Americans for Mitt, one of the cloned Mitt for Prez sites popping up all over, had a brief exchange with a reader, "J", who shared her correspondence with us. We sent it on to Robert Paine, Esq., the lawyer behind our Constitutional legal analysis of Romney's role in the homosexual "marriage" fiasco, who generously gave his valuable time to educate the Mitt clones around the country. Paine wrote:
Nathan [Americans for Mitt fellow],
You stated in an email to "J" [who had sent him a link to our "Romney Deception" report]:
Thanks again, but the Massachusetts Legislature is to blame for gay marriage, along with the Supreme Court. They had 180 days to act after the court ruling, but did not do so. Governor Romney can't single-handedly outlaw gay marriage, despite what Mass Resistance and others would have you believe.
and in another earlier one you said: Thanks for the warning "J", but that report has been out for three weeks. And much of it is a case of selective reporting.
You suffer from a case of selective reading or just an utter lack of knowledge. You make no sense. Before you start offering legal opinions, you might read the law and suppress your desire to write nonsensical gibberish. If you are going to blame others for gay marriage, you might want to read up a bit first.
Try starting with the Massachusetts Constitution where it says:
Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.
Then read the Goodridge case. In it you will find that the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) did not strike the marriage law which they said does not and never did permit same-sex marriage.
Then read Mitt Romney's own words in the Boston Globe (April 16, 2004):
‘‘I believe the reason that the court gave 180 days to the Legislature was to allow the Legislature the chance to look through the laws developed over the centuries and see how they should be adjusted or clarified for purposes of same-sex marriage; the Legislature didn’t do that,’’ Romney said.
Then go to the State House and research what the Legislature did in response to the SJC's "suggestion" that they change the laws. What you will find is that no laws have ever been changed in Massachusetts.
Then go back to the Constitution and read:
Article X. …(T)he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.
and read which of the three branches, the judiciary or the legislature or the supreme executive, legally has the authority to suspend a statute. There you will find that only the legislature can "make law," legislate, redefine, rewrite, etc.
Article XX. The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for. [See Comm'r of Public Health v. The Bessie M. Burke Memorial Hospital, 366 Mass. 734 (1975) (“When one takes into account the historical basis of art. 20 in the attempts of the Crown to suspend the laws or operation of the laws without consent of Parliament,(fn13) one must agree with the occasional remarks in the decided cases that the core meaning of art. 20 is that only the Legislature, not the Executive or Judicial branches, may suspend an existing law.) ]
Then read Mitt Romney's May 2004 training powerpoint for Town Clerks:
Clerks should be ready to implement the new law on . . . May 17, 2004.
What new law? Which gets us to your nonsensical legal analysis . . .
How could the Legislature be responsible for gay marriage? They did nothing to institute gay marriage (granted they have in the past and continue to prevent the people from amending a constitution which already protects the institution of marriage, but "establishing" gay marriage rests with Romney). How could the SJC be responsible for gay marriage?
Is not the Executive Branch (Gov. Mitt Romney) a co-equal branch? Are there not three co-equal branches of government? Does that not mean that neither branch can point to another and say "the other made me do it"? There are three separate powers and three separate sets of duties and responsibilities.
The Massachusetts Constitution mandates that Romney, the Governor, is the "supreme executive." Only the supreme executive is permitted and obligated to execute the laws. Romney now acts like he had no choice, that the justices of the peace and town clerks are somehow not members of the executive branch and that they did this on their own ... But if they are not, why then did he threaten their jobs through his Legal Counsel saying that JP's must resign if they were unwilling to perform these illegal marriages?
Romney acts, like you just ignorantly claimed, as if the Legislature and the Judiciary have power over him. For Romney to claim that he can do nothing when the SJC violates the Constitution is to surrender democracy. Thomas Jefferson explains it this way:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." O'Coin's Inc. v. Treasurer of the County of Worcester , 362 Mass. 507 (1972) (“It was certainly never intended that any one department, through the exercise of its acknowledged powers, should be able to prevent another department from fulfilling its responsibilities to the people under the Constitution.”)
Mitt Romney had and continues on a daily basis to have a constitutional responsibility to uphold the marriage law that has never been stricken, changed, amended, or repealed. That law prohibits gay marriage. Thus, Romney is a lawbreaker and a felon for violating his oath of office (subject to 20 years in prison).
Welcome to America. Separation of powers. Read the Constitution Nathan, it matters. No matter how much you claim otherwise by pointing to the Judges, to the legislators, to the rogue town clerks and JP's, this all comes back to who was in charge of executing the laws of Massachusetts.
Romney should have the courage and character to admit that contrary to many legal advisors' pleas, he made a political decision to suspend the constitution and the marriage laws of Massachusetts. He should admit that in hindsight that was a really bad decision, because it is about to end his chances of becoming president.
Imagine a truly contrite Governor Romney before the American people. Imagine if he announced to the people he was ending the fraud of gay marriage in America. Imagine who the next president might be. If that doesn't happen imagine where you will be on inauguration day 2009. Please save this letter and on that day I suggest you pull it out and send me an e-mail. I would love to hear where you were.
Sincerely,
Robert Paine, Esq.
RobertPaine.blogspot.com
Thursday, December 14, 2006
MassResistance's "Mitt Romney Deception" Report Makes Brit Hume's Special Report
MassResistance is given as the source of the latest Romney buzz on Brit Hume's "Special Report" on Fox News (Tuesday, December 12). See Mort Kondracke's comments below. [Transcript at RealClearPolitics.]
HUME: Well, there you got two views of the McCain candidacy, at least in Iowa, which, of course is, the earliest (ph) state. If you don't do well in Iowa, you're fighting an uphill battle. What she said was reflected by many others, conservatives, and particularly conservative and active Christians in Iowa which is an important voting bloc, applies to Rudy Giuliani, as well. So, back with our panel now to discus this. How -- I mean, is this a- - chicken, so to speak, that are going to come home to roost, sooner or later and we're -- and this is just a sign of it -- this report we had from Steve Brown tonight about the very negative attitudes toward those two guys because of their views on abortion and certain other key issues.
KONDRACKE: But, McCain's view on abortion is down the line pro-life.
HUME: Giuliani.
KONDRACKE: And Giuliani is pro-choice. The fascinating case is Mitt Romney, who wasn't covered in that report. There's an organization named Mass resistance, which is pro-life organization, very conservative, in Massachusetts that is blasting Romney has being the most pro-abortion, most pro gay-rights, they say, in the country. That can't be because he's not as pro-gay and pro-choice as Arnold Schwarzenegger, but you know, they're questioning his credentials...
HUME: Well, let's talk for a moment about Iowa and McCain and Giuliani in Iowa. What is your sense, Michael, of whether -- so, McCain passes muster, if he does, with these people on abortion.
HUME: Well, there you got two views of the McCain candidacy, at least in Iowa, which, of course is, the earliest (ph) state. If you don't do well in Iowa, you're fighting an uphill battle. What she said was reflected by many others, conservatives, and particularly conservative and active Christians in Iowa which is an important voting bloc, applies to Rudy Giuliani, as well. So, back with our panel now to discus this. How -- I mean, is this a- - chicken, so to speak, that are going to come home to roost, sooner or later and we're -- and this is just a sign of it -- this report we had from Steve Brown tonight about the very negative attitudes toward those two guys because of their views on abortion and certain other key issues.
KONDRACKE: But, McCain's view on abortion is down the line pro-life.
HUME: Giuliani.
KONDRACKE: And Giuliani is pro-choice. The fascinating case is Mitt Romney, who wasn't covered in that report. There's an organization named Mass resistance, which is pro-life organization, very conservative, in Massachusetts that is blasting Romney has being the most pro-abortion, most pro gay-rights, they say, in the country. That can't be because he's not as pro-gay and pro-choice as Arnold Schwarzenegger, but you know, they're questioning his credentials...
HUME: Well, let's talk for a moment about Iowa and McCain and Giuliani in Iowa. What is your sense, Michael, of whether -- so, McCain passes muster, if he does, with these people on abortion.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Timeline Documents Romney's Role in Creating Same-Sex "Marriages"
Check out this timeline, first published on our blog on November 23. It makes Romney's role in starting s-s "marriages" very clear.
Timeline Documents Romney's Role in Creating Same-Sex "Marriages"
Timeline Documents Romney's Role in Creating Same-Sex "Marriages"
Pro-Family Leaders & Media Still Ignoring that Romney Started "Gay Marriages"!
How absurd: To even float the idea that Romney could "explain" away his hypocrisy! (See yesterday's AP article below.) And the problem is much deeper than just his 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans. It goes to his unconstitutional implementation of same-sex "marriages" here in Massachusetts.
Pro-family leaders around the country, as well as the mainstream media, are trying to bury that part of the story. And the fact that Romney can still reverse his illegal directives that began the phony "marriages" via executive order before he leaves office on January 2! Why?
John Haskins writes:
I think the idea that Romney can "explain away" the recent revelations is due in large part to the fact that it's simply unmentionable that our side fell into treating Mitt Romney as if he reluctantly "executed" the Goodridge decision, rather than what he really did: use the legal and political confusion about Goodridge to illegally impose "homosexual marriage" and blame the Court (which must have pleased four of the judges to no end).
It is simply far too humiliating for the national pro-family leadership (and those associated with the Mass. Family Institute and the Boston Archdiocese) to face the mind-boggling implications of the fact that homosexual "marriage" is still illegal and that Romney committed an impeachable felony "in broad daylight" by violating his oath of office -- with the PR responsibilities handled for him by gullible pro-marriage leaders who fell for his head fake.
Moreover, some of the lawyers who failed so colossally in advising them would be vulnerable to malpractice lawsuits and would never recover their reputations. As I have written in various places, it's almost indisputable that very few of these pro-family lawyers even consulted the state Constitution, or the massive body of relevant case law.
So, talking about "rediscovered" twelve-year-old promises to Log Cabin Republicans is code for the shock of figuring out that Romney has played them for fools ever since he announced that he had "no choice but to execute the law" and then imposed "homosexual marriage."
Conservatives say Romney needs to explain record on gay rights
By Glen Johnson (AP, 12-12-06)
At a gathering of San Diego County Republicans on Monday night, Romney brushed aside a question from The Associated Press. "Thanks, I have other people to talk to right now," he said. ... Such responses may not satisfy conservatives, who hold critical sway in the primaries and could opt for other possible candidates with strong records on social issues such as Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Several conservative leaders are seeking answers from Romney.
"I am concerned and I do think he needs to explain this," said Paul Weyrich, chief executive officer of the Free Congress Foundation. "Because he either is or isn't in favor of the homosexual agenda and we need to know before we would get involved in his candidacy."
Richard Land, a top member of the Southern Baptist Convention, was among a group of evangelicals who met with Romney at his home in October. Land said Tuesday, "Christians believe in conversion, and so they're open to listen, but when a candidate 12 years ago says he is more of a champion on these issues than Ted Kennedy, that needs to be explained."
Tom Minnery, spokesman for Focus on the Family, the Colorado-based evangelical organization, said homosexuality is an emotional issue. "You've got to be committed to your position for it or against it or you'll be swayed, so he's got a lot of explaining to do," Minnery said of the governor.
Pro-family leaders around the country, as well as the mainstream media, are trying to bury that part of the story. And the fact that Romney can still reverse his illegal directives that began the phony "marriages" via executive order before he leaves office on January 2! Why?
John Haskins writes:
I think the idea that Romney can "explain away" the recent revelations is due in large part to the fact that it's simply unmentionable that our side fell into treating Mitt Romney as if he reluctantly "executed" the Goodridge decision, rather than what he really did: use the legal and political confusion about Goodridge to illegally impose "homosexual marriage" and blame the Court (which must have pleased four of the judges to no end).
