Seen on TownHall.com, referring to Romney's personal attack on Brian Camenker of MassResistance:
As a source close to one of Romney's potential rivals told me, "This is the dumbest stunt by a tier one presidential candidate since George Romney claimed he had been brainwashed by the generals and diplomats."
So early in his campaign ... such a big blunder! Is this man qualified to save America from the jihadists? Attacking the messenger -- because you can't dispute the message?
First Romney posts his attack press release. Then -- after libertarian talk show host Scotto (680 WRKO in Boston) invites Camenker on his show this morning and is aghast at the ineptitude of Romney's personal attack on him -- the press release disappears. But by the end of the day today, it's back up, though the index of press releases on Romney's site doesn't list it!
More from Matt Lewis on TownHall:
If Camenker is so irrelevant, then why is Romney trying to take him down? Why not let someone else take down Camenker (heck, the AP is already doing the dirty work by calling him a gadfly)? Get a surrogate, for crying out loud, Gov. Romney ...
And we're still waiting to hear what "extreme ideology" Camenker is "pushing". Is it the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman? That civil unions and domestic partnership benefits are a bad idea? That homosexual couples shouldn't adopt children? That parents have rights over what is taught to their children about sex and sexual morality? If these ideas are considered "extreme" by Romney, how does he think he'll win Republican primaries?
Monday, January 15, 2007
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Dukakis Rode In a Tank, Romney Shops for Rifles?
Romney checks out the rifles in Orlando. (Does he know the difference between a sporting rifle and an "assault weapon"?)[Getty Images/Boston Globe]
Romney has joined the NRA! The latest flip-flop. Next thing we know, he'll be duck hunting with Dick Cheney. Or buying a hunting license with John Kerry.
The Boston Globe reports today that "Romney retreats on gun control; Ex-governor woos Republican votes":
ORLANDO , Fla. -- Former governor Mitt Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics.
In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.
"That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA," Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.
At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: "I don't line up with the NRA."
And as the GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2002, Romney lauded the state's strong laws during a debate against Democrat Shannon O'Brien. "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them," he said. "I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."
Romney Campaign's Personal Attacks Have Begun
From Peter LaBarbera -- who's been covering the radical GLBT movement before most Americans even knew it existed -- comes a call for Mitt Romney to apologize for attacking "pro-family hero Brian Camenker", president of MassResistance.
Romney is desperately trying to discredit Camenker’s publication of the “Mitt Romney Deception,” detailing the Republican politician’s past liberal record.
News Release
Americans For Truth www.americansfortruth.org
January 12, 2007
NAPERVILLE, IL—Americans For Truth President Peter LaBarbera expressed dismay at former Republican Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s public attack against Brian Camenker, the head of Mass Resistance and “an American hero in the fight against the radical homosexual agenda.”
In a web posting by Romney’s presidential exploratory committee, ominously entitled, “Meet the Real Brian Camenker,” Romney uses liberal media stories to portray Camenker as an extremist troublemaker. Camenker is widely respected among pro-family advocates nationwide for his untiring efforts to expose pro-homosexual indoctrination of public school students.
Romney is desperately trying to discredit Camenker’s publication of the “Mitt Romney Deception,” detailing the Republican politician’s past liberal record. Forty-four conservative leaders including LaBarbera have signed on to a letter challenging Romney’s claim that as governor he did all he could to defend against “gay marriage” in Massachusetts....
“Brian Camenker is a bona fide American pro-family hero,” LaBarbera said. “Brian, who is Jewish, has refused to sell out his religious beliefs like so many around him in Boston. Now comes along a politician — who once boasted that he was better than Ted Kennedy on ‘gay’ issues — to trash him as an extremist gadfly. This is establishment Republican attack-politics at its very worst....
“It’s not Camenker who is extreme but Romney’s (former) ‘gay’ Log Cabin Republican friends, who wouldn’t even endorse President Bush for re-election in 2004,” LaBarbera said.
He urged Romney to retract the anti-Camenker web posting and apologize to the pro-family advocate, noting that Camenker has done nothing wrong in “reminding the American public that Romney has flip-flopped from being a very committed pro-abortion and pro-homosexual-activist politician.”
Romney is desperately trying to discredit Camenker’s publication of the “Mitt Romney Deception,” detailing the Republican politician’s past liberal record.
