to do the $1 thing.

Interesting that the homosexual extremist Log Cabin Republicans were at the Values Voter Summit, handing out proof that Romney once openly supported their demands and was pro-abortion. But we can't figure out why the Log Cabinites are so upset with him. After all, Romney was the reason "homosexual marriage" began in Massachusetts. If he hadn't illegally changed the licenses and ordered state officials to implement the "marriages", nothing would have happened. What is this Log Cabin charade all about?

We're also seeing lots of stories on evangelical Christians distrusting him, despite the various big-name conservative leaders endorsing him . . . but then they're widely suspected of selling out for present money and possible future power for their groups. How sad to read today's news of Dr. John Willke's blind allegiance to this dishonest candidate:

Romney’s campaign distributed a news release announcing he had been endorsed by Dr. John Willke, founder and former president of the National Right to Life Committee. Willke said on the release: “I know he will be the strong pro-life president we need in the White House.” [The Politico]

One of our favorite columnists, Pastor Chuck Baldwin, just wrote on Romney's crazy new alliance with Bob Jones III, and his duplicity on the homosexual marriage issue. We're happy to see Baldwin citing the research from our Romney Report, by Atty. Robert Paine and John Haskins.)

Democrat Presidential Candidates Without Moral Grounding

They've proven it by their comments on teaching homosexual coupling to 2nd-graders. The top Democrat candidates for President all think that anal intercourse is a valid basis for "marriage" and if you disagree, you're fearful and hateful. Though this story is a few weeks old (the debate took place on Sept. 27), it shouldn't be overlooked.

The appropriateness of reading the story book King & King to 2nd-graders (as done in a Lexington, Mass. school, at the heart of the Parker lawsuit) was the subject of a question to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. None of them objected to the youngest minds absorbing the idea that sodomy was a valid foundation for "marriage". John Edwards' response may be the most amazing. He basically said it's not his business to instruct his children regarding right and wrong!!!

Nothing makes more clear than these responses how dangerous it is to accept "civil unions" -- the slippery slope -- because once you go there, how do you say NO to a fairy tale about two princes kissing and marrying? All three of these Dem candidates say they're for "civil unions" but against homosexual "marriage" -- yet they all accept the use of the "fairy tale" King and King!

Allison King [NECN]: The issues surrounding gay rights have been hotly debated here in New England. For example, last year some parents of second-graders in Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children's teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who marries another prince. Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts [sic - no it's NOT legal] but most of you oppose it. Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum? I'm going to start with Senator Edwards.

JOHN EDWARDS: Yes, absolutely. What I want is I want my children to understand everything about the difficulties that gay and lesbian couples are faced with every day, the discrimination that they're faced with every single day of their lives. And I suspect my two younger children, Emma Claire, who's 9, and Jack, who's 7, will reach the same conclusion that my daughter Cate, who's 25, has reached, which is she doesn't understand why her dad is not in favor of same-sex marriage. And she says her generation will be the generation that brings about the great change in America on that issue.
So I don't want to make that decision on behalf of my children. I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in – did you say second grade? Second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade to be exposed to all ...

KING: Well, that's the point. It is second grade.

EDWARDS: ... those possibilities, because I don't want to impose my view. Nobody made me God. I don't get to decide on behalf of my family or my children, as my wife, Elizabeth, has spoken her own mind on this issue. I don't get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right.

BARACK OBAMA: You know, I feel [sic; no thought, just feeling] very similar to John.... One of the things I want to communicate to my children is not to be afraid of people who are different ... And one of the things I think the next president has to do is to stop fanning people's fears. If we spend all our time feeding the American people fear and conflict and division, then they become fearful and conflicted and divided. And if we feed them hope and we feed them reason and tolerance, then they will become tolerant and reasonable and hopeful.

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I really respect what both John and Barack said.... With respect to your individual children, that is such a matter of parental discretion, I think that obviously it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children understand the many differences that are in the world and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make. [Is she saying homosexuality is a choice?!] ... So I think that this issue of gays and lesbians and their rights will remain an important one in our country. And I hope that – tomorrow we're going to vote on the hate crimes bill, and I'm sure that those of us in the Senate will be there to vote for it. We haven't been able to get it passed, and it is an important measure to send a message that we stand against hatred and divisiveness.

The full transcript of the debate on King and King is available here.

Homosexual Marriages Down to Trickle in Mass.