It is simply far too humiliating for the national pro-family leadership (and those associated with the Mass. Family Institute and the Boston Archdiocese) to face the mind-boggling implications of the fact that homosexual "marriage" is still illegal and that Romney committed an impeachable felony "in broad daylight" by violating his oath of office -- with the PR responsibilities handled for him by gullible pro-marriage leaders who fell for his head fake.
Moreover, some of the lawyers who failed so colossally in advising them would be vulnerable to malpractice lawsuits and would never recover their reputations. As I have written in various places, it's almost indisputable that very few of these pro-family lawyers even consulted the state Constitution, or the massive body of relevant case law.
So, talking about "rediscovered" twelve-year-old promises to Log Cabin Republicans is code for the shock of figuring out that Romney has played them for fools ever since he announced that he had "no choice but to execute the law" and then imposed "homosexual marriage."
Conservatives say Romney needs to explain record on gay rights
By Glen Johnson (AP, 12-12-06)
At a gathering of San Diego County Republicans on Monday night, Romney brushed aside a question from The Associated Press. "Thanks, I have other people to talk to right now," he said. ... Such responses may not satisfy conservatives, who hold critical sway in the primaries and could opt for other possible candidates with strong records on social issues such as Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Several conservative leaders are seeking answers from Romney.
"I am concerned and I do think he needs to explain this," said Paul Weyrich, chief executive officer of the Free Congress Foundation. "Because he either is or isn't in favor of the homosexual agenda and we need to know before we would get involved in his candidacy."
Richard Land, a top member of the Southern Baptist Convention, was among a group of evangelicals who met with Romney at his home in October. Land said Tuesday, "Christians believe in conversion, and so they're open to listen, but when a candidate 12 years ago says he is more of a champion on these issues than Ted Kennedy, that needs to be explained."
Tom Minnery, spokesman for Focus on the Family, the Colorado-based evangelical organization, said homosexuality is an emotional issue. "You've got to be committed to your position for it or against it or you'll be swayed, so he's got a lot of explaining to do," Minnery said of the governor.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Globe Suddenly Trying to Rescue Romney!
Today's article in the Boston Globe, "Romney is fast rising as a serious contender," by Peter S. Canellos (12-12-06), is an obvious attempt to rescue Romney. The Globe belatedly realized that their reporting on Romney's 1994 pandering to the Log Cabin Republicans may be doing in a candidate they'd better keep in contention!
It is journalistic malpractice that they suddenly pretend the latest developments -- MassResistance's revelations on Romney's anti-family positions and the resulting loss of conservatives' support -- have never happened! So after twelve years of trashing Romney, the Globe has suddenly been convinced by much smarter strategists on the left that he is the best thing that ever happened to the homosexual revolution, and they should put him on life support!
This piece by Canellos is life support for Romney, and it is an old propaganda trick: Ignore the huge negative news, pump out good news. And try to ride out the storm.
--John Haskins
It is journalistic malpractice that they suddenly pretend the latest developments -- MassResistance's revelations on Romney's anti-family positions and the resulting loss of conservatives' support -- have never happened! So after twelve years of trashing Romney, the Globe has suddenly been convinced by much smarter strategists on the left that he is the best thing that ever happened to the homosexual revolution, and they should put him on life support!
This piece by Canellos is life support for Romney, and it is an old propaganda trick: Ignore the huge negative news, pump out good news. And try to ride out the storm.
--John Haskins
Shame on Sponsors of Boston Gay Men's Chorus
We posted recently on WCRB's shameful advertising for the Boston Gay Men's Chorus Christmas concert. Now we see (in the print edition of Bay Windows) other major sponsors of this event:
MassCulturalCouncil.org [YOUR TAX $ !!]
Bank of America
M. Steinert & Sons
Stop & Shop
Yale Appliance & Lighting
The Opera House
More on the MassCulturalCouncil:
MCC receives an annual appropriation from the state Legislature and funds from the National Endowment for the Arts, the Wallace Foundation, and others. Details on our budget are available online. In turn, MCC makes thousands of grants directly to non-profit cultural organizations, schools, communities, and individuals artists, through funding programs that use arts, science, and the humanities to build strong, diverse, livable communities. The beneficiaries of these programs comprise a cross-section of the population and citizens in each Massachusetts city and town.
MassCulturalCouncil.org [YOUR TAX $ !!]
Bank of America
M. Steinert & Sons
Stop & Shop
Yale Appliance & Lighting
The Opera House
More on the MassCulturalCouncil:
MCC receives an annual appropriation from the state Legislature and funds from the National Endowment for the Arts, the Wallace Foundation, and others. Details on our budget are available online. In turn, MCC makes thousands of grants directly to non-profit cultural organizations, schools, communities, and individuals artists, through funding programs that use arts, science, and the humanities to build strong, diverse, livable communities. The beneficiaries of these programs comprise a cross-section of the population and citizens in each Massachusetts city and town.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Two Romney Tidbits Not To Be Missed
1. Gov. Romney has issued many special “marriage” licenses to homosexual couples. Because of the special nature of these licenses, it is his prerogative as Chief Executive to refuse to issue them! Yet he gave out 189 in 2005 to homosexual couples, including (according to the Globe) to family and friends, as well as homosexual activist State Senator Barrios!
"...And in a November speech to the conservative Federalist Society in Washington DC, Romney decried the SJC decision, but also said, ''We should be open and tolerant of different lifestyles."…The applications Romney approved from same-sex couples included at least four from state legislators, including Jarrett T. Barrios, a state senator from Cambridge, members of the clergy from out-of-state, family members, and friends … " (“Some see conflict for Romney on gay marriage; Ceremonial licensing belies his opposition,” Boston Globe, 1-2-06.)
2. Romney supports homosexual couples adopting:
"Romney said he would file a 'very narrow' bill aimed at letting Catholic Charities, the social service arm of the Boston Archdiocese, and other religious groups exclude same-sex couples from their adoption programs if including them violates religious tenets. But he also noted that gays and lesbians have a right to adopt. 'I know that there will be some gay couples who will say that this could be discriminatory against us,' Romney told reporters ... 'Except that there are many, many other agencies that can meet the needs of those gay couples, and I recognize that they have a legitimate interest in being able to receive adoptive services.' The comments were softer in tone than those last week, when the governor said nothing about the legal basis for gay adoptions as he announced his plans to file the bill." ("Romney shifts tone on gay adoption," Boston Globe, 3-14-06.)
"...And in a November speech to the conservative Federalist Society in Washington DC, Romney decried the SJC decision, but also said, ''We should be open and tolerant of different lifestyles."…The applications Romney approved from same-sex couples included at least four from state legislators, including Jarrett T. Barrios, a state senator from Cambridge, members of the clergy from out-of-state, family members, and friends … " (“Some see conflict for Romney on gay marriage; Ceremonial licensing belies his opposition,” Boston Globe, 1-2-06.)
2. Romney supports homosexual couples adopting:
"Romney said he would file a 'very narrow' bill aimed at letting Catholic Charities, the social service arm of the Boston Archdiocese, and other religious groups exclude same-sex couples from their adoption programs if including them violates religious tenets. But he also noted that gays and lesbians have a right to adopt. 'I know that there will be some gay couples who will say that this could be discriminatory against us,' Romney told reporters ... 'Except that there are many, many other agencies that can meet the needs of those gay couples, and I recognize that they have a legitimate interest in being able to receive adoptive services.' The comments were softer in tone than those last week, when the governor said nothing about the legal basis for gay adoptions as he announced his plans to file the bill." ("Romney shifts tone on gay adoption," Boston Globe, 3-14-06.)
Mitt Romney's Chappaquiddick: His 1994 Letter to Log Cabin Republicans
Here's Mitt's actual letter to the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans in 1994, begging for their endorsement.
Did he think this would just disappear? It's sort of like Chappaquiddick for Teddy. It will haunt him forever.
Thanks, Bay Windows, for finding it -- and printing this from Don Feder's column at the time: In an Oct. 20, 1994 oped, Boston Herald columnist Don Feder said that the letter proved that “Romney is the Mormon Bill Weld, the man he looks to for inspiration. Nowhere is his social radicalism more apparent than on the cutting-edge moral issue of our age — the normalization of homosexuality.”
Did he think this would just disappear? It's sort of like Chappaquiddick for Teddy. It will haunt him forever.
Thanks, Bay Windows, for finding it -- and printing this from Don Feder's column at the time: In an Oct. 20, 1994 oped, Boston Herald columnist Don Feder said that the letter proved that “Romney is the Mormon Bill Weld, the man he looks to for inspiration. Nowhere is his social radicalism more apparent than on the cutting-edge moral issue of our age — the normalization of homosexuality.”
Sunday, December 10, 2006
WCRB Promotes Sodomite Christmas Concert
Would a major radio station advertise a holiday concert by a "Sex Workers' Chorus"? Would a prominent conservatory allow its concert hall to be used for an "Abortionists' Orchestra" winter solstice celebration? Does the Boston Symphony mark with asterisks the members of their orchestra according to whether they're heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or trans?
So why does a musical performing group identified by its members' abnormal sexual practices get a pass, and worse, positive publicity? "Come join us for the happiest sodomite Christmas celebration ever!"
Boston's WCRB is advertising the upcoming concerts at Jordan Hall by the "Boston Gay Men's Chorus". Calling their event "Home for the Holidays," it includes the family-friendly "Charlie Brown's Christmas." (How will they twist that, we wonder?) How can anyone hear the ad, or sit in the audience, without thinking about what makes the performers different -- their sexual proclivities? Who wants to be reminded of that when you're thinking about the true meaning of Christmas, or just enjoying what should be politics-free, sex-free Christmas music?
We are sick of such groups constantly pushing their sexuality and sexual politics in our faces wherever we turn. WCRB ("Boston's Classical music station") supposedly celebrates the highest achievements of Western culture. We tune in to it for a reminder of what's great about our culture, and for a respite from the craziness of the social-political scene. How sad that they've jumped on this bandwagon.
So why does a musical performing group identified by its members' abnormal sexual practices get a pass, and worse, positive publicity? "Come join us for the happiest sodomite Christmas celebration ever!"
Boston's WCRB is advertising the upcoming concerts at Jordan Hall by the "Boston Gay Men's Chorus". Calling their event "Home for the Holidays," it includes the family-friendly "Charlie Brown's Christmas." (How will they twist that, we wonder?) How can anyone hear the ad, or sit in the audience, without thinking about what makes the performers different -- their sexual proclivities? Who wants to be reminded of that when you're thinking about the true meaning of Christmas, or just enjoying what should be politics-free, sex-free Christmas music?
We are sick of such groups constantly pushing their sexuality and sexual politics in our faces wherever we turn. WCRB ("Boston's Classical music station") supposedly celebrates the highest achievements of Western culture. We tune in to it for a reminder of what's great about our culture, and for a respite from the craziness of the social-political scene. How sad that they've jumped on this bandwagon.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Globe Refuses to Mention MassResistance as Source of "Romney Buzz"
Our print edition of today's Boston Globe didn't include the piece, "New questions on Romney's stance on gays; Letter to Log Cabin group expressed his support in '94," which we just found online. Just as we said in our earlier post today, the media wishes we'd go away, and refuses to acknowledge OUR report on Romney as the instigator of the national "buzz" on Romney's pro-homosexual positions!
Note that today's Globe article does quote MassResistance president Brian Camenker at the end, but fails to note that the report is OURS, not our good friend Peter LaBarbera's whom they do cite (though he posted it on his site, Americans for Truth, on Nov. 28, clearly crediting us -- a week after we sent it out on the internet). And the New York Times guest column by Thomas B . Edsall today, "The Rascals on the Right," and the AP article in today's New York Times, "Gov. Romney's Record on Gays Questioned," fail to identify MassResistance as the "rascals on the right"!