News Release
Americans For Truth www.americansfortruth.org
January 12, 2007
NAPERVILLE, IL—Americans For Truth President Peter LaBarbera expressed dismay at former Republican Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s public attack against Brian Camenker, the head of Mass Resistance and “an American hero in the fight against the radical homosexual agenda.”
In a web posting by Romney’s presidential exploratory committee, ominously entitled, “Meet the Real Brian Camenker,” Romney uses liberal media stories to portray Camenker as an extremist troublemaker. Camenker is widely respected among pro-family advocates nationwide for his untiring efforts to expose pro-homosexual indoctrination of public school students.
Romney is desperately trying to discredit Camenker’s publication of the “Mitt Romney Deception,” detailing the Republican politician’s past liberal record. Forty-four conservative leaders including LaBarbera have signed on to a letter challenging Romney’s claim that as governor he did all he could to defend against “gay marriage” in Massachusetts....
“Brian Camenker is a bona fide American pro-family hero,” LaBarbera said. “Brian, who is Jewish, has refused to sell out his religious beliefs like so many around him in Boston. Now comes along a politician — who once boasted that he was better than Ted Kennedy on ‘gay’ issues — to trash him as an extremist gadfly. This is establishment Republican attack-politics at its very worst....
“It’s not Camenker who is extreme but Romney’s (former) ‘gay’ Log Cabin Republican friends, who wouldn’t even endorse President Bush for re-election in 2004,” LaBarbera said.
He urged Romney to retract the anti-Camenker web posting and apologize to the pro-family advocate, noting that Camenker has done nothing wrong in “reminding the American public that Romney has flip-flopped from being a very committed pro-abortion and pro-homosexual-activist politician.”
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Democrats Across U.S. Sell Out to Homosexual Lobby
We've known this for some time. We noted National Review's report on the disaster in Colorado in the 2006 election. We've been warning of the money already pouring into Massachusetts from such sources as the Human Rights Campaign (HRC, under the leadership of a Massachusetts boy, Joe Solmonese) and the Gill Foundation (led by another Massachusetts boy, Patrick Guerriero). HRC's website describes itself as "America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality." [Emphasis added; no definition for "civil rights" or "GLBT equality" is given.]
Today's Boston Globe covers this story in some detail. Of course, from the Globe's viewpoint, it's a wonderful development -- it's a "special interest" they approve of, one they believe should be exempt from any critical chatter. From "Gay rights group hailed for election role; Democrats say work key to party gains" (1-13-07):
WASHINGTON -- The Human Rights Campaign, one of the nation's leading gay political organizations, played a quiet but pivotal role electing Democrats at the federal and local level in November, a startling turnaround for a group whose demands for gay marriage helped defeat Democratic candidates in 2004, according to party leaders and lawmakers.
Playing down its support for gay marriage, the HRC mobilized its 650,000 members to staff phone banks, raise money, and participate in get-out-the-vote campaigns to elect candidates sympathetic to gay issues, even if they didn't support gay marriage. The group was the single biggest donor to Democratic state Senate races in New Hampshire, helping the party take control of both chambers of the Legislature for the first time since 1874.
The group also helped congressional candidates from Arizona to Florida and Ohio, and party activists believe the organization can play an even larger role in the 2008 elections....
"What makes you politically powerful is money and membership. We have both, and we have the power to deliver both. We need to do it in a way that makes people stand up and take notice," said Joe Solmonese, HRC president....
Eighty-four staff members were sent to help 30 targeted races in 18 states. More than 90 percent of the 232 candidates the HRC endorsed -- mostly Democrats, but some pro-gay rights Republicans -- won their elections in November.
Today's Boston Globe covers this story in some detail. Of course, from the Globe's viewpoint, it's a wonderful development -- it's a "special interest" they approve of, one they believe should be exempt from any critical chatter. From "Gay rights group hailed for election role; Democrats say work key to party gains" (1-13-07):
WASHINGTON -- The Human Rights Campaign, one of the nation's leading gay political organizations, played a quiet but pivotal role electing Democrats at the federal and local level in November, a startling turnaround for a group whose demands for gay marriage helped defeat Democratic candidates in 2004, according to party leaders and lawmakers.