Don't remember why we went to the wedding announcements page on Bay Windows, but what we found was interesting. Nothing has been posted since November 2006. (And the photos have been removed.) We also rarely see the offensive same-sex couple photos on the Boston Globe weddings page now. And we're sure the Globe would print them if they had them!

Seems that homosexual "marriages" have tapered off lately. We've reported on this in the past. Recently we read of the same phonemenon in Canada. (See "Only 1 Canadian same-sex couple 'married' in Toronto this year," LifeSiteNews.) Hmm...

They don't really want marriage. They just want to destroy the institution of marriage. Stanley Kurtz was right: According to American author/researcher Stanley Kurtz, the goal of the homosexual movement is not about “marriage” for gays, but the ultimate demolition of all marriage. Basing his idea upon a 2001 Law Commission called “Beyond Conjugality”, Kurtz declared, “The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage.”

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!

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?

NY Times: Romney Kept Promise to Gays to Allow "Gay Marriage"

The New York Times is finally looking into Romney's "gay rights" record in Massachusetts. See "Romney’s tone on gay rights is seen as shift" (New York Times, 9-8-07). Romney doesn't want this to come out:

[I]n the aftermath of the Massachusetts court decision, Mr. Romney, though aligning himself with the supporters of a constitutional amendment [banning homosexual "marriage" but establishing civil unions], did order town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some members of Log Cabin Republicans say that in doing so, he ultimately fulfilled his promise to them despite his own moral objections.

In the year prior to the Court's marriage ruling, Romney promised homosexual activists he'd "keep his head low" and do whatever the Court ordered. From the Times:

Calling Mr. Romney a flip-flopper on gay rights would be overly simplistic, Mr. Spampinato [a homosexual activist and former aide) said. But he conceded that his old boss had promised the Log Cabin members that he would not champion a fight against same-sex marriage. ...

Mitt Romney seemed comfortable as a group of gay Republicans quizzed him over breakfast one morning in 2002. Running for governor of Massachusetts, he was at a gay bar in Boston to court members of Log Cabin Republicans. Mr. Romney explained to the group that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector, where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon. When the discussion turned to a court case on same-sex marriage that was then wending its way through the state’s judicial system, he said he believed that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman.

But, according to several people present, he promised to obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue. “I’ll keep my head low,” he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer, one participant recalled.

Romney has never been an advocate for real marriage, but in fact a facilitator for the establishment of homosexual "marriage", or its twin, "civil unions." But the Times reports,"Mr. Romney bristles when he is accused of shifting on the issue, as he has on abortion, pointing out that he has been consistent in personally opposing both marriage and civil unions between people of the same sex." No -- Romney has NOT always opposed civil unions. Our Romney Report documents that he immediately went to work with legislative leaders after the Mass. court ruling (Fall 2003) to craft a civil-unions style law (Washington Post report, 11-20-03). Then in 2004 he strong-armed conservative Republican legislators into supporting a constitutional amendment that included civil unions, while banning homosexual "marriage." From the Boston Globe(3/30/2004):

Through all the twists and shifts during the gay-marriage debate this year, there was one constant: 22 Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed every measure that would grant gay couples civil unions in the constitution. That all changed yesterday, however, when 15 of that 22-member bloc broke away at the urging of Governor Mitt Romney and voted in favor of a proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage but create Vermont-style civil unions. Those 15 members provided the margin of victory, observers from both camps said yesterday after the measure passed by just five votes. In the end, the 15 agreed that approving a measure that they viewed as highly undesirable was preferable to the possibility that nothing would be sent to the state ballot for voters to weigh in on.

Also, Romney refused to support the original proposed Massachusetts marriage amendment in 2002, absolutely defining marriage as one man and one woman, apparently now wanting to ban domestic partnerships and civil unions. Bay Windows reported at the time (3-28-02):

"Romney was unaware his family members had signed the amendment petition, said [spokesman] Fehrnstrom, and he does not support the "Protection of Marriage" amendment. "He is opposed to gay marriage, but in the case of the 'defense of marriage' amendment Mitt believes it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept."

Who's Behind "Gay Marriage" in Iowa?

Here are two notable groups pushing the latest illegal homosexual "marriage" travesty in Iowa:

1. Lambda Legal pushed the Iowa case in a county court (judge-shopped), in a state where they figured no public official would call for the judge's impeachment. All the outrage among conservatives over this, but no one's calling for the judge to be booted? Presidential candidate Mitt Romney dared not demand the judge's ouster, as it would have shown up his failure in Massachusetts to do the same -- though he now poses as a heroic defender of real marriage.