Edsall (in the NY Times) reports some of the truth: "Although Romney has evidently led an uneventful [def: no affairs or bribery scandals?] private life, he is trying to forcibly reinvent himself from his incarnation as a Massachusetts governor who favored abortion rights and gay rights."
The New York Times/AP quotes Tony Perkins (Family Research Council -- which hosted Romney as a pro-family star at their Liberty Sunday event October 15, AFTER our associates had explained to him that Romney was severely compromised by his unconstitutional, illegal implementation of gay marriage). Seems that Mr. Perkins has finally had his eyes opened by MassResistance's efforts to out the TRUTH:
NO -- we have a national voice now. And the Globe had better recognize that the internet and blogosphere have overturned their monopoly on the "news".
The Globe reports today:
... But the reaction to the comments from the 1994 Massachusetts Senate race indicate that some conservatives may be reassessing Romney. "This is quite disturbing," Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council and an influential conservative, told the Times.
Romney's views on gays have stimulated considerable chatter in the conservative blogosphere, where some have wondered aloud if he has hurt his standing with conservative voters.
"Will it sink the Romney campaign? I have a hard time seeing him win in the South," wrote the UtahConservative blog in reaction to a Nov. 26 Globe column about Romney's views on gays, which also cites the letter to the Massachusetts Log Cabin group.
Americans for Truth, a conservative group that opposes gay rights, posted an essay late last month saying, "Romney has a long record of supporting homosexual and abortion 'rights' despite his Mormon religion." [What the Globe doesn't say is that this posting on Americans for Truth accompanies OUR report!] ...
In a recent posting titled "The Mitt Romney deception" that touches on Romney's gay rights positions, local conservative activist Brian Camenker wrote: "Despite recent statements across the country by Governor Mitt Romney claiming he's pro-life, pro-family and a committed conservative, a broad investigation of his actual statements, actions, and public positions over the years indicates that he has spent his entire career speaking and governing as a liberal."
Note that today's Globe article does quote MassResistance president Brian Camenker at the end, but fails to note that the report is OURS, not our good friend Peter LaBarbera's whom they do cite (though he posted it on his site, Americans for Truth, on Nov. 28, clearly crediting us -- a week after we sent it out on the internet). And the New York Times guest column by Thomas B . Edsall today, "The Rascals on the Right," and the AP article in today's New York Times, "Gov. Romney's Record on Gays Questioned," fail to identify MassResistance as the "rascals on the right"!
Edsall (in the NY Times) reports some of the truth: "Although Romney has evidently led an uneventful [def: no affairs or bribery scandals?] private life, he is trying to forcibly reinvent himself from his incarnation as a Massachusetts governor who favored abortion rights and gay rights."
The New York Times/AP quotes Tony Perkins (Family Research Council -- which hosted Romney as a pro-family star at their Liberty Sunday event October 15, AFTER our associates had explained to him that Romney was severely compromised by his unconstitutional, illegal implementation of gay marriage). Seems that Mr. Perkins has finally had his eyes opened by MassResistance's efforts to out the TRUTH:
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said Romney's comments were ''quite disturbing. This is going to create a lot of problems for Governor Romney,'' he told The New York Times in Saturday's editions. ''He is going to have a hard time overcoming this.''
Noted conservative Paul Weyrich told The Times, ''Unless he comes out with an abject repudiation of this, I think it makes him out to be a hypocrite.''
Romney was wrapping up a weeklong trip to Asia on Saturday and could not be reached for comment.
Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said she cautioned gay and lesbians against believing Romney's overtures in 1994, and said conservatives shouldn't trust him, either. ''He can't be trusted,'' she said. ''Because if it is politically expedient for him to swing to his right or swing to his left, he will do it.''
Our report went out to millions BEFORE Thanksgiving, though it was not posted on our website until just after the holiday weekend. So the blogs and mainstream media have had this information long before the recent Bay Windows regurgitation, or the very recent Globe reports! We've been in touch with "Utah conservatives" (mentioned in the Globe) re: Romney for several weeks now! But the Globe only mentions us at the end of their article, as if we're just a local voice piping in!NO -- we have a national voice now. And the Globe had better recognize that the internet and blogosphere have overturned their monopoly on the "news".
The Globe reports today:
... But the reaction to the comments from the 1994 Massachusetts Senate race indicate that some conservatives may be reassessing Romney. "This is quite disturbing," Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council and an influential conservative, told the Times.
Romney's views on gays have stimulated considerable chatter in the conservative blogosphere, where some have wondered aloud if he has hurt his standing with conservative voters.
"Will it sink the Romney campaign? I have a hard time seeing him win in the South," wrote the UtahConservative blog in reaction to a Nov. 26 Globe column about Romney's views on gays, which also cites the letter to the Massachusetts Log Cabin group.
Americans for Truth, a conservative group that opposes gay rights, posted an essay late last month saying, "Romney has a long record of supporting homosexual and abortion 'rights' despite his Mormon religion." [What the Globe doesn't say is that this posting on Americans for Truth accompanies OUR report!] ...
In a recent posting titled "The Mitt Romney deception" that touches on Romney's gay rights positions, local conservative activist Brian Camenker wrote: "Despite recent statements across the country by Governor Mitt Romney claiming he's pro-life, pro-family and a committed conservative, a broad investigation of his actual statements, actions, and public positions over the years indicates that he has spent his entire career speaking and governing as a liberal."
More on Mitt Romney's Pro-Homosexual Past
"Let all the evil that lurks in the mud hatch out." (- I, Claudius, by Robert Graves -- and our favorite Masterpiece Theater production of all time.)
Bay Windows, Boston's GLBTQIP newspaper, has answered MassResistance's report on Gov. Mitt Romney's liberal "principles" by digging up even more pro-homosexual quotes from their 1994 interview with him (during his run for Senate vs. Ted Kennedy). So not only have we started a national conversation among Republicans, we've drawn out more infected slime from the other side, which feels he promised them more than he delivered. (Not surprising, all the media who've been led to this topic by our research, disseminated to millions across the country just before Thanksgiving, studiously avoid mentioning MassResistance as the instigator of this discussion!)
Check out these great new resources in this week's Bay Windows:
Romney is a big fat liar (12-6-06)
Mitt's secret gay history II (12-6-06)
Follow that trail (12-6-06)
Romney: I'll be better than Ted for gay rights (original August 1994 interview)
Mitt Romney's secret gay history! (3-3-05)
Excerpts from the Bay Windows articles:
["Romney is a big fat liar":]
The fact that there’s intense interest in a letter Mitt Romney wrote to the Massachusetts Log Cabin Club 12 years ago in which he pledged to be a more ardent advocate for gay rights than U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy isn’t a surprise. Romney is an all-but-declared candidate for president who’s staked his candidacy on social conservatism. Any hint of hypocrisy on Romney’s part with regard to LGBT issues is of great use for political reporters, GOP primary opponents and LGBT activists alike. What is surprising, though, is the depth of Romney’s hypocrisy. ...
Romney also stated his opposition to Republican stalwart Sen. Jesse Helms’s attempt in 1994 to pass an amendment to an education bill that would have prevented the portrayal of homosexuality as “a positive lifestyle alternative,” calling it “a dangerous precedent.” “I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there’s an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it’s wrong-headed and unfortunate and hurts the party by being identified with the Republican Party.” This from a man who now complains about the reading of gay-themed books like King and King in the classroom.
["Mitt's secret gay history II":]
On who he aligns himself with in the GOP: “Well probably more like Bill Weld. It’s hard for me to align them person by person but I think Bill Weld comes as close as anyone. … I think Bill Weld’s fiscal conservatism, his focus on creating jobs and employment and his efforts to fight discrimination and assure civil rights for all is a model that I identify with and aspire to.” ...
On whether he supported the civil marriage rights of same-sex couples: “I line up with Gov. Weld on that, and it’s a state issue as you know — the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction. My understanding is that he has looked at the issue and concluded that certain benefits and privileges should be offered to gay couples. But he does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position.” [Note by MR: Of course, Weld has since come out in favor of sodomy "marriage".]
On whether he’d want more studies done on the marriage issue: “That will occur at the state level. I’ll let the governor in Massachusetts, and the governors of others states, as well, study it, evaluate it, discuss the alternatives with psychologists and social workers and health care specialist and so forth to gather information and consider it in a very reasoned way. I have confidence the governor will take the right action.”
On whether he supported the repeal of archaic sex laws: “I’m not sure which ones each of those are, but I don’t think it makes sense to have laws on the books that are not enforced and that only hang over people as possible threats, and so again it’s a state-by-state decision and I wouldn’t want to impose on a federal level what each state does on their laws, but I think it’s a mistake for us to leave laws that are not enforced.”
On whether he’d support condom distribution in schools: “Here again you’ll hear me saying the same thing on a number of issues, there are choices I think should be made at the state and local level that I don’t like the federal government getting into. I like important moral decisions being made closest to where people live, at the state and local level. So if the community feels that condom distribution is a helpful thing, then that community should be able to do that.
On why the gay community should support Romney over Kennedy, given Kennedy’s record of supporting both civil rights and the gay community: “There’s something to be said for having a Republican who supports civil rights in this broader context, including sexual orientation. ... I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican Party and I would be a voice in the Republican Party to foster anti-discrimination efforts."
["Follow that trail":]
Brad Luna, HRC’s director of media relations, isn’t surprised at the interest in the Log Cabin letter [wherein Romney promises to be better than Teddy on gay rights]. “It really brings to light what the GLBT community has known about Mitt Romney for years. He’s more than willing to use the GLBT community for political gain and has very readily bashed GLBT people to impress and ingratiate himself with the right wing of his party,” he observes. “How can you run for Senate in 1994 and send a letter saying that you’ll be better than Ted Kennedy on GLBT issues and then make it a cornerstone of your exploration into the ‘08 presidential campaign … to be the lead voice right now on bashing GLBT people and our rights?” Luna says. “I think it just is really going to spotlight that Mitt Romney will do or say anything to get elected.”
Bay Windows, Boston's GLBTQIP newspaper, has answered MassResistance's report on Gov. Mitt Romney's liberal "principles" by digging up even more pro-homosexual quotes from their 1994 interview with him (during his run for Senate vs. Ted Kennedy). So not only have we started a national conversation among Republicans, we've drawn out more infected slime from the other side, which feels he promised them more than he delivered. (Not surprising, all the media who've been led to this topic by our research, disseminated to millions across the country just before Thanksgiving, studiously avoid mentioning MassResistance as the instigator of this discussion!)
Check out these great new resources in this week's Bay Windows:
Romney is a big fat liar (12-6-06)
Mitt's secret gay history II (12-6-06)
Follow that trail (12-6-06)
Romney: I'll be better than Ted for gay rights (original August 1994 interview)
Mitt Romney's secret gay history! (3-3-05)
Excerpts from the Bay Windows articles:
["Romney is a big fat liar":]
The fact that there’s intense interest in a letter Mitt Romney wrote to the Massachusetts Log Cabin Club 12 years ago in which he pledged to be a more ardent advocate for gay rights than U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy isn’t a surprise. Romney is an all-but-declared candidate for president who’s staked his candidacy on social conservatism. Any hint of hypocrisy on Romney’s part with regard to LGBT issues is of great use for political reporters, GOP primary opponents and LGBT activists alike. What is surprising, though, is the depth of Romney’s hypocrisy. ...
Romney also stated his opposition to Republican stalwart Sen. Jesse Helms’s attempt in 1994 to pass an amendment to an education bill that would have prevented the portrayal of homosexuality as “a positive lifestyle alternative,” calling it “a dangerous precedent.” “I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there’s an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it’s wrong-headed and unfortunate and hurts the party by being identified with the Republican Party.” This from a man who now complains about the reading of gay-themed books like King and King in the classroom.