Playing down its support for gay marriage, the HRC mobilized its 650,000 members to staff phone banks, raise money, and participate in get-out-the-vote campaigns to elect candidates sympathetic to gay issues, even if they didn't support gay marriage. The group was the single biggest donor to Democratic state Senate races in New Hampshire, helping the party take control of both chambers of the Legislature for the first time since 1874.
The group also helped congressional candidates from Arizona to Florida and Ohio, and party activists believe the organization can play an even larger role in the 2008 elections....
"What makes you politically powerful is money and membership. We have both, and we have the power to deliver both. We need to do it in a way that makes people stand up and take notice," said Joe Solmonese, HRC president....
Eighty-four staff members were sent to help 30 targeted races in 18 states. More than 90 percent of the 232 candidates the HRC endorsed -- mostly Democrats, but some pro-gay rights Republicans -- won their elections in November.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Mass. Citizens for Life's Flip-Flop on Romney
Mass. Citizens for Life (MCFL) used to be disappointed in Gov. Romney's failure to support their pro-family efforts. The Globe reported in March 2005,
"Marie Sturgis, legislative director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said she hasn't detected any change in Romney's stance. The group considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, as do national antiabortion groups such as the Family Research Council."
Then last week were surprised by this flip-flop by MCFL in its assessment of Romney. Regarding a letter signed by a few "conservative" leaders in Massachusetts supporting Romney, the new president of MCFL is quoted:
One activist who agreed to sign the letter was Joseph Reilly, president of the group Massachusetts Citizens for Life, a group that opposes abortion. "It just told the truth," Reilly said of the letter, describing Romney as "a man of honesty."
"I would describe the letter as a testimony of the help that Governor Romney has given to profamily values during his tenure," added Tom Shields, chairman of the Coalition for Marriage and Family [the group behind the VoteOnMarriage amendment].
Shields is a close personal friend of Romney's.
Then we read this on yesterday's Pro-Life Romney Watch blog (1-11-07):
Update
I spoke with Marie Sturgis [former president] at Mass Citizens for Life earlier this afternoon. She confirmed for me that Romney wrote a check to [MCFL] just before Christmas in the amount of $15,000.
I told her that I saw her quote at National Review Online ... and that that quote was contrary to what she has been saying about Romney all along – and that her statements on the record about his proabort record were consistent with the truth. Because her name does now not appear on the Romney endorsement, I asked her whether the Romney camp had asked her to refrain from signing it. She would neither confirm nor deny - and said she would "rather not open that can of worms".
She also told me that she has been fielding phone calls from irate Catholics who are very upset that Joe Reilly (wife is Evelyn Reilly who works with Kris Mineau [head of Mass. Family Institute and spokeman for VoteOnMarriage] ) has signed onto the letter. She said "This might not be an issue if Sam Brownback were not running – but everyone is upset because Sam has the stronger prolife/profamily record."
Of course. If prolifers do not back the man with the stronger prolife record – what message does that send to future politicians?
This all has nothing to do with whether or not Romney's conversion is genuine or it is not genuine. It's immaterial. Three months ago, Romney appointed an anti family judge on his court to rule against us. This is not a man we can trust at this juncture. For fifteen thousand dollars, Joe Reilly was willing to contradict their previous statements on the record.
That's pretty discouraging to people who are relying on the integrity that this is about advancing the best prolife environment for our country.
"Marie Sturgis, legislative director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said she hasn't detected any change in Romney's stance. The group considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, as do national antiabortion groups such as the Family Research Council."
Then last week were surprised by this flip-flop by MCFL in its assessment of Romney. Regarding a letter signed by a few "conservative" leaders in Massachusetts supporting Romney, the new president of MCFL is quoted:
One activist who agreed to sign the letter was Joseph Reilly, president of the group Massachusetts Citizens for Life, a group that opposes abortion. "It just told the truth," Reilly said of the letter, describing Romney as "a man of honesty."
"I would describe the letter as a testimony of the help that Governor Romney has given to profamily values during his tenure," added Tom Shields, chairman of the Coalition for Marriage and Family [the group behind the VoteOnMarriage amendment].
Shields is a close personal friend of Romney's.