In December 2005, Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit with the Polk County Court on behalf of six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in Iowa, arguing that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates the equal protection and due process guarantees in the Iowa Constitution, and prevents these couples from taking care of each other and their children.... Lambda Legal has planned a series of Town Hall meetings around Iowa in the next couple of weeks to introduce the plaintiffs to residents and keep alive the idea that equality is the only right way for Iowa to proceed. (InNews Weekly, 9-6-07)

What else does Lambda Legal do? It supports GLBT activism in schools. It tells cruisers for anonymous "gay" sex how to avoid trouble with the police, publishing its very own Little Black Book of advice on the subject. (Did Senator Craig lose his copy?):
If you cruise in parks, bathrooms or other spaces open to public view, trust your instincts, be aware of your surroundings -- and know your rights. While Lambda Legal and other groups are fighting against the ways police target men who have sex with men, having sex where others might see you and take offense can subject you to arrest, publicity and other serious consequences. If you feel unsafe, you should leave.
CRUISING SAFELY ... [read more...]

2. Unitarians. Right next to the Massachusetts State House is the international headquarters of the Unitarian Universalist Association. (Note: it's not a "church" but an "association.")
The Unitarians have taken a leading role in pushing for homosexual "marriage" here and across America. The UU Association also hosts a group (somewhat underground at the moment) pushing for polygamy ("polyamory awareness" -- they're still at the desensitizing stage, just making us "aware" of their "alternative sexual expression").

The "gay" couple in Iowa were "married" last week by -- surprise -- a Unitarian minister. In his welcome message on his "church" web site, do we see any mention of the Bible? God? Ten Commandments? Doctrine? Jesus? Truth? No, just words like: seekers ... questions ... values ... life enrichment ... social justice ... socializing ... journeys ... "the never-ending dialogue that is faith."

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....

MassEquality Shifting Focus to "Trans Rights & Hate Crimes" Bill

Bay Windows has a long piece on MassEquality's future focus, now that they believe homosexual marriage" is secured. It is clear that they'll be helping the Mass. Transgender Political Caucus pass its "transgender rights and hate crimes" bill (H1722). Remember that the Gill Foundation's Patrick Guerriero -- who brought in millions to secure defeat of the marriage amendment -- is also committed to the "trans rights" cause. So we're sure that MassEquality -- which also benefits from Gill's largesse -- is clearly on that bandwagon, more than they're publicly acknowledging. From "MassEquality plots its future," Bay Windows (7-25-07):

The Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC) of which MassEquality is a member organization, on July 17 sent a letter to the MassEquality board of directors asking that the organization step up to the plate on the effort to pass a bill that would outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression and enhance penalties against perpetrators of crimes motivated by the victim’s gender identity or expression....

Ryan [MTPC co-chair; a "transwoman"] said that this is the first time MTPC has reached out to the MassEquality board for help on the transgender rights bill. Both she and fellow MTPC Co-Chair Gunner Scott ["transman"] said that though they have long had conversations with MassEquality staff members about the bill, they recognized that the organization’s primary focus was on securing marriage equality. Now, said Scott, “If they’re going to continue as a GLBT equality organization we’d like, of course, for them to focus on the trans bill that’s currently pending.” Solomon [MassEquality director] agreed that the LGBT community must turn its attention to securing protections for transgender people. “Passing an aggressive transgender civil rights bill that protects transgender people from hate crimes and discrimination has got to be a top community priority,” he said. [emphasis added]

Not mentioned in the Bay Windows article: MassEquality is also now quietly working hard to be sure they have the votes to actually LEGALIZE "gay marriage" -- with an actual LAW! Though why they think the law is important, we don't know. They certainly don't want the public to know about this little glitch -- that Mass. statutes still don't allow same-sex "marriage"! While he didn't mention that issue, Marc Solomon of MassEquality did say (immediately after the defeat of the marriage amendment on June 14) that he was working on the best timing to overturn the 1913 law barring out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying here. Though we're not sure why they need to do that either, since Massachusetts bureaucrats claim they are now empowered to tell other states what to do. (See yesterday's news on the Mass. DPH bureaucrat who issued a fiat allowing New Mexico homosexual couples to marry here.) MassEquality and the Trans Caucus have a sure ally in Gov. Deval Patrick for these bills, which will probably all be heard by the Judiciary Committee in the Fall:

• legalizing their same-sex "marriages" H1710, S918


• overturning the 1913 law barring marriages by out-of-state same-sex couples S800, S1029


• "transgender rights and hate crimes" H1722.