["Mitt's secret gay history II":]
On who he aligns himself with in the GOP: “Well probably more like Bill Weld. It’s hard for me to align them person by person but I think Bill Weld comes as close as anyone. … I think Bill Weld’s fiscal conservatism, his focus on creating jobs and employment and his efforts to fight discrimination and assure civil rights for all is a model that I identify with and aspire to.” ...
On whether he supported the civil marriage rights of same-sex couples: “I line up with Gov. Weld on that, and it’s a state issue as you know — the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction. My understanding is that he has looked at the issue and concluded that certain benefits and privileges should be offered to gay couples. But he does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position.” [Note by MR: Of course, Weld has since come out in favor of sodomy "marriage".]
On whether he’d want more studies done on the marriage issue: “That will occur at the state level. I’ll let the governor in Massachusetts, and the governors of others states, as well, study it, evaluate it, discuss the alternatives with psychologists and social workers and health care specialist and so forth to gather information and consider it in a very reasoned way. I have confidence the governor will take the right action.”
On whether he supported the repeal of archaic sex laws: “I’m not sure which ones each of those are, but I don’t think it makes sense to have laws on the books that are not enforced and that only hang over people as possible threats, and so again it’s a state-by-state decision and I wouldn’t want to impose on a federal level what each state does on their laws, but I think it’s a mistake for us to leave laws that are not enforced.”
On whether he’d support condom distribution in schools: “Here again you’ll hear me saying the same thing on a number of issues, there are choices I think should be made at the state and local level that I don’t like the federal government getting into. I like important moral decisions being made closest to where people live, at the state and local level. So if the community feels that condom distribution is a helpful thing, then that community should be able to do that.
On why the gay community should support Romney over Kennedy, given Kennedy’s record of supporting both civil rights and the gay community: “There’s something to be said for having a Republican who supports civil rights in this broader context, including sexual orientation. ... I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican Party and I would be a voice in the Republican Party to foster anti-discrimination efforts."
["Follow that trail":]
Brad Luna, HRC’s director of media relations, isn’t surprised at the interest in the Log Cabin letter [wherein Romney promises to be better than Teddy on gay rights]. “It really brings to light what the GLBT community has known about Mitt Romney for years. He’s more than willing to use the GLBT community for political gain and has very readily bashed GLBT people to impress and ingratiate himself with the right wing of his party,” he observes. “How can you run for Senate in 1994 and send a letter saying that you’ll be better than Ted Kennedy on GLBT issues and then make it a cornerstone of your exploration into the ‘08 presidential campaign … to be the lead voice right now on bashing GLBT people and our rights?” Luna says. “I think it just is really going to spotlight that Mitt Romney will do or say anything to get elected.”
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Guerriero Denies Rumors, States Mission
Bay Windows reports on a rumor that our favorite RINO, Patrick Guerriero, is considering a run for Sen. John Kerry's seat. He said no; he just wants to promote GLBT causes through "a smart bipartisan strategy" and using the Gill Foundation's millions. Bay Windows writes:
But we couldn’t resist checking in with Guerriero just to be sure that he’s not looking to replace Frank [sic] as potentially the first openly gay U.S. Senator. No dice said, Guerriero in an e-mail to Bay Windows. “My sole focus in life right now is creating the Gill Action Fund to help execute a smart bipartisan strategy to win full equality for gay Americans,” said Guerriero. And the Republican Party needs to turn away from its use of anti-gay politics before I’d consider running as a GOP candidate for any office.” On a more lighthearted note, Guerriero observed another political reality: “I’d have a better chance to fund a campaign for US Senate if I won the lottery or married Teresa Heinz Kerry,” he said. “But both are unlikely.”
But we couldn’t resist checking in with Guerriero just to be sure that he’s not looking to replace Frank [sic] as potentially the first openly gay U.S. Senator. No dice said, Guerriero in an e-mail to Bay Windows. “My sole focus in life right now is creating the Gill Action Fund to help execute a smart bipartisan strategy to win full equality for gay Americans,” said Guerriero. And the Republican Party needs to turn away from its use of anti-gay politics before I’d consider running as a GOP candidate for any office.” On a more lighthearted note, Guerriero observed another political reality: “I’d have a better chance to fund a campaign for US Senate if I won the lottery or married Teresa Heinz Kerry,” he said. “But both are unlikely.”
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Romney Staff Declines to Comment to Leading Christian News Service on Our "Romney Deception" Report
We wouldn't expect Gov. Romney's staff to talk with us these days, after release of our widely circulating report exposing his un-conservative history, and his role in implementing homosexual "marriage". But how odd that his staff would not speak with the Agape Press, very widely read by conservatives across the country: "Romney's office did not return calls requesting an interview with the governor."
But he needs these people! Obviously, Romney's staff can't debunk anything we reported.
See Jim Brown's story in Agape Press today, "Activist Claims 'Deception' Behind Gov. Romney's 'Conversion' to Conservatism" (12-6-06).
But he needs these people! Obviously, Romney's staff can't debunk anything we reported.
See Jim Brown's story in Agape Press today, "Activist Claims 'Deception' Behind Gov. Romney's 'Conversion' to Conservatism" (12-6-06).
Gill's Millions Fund Liberal Candidates in Colorado -- AND Massachusetts?
National Review recently reported on the millions spent by homosexual activists in turning Colorado from a "red state" into -- for now at least -- a "purple state". We assert that equivalent millions are being spent in Massachusetts, and even one of the key players, Tim Gill, is the same. Also mentioned as a player in the Colorado transformation is Massachusetts' own Patrick Guerriero.
John J. Miller reports in "The Color Purple: How liberal millionaires are buying Colorado's politics" (12-4-06) that three key moneybags are doling out the walking-around money: Gill, who made his fortune as founder of Quark, a software firm; and his allies, "heiress Pat Stryker and dotcom entrepreneur Jared Polis.... each is like a mini-George Soros for Colorado."
We have pointed out on this blog that the Gill money has got to be flowing into the MassEquality coffers in Massachusetts. The Gill Foundation's new director is Patrick Guerriero, Massachusetts native and politician, and former national Log Cabin Republican head. The Mass. Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus's Arline Isaacson has admitted that the Massachusetts homo lobby is working closely with Patrick Guerriero.
We know first hand of many races where the homosexual lobby poured tens of thousands into little tiny State Rep. and State Senate races. MassEquality would send out ten mailings for every one from the Republican or conservative Democrat they wanted to defeat -- never mentioning "homosexual rights" or "same-sex marriage" in their postcard. Their candidate would be identified as the better candidate on all issues but that! On the bottom of the card would be a tiny acknowledgement that it was paid for by MassEquality.
MassEquality, we hear, is laying off some staff now. They are certain they've won on the marriage amendment. Anything is possible when you have the money to buy the legislature!
John J. Miller reports in "The Color Purple: How liberal millionaires are buying Colorado's politics" (12-4-06) that three key moneybags are doling out the walking-around money: Gill, who made his fortune as founder of Quark, a software firm; and his allies, "heiress Pat Stryker and dotcom entrepreneur Jared Polis.... each is like a mini-George Soros for Colorado."
We have pointed out on this blog that the Gill money has got to be flowing into the MassEquality coffers in Massachusetts. The Gill Foundation's new director is Patrick Guerriero, Massachusetts native and politician, and former national Log Cabin Republican head. The Mass. Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus's Arline Isaacson has admitted that the Massachusetts homo lobby is working closely with Patrick Guerriero.
We know first hand of many races where the homosexual lobby poured tens of thousands into little tiny State Rep. and State Senate races. MassEquality would send out ten mailings for every one from the Republican or conservative Democrat they wanted to defeat -- never mentioning "homosexual rights" or "same-sex marriage" in their postcard. Their candidate would be identified as the better candidate on all issues but that! On the bottom of the card would be a tiny acknowledgement that it was paid for by MassEquality.
MassEquality, we hear, is laying off some staff now. They are certain they've won on the marriage amendment. Anything is possible when you have the money to buy the legislature!
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
British Government Dictating Morals to Churches, Business Owners
Coming soon to America, unless people wake up. Britain's new "Sexual Orientation Regulations" will take effect in April, and leaders of both the Catholic Church and Church of England are warning their government and people of its dire effects. (Has this law defined "sexual orientation"? We doubt it.)
We've already seen the Catholic Church in Massachusetts back down after a little pressure from the homosexual lobby and a Governor who favors adoptions by homosexuals who have a "legitimate interest." (And in Massachusetts, we don't even have a law on the books concerning adoption and "sexual orientation" of the adopting couple, just an administrative regulation!)
See the article in LifeSiteNews, "Catholic Church will Drop Schools, Charities and Adoption Agencies if Laws Force Homosexuality, UK Archbishop Warns: Laws would force churches and faith-based organizations to allow to gay groups to use facilities" (11-28-06):
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham Vincent Nichols has issued a strong warning to the Government over new pro-homosexual legislation, saying the Catholic Church will no longer cooperate with the government on schools, charity programs and adoption agencies if the government attempts to force the Church to accept homosexuality.
Archbishop Nichols said the government was "engaged in an intense and at times aggressive reshaping of our moral framework", taking on a role it has “no mandate or competence” to carry out, The Evening Standard reported earlier today. “[T]hose who are elected to fashion our laws are not elected to be our moral tutors,” Archbishop Nichols said....
The Catholic Church has said it will close down the seven adoption agencies it runs if the law forces the Church to place children with homosexual couples. That threat carries significant weight, the Standard reported, since 1 in 20 adopted children are placed in homes through the Catholic agencies.
The Sexual Orientation Regulations, which will take effect in England in April, are ostensibly aimed at preventing discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace. The impact on Christian communities will likely be significant, however, as the regulations would prevent churches and faith-based organizations from refusing to permit homosexual groups from using their facilities. Christian or Muslim businesses could be sued for refusing to accept homosexual clients--hoteliers and printers would not be free to withhold their facilities and services from same-sex couples or clients.
Leaders in the Church of England have warned the measures will leave vicars vulnerable to lawsuits if they refuse to bless a same-sex union. In Northern Ireland , the Sexual Orientation Regulations will be enforced with fines between £500 and £1,000 for a first offence, and up to £25,000 for subsequent offences.
Read coverage from The Evening Standard.
We've already seen the Catholic Church in Massachusetts back down after a little pressure from the homosexual lobby and a Governor who favors adoptions by homosexuals who have a "legitimate interest." (And in Massachusetts, we don't even have a law on the books concerning adoption and "sexual orientation" of the adopting couple, just an administrative regulation!)
See the article in LifeSiteNews, "Catholic Church will Drop Schools, Charities and Adoption Agencies if Laws Force Homosexuality, UK Archbishop Warns: Laws would force churches and faith-based organizations to allow to gay groups to use facilities" (11-28-06):
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham Vincent Nichols has issued a strong warning to the Government over new pro-homosexual legislation, saying the Catholic Church will no longer cooperate with the government on schools, charity programs and adoption agencies if the government attempts to force the Church to accept homosexuality.
Archbishop Nichols said the government was "engaged in an intense and at times aggressive reshaping of our moral framework", taking on a role it has “no mandate or competence” to carry out, The Evening Standard reported earlier today. “[T]hose who are elected to fashion our laws are not elected to be our moral tutors,” Archbishop Nichols said....
The Catholic Church has said it will close down the seven adoption agencies it runs if the law forces the Church to place children with homosexual couples. That threat carries significant weight, the Standard reported, since 1 in 20 adopted children are placed in homes through the Catholic agencies.