Then we read this on yesterday's Pro-Life Romney Watch blog (1-11-07):
Update
I spoke with Marie Sturgis [former president] at Mass Citizens for Life earlier this afternoon. She confirmed for me that Romney wrote a check to [MCFL] just before Christmas in the amount of $15,000.
I told her that I saw her quote at National Review Online ... and that that quote was contrary to what she has been saying about Romney all along – and that her statements on the record about his proabort record were consistent with the truth. Because her name does now not appear on the Romney endorsement, I asked her whether the Romney camp had asked her to refrain from signing it. She would neither confirm nor deny - and said she would "rather not open that can of worms".
She also told me that she has been fielding phone calls from irate Catholics who are very upset that Joe Reilly (wife is Evelyn Reilly who works with Kris Mineau [head of Mass. Family Institute and spokeman for VoteOnMarriage] ) has signed onto the letter. She said "This might not be an issue if Sam Brownback were not running – but everyone is upset because Sam has the stronger prolife/profamily record."
Of course. If prolifers do not back the man with the stronger prolife record – what message does that send to future politicians?
This all has nothing to do with whether or not Romney's conversion is genuine or it is not genuine. It's immaterial. Three months ago, Romney appointed an anti family judge on his court to rule against us. This is not a man we can trust at this juncture. For fifteen thousand dollars, Joe Reilly was willing to contradict their previous statements on the record.
That's pretty discouraging to people who are relying on the integrity that this is about advancing the best prolife environment for our country.
Conservatives Will Not Be Fooled Again
Why was "The Mitt Romney Deception" report written? This piece by Jonathan Chait (Los Angeles Times) gets a lot of things right. Basically, we social conservatives are tired of being had by RINOs.
from "The Religious Right’s Not-So-True Believers" (12-17-06):
Looking over the field of potential Republican presidential candidates, one odd thing jumps out at me: Many of them have expressed deep hostility to the religious right’s point of view in the past, and several are now insisting that they didn’t mean a word of it. One way to look at this is to conclude that they all said or did things they didn’t mean, or that they have come around to the social conservative position. Oddly enough, this is the interpretation many social conservatives seem inclined to accept.
Or there’s the other, more logical interpretation: The Republican Party’s governing class is deeply hostile to social conservatism, and its leaders manage to fool the base over and over again. ... Romney, who had characterized the religious right as “extremists,” said he essentially had the same position on gay rights as Sen. Ted Kennedy...
Social liberalism is unacceptable to GOP primary voters, right? So maybe Romney is faking it now, and all that stuff he said about gay rights and the influence of his moderate father was genuine, no? This would be bad enough for social conservatives if Romney were the moderate in the race. But, in fact, he’s the current favorite among social conservatives.
Indeed, social conservatives don’t even want to hear about Romney’s scandalously tolerant past. Brian Camenker, a right-wing activist who has been sounding the alarm bells about Romney, has gotten a frosty reception from his fellow religious conservatives. “Why are you attacking Romney?”’ they keep asking him, according to my colleague Ryan Lizza [of the New Republic]. “He’s better than (Rudolph W.) Giuliani and (John) McCain." ...
But that was written almost a month ago. Fellow social conservatives are now beginning to get the message. Romney is not their savior.
from "The Religious Right’s Not-So-True Believers" (12-17-06):
Looking over the field of potential Republican presidential candidates, one odd thing jumps out at me: Many of them have expressed deep hostility to the religious right’s point of view in the past, and several are now insisting that they didn’t mean a word of it. One way to look at this is to conclude that they all said or did things they didn’t mean, or that they have come around to the social conservative position. Oddly enough, this is the interpretation many social conservatives seem inclined to accept.
Or there’s the other, more logical interpretation: The Republican Party’s governing class is deeply hostile to social conservatism, and its leaders manage to fool the base over and over again. ... Romney, who had characterized the religious right as “extremists,” said he essentially had the same position on gay rights as Sen. Ted Kennedy...
Social liberalism is unacceptable to GOP primary voters, right? So maybe Romney is faking it now, and all that stuff he said about gay rights and the influence of his moderate father was genuine, no? This would be bad enough for social conservatives if Romney were the moderate in the race. But, in fact, he’s the current favorite among social conservatives.