The Bay Windows article also describes some of the payback going on with the vote switchers on the marriage amendment:

As the MassEquality board weighs the organization’s future, daily work continues. Most importantly, the organization has set about offering support to the nine legislators who switched from supporting to opposing the amendment between the Jan. 2 ConCon and the June 14 session and the two freshman lawmakers who had campaigned on support for the amendment last fall but ultimately decided to vote against it. To that end, MassEquality Development Director Scott Gortikov [who once donated to MassResistance in an attempt to get on our email alert list] has been working with some of the organization’s major donors — gay and straight — to steer campaign contributions to the newest crop of pro-equality legislators, who may be vulnerable in next year’s elections because of their vote switch. Gortikov declined to name specific legislators who have benefited from his work thus far. ...

Besides steering major donors toward potentially imperiled pro-equality legislators, MassEquality is also encouraging its members to attend fundraisers for their respective lawmakers. On July 12, for example, members of the affiliate group Quincy for Marriage Equality were a visible presence at Sen. Michael Morrissey’s annual fundraiser at Waterworks, a Quincy nightspot. ... Beyond campaign contributions, MassEquality members are making their support for vote switchers visible in other ways, said Solomon. For instance, in a Fourth of July parade in state Sen. Gale Candaras’s Western Mass. district, a crowd of marriage equality supporters turned up waving signs thanking Candaras for coming around to the cause of equality after several years of anti-equality votes.

Another Tyrant Named to Mass. Supreme Judicial Court

Are we surprised? Today, Governor Deval Patrick will announce his choice to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Judicial Court: jurist Margot Botsford, who shares his "liberal positions on controversial social issues such as abortion, the death penalty, and gay marriage, as well as on civil liberties." Botsford's husband, S. Stephen Rosenfeld, served in Michael Dukakis administration and "has been a campaign contributor to Patrick." See "Jurist Botsford seen as SJC pick," Boston Globe (7-26-07). We are told that she has an "intellectual grasp of legal issues."

Botsford is cited for her ruling in a high-profile case on "a controversial runway at Logan International Airport." She has the "intellectual firepower to handle some of the state's most complex cases," says a past president of the American Bar Association. Problem is that abortion and runways are not equivalent. In fact, abortion is quite simple: It's the pre-meditated murder of an innocent human being. Can Botsford handle that?

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.

Defining Treason Down: Alliance Defense Fund & Romney

More on Saturday's big story in WorldNetDaily, "Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage; 'What he did was exercise illegal legislative authority' " featured in our July 14 post.

Defining treason down: Why Did the ADF's Stovall hold back on Romney's criminal actions?
By John Haskins

Alliance Defense Fund attorney Chris Stovall presumably told WorldNetDaily reporter Robert Unruh more than ended up in the blockbuster WND article, "Experts: Credit Romney for Homosexual Marriage." One hopes Stovall had the courage and integrity to go on the record as Dr. Titus did, in stating the obvious: Romney used authority he did not have when he ordered homosexual marriage after Goodridge rendered a merely "declaratory judgment" with "no consequential relief."

Stovall undoubtedly feels bound to understate Romney's pro-active -- almost certainly criminal -- role in illegally ordering public officials to perform these void homosexual "marriages." After all, his firm, the Alliance Defense Fund, like Jay Sekulow, Cardinal O'Malley's attorneys, the Massachusetts Family Institute, and radio lawyer Hugh Hewitt, bungled this catastrophically -- either failing to read the Massachusetts Constitution at all, or if they bothered to consult it at some point, by treating it as irrelevant, since it so totally contradicts Mitt Romney's entire story and the snickering Boston Globe's flood of propaganda supporting Romney's lies about reluctantly enforcing "the law."

Stovall's colleague at Alliance Defense Fund, Atty. David French -- who has sold his soul ingratiating himself to such placebo "conservatives" as Slick Willard Romney, the National Review kids and Jay Sekulow -- is proceeding full speed ahead with his gross and flagrant malpractice, subverting the oldest functioning constitution in the world. Messrs. French, Sekulow and Hewitt are post-constitutional legal nihilists who claim a preference for "conservatism," but for whom constitutions can be nullified by judges drunk with power and seething with malice toward Judeo-Christian morality. These ruthless, arrogant and frankly, quite incompetent attorneys are doing such damage to the ragged remnants of constitutionalism that they ought, in my view, to be disbarred from the practice of law. Notice that at no point do these mercenaries dare mention the Massachusetts Constitution in their marketeering for "Slick Willard" Romney, Founding Father of Sodomy-Based "Marriage."