The Sexual Orientation Regulations, which will take effect in England in April, are ostensibly aimed at preventing discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace. The impact on Christian communities will likely be significant, however, as the regulations would prevent churches and faith-based organizations from refusing to permit homosexual groups from using their facilities. Christian or Muslim businesses could be sued for refusing to accept homosexual clients--hoteliers and printers would not be free to withhold their facilities and services from same-sex couples or clients.
Leaders in the Church of England have warned the measures will leave vicars vulnerable to lawsuits if they refuse to bless a same-sex union. In Northern Ireland , the Sexual Orientation Regulations will be enforced with fines between £500 and £1,000 for a first offence, and up to £25,000 for subsequent offences.
Read coverage from The Evening Standard.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Paganism at the State House
There's been an amazing liberalizing trend in American churches in recent decades, nowhere more noticeable than in the "marriage" debate. [photo credit: Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry]
At the last convening of the Constitutional Convention at the Mass. State House on Nov. 9, the wacky pseudo-Christians were out in force with their religious symbols and clerically dressed spiritual leaders to oppose the marriage amendment. (See Religious Coalition for Freedom to Marry photos.)
On our side, we're all wondering what these people really believe. How truly bizarre this paganization of American religion is becomes clear in this report from Peter Jones of "Christian Witness to a Pagan Planet." (Thanks to Mission America for posting "Sexual outlaws, neopagans rule at prestigious theology meeting.") This sort of queer-theory, pagan insanity dominates our college campuses -- and now our legislative bodies? -- which helps explain the huge number of young people at the State House demos!
Christian Witness to a Pagan Planet
NewsCWiPP #32, Letter from the Front
From Dr. Peter Jones
(c) 2006 CWiPP
Having spent three days with 11,000 professors of religion and Bible at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) and the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) in Washington DC., I'm glad to be back in the peace of my Californian study. Every year, in the academy, orthodox biblical Christianity decreases in representation, while radical liberalism increases. ...
Since 1991 I have witnessed the radical agenda stretch the liberal envelope to unimaginable extremes. I have deliberately attended the "cutting edge" seminars, since what the "cutting edge" conceives soon becomes acceptable to the liberal majority. Here is a sampling of this year's offerings:
--In her plenary address, Diana Eck, president of AAR and professor at Harvard, introduced herself as a Montanan, a Methodist and a Massachusetts-recently-married gay -- to enthusiastic applause. Her great contribution is the promotion of religious pluralism in America, but religious pluralism is often accompanied by sexual pluralism; [Eck and her lesbian live-in companion are "co-masters" at Harvard's Lowell House -- a true disgrace.]
--In The Contemporary Pagan Studies Consultation, academic witches and warlocks conferred on the spiritual power of "fire circle drumming," in which fire represents "hardly contained desire." The audience heard about "Paganistan," the thriving Wiccan community in Minnesota, and a lecture entitled "The Pagan Explosion," documented that paganism has grown 38 fold in the USA in the last eleven years and 250-fold in Australia in the last five years;
--In The Theology and Religion Section: Jim Wallis' God's Politics, Wallis reduced the Christian message to a modern version of a social gospel for the Democratic party. An "evangelical feminist" railed against the genocidal foundation of America and called for the deconstruction of "normative heteropatriarchy." One small but bright light came from a Canadian scholar who accused Wallis of nationalistic idolatry for making America, rather than the church, the source of Gospel action;
--In a review session of Christ and the Single Savior, Yale professor Dale B. Martin's homoerotic interpretation of the New Testament teaching on sexuality began with a professor from Harvard Divinity School introducing herself by saying: "I do not know where I am in relation to Christianity." Such confusion was hardly lifted when a Yale professor of theology asked Martin where Jesus had gay sex. Martin replied: "In the park, which is what the gospel writers meant by 'garden.' " This trivialization and eroticization of Jesus Gethsemane suffering elicited not a single objection from the numerous theology professors in attendance;
--In The Queer Theory and LGBT Studies in Religion Consultation a paper "showed" the deep theological meaning of homosexual bathroom graffiti. With the verbal verve of a rap artist, gross sexual perversion was transformed into a noble response to "the dominant hegemonic power-structures of white, heterosexual, capitalistic society." Another gay theologian argued that there was no genetic "binary template" (male/female) so we are all sexually becoming whatever we wish to be;
These professors constitute an armada of brain-power deployed on our campuses to form the thinking of the rising generation. They are succeeding.... [Read more...]
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Romney Not Well Received by D.C. Conservative Group
It seems Mitt Romney isn't as popular with conservatives -- even before our report -- as the press makes it seem. The conservative monthly The American Spectator recently held a dinner where Romney gave a dud of a speech.
Here's the report by Richard Miniter on the Politics Central blog (11-17-06):
Rumsfeld Up, Romney Down
Conservatives at the American Spectator’s annual dinner applauded soon to be former SecDef Don Rumsfeld, but gave a disappointed thumbs down to presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. Pajamas Washington editor Richard Miniter was in attendance.
... Mitt Romney, the Republican governor of Massachussetts, hopes to move into the White House in 2009, but failed to ignite even the American Spectator’s stalwart audience. His speech was a waterfall of platitudes, seemingly ripped from the pages of a 1964 edition of Reader’s Digest. In a reprise of his stint running the Olympic Games in Utah (natch!), he told the story of an American athlete crying when he won the gold. Was he crying because he was number one in the world? Romney asked. No, he was crying because American had won. Everyone at my table rolled their eyes. Later, I surveyed members of the crowd, asking open-ended questions about the Romney speech. Several women said they thought he was attractive for his age, but their responses ranged from “Sounds like my grandmother” and “I can’t believe he gave us some cut and paste speech.”
No one mentioned the Mormon angle. He was just seen as a telegenic dud.
The next night, at the Federalist Society’s yearly black-tie bash, I asked National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez—“KLO” to her friends—and Romney’s biggest booster what she thought of her man. She pointedly said that Republicans should keep their options open for 2008. It seems that support for Romney is cooling among conservatives.
Here's the report by Richard Miniter on the Politics Central blog (11-17-06):
Rumsfeld Up, Romney Down
Conservatives at the American Spectator’s annual dinner applauded soon to be former SecDef Don Rumsfeld, but gave a disappointed thumbs down to presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. Pajamas Washington editor Richard Miniter was in attendance.
... Mitt Romney, the Republican governor of Massachussetts, hopes to move into the White House in 2009, but failed to ignite even the American Spectator’s stalwart audience. His speech was a waterfall of platitudes, seemingly ripped from the pages of a 1964 edition of Reader’s Digest. In a reprise of his stint running the Olympic Games in Utah (natch!), he told the story of an American athlete crying when he won the gold. Was he crying because he was number one in the world? Romney asked. No, he was crying because American had won. Everyone at my table rolled their eyes. Later, I surveyed members of the crowd, asking open-ended questions about the Romney speech. Several women said they thought he was attractive for his age, but their responses ranged from “Sounds like my grandmother” and “I can’t believe he gave us some cut and paste speech.”
No one mentioned the Mormon angle. He was just seen as a telegenic dud.
The next night, at the Federalist Society’s yearly black-tie bash, I asked National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez—“KLO” to her friends—and Romney’s biggest booster what she thought of her man. She pointedly said that Republicans should keep their options open for 2008. It seems that support for Romney is cooling among conservatives.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Gov. Romney: Another voice from the past on illegality of YOUR gay "marriages"
A mere three days before the sodomy "marriages" were to begin in Massachustts, a brilliant posting on the Boston Globe's constitutional law blog (May 14, 2004) explained our constitutional crisis. Dwight Duncan, Professor of Constitutional Law at Southern New England School of Law, apparently agreed with the analysis by Jonathan Goulding which he posted on that blog. Duncan now seems to be "missing in action" -- though if this constitutional legal analysis was valid then, why is it not valid now? (Professor Duncan, where are you?) Duncan's post (from 5-14-04):
Here's my friend Jonathan Goulding's commentary on our strange constitutional crisis provoked by the judicial imposition of gay marriage. Jonathan is a second-year law student at Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor, Michigan and a long time Massachusetts resident.
The train is moving. It will soon be unstoppable as officials create and then begin administering the mechanics of same-sex marriage for the state of Massachusetts. Standard marriage forms are even now being revised. Town clerks are preparing for their new duties. Perhaps the most persuasive indicator that same-sex marriage will arrive in some form in Massachusetts on May 17 is that Governor Romney's legal counsel has instructed magistrate judges to resign if they cannot, in good conscience, marry same-sex couples.
Yet on that date, if the rule of law is ultimately followed, same-sex marriage will no more exist in the state of Massachusetts than when its constitution was ratified over two hundred years ago. It is my position that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made legislative action a prerequisite for same-sex marriage. My authority is the Court's opinion itself, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.
For those who have not had the time or the inclination to read the historic opinion, the Court made the following two important findings. First, the Court found that current Massachusetts law does not provide for same-sex marriage. Second, the Court held that this state of affairs violates the Massachusetts constitution. Based on these two conclusions, the Court expressly directed the legislature to take appropriate action and to do it within 180 days.
Regarding the fast approaching deadline, the legislators have done nothing except to request an advisory opinion of the Justices, inquiring as to the validity of 'Vermont style' civil unions. The legislature received a sharply worded answer in the negative. And so, come May 17, all the citizens of Massachusetts will have is the Goodridge opinion.
It is fundamental that the power of any state official to do anything comes from-and only from-delegated authority. In particular, the authority of town clerks to issue and file marriage licenses and of the Department of Health to create procedures relative to marriage flows directly from the Massachusetts statutes cited in Goodridge. Therefore, when the Court found that those statutes did not permit same-sex marriages, the Court effectively denied town clerks and Department of Health officials the ability to confer marriage upon same-sex unions until the legislature takes further action.
Principles of our democratic republic demand that law be created by duly elected representatives. Those in the executive branch or in subordinate agencies-for example, town clerks-are not permitted to create law on an ad hoc basis. When, as has happened in Massachusetts, a state's highest court allows time for a legislature to change current statutes, procrastination on the part of the legislature does not empower those responsible for implementing existing law to proceed as if the statutes had been duly changed. Simply put, state officials may not implement a legislative scheme that does not yet exist. Yet, if the train keeps moving, that is exactly what will happen in Massachusetts on May 17. Town clerks, magistrate judges, and the entire executive branch are all gearing up for same-sex marriage. If the people of Massachusetts value their democratic principles, they will consider again the significance of May 17. Aside from an entry of the Court's judgment declaring that the lack of provision in the law for same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, nothing more will result. There will be no provision for valid same-sex marriages.
Importantly, the Goodridge Court could have written its opinion so that legislative action was not a prerequisite for same-sex marriage. The Court could have construed Massachusetts law as currently written to provide for same-sex marriage. Alternatively, the Court could have created a form of common law marriage that included same-sex unions. Either would have had the immediate effect of creating same-same marriage in Massachusetts. For obvious reasons, however, the Court chose to do neither. Radical changes to law should involve, to the greatest degree possible, the cooperation of all of the co-equal branches. Without delving into the Court's claim that the world's oldest functioning constitution suddenly now requires same-sex marriage, it is to the Court's credit that it crafted an opinion mandating legislative action prior to same-sex marriage arriving in Massachusetts.
It is unfortunate that Governor Romney and others are undermining the democratic process by refusing to recognize this. The result is that Massachusetts may shortly have hundreds or even thousands of "married" couples of dubious status. If, in due course, the rule of law is honored, these marriages will be invalid for lack of enabling legislation.
There are undoubtedly those who would support the current trend. That the failure of the legislature to act in a timely fashion should give state officials carte blanche to effectively create law based upon the principles articulated in Goodridge is itself a dangerous principle to espouse. In essence, it will be legislation without the legislature. The founders did not contemplate such a thing when they framed our governments over two hundred years ago. Neither did the Goodridge Court six months ago. The people of Massachusetts would do well to keep this in mind.