Indeed, social conservatives don’t even want to hear about Romney’s scandalously tolerant past. Brian Camenker, a right-wing activist who has been sounding the alarm bells about Romney, has gotten a frosty reception from his fellow religious conservatives. “Why are you attacking Romney?”’ they keep asking him, according to my colleague Ryan Lizza [of the New Republic]. “He’s better than (Rudolph W.) Giuliani and (John) McCain." ...
But that was written almost a month ago. Fellow social conservatives are now beginning to get the message. Romney is not their savior.
Swatting a "Gadfly" Warrants a Press Release from the Mighty Mitt
THANKS TO CAROL McKINLEY for this posting:
Mitt, the Compassionate Conservative who supports prolife profamily parents
Mitt's 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee has posted a malicious attempt to make Brian Canemaker, who has been working to protect children from aggressive sexual predators for over fifteen years in Massachusetts, someone who is to be ridiculed and attacked.
What a typical expose on why people defending children from sexual abuse and exploitation were not, and are not taken seriously - and why people who will not compromise truth get hoisted to the gallows by people bought and sold by money and power.
Alas, the Dauphins, Reilly, Sheilds, Glendon, Mineau - reach the pinnacle of power to burn the warriors. So long as a candidate and lay people do not have a long standing record of impeccable prolife work, they'll endorse your credibility. If you do, you're toast.
So this is the religious conversion of Mitt Romney?
Mitt, the Compassionate Conservative who supports prolife profamily parents
Mitt's 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee has posted a malicious attempt to make Brian Canemaker, who has been working to protect children from aggressive sexual predators for over fifteen years in Massachusetts, someone who is to be ridiculed and attacked.
What a typical expose on why people defending children from sexual abuse and exploitation were not, and are not taken seriously - and why people who will not compromise truth get hoisted to the gallows by people bought and sold by money and power.
Alas, the Dauphins, Reilly, Sheilds, Glendon, Mineau - reach the pinnacle of power to burn the warriors. So long as a candidate and lay people do not have a long standing record of impeccable prolife work, they'll endorse your credibility. If you do, you're toast.
So this is the religious conversion of Mitt Romney?
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Conservative Leaders Across America Challenge Romney
Here is the press release sent out by MassResistance/Parents' Rights Coalition earlier today:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Confidential letter from 44 conservative leaders across America challenged Romney on claim he ‘defended’ marriage and the constitution
WALTHAM, MA, Jan. 11, 2007 -- The Parents’ Rights Coalition and MassResistance will release a letter this Friday which was sent to former Governor W. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts in December just before he left office. The letter was signed by a diverse group of 44 pro-family and conservative leaders, including both national and influential state-level activists. It reveals a broader and more profound rejection of Romney’s pro-family claims than social conservatives have previously expressed, and directly challenges his assertion that he truly opposed homosexual “marriage.” The conservative leaders called on Romney to reverse his erroneous directives which began homosexual “marriages” through an executive order prior to his leaving office on Jan. 3. But Romney declined to act, though he had both authority and obligation to reverse the damage done to the institution of marriage and the rule of law.
Citing the state constitution and court rulings, the letter shows that Romney actually exceeded his legal authority -- and even the expectations of the Massachusetts court -- by ordering public officials to treat homosexual marriage as if it were law, though the marriage statute has never been changed in Massachusetts. Romney was not “executing the law,” but the opinion of four judges, and he therefore violated his oath to uphold the state Constitution – which explicitly denies judges any authority over marriage policy.
Of his own volition, Romney issued constitutionally fraudulent “homosexual marriage” licenses. With no authorizing legislation, he ordered marriage licenses to be changed from "husband" and "wife," to "Party A" and "Party B." Stunningly, he later admitted that without enabling legislation he couldn’t change the gender on birth certificates. Then Romney ordered officials to perform homosexual marriages (or resign if they were unwilling), violating the marriage statute (a crime under c. 207 §48), and the oath of office. Under the Massachusetts Constitution, only the Legislature may change the statutes.
Prominent signers include Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation; Robert H. Knight, veteran Washington political activist and a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Act; Linda Harvey, Mission America; Rev. Ted Pike, National Prayer Network; Randy Thomasson, Campaign for Children and Families; Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth; Dr. Chuck Baldwin, radio host and columnist; Paul Likoudis, The Wanderer; Phil Lawler, Catholic World News; David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute; Michael Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine; Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan; Joe Glover, Family Policy Network; and Bill Cotter, Operation Rescue Boston.