So if Stovall failed to explicitly agree with Professor Titus about the grossly illegal nature of Romney's actions, he cited the Alaska situation as a roundabout way of agreeing with Titus, Atty. Robert Paine and others (including us), that constitutionally, Romney was not forced to impose homosexual "marriage."

Of course that's not nearly good enough.

It is true to say that a governor is not forced to impose slavery tomorrow. But that is pantywaist silliness and requires neither thought nor courage. Neither courts nor governors have authority to impose things that statutes and/or constitutions have outlawed. When they impose them they are acting criminally, as tyrants.

If the plain words of the Massachusetts Constitution are binding, Romney not only was not forced (by a declaratory opinion -- meaning "without consequential relief"!) he chose an option he legally did not have. Romney was absolutely obliged to do exactly the opposite of what he did. This is simply too shocking and too painful for people to face, though it is proven beyond honest debate in the Letter by 44 Pro-Family Leaders to Romney. The cowardice and denial in the body politic, including the "conservative" end of it, are symptoms of an apparently fatal disease that the Founding Fathers warned about.

So-called "conservatives" and "constitutionalists" are in total and rapid breakdown, having surrendered the very rules of the game (constitutions) to the ravenous left, and everything from here on out is merely protracted surrender, sprinkled with illusory successes here and there to justify the steady pro-family and GOP fundraising.

The Massachusetts Constitution is so explicit in proving Romney's orders to be grossly illegal, null and void, and French's, Hewitt's and Sekulow's propaganda to be malpractice (if they are bound by their oath on joining the bar to uphold constitutionalism), that the only possibly debatable question is this: Does the oath of office that Romney and the neo-Bolshevik judges of the Massachusetts high court took on entering office tell us that their failure to uphold the state constitution is a felony? Did the Founding Fathers, in particular, John Adams, the original Robert Paine, et al. intend for actions like Romney's to be prosecuted in criminal court? Having examined the oath, I think the answer is that they did (although, technically speaking, "treason" is probably not the correct charge, constitutionally).

Apparently, when Romney got away with what the Founding Fathers regarded as criminal subversion of the state constitution he swore to uphold, the Alaska governor following suit, ignored her solemn duty to execute the law as ratified by the legislature, rather than judges' non-binding fantasy opinions. I've not read the Alaska judges' opinion, but one of the most striking things about the Goodridge opinion that Romney cynically used as a Trojan horse to impose sodomy-based "marriage" is that (as Professors Titus and Fitzgibbon point out) it contains no order that Romney could even assert forced him to act. Moreover, the Massachusetts court has repeatedly admitted it has no power to order the governor or the legislature to do anything.

The layers upon layers of legal deception that Romney, the ADF, Sekulow, Hugh Hewitt, and National Review have used to sell their lies are simply mind-boggling. This is why Benjamin Franklin warned as he emerged from the Constitutional Convention "[It's] a republic, Madame, if you can keep it."

Here are the comments from ADF's Stovall, in reporter Unruh's context:

Titus noted the 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court had declared a slave was the property of the master, even if they both were physically in a free state. But President Lincoln rejected the authority of that opinion.
"[I]f the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made – the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of the eminent tribunal," he said.
Lincoln simply declined to enforce the court's opinion.
Stovall told WND that a much more recent confrontation between branches of government played out recently in Alaska.
After a statewide vote, executive branch officials refused to grant benefits to partners of state employees in same-sex duos; a lawsuit was filed and the state Supreme Court sided with the same-sex couples. The governor, Frank Murkowski, called the Legislature into special session, but lawmakers didn't want to be hurried. They approved legislation that no such changes to the state benefits could be made until they met in general session.
The court then refused to extend its deadline, and lawmakers refused to yield.
The standoff collapsed when a new governor was inaugurated and without benefit of authorizing legislation, instituted the changes demanded by the court.
Mass Resistance leaders note that to this day, the Massachusetts Legislature still has not authorized a change in the state's marriage laws.