Here's my friend Jonathan Goulding's commentary on our strange constitutional crisis provoked by the judicial imposition of gay marriage. Jonathan is a second-year law student at Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor, Michigan and a long time Massachusetts resident.
The train is moving. It will soon be unstoppable as officials create and then begin administering the mechanics of same-sex marriage for the state of Massachusetts. Standard marriage forms are even now being revised. Town clerks are preparing for their new duties. Perhaps the most persuasive indicator that same-sex marriage will arrive in some form in Massachusetts on May 17 is that Governor Romney's legal counsel has instructed magistrate judges to resign if they cannot, in good conscience, marry same-sex couples.
Yet on that date, if the rule of law is ultimately followed, same-sex marriage will no more exist in the state of Massachusetts than when its constitution was ratified over two hundred years ago. It is my position that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made legislative action a prerequisite for same-sex marriage. My authority is the Court's opinion itself, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.
For those who have not had the time or the inclination to read the historic opinion, the Court made the following two important findings. First, the Court found that current Massachusetts law does not provide for same-sex marriage. Second, the Court held that this state of affairs violates the Massachusetts constitution. Based on these two conclusions, the Court expressly directed the legislature to take appropriate action and to do it within 180 days.
Regarding the fast approaching deadline, the legislators have done nothing except to request an advisory opinion of the Justices, inquiring as to the validity of 'Vermont style' civil unions. The legislature received a sharply worded answer in the negative. And so, come May 17, all the citizens of Massachusetts will have is the Goodridge opinion.
It is fundamental that the power of any state official to do anything comes from-and only from-delegated authority. In particular, the authority of town clerks to issue and file marriage licenses and of the Department of Health to create procedures relative to marriage flows directly from the Massachusetts statutes cited in Goodridge. Therefore, when the Court found that those statutes did not permit same-sex marriages, the Court effectively denied town clerks and Department of Health officials the ability to confer marriage upon same-sex unions until the legislature takes further action.
Principles of our democratic republic demand that law be created by duly elected representatives. Those in the executive branch or in subordinate agencies-for example, town clerks-are not permitted to create law on an ad hoc basis. When, as has happened in Massachusetts, a state's highest court allows time for a legislature to change current statutes, procrastination on the part of the legislature does not empower those responsible for implementing existing law to proceed as if the statutes had been duly changed. Simply put, state officials may not implement a legislative scheme that does not yet exist. Yet, if the train keeps moving, that is exactly what will happen in Massachusetts on May 17. Town clerks, magistrate judges, and the entire executive branch are all gearing up for same-sex marriage. If the people of Massachusetts value their democratic principles, they will consider again the significance of May 17. Aside from an entry of the Court's judgment declaring that the lack of provision in the law for same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, nothing more will result. There will be no provision for valid same-sex marriages.
Importantly, the Goodridge Court could have written its opinion so that legislative action was not a prerequisite for same-sex marriage. The Court could have construed Massachusetts law as currently written to provide for same-sex marriage. Alternatively, the Court could have created a form of common law marriage that included same-sex unions. Either would have had the immediate effect of creating same-same marriage in Massachusetts. For obvious reasons, however, the Court chose to do neither. Radical changes to law should involve, to the greatest degree possible, the cooperation of all of the co-equal branches. Without delving into the Court's claim that the world's oldest functioning constitution suddenly now requires same-sex marriage, it is to the Court's credit that it crafted an opinion mandating legislative action prior to same-sex marriage arriving in Massachusetts.
It is unfortunate that Governor Romney and others are undermining the democratic process by refusing to recognize this. The result is that Massachusetts may shortly have hundreds or even thousands of "married" couples of dubious status. If, in due course, the rule of law is honored, these marriages will be invalid for lack of enabling legislation.
There are undoubtedly those who would support the current trend. That the failure of the legislature to act in a timely fashion should give state officials carte blanche to effectively create law based upon the principles articulated in Goodridge is itself a dangerous principle to espouse. In essence, it will be legislation without the legislature. The founders did not contemplate such a thing when they framed our governments over two hundred years ago. Neither did the Goodridge Court six months ago. The people of Massachusetts would do well to keep this in mind.
HomoFascist Thuggery Outside & Inside State House
GLBT activists are proud of their behavior seen in these videos from the November 19 State House rally. Watch the videos from a "gay" blog here.
What the mainstream media did NOT report, of course, was the verbal violence unleashed against the VoteOnMarriage ralliers, the Governor, and other speakers at that event. The effort to drown them out by rowdy shouting, chanting, booing, hissing, and name-calling was appalling thuggery.
The "proud parents" of this lawlessness, chief lobbyist Arline Isaacson and MassEquality director Marc Solomon, can be seen standing in front of the booers, looking smug and approving.
The vile behavior on the street captures the essence of the suited-up violence the homofascist lobby does inside the State House. "Constitution? What's that?"
What's amazing is that 109 Massachusetts legislators think these people deserve their respect -- and more, special privileges.
What the mainstream media did NOT report, of course, was the verbal violence unleashed against the VoteOnMarriage ralliers, the Governor, and other speakers at that event. The effort to drown them out by rowdy shouting, chanting, booing, hissing, and name-calling was appalling thuggery.
The "proud parents" of this lawlessness, chief lobbyist Arline Isaacson and MassEquality director Marc Solomon, can be seen standing in front of the booers, looking smug and approving.
The vile behavior on the street captures the essence of the suited-up violence the homofascist lobby does inside the State House. "Constitution? What's that?"
What's amazing is that 109 Massachusetts legislators think these people deserve their respect -- and more, special privileges.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Connecticut Case Shows: "Civil Unions" On Slippery Slope to "Gay Marriage"
True conservatives, those who understand you can't compromise with evil, have been warning for years of the danger of allowing "civil unions" (and those marriage amendments which do not specifically ban civil unions). Here's all you need for proof that we have been right:
GLAD (Gay & Lesbian & Bisexual & Transsexual Advocates and Defenders), the attorneys who pushed for Vermont civil unions and Massachusetts homosexual "marriage", are now arguing that the earlier passage of civil unions legislation in Connecticut PROVES that homosexual relationships deserve the same level of government sanctioning as heterosexual marriages.
From Bay Windows (11-29-06):
GLAD files marriage suit with CT Supreme Court
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) filed a brief with the Connecticut Supreme Court Nov. 22 in its lawsuit to extend marriage to same-sex couples in that state, Kerrigan and Mock v. Department of Public Health. GLAD’s suit lost at the Superior Court level when Justice Patty Jenkins Pittman ruled that granting couples the legal rights of marriage through civil unions did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination. Yet GLAD attorney Ben Klein said GLAD will argue before the Supreme Court that the legislature’s passage of the civil union law makes their case for full marriage equality stronger.
Klein said the basic principle of equal protection under the law is that people who are the same should be given equal treatment. By granting same-sex couples all the legal benefits attached to marriage Klein said the legislature showed that committed same-sex relationships were equivalent to heterosexual marriages.
“[The civil union law makes our case] more compelling because the legislature has already established a policy that gay and lesbian couples are the same with respect to the marriage laws. So there is no justification under the marriage laws for treating them differently,” said Klein.
Kerrigan and Mock was originally filed in 2004 on behalf of eight Connecticut same-sex couples denied marriage licenses. GLAD expects the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in the case sometime next spring.
GLAD (Gay & Lesbian & Bisexual & Transsexual Advocates and Defenders), the attorneys who pushed for Vermont civil unions and Massachusetts homosexual "marriage", are now arguing that the earlier passage of civil unions legislation in Connecticut PROVES that homosexual relationships deserve the same level of government sanctioning as heterosexual marriages.
From Bay Windows (11-29-06):
GLAD files marriage suit with CT Supreme Court
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) filed a brief with the Connecticut Supreme Court Nov. 22 in its lawsuit to extend marriage to same-sex couples in that state, Kerrigan and Mock v. Department of Public Health. GLAD’s suit lost at the Superior Court level when Justice Patty Jenkins Pittman ruled that granting couples the legal rights of marriage through civil unions did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination. Yet GLAD attorney Ben Klein said GLAD will argue before the Supreme Court that the legislature’s passage of the civil union law makes their case for full marriage equality stronger.
Klein said the basic principle of equal protection under the law is that people who are the same should be given equal treatment. By granting same-sex couples all the legal benefits attached to marriage Klein said the legislature showed that committed same-sex relationships were equivalent to heterosexual marriages.
“[The civil union law makes our case] more compelling because the legislature has already established a policy that gay and lesbian couples are the same with respect to the marriage laws. So there is no justification under the marriage laws for treating them differently,” said Klein.
Kerrigan and Mock was originally filed in 2004 on behalf of eight Connecticut same-sex couples denied marriage licenses. GLAD expects the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in the case sometime next spring.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Open Letter to Rep. Jay Kaufman on His Vote to Violate Constitution & Commit Treason
To: Rep. Jay Kaufman (15th Middlesex district)
From: Robert Paine, Esq.
Re: Your editorial on your illegal vote to recess the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention without voting on the marriage amendment
(Link to Kaufman's editorial: "A Difficult Vote, An Easy Judgement" [sic] )
You wrote, Representative Kaufman:
"The Constitution obligates legislators to exercise judgment on which proposed Constitutional matters are placed before the electorate for a vote. The two-step legislative review prescribed by the Constitution would be meaningless if John Adam’s intent had been for the Constitutional Convention to serve simply as a pass-through agency for voter initiatives."
I have practiced law for many years, during which time I've frequently argued before the SJC. I've been consulted on constitutional law by high officials of the federal government, asked to write federal legislation with major constitutional implications, and asked by a sitting Congressman to run for Congress. I work on and have personally won cases with national impact and international publicity and -- without exaggeration -- I've done considerably more research on the court rulings pertinent to "homosexual marriage" and the relevant parts of the Massachusetts Constitution than all members of the Legislature, their staffs, and Governor Romney and his staff, combined. Sad to say, this is not even much of a boast, since previous court rulings and the Constitution itself have hardly been consulted on the matter of homosexual marriage.
Allow me to correct your fatuous and idle boast. The Constitution very clearly orders you and our other servants to vote on the floor on any amendment brought before you that has met the constitutional requirements. You swore in the name of God, not only to obey, but to uphold and defend that Constitution. Your failure and that of your smug, dishonest, hypocritical colleagues is an act of criminal perjury -- a felony.
Despite your legally absurd rationalizations, you are in the act of conspiring against the foundation of democracy, against the supreme law of this Commonwealth, the social compact that distinguishes the law-abiding from the outlaw. You are committing a felony which is punishable by time in prison and disbarment from elective office. Two generations ago, before it became cute to hijack democracy from your superiors, the sovereign people, you would have been arrested, convicted and imprisoned. The Founding Fathers would have tried you not only for criminal perjury, but also for sedition. If you do not know the meaning of that word and have no dictionary, here is its meaning: treason.
In your self-righteous defense of sodomy "marriage," the outrageous preferences currently being given to homosexuals in adoption and foster-parent proceedings, and violation of childhood and parents' rights by schoolroom sodomy propaganda, you are sabotaging our republican form of government in which the people, not you, are sovereign.
Your right is to vote "yea" or "nay." But you have no "right" to violate the people's sovereignty or to betray their constitution with your lies. Even "Justice" Margaret Marshall and her outlaw judges on the SJC had enough honesty to admit what your are lying about: They ruled in 2002 that Senate President Birmingham had violated the Constitution when he took his turn at treason -- in exactly the same sort of criminal conspiracy you are now involved in. How short are the memories of liars. Young American soldiers and sailors have died to defend the right of self-government and the constitutions that you are trashing.