Behind the letter is exhaustive legal and constitutional research by attorney “Robert Paine” (www.RobertPaine.blogspot.com), who has arguably done more research into the legal issues behind the unconstitutional imposition of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts than any other legal scholar in the country.
“Mitt Romney is not the ‘Defender of Marriage and the Constitution' he is posing as,” said John Haskins of the Parents’ Rights Coalition, signer and coordinator of the effort. “There is no question that awareness of Romney’s abuse of power, in not even waiting for the legislature to change the law, is growing among conservative leaders and in the pro-family grass roots nationally.”
Haskins said, “The letter is part of an ongoing, multi-point plan to remove the shroud of deception and disinformation in Romney’s claims about his actions and beliefs on social issues. All that remains is for responsible people to investigate his history and the legal and constitutional facts contained in the letter.”
The full text of the letter and complete list of signers will be made available on Friday, Jan. 12 on www.MassResistance.org.
Names and titles of individuals and organizations are for identification purposes only.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
The Video That Romney Dreads - 1994
Looks good, doesn't he? But looks and money aren't enough. Except for Kathryn Lopez, Jay Sekulow, Hugh Hewitt and a few others. Judge for yourself:
Excerpts from Romney vs. Kennedy debate, October 1994.
Posted on YouTube.
Excerpts from Romney vs. Kennedy debate, October 1994.
Posted on YouTube.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Horror at the Mass. State House
[AP photo]
AP - Mon Jan 8, 7:37 PM ET -- Thai Nguyen, left front, 18, of Cambridge, Mass. and Aidan Rodriguez, right, front, 19, of Quincy, Mass., both of BAGLY (Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Youth), applaud after swearing in members of the Massachusetts Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth at the Grand Staircase in the Statehouse. Monday, Jan. 8, 2007, in Boston.
AP - Mon Jan 8, 7:37 PM ET -- Thai Nguyen, left front, 18, of Cambridge, Mass. and Aidan Rodriguez, right, front, 19, of Quincy, Mass., both of BAGLY (Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Youth), applaud after swearing in members of the Massachusetts Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth at the Grand Staircase in the Statehouse. Monday, Jan. 8, 2007, in Boston.
Yesterday at the State House, the new members of the dangerous independent "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" were sworn in. What have they sworn to do? Promote alternative, health-threatening, perverted sexuality to young people in our public schools. All of the members are selected "in consultation with gay and lesbian organizations." The Commission did plenty of damage before as the "Governor's Commission". Now, it's totally unaccountable. Here are the groups now represented by law on the Commission, as encoded in the statutes of Massachusetts:
GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) -- The inventers and promoters of the "Day of Silence" and the gay clubs in our high schools, they distributed the Little Black Book to children at their 2005 Boston conference and taught kids about "fisting" at their 2000 conference. They instruct teachers and administrators how to sneak GLBT materials into the public schools, K-12.
PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgenders) -- Gives what they call "safe schools" training and assemblies for students in public schools all over the state; and is allied with Mass. Transgender Political Coalition. They're big on pushing transgenderism/transsexuality in the schools. At their recent conference, they had workshops on How to Talk About BDSM/Leather/Fetish – For Allies, Families, and Professionals; Supporting Gender Variant Youth in Today’s Schools; Mixed-Orientation and TransGendered Marriage Journeys; PFLAG and Transgender – Sharing a Future; Getting the Sex You Want; GenderQueer Femme Identity and Misogyny within the Queer Women’s Community; Redefining Masculinity: How and Why Transmen are Changing the Definitions of Manhood; plus many other VERY interesting topics.
MassEquality -- Advocates for sodomy marriage, "love" making a family, and violating the Constitution to block the citizens' marriage referendum.
Mass. Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus -- Their chief lobbyist, Bill Conley (now on leave), was arrested last summer for sexual solicitation of college boys. It's a radical political advocacy group, now officially appointed to a Commission with great influence in our public schools. Their current chief lobbyist, Arline Isaacson, was architect of the recent outrageous maneuverings and constitutional violations by our Legislature over the marriage amendment.