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]

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

Romney Doesn't Fool WorldNetDaily

This is big in the conservative world: WorldNetDaily's founder/editor Joseph Farah hits Mitt right between the eyes. See "Don't Be Fooled by Romney" (7-13-07). MassResistance's work over the past year, exposing Romney's injury to our Constitution, has paid off! Excerpts from Farah's article, on Romney's implementation of homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts:

He claims today to be a supporter of traditional marriage and an opponent of same-sex marriage. Yet, as governor of Massachusetts, he did more than any other person alive in the United States to ensure same-sex marriage would be the law of the land in his state. How?

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the state Legislature to write a new law permitting same-sex marriages, Romney, the governor, the chief executive of the state's government, fell all over himself to do something that was not required of him – issuing homosexual marriage licenses. Not only did this action reveal his gutlessness and lack of knowledge of the separation of powers in our system of government, it also suggests he is merely masquerading as someone committed to defending marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. ...

Romney is one of those politicians – not unlike Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband – who will do anything and say anything to get elected. That's what certain politicians believe is more important than principle – getting themselves elected. ...

If President George W. Bush set back the Republican Party years, perhaps decades, a politician like Romney, an empty suit with lots of money and good looks, could prove to be the death of the GOP if he should ever be elected president. Today I pledge earnestly and without reservation that I will not vote for Romney under any circumstances, no matter who his opponent might be. That's how bad he is. That's how unacceptable he is as a presidential candidate. ...

The National Review "Mothership" and Romney

Left: The Mothership

Don't miss this in WorldNetDaily today:
"Romney's 'constitutional bungling' criticized: Leaders say he ordered 'homosexual marriage' even though court never asked him to" (7-12-07). National Review's puffy coverage of Romney is the topic.

The article contains hysterically funny quotes from Kathryn Jean Lopez (Romney cheerleader) of National Review Online. She claims NRO provides in-depth coverage, yet we've NEVER seen anything there approaching the detail of this WND story. In fact, Lopez reverts to childish name-calling, continuing the NR pattern of complete avoidance of the constitutional issues. From WND:

The publication responded that the criticism was nothing more than a public relations stunt. "National Review Online has run pieces and blog posts criticizing and lauding Governor Romney on marriage and a whole host of other issues, as we have with others of the Republicans up for primary consideration next year. ..." Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review Online's editor, told WND. "Both marriage and the presidential election deserve more serious treatment than Mass Resistance's public-relations stunt. That's what we strive to do here at National Review Online and our mothership, National Review," she said.

We suggest that NR take lessons from WND on thoughtful political reporting! And maybe it's time for Kathryn Jean to return to the "mothership" -- National Review magazine -- in some more controlled role. Maybe the mothership needs to clean house. We suggest the mothership hire a few more real conservatives (and grown-ups). And maybe it's time for NR to stop taking big donations from Presidential candidates and their surrogates.

Lawsuit Against Church in NJ: Coming Soon to Mass.

One of the many ways "the sky is falling": LifeSite News reports that a lesbian couple in New Jersey is suing a church for refusing to let them have their "civil union" ceremony on church property. It won't be long before we see similar lawsuits in Massachusetts against churches that refuse homosexual "marriage" ceremonies on their properties. Just as in New Jersey law, Massachusetts bans discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of "sexual orientattion." Freedom of religion? What's that?

Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony
OCEAN GROVE, New Jersey (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New Jersey lesbian couple has filed a civil rights complaint against a Christian seaside retreat association that refused to facilitate their "civil union." Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster filed the complaint June 19 with the state attorney general's office on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined the use of their Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned for September.

Bernstein and Paster demanded "whatever relief is provided by law" including unspecified "compensatory damages for economic loss, humiliation, [and] mental pain." New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.

However the OGCMA has stated that it must adhere to the rules of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which forbids homosexual civil unions from being performed in churches and other areas for worship. "The facility that they requested is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869," Scott Hoffman, OGCMA's chief administrative officer told LifeSiteNews.com. ...

Here's the Mass. law:
Chapter 272: Section 98. Discrimination in admission to, or treatment in, place of public accommodation; punishment; forfeiture; civil right
Section 98. Whoever makes any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, which shall not include persons whose sexual orientation involves minor children as the sex object, deafness, blindness or any physical or mental disability or ancestry relative to the admission of any person to, or his treatment in any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, as defined in section ninety-two A, or whoever aids or incites such distinction, discrimination or restriction, shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, and shall be liable to any person aggrieved thereby for such damages as are enumerated ... All persons shall have the right to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons. This right is recognized and declared to be a civil right.