You are a fraud. I have no idea whether you believe in a God or not, but you swore a solemn oath followed by "So help me God." In lying to others and to yourself now, you are unable to hide the obvious: You took the name of the Lord God in vain and thus, when your time is up in this world, you will answer not only for your criminal conspiracy against my children's and your children's constitution, their democratic rights, their culture, their innocence and their future. You will answer also for the arrogance of your cosmic lie which echoes its dishonesty from one end of the universe to the other, takes up residence within you and will grow like a parasite within your soul. You mock the name of the Lord God who made your flesh, breathed life into you and in whose name you swore a sacred oath.
Representative Kaufman, you and your distinguished partners in this high crime against current and future generations will answer for your part in condemning children to the ruthless, arrogant, blind experimentation of childhoods defined by intentional deprivation of one of the two distinct kinds of parents that Nature and Nature's God intended for them. Their fingers will point at you when your time comes. You will never escape their piercing eyes.
None of us are so stupid as to think you believe this nonsense you are claiming as an excuse to commit a felony. Here it is again. Your own lies will ring in your ears forever: "The two-step legislative review prescribed by the Constitution would be meaningless if John Adam’s intent had been for the Constitutional Convention to serve simply as a pass-through agency for voter initiatives."
The two-step review that John Adams wrote into the Constitution compels two votes on the amendment itself. That is the purpose of a Constitutional Convention. Were it not so, Maggie Marshall, a felon-conspirator herself, most assuredly would have told you so. Look in the mirror and ask why American servicemen and women are now dying to protect a constitutional system of self-government that you are subverting. Some day, your children or grandchildren may ask you that question. If not, the souls of dead American heroes going back more than two centuries will ask, and so will the God who gave the inalienable rights that you, like the communists and Nazis, steal from your fellow man.
Reread the "Rights of the Inhabitants" portion which John Adams made the basis of the entire form of government. It should expose as a silly lie your ridiculous claim that our public servants have the right to stop us from modifying our form of government.
Article IV. The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves...and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right (not) by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress...
Article V. All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the...officers of government...legislative, executive, or judicial, are...are at all times accountable to them.
Article VII. ...the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to...reform, alter, or totally change the (government)...
Why did John Adams make this the basis of the Constitution that you are now subverting with lies and cowardice and conspiracy?
Article VIII. "In order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors..."
Adams, like Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and so many others, knew that the likes of you, Rep. Jay Kaufman, would show up sooner or later, and that the people might not be prepared for your deceits. You, sir, are the enemy within. Look in the mirror and you will see that of which our Founding Fathers warned when they included in the Federal oath of office the phrase (I will defend the Constitution) ... "from enemies, domestic and foreign."
May God have mercy on the souls of those selling the innocence and the inalienable rights of their own children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren in return for the worthless approval from the lawless barbarians tearing down our Constitution and our society.
Sincerely,
Robert Paine, Esquire
From: Robert Paine, Esq.
Re: Your editorial on your illegal vote to recess the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention without voting on the marriage amendment
(Link to Kaufman's editorial: "A Difficult Vote, An Easy Judgement" [sic] )
You wrote, Representative Kaufman:
"The Constitution obligates legislators to exercise judgment on which proposed Constitutional matters are placed before the electorate for a vote. The two-step legislative review prescribed by the Constitution would be meaningless if John Adam’s intent had been for the Constitutional Convention to serve simply as a pass-through agency for voter initiatives."
I have practiced law for many years, during which time I've frequently argued before the SJC. I've been consulted on constitutional law by high officials of the federal government, asked to write federal legislation with major constitutional implications, and asked by a sitting Congressman to run for Congress. I work on and have personally won cases with national impact and international publicity and -- without exaggeration -- I've done considerably more research on the court rulings pertinent to "homosexual marriage" and the relevant parts of the Massachusetts Constitution than all members of the Legislature, their staffs, and Governor Romney and his staff, combined. Sad to say, this is not even much of a boast, since previous court rulings and the Constitution itself have hardly been consulted on the matter of homosexual marriage.
Allow me to correct your fatuous and idle boast. The Constitution very clearly orders you and our other servants to vote on the floor on any amendment brought before you that has met the constitutional requirements. You swore in the name of God, not only to obey, but to uphold and defend that Constitution. Your failure and that of your smug, dishonest, hypocritical colleagues is an act of criminal perjury -- a felony.
Despite your legally absurd rationalizations, you are in the act of conspiring against the foundation of democracy, against the supreme law of this Commonwealth, the social compact that distinguishes the law-abiding from the outlaw. You are committing a felony which is punishable by time in prison and disbarment from elective office. Two generations ago, before it became cute to hijack democracy from your superiors, the sovereign people, you would have been arrested, convicted and imprisoned. The Founding Fathers would have tried you not only for criminal perjury, but also for sedition. If you do not know the meaning of that word and have no dictionary, here is its meaning: treason.
In your self-righteous defense of sodomy "marriage," the outrageous preferences currently being given to homosexuals in adoption and foster-parent proceedings, and violation of childhood and parents' rights by schoolroom sodomy propaganda, you are sabotaging our republican form of government in which the people, not you, are sovereign.
Your right is to vote "yea" or "nay." But you have no "right" to violate the people's sovereignty or to betray their constitution with your lies. Even "Justice" Margaret Marshall and her outlaw judges on the SJC had enough honesty to admit what your are lying about: They ruled in 2002 that Senate President Birmingham had violated the Constitution when he took his turn at treason -- in exactly the same sort of criminal conspiracy you are now involved in. How short are the memories of liars. Young American soldiers and sailors have died to defend the right of self-government and the constitutions that you are trashing.
You are a fraud. I have no idea whether you believe in a God or not, but you swore a solemn oath followed by "So help me God." In lying to others and to yourself now, you are unable to hide the obvious: You took the name of the Lord God in vain and thus, when your time is up in this world, you will answer not only for your criminal conspiracy against my children's and your children's constitution, their democratic rights, their culture, their innocence and their future. You will answer also for the arrogance of your cosmic lie which echoes its dishonesty from one end of the universe to the other, takes up residence within you and will grow like a parasite within your soul. You mock the name of the Lord God who made your flesh, breathed life into you and in whose name you swore a sacred oath.
Representative Kaufman, you and your distinguished partners in this high crime against current and future generations will answer for your part in condemning children to the ruthless, arrogant, blind experimentation of childhoods defined by intentional deprivation of one of the two distinct kinds of parents that Nature and Nature's God intended for them. Their fingers will point at you when your time comes. You will never escape their piercing eyes.
None of us are so stupid as to think you believe this nonsense you are claiming as an excuse to commit a felony. Here it is again. Your own lies will ring in your ears forever: "The two-step legislative review prescribed by the Constitution would be meaningless if John Adam’s intent had been for the Constitutional Convention to serve simply as a pass-through agency for voter initiatives."
The two-step review that John Adams wrote into the Constitution compels two votes on the amendment itself. That is the purpose of a Constitutional Convention. Were it not so, Maggie Marshall, a felon-conspirator herself, most assuredly would have told you so. Look in the mirror and ask why American servicemen and women are now dying to protect a constitutional system of self-government that you are subverting. Some day, your children or grandchildren may ask you that question. If not, the souls of dead American heroes going back more than two centuries will ask, and so will the God who gave the inalienable rights that you, like the communists and Nazis, steal from your fellow man.
Reread the "Rights of the Inhabitants" portion which John Adams made the basis of the entire form of government. It should expose as a silly lie your ridiculous claim that our public servants have the right to stop us from modifying our form of government.
Article IV. The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves...and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right (not) by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress...
Article V. All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the...officers of government...legislative, executive, or judicial, are...are at all times accountable to them.
Article VII. ...the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to...reform, alter, or totally change the (government)...
Why did John Adams make this the basis of the Constitution that you are now subverting with lies and cowardice and conspiracy?
Article VIII. "In order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors..."
Adams, like Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and so many others, knew that the likes of you, Rep. Jay Kaufman, would show up sooner or later, and that the people might not be prepared for your deceits. You, sir, are the enemy within. Look in the mirror and you will see that of which our Founding Fathers warned when they included in the Federal oath of office the phrase (I will defend the Constitution) ... "from enemies, domestic and foreign."
May God have mercy on the souls of those selling the innocence and the inalienable rights of their own children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren in return for the worthless approval from the lawless barbarians tearing down our Constitution and our society.
Sincerely,
Robert Paine, Esquire
Alan Keyes Explains: Romney Started "Gay Marriages"
Word is getting out among prominent pro-family leaders and politicians around the country on Gov. Romney's responsibility for homosexual "marriages" in Massachusetts.
We hear that a prominent national figure has just told pro-family legislators from 27 states (at a conference in Dallas last Saturday) the real story behind the issuance of "gay marriage" licenses in Massachusetts: Gov. Mitt Romney unconstitutionally implemented them!
Also, Dr. Alan Keyes truly understands what has happened and what is happening: a total surrender by pro-family leaders fawning over Gov. Romney. After meeting with MassResistance staff and affiliated legal researchers recently, examining the documents we presented to him and taking the time to do his own research on the subject, Dr. Keyes is now explaining to those who are open-minded that Romney alone -- and in violation of the law, the state Constitution, and his oath of office -- imposed homosexual "marriage" on Massachusetts.
See the posting on Keyes's RenewAmerica web site:
http://www.renewamerica.us/news/061116keyes.htm
Keyes cites Romney as sole author of Massachusetts gay marriage policy: Nov. 5 'God and Country' speech in Pensacola, FL
November 16, 2006
RenewAmerica staff
In a "God and Country" speech last week at Chuck Baldwin's Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida, Dr. Alan Keyes said that Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is alone responsible for his state's gay marriage policy--not the state's supreme court, as widely perceived. While Gov. Romney--a contender for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination--publicly claims to be opposed to gay marriage, Keyes pointed out that Romney unwisely "forced" gay marriage on Massachusetts of his own initiative in 2004.
Romney claimed at the time that a 4-3 decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court calling for legislation that would authorize gay marriage required Romney to institute a same-sex marriage policy. But the truth, according to Keyes, is that Romney took pre-emptive action to impose gay marriage without any requirement to do so by the court.
Said Keyes, "Mitt Romney, who's now running around the country telling people he's an opponent of same-sex marriage, forced the justices of the peace and others [in the state system] to perform same-sex marriage--all on his own with no authorization or requirement from the court."Noting that the court's "decision did not make any change in the law," Keyes inquired of his audience: "Since [the court's] decision didn't make any change in the existing law of the state of Massachusetts, and since the legislature has not acted on the subject, you might be wondering how it is that homosexuals are being married in Massachusetts.
"Keyes answered his own question:"[This] tells you how twisted our politicians have become. On the first day [after the court's deadline for the legislature to act, Romney] forces homosexual marriage through in the state of Massachusetts without any warrant or requirement from the court. And the day after that, he goes to a conference sponsored by Focus on the Family to announce what a strong supporter he is of traditional marriage. Ah! God help us, please."
We hear that a prominent national figure has just told pro-family legislators from 27 states (at a conference in Dallas last Saturday) the real story behind the issuance of "gay marriage" licenses in Massachusetts: Gov. Mitt Romney unconstitutionally implemented them!
Also, Dr. Alan Keyes truly understands what has happened and what is happening: a total surrender by pro-family leaders fawning over Gov. Romney. After meeting with MassResistance staff and affiliated legal researchers recently, examining the documents we presented to him and taking the time to do his own research on the subject, Dr. Keyes is now explaining to those who are open-minded that Romney alone -- and in violation of the law, the state Constitution, and his oath of office -- imposed homosexual "marriage" on Massachusetts.