Fenway Community Health (serving the GLBT community) -- Their representative handed out Little Black Book to children at GLSEN conference. They run ads in "gay" newspapers, soliciting "tops and bottoms" (men engaging in anal intercourse) for drug trials.
BAGLY (Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbiay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth) is represented as well, apparently through one of the free appointments. We notice its director in the photo -- a "male-to-female transwoman". BAGLY holds seminars for youth on the joys of transgenderism and transsexuality, and runs the GLBT prom at Boston City Hall each May. Its office manager runs "QueerToday" (both its radical street activism and its blog), the group behind the riot outside of the Tremont Temple Church in October 2005.
Miscellaneous members: high school student, college student, educational institution representative, parent of "gay or lesbian" person, teachers' union appointees, pediatric association appointees, social workers, suicide prevention, mental health and public health representatives, school administrator appointees. All chosen by the most radical "gays and lesbian organizations."
Mass. Pro-Lifers Support Brownback, Not Romney
If you want to decide whether Romney can be trusted on life issues, look at who pro-life activists in Massachusetts are supporting: Sen. Sam Brownback. Brownback just sent out a press release:
U.S. Senator Sam Brownback received endorsements today from key social conservative leaders in Massachusetts. The following individuals announced their strong support of Brownback for President and pledged their help in educating social conservatives around the country that Senator Brownback is the true choice for those who care about the right to life and the sanctity of marriage: In announcing their endorsement, Mr. Rod Murphy issued the following statement on behalf of the group: "As residents of Massachusetts and leaders in the ongoing struggle to preserve the institution of marriage and uphold the sanctity of life, we have seen the efforts of the liberal left here in Massachusetts to impose their agenda through judicial mandate. They have been able to impose their liberal agenda on the people because of the failure of our elected officials to stand up and fight. In order to preserve traditional values and actually win back ground in the ongoing fight for our culture, we need a leader who can articulate and fight for our values with compassion, optimism, and consistency. We know consistent leadership when we see it. For this reason, Senator Brownback is the clear choice."
See the Brody Files on CBN, "EXCLUSIVE: Romney vs. Brownback: Who's 'Right?' "(1-8-07):
Let me be clear. There is a race between Republican candidates for President right now as to who is going to be to the 'right" of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. Mitt Romney wants to be that guy. Sam Brownback wants to be that guy. Only one of them will.
Today, Senator Brownback pulled an interesting move. He announced that he's received support from some key social conservative leaders. But these aren't just any social conservative leaders. These folks live in Massachusetts, the state where Romney was Governor.
Read the list below:
· Professor Dwight Duncan of Cambridge, South New England School of Law
· Anne Fox of Needham, Past Chairman, Massachusetts Citizens for Life
· Linda Kinsey of North Adams, Past Chairman, Berkshire Citizens for Life
· Carol McKinley of Pembroke, Founder, Faithful Voice
· Christine Milbury of Sharon, Director, Pregnancy Services
· Roderick Murphy of Southbridge, Treasurer, Life-Guard PAC
· R.T. Neary of Medfield, Past President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life ...
U.S. Senator Sam Brownback received endorsements today from key social conservative leaders in Massachusetts. The following individuals announced their strong support of Brownback for President and pledged their help in educating social conservatives around the country that Senator Brownback is the true choice for those who care about the right to life and the sanctity of marriage: In announcing their endorsement, Mr. Rod Murphy issued the following statement on behalf of the group: "As residents of Massachusetts and leaders in the ongoing struggle to preserve the institution of marriage and uphold the sanctity of life, we have seen the efforts of the liberal left here in Massachusetts to impose their agenda through judicial mandate. They have been able to impose their liberal agenda on the people because of the failure of our elected officials to stand up and fight. In order to preserve traditional values and actually win back ground in the ongoing fight for our culture, we need a leader who can articulate and fight for our values with compassion, optimism, and consistency. We know consistent leadership when we see it. For this reason, Senator Brownback is the clear choice."
See the Brody Files on CBN, "EXCLUSIVE: Romney vs. Brownback: Who's 'Right?' "(1-8-07):
Let me be clear. There is a race between Republican candidates for President right now as to who is going to be to the 'right" of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. Mitt Romney wants to be that guy. Sam Brownback wants to be that guy. Only one of them will.