The Myth of "Gays" Wanting "Gay Marriage"

[Graph from Boston Globe, 5-17-07]

We posted on the dramatic decline in homosexual "marriages" taking place in Massachusetts a few months back. People are starting to notice. At Boston Pride, the Ramrod anonymous sodomy bar and the "Bears" with their folding chairs made a lot louder statements than that dishonest lobbying organization called MassEquality. Now we hear that in Toronto (a very "gay" city), hardly any homosexual "marriages" are taking place!

Along these lines, see this piece by Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America: " 'Gays' don't want 'marriage' after all" (WorldNetDaily, 7-6-07). Excerpts from Barber:

The homosexual lobby has fine-tuned its rhetoric in recent years. Through the hyperbolic and repetitive use of such concocted expressions as "marriage equality" and "gay rights," the left has dishonestly but effectively framed the debate over homosexual behaviors.

...But getting married isn't even on the radar screen for the vast majority of homosexuals who choose to engage in a lifestyle largely delineated by short-lived and unstable relationships at best – and more often by casual and promiscuous sexual encounters.

Consider that according to the latest Massachusetts Department of Public Health statistics, there have been only 9,695 total "gay marriages" in Massachusetts since 2004 when then-Gov. Mitt Romney began issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals. Of those 9,000 plus, some 6,121 took place in just over the first six months while the "gay marriage" novelty toy still had its sheen.

In 2005, only 2,060 same-sex couples took the "gay-pride" plunge; and in 2006 only 1,427 tied that queer little knot. By the end of April of this year, a mere 87 "gay" couples had "married" in Massachusetts.

Even more telling – though not particularly surprising – are statistics coming out of Canada where "gay marriage" is now legal nationwide. For instance, in the city of Toronto – which boasts of having one of the world's largest homosexual populations –only one Canadian "gay" couple has "married" so far this year, according to a report by Reuters....

The good news is Americans are catching on to the disingenuous motives behind the homosexual activist push for "same-sex marriage." A recent survey by the Pew Center ...

Catholics Across America Outraged at Pseudo-Catholic Mass. Legislators

There's outrage nationally among faithful Catholics over recent votes by Massachusetts legislators. From the Concerned Roman Catholics of America:

MORE ON GRAVE SCANDAL WITHIN THE "KNIGHTS" OF COLUMBUS- FOUR MORE ADDED TO LIST OF JUDAS KNIGHTS IN MASS.

I have just heard from John O’Gorman, the Fighting Knight of Columbus from Massachusetts , that the 170,000 signature Initiative Petition to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman was thwarted by the Legislature, meeting in joint Constitutional Convention, on Thursday, June 14 2007. The sad part is it would have passed to go on the ballot in 2008 had it not been for the votes of at least sixteen men who call themselves Knights of Columbus who voted against the Church they are supposed to be Knights of, and for the sodomites they support! They are:

Massachusetts Speaker of the House Sal Dimasi, and House Majority Leader John Rogers.
State Reps: Garrett Bradley, Bob Deleo, Stephen Di Natale, Chris Donelan, Christopher Fallon, Kevin Honan, Charles Murphy, Angelo Puppolo and Bob Spellane, Bob Nyman, and Paul McMurtry.
State Senators: Tom McGee, Michael Knapik, and Michael Morrissey.

It only required 50 votes to bring this to the people of Massachusetts for a vote. The vote was 45 to do so. If the sixteen so called Knights had voted with the Church, and for the good of society, they would have had SIXTY ONE! God have mercy on their much compromised souls!

Seven of these Judases have PRO-CHOICE RATINGS FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MASS,, they are: The Speaker Dimasi, Bradley, Donelan, Honan , Murphy, Spellane, and McGee!

It seems that the Knights of Columbus, like the Bishops they follow, like to write nice things but run when they are asked to back up their writings with actions! In 2003, they actually passed a Resolution to in effect expel from the Order any Knight who supports abortion by forbidding these persons any honors or speaking platforms. WHAT A JOKE! Actually it is worse than a joke, because we have been told that whenever a Council tried to enforce the Resolution, that Council was quickly told not to do so by either their State or Supreme Offices!

Our Divine Savior had a great deal to say about such as these "Knights" when he said "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you are like to whited sepulchers, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within, are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness. So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."—Matt. XXIII. 25-28. Does anyone wonder what the Lord will say to these men when they stand before His Judgment seat?