See the posting on Keyes's RenewAmerica web site:
http://www.renewamerica.us/news/061116keyes.htm
Keyes cites Romney as sole author of Massachusetts gay marriage policy: Nov. 5 'God and Country' speech in Pensacola, FL
November 16, 2006
RenewAmerica staff
In a "God and Country" speech last week at Chuck Baldwin's Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida, Dr. Alan Keyes said that Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is alone responsible for his state's gay marriage policy--not the state's supreme court, as widely perceived. While Gov. Romney--a contender for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination--publicly claims to be opposed to gay marriage, Keyes pointed out that Romney unwisely "forced" gay marriage on Massachusetts of his own initiative in 2004.
Romney claimed at the time that a 4-3 decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court calling for legislation that would authorize gay marriage required Romney to institute a same-sex marriage policy. But the truth, according to Keyes, is that Romney took pre-emptive action to impose gay marriage without any requirement to do so by the court.
Said Keyes, "Mitt Romney, who's now running around the country telling people he's an opponent of same-sex marriage, forced the justices of the peace and others [in the state system] to perform same-sex marriage--all on his own with no authorization or requirement from the court."Noting that the court's "decision did not make any change in the law," Keyes inquired of his audience: "Since [the court's] decision didn't make any change in the existing law of the state of Massachusetts, and since the legislature has not acted on the subject, you might be wondering how it is that homosexuals are being married in Massachusetts.
"Keyes answered his own question:"[This] tells you how twisted our politicians have become. On the first day [after the court's deadline for the legislature to act, Romney] forces homosexual marriage through in the state of Massachusetts without any warrant or requirement from the court. And the day after that, he goes to a conference sponsored by Focus on the Family to announce what a strong supporter he is of traditional marriage. Ah! God help us, please."
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Mass. Family Institute Called for Executive Order to Block "Gay Marriages"
Ron Crews, former president of the Mass. Family Institute, called on Gov. Romney back in early 2004 to issue an Executive Order to block illegal homosexual "marriages". Few seem to recall this now, but Crews was advocating for a forceful reminder from the Governor that since there was no new law passed to establish homosexual "marriage", nothing would be changing on May 17, 2004. (And no such law has been passed since!) So Romney could have -- and should have -- made it clear, through Executive Order, that we must all follow the law on the books, and not allow phony "homosexual marriages" to commence.
Has Mass. Family Institute changed its mind? Do they now think these phony "marriages" are legal? Or -- because Romney failed to enforce the law in 2004 -- that they magically became "legal" marriages?
Ron Crews said:
3-9-04: One alternative, he said, is to convince Gov. Mitt Romney to issue an executive order to city and town clerks halting the issuance of marriage license to same-sex couples... [Patriot Ledger]
4-11-04: "We're still hopeful Romney is going to act in what we believe to be his full constitutional authority, to delay and/or prevent the implementation of the Supreme Judicial Court decision" granting marriage licenses, said Ronald A. Crews… For Romney, the options for holding off the May 17 change might include issuing an executive order ... [Boston Globe]
4-12-04: "It is our hope that the governor will use his full authority as the chief executive to delay the implementation of the SJC decision. We believe he has constitutional authority to act," Crews said, saying one of the options was to issue an executive order. [Boston Globe]
Has Mass. Family Institute changed its mind? Do they now think these phony "marriages" are legal? Or -- because Romney failed to enforce the law in 2004 -- that they magically became "legal" marriages?
Ron Crews said:
3-9-04: One alternative, he said, is to convince Gov. Mitt Romney to issue an executive order to city and town clerks halting the issuance of marriage license to same-sex couples... [Patriot Ledger]
4-11-04: "We're still hopeful Romney is going to act in what we believe to be his full constitutional authority, to delay and/or prevent the implementation of the Supreme Judicial Court decision" granting marriage licenses, said Ronald A. Crews… For Romney, the options for holding off the May 17 change might include issuing an executive order ... [Boston Globe]
4-12-04: "It is our hope that the governor will use his full authority as the chief executive to delay the implementation of the SJC decision. We believe he has constitutional authority to act," Crews said, saying one of the options was to issue an executive order. [Boston Globe]
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Officials Who Violate Their Oath of Office Are Guilty of a Crime
By John Haskins
Under the Massachusetts Constitution, any public official who swears the oath of office and then willingly violates that oath it is subject to the criminal penalties of perjury -- a felony. That includes Governor Mitt Romney, much of the legislature, at least four judges on the Supreme Judicial Court, as well as Attorney General Tom Reilly, who has a duty to file criminal perjury charges against those now violating the Massachusetts oath of office. In an era of bolder citizenship and stronger, more serious Christianity, they would be subjected to citizen's arrest by a great troop of armed Massachusetts citizens, and they would be convicted and imprisoned for what they are now doing.
Obviously, the Massachusetts Constitution is not discriminating in the below article against Quakers by holding them to a higher legal standard or subjecting them to more severe criminal punishment for the same act. Therefore the meaning is plain and inescapable: Failure to "bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" and to "support the constitution thereof" is a crime.
Article VI. Instead of the oath of allegiance prescribed by the constitution, the following oath shall be taken and subscribed by every person chosen or appointed to any office, civil or military under the government of this commonwealth, before he shall enter on the duties of his office, to wit:
"I, A. B., do solemnly swear, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts , and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God."
Provided, That when any person shall be of the denomination called Quakers, and shall decline taking said oath, he shall make his affirmation in the foregoing form, omitting the word "swear" and inserting instead thereof the word "affirm;" and omitting the words "So help me God," and subjoining, instead thereof, the words "This I do under the pains and penalties of perjury." [see Constitution, chapter VI, Art. I].
Article VII. No oath, declaration or subscription, excepting the oath prescribed in the preceding article and the oath of office shall be required of the governor, lieutenant governor, councilors, senators or representatives, to qualify them to perform the duties of their respective offices.
Under the Massachusetts Constitution, any public official who swears the oath of office and then willingly violates that oath it is subject to the criminal penalties of perjury -- a felony. That includes Governor Mitt Romney, much of the legislature, at least four judges on the Supreme Judicial Court, as well as Attorney General Tom Reilly, who has a duty to file criminal perjury charges against those now violating the Massachusetts oath of office. In an era of bolder citizenship and stronger, more serious Christianity, they would be subjected to citizen's arrest by a great troop of armed Massachusetts citizens, and they would be convicted and imprisoned for what they are now doing.
Obviously, the Massachusetts Constitution is not discriminating in the below article against Quakers by holding them to a higher legal standard or subjecting them to more severe criminal punishment for the same act. Therefore the meaning is plain and inescapable: Failure to "bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" and to "support the constitution thereof" is a crime.
Article VI. Instead of the oath of allegiance prescribed by the constitution, the following oath shall be taken and subscribed by every person chosen or appointed to any office, civil or military under the government of this commonwealth, before he shall enter on the duties of his office, to wit:
"I, A. B., do solemnly swear, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts , and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God."
Provided, That when any person shall be of the denomination called Quakers, and shall decline taking said oath, he shall make his affirmation in the foregoing form, omitting the word "swear" and inserting instead thereof the word "affirm;" and omitting the words "So help me God," and subjoining, instead thereof, the words "This I do under the pains and penalties of perjury." [see Constitution, chapter VI, Art. I].
Article VII. No oath, declaration or subscription, excepting the oath prescribed in the preceding article and the oath of office shall be required of the governor, lieutenant governor, councilors, senators or representatives, to qualify them to perform the duties of their respective offices.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Alaska Legislature Exposes Romney's Dishonesty in Implementing "Gay Marriage"
The Alaska legislature just voted to ignore a court order to implement "domestic partnership" benefits for state employees. Their action exposes Mitt Romney's dishonesty claiming he had to implement the SJC's "gay marriage" ruling here! So why are the Massachusetts Family Institute and their "pro-family, conservative" legal experts still covering up for Romney?
(See "Senate passes same sex legislation and adjourns." And note the misleading headline! You'd think they were reporting on a victory for "same-sex rights".)
This Alaska story has received little play in the mainstream media. After all, who wants to hear about constitutions upheld, and judicial tyranny restrained? Our legislators should follow the example of their compatriots in Alaska, and read anad follow their own state constitution! Our associate John Haskins writes:
This story totally debunks the mythical "authority" of the Goodridge ruling that Romney has brilliantly used to implement the anti-family agenda he has had his entire career -- since long before he tried to banish the Boy Scouts from the Olympics for not accepting homosexual scoutmasters.
It is not possible that Alaska's constitution is any more clear than Massachusetts' in denying judges any power to tell the legislature or the governor what to do. Every supposedly "pro-family conservative" lawyer and law professor or pundit who has swallowed Mitt Romney's absurd story now has to explain this case. Are the Alaska legislators lawbreakers -- or is Mitt Romney? Our Governor violated his oath of office and ordered public officials to ignore the marriage statute, and instead to act on the wishes of the judges without even waiting for the Legislature to legalize homosexual "marriage" (as the judges themselves said would be necessary).
Reality checks like this story are reaching more and more people around the country. The cover-up of Mitt Romney -- and of the illegality of his homosexual marriage licenses - by lawyers, law professors and groups billing themselves as "pro-family conservatives" is failing.
From the Anchorage Daily News (AP), 11-20-06:
The state Senate Monday joined the state House in defying a court order to provide health insurance for gay partners of state employees. Senators voted 11-6 to pass a bill that prohibits the state's commissioner of administration from implementing regulations that would set up a benefits plan for gay couples.
They also voted 12-5 in favor of an advisory vote on the ballot next spring that would ask voters if a constitutional amendment to overturn the order-ordered [sic] benefits should be placed on the 2008 ballot.
Majority Republicans said lawmakers should decide questions regarding benefits for state employees. Minority Democrats said the bills do nothing but set up an unnecessary fight between the Legislature and the courts.
© Copyright 2006, The Anchorage Daily News
(See "Senate passes same sex legislation and adjourns." And note the misleading headline! You'd think they were reporting on a victory for "same-sex rights".)
This Alaska story has received little play in the mainstream media. After all, who wants to hear about constitutions upheld, and judicial tyranny restrained? Our legislators should follow the example of their compatriots in Alaska, and read anad follow their own state constitution! Our associate John Haskins writes:
This story totally debunks the mythical "authority" of the Goodridge ruling that Romney has brilliantly used to implement the anti-family agenda he has had his entire career -- since long before he tried to banish the Boy Scouts from the Olympics for not accepting homosexual scoutmasters.
It is not possible that Alaska's constitution is any more clear than Massachusetts' in denying judges any power to tell the legislature or the governor what to do. Every supposedly "pro-family conservative" lawyer and law professor or pundit who has swallowed Mitt Romney's absurd story now has to explain this case. Are the Alaska legislators lawbreakers -- or is Mitt Romney? Our Governor violated his oath of office and ordered public officials to ignore the marriage statute, and instead to act on the wishes of the judges without even waiting for the Legislature to legalize homosexual "marriage" (as the judges themselves said would be necessary).
Reality checks like this story are reaching more and more people around the country. The cover-up of Mitt Romney -- and of the illegality of his homosexual marriage licenses - by lawyers, law professors and groups billing themselves as "pro-family conservatives" is failing.
From the Anchorage Daily News (AP), 11-20-06:
The state Senate Monday joined the state House in defying a court order to provide health insurance for gay partners of state employees. Senators voted 11-6 to pass a bill that prohibits the state's commissioner of administration from implementing regulations that would set up a benefits plan for gay couples.
They also voted 12-5 in favor of an advisory vote on the ballot next spring that would ask voters if a constitutional amendment to overturn the order-ordered [sic] benefits should be placed on the 2008 ballot.
Majority Republicans said lawmakers should decide questions regarding benefits for state employees. Minority Democrats said the bills do nothing but set up an unnecessary fight between the Legislature and the courts.
© Copyright 2006, The Anchorage Daily News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)