God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher,
Founder & Chairman Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Anaheim, CA
June 16, 2007

Mitt Romney and Marriott Hotels Pornography

How much money has Romney made on hotel porn sales?
By John Haskins

While Mitt Romney served on the Marriott Hotels Board of Directors for ten years in the 1990s, he benefitted financially from the chain's profiteering on hard-core pornography (available via in-room TV). If we break down Marriott profits during the period when Romney was involved, how much money did this devout Mormon make from porn purchases?

Romney has broken all records for talking out of all sides of his many mouths. Consider, he:

* is supposedly a devout Mormon, yet has shown not one consistent commitment on any single moral issue in his entire career;

* promised to "be more effective in advancing the homosexual revolution than ..." Ted Kennedy -- the one promise in his entire political career which he clearly has followed through on -- yet he now campaigns as a hero of traditional values;

* said both that homosexuals have a right to be scoutmasters, and conversely, that the Scouts have a right to exclude homosexual adults;

* says both that homosexuals have a right to adopt children, and conversely, that children have a right to both a father and a mother;

* claims to oppose "activist judges" and called the Goodridge decision "tyrannical," yet conversely, treated it not as the mere declaratory judgment it admitted to be, but as if it were a law overriding statutes and binding on the people (against the Massachusetts Constitution);

* claims to be "pro-life" yet opposes protecting human life with a federal amendment -- citing strangely enough a states' rights federalism that he contradicts by pretending to back a federal marriage amendment (which merely draws attention away from his unconstitutional orders to public officials to perform sodomy-based "marriage" though they still violate the law).

Mitt Romney is among the most the most obviously fraudulent, demagogic liars in over two centuries of American politics. His polish and brazenness exceeds that of the infamous "Slick Willie" Clinton. Those falling for his surreal p.r. campaign will someday realize that Romney and his political handlers are snickering at the endless ability of pro-establishment social conservatives to swallow lies.

Appearances aside, Romney's true religion has never been Mormonism, but mammonism. And as he quietly spreads around his lucre buying support, he's been finding out how easily the "elite" of social conservatism can be bought off. And that is one reason why he gets the kid-gloves treatment from "pro-family" media, pundits, lawyers and groups that purport to have a pro-family, socially conservative, constitutionalist commitment and world view.

See the story at MSNBC (7-3-07), First Read: The Day in Politics
"Oh-eight (R): More on McCain's Day"
by Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

ROMNEY: CBN's Brody reports on an issue that could get traction in evangelical circles in the South: "Some anti-pornography groups are demanding answers as to how much presidential candidate Mitt Romney knew about the Marriott hotel chain's profits of pornography sales during his nearly ten years on the Board of Directors in the 1990s. The hotel chain is one of many that offer pay-per-view sex videos for sale through in-room entertainment."

From CBN's Brody:
During his run for President, Romney has campaigned on a platform of "family values" recently telling a graduation class, "Pornography and violence poison our music and movies and television and video games." Some of these conservative grassroots activists want to know whether he spoke up or tried to put a stop to Marriott's business dealings back then.

Phil Burress, founder of Citizens for Community Values has been fighting hotel chains for decades on this issue. He tells The Brody File that every month a group of roughly 15 anti-pornography leaders meet in Washington to discuss the latest happenings. Mitt Romney's Marriott connection has come up repeatedly. "Ever since he announced president, it's been a topic of discussion."

Mitt Romney's campaign told CBN the following: "Governor Romney's role as board member was in an advisory capacity on financial matters related to the company and, obviously, he did not have a role in the day-to-day operations or decisions of individual franchise holders."

John Harmer, President of the anti-pornography group The Lighted Candle Society and the former Lieutenant Governor of California under Ronald Reagan isn't buying it. He wants to hear more. "My attitude toward board members is that they are fully responsible," Harmer said. "They knew exactly what they were receiving. I don't think any board member under any rationale could claim ignorance. You're either a board member or not. I can't imagine a board member going a full year and not receiving a revenue report from the company."

Previous news accounts researched by The Brody File show that Romney was paid more than $100,000 per year while on the board of Marriott. When he left in 2002, J.W. Marriott, Jr., chairman and chief executive officer of Marriott International, called him, "an active, hands-on Director… From his first days on our Board nine years ago, Mitt has been an extraordinarily effective director and visionary leader."

Mitt Romney has a very close relationship with the Marriott family.

Note: One Michael Marriott is a big-time homosexual activist in Salt Lake City, and was largely responsible for bringing GLBT volunteers into the Salt Lake City Olympics while Mitt Romney was in charge. And oh yes, the Boy Scouts were denied a big role in that same Olympics for some reason.