Today, Senator Brownback pulled an interesting move. He announced that he's received support from some key social conservative leaders. But these aren't just any social conservative leaders. These folks live in Massachusetts, the state where Romney was Governor.
Read the list below:
· Professor Dwight Duncan of Cambridge, South New England School of Law
· Anne Fox of Needham, Past Chairman, Massachusetts Citizens for Life
· Linda Kinsey of North Adams, Past Chairman, Berkshire Citizens for Life
· Carol McKinley of Pembroke, Founder, Faithful Voice
· Christine Milbury of Sharon, Director, Pregnancy Services
· Roderick Murphy of Southbridge, Treasurer, Life-Guard PAC
· R.T. Neary of Medfield, Past President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life ...
Monday, January 08, 2007
RINOs & Their $ for Romney
Romney bragged on Howie Carr's show (and Howie asked only softballs) that he raked in $6.5 million. Money talks. Values and principles don't matter. Look who's with him: RINOs Bill Weld and Kerry Healey. And Howie: Are you or aren't you a conservative???
From the Globe story on Mitt's big kickoff fundraiser in Boston (1-8-07):
Mitt Romney easily surpassed his goal for a day-long presidential fund-raiser early this afternoon as an aide announced at a star-studded phone-a-thon that the group had collected more than $1 million. Earlier in the day, his campaign didn't directly answer a reporter's question about whether it had deliberately set a low target so the day would come off as an overwhelming success. Romney is hoping the one-day push will demonstrate his fund-raising prowess, and, thus, his viability as a 2008 Republican presidential candidate.
At the lead table is former Massachusetts Governor William F. Weld, who alternates between making phone calls and checking his BlackBerry. Seated to his right is Missouri Governor Matt Blunt, a key political supporter of Romney's campaign.... Also at the table is former Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey and her husband, Sean....
All the callers have tapped into an Internet-based database built by Romney's campaign that they're calling ComMitt, which allows fund-raisers to log donations and access [carefully edited] information about Romney's positions on various issues. "This is the most advanced technology ever employed in a fund-raising effort," Romney said in his opening remarks.
From the Globe story on Mitt's big kickoff fundraiser in Boston (1-8-07):
Mitt Romney easily surpassed his goal for a day-long presidential fund-raiser early this afternoon as an aide announced at a star-studded phone-a-thon that the group had collected more than $1 million. Earlier in the day, his campaign didn't directly answer a reporter's question about whether it had deliberately set a low target so the day would come off as an overwhelming success. Romney is hoping the one-day push will demonstrate his fund-raising prowess, and, thus, his viability as a 2008 Republican presidential candidate.
At the lead table is former Massachusetts Governor William F. Weld, who alternates between making phone calls and checking his BlackBerry. Seated to his right is Missouri Governor Matt Blunt, a key political supporter of Romney's campaign.... Also at the table is former Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey and her husband, Sean....
All the callers have tapped into an Internet-based database built by Romney's campaign that they're calling ComMitt, which allows fund-raisers to log donations and access [carefully edited] information about Romney's positions on various issues. "This is the most advanced technology ever employed in a fund-raising effort," Romney said in his opening remarks.
National Review Has Lost Its Nose
National Review used to be conservative. We grew up with Buckley's voice in the wilderness. They used to be able to smell out the phonies. Not any more, apparently. As our friend John Haskins said, it's "really sad, what has become of National Review. It's sort of degenerated into an overblown student government debating club with little relevance to the real world and an obsession with pleasing their 'faculty advisors'." Look at their upcoming conference on "conservatism", headlining Mitt Romney as a "conservative"!
How come MassResistance didn't get invited to speak at this conference? We think we'd have a lot to say in a "frank debate and discussion of the state of the movement." Do they really think Mitt Romney can discuss the "social issues" from a conservative perspective?
Does Romney think there's any moral or public health problem with homosexuality? Does he still think same-sex couples have every legitimate interest in adopting that heterosexual married couples do? Does he still think Catholic hospitals should be forced to give out the "morning-after pill"? Does he still think "gay and lesbian youth" need special encouragement in our public schools? Does he still believe that the words in constitutions have little or no meaning?
[We noticed the conference is going to be at the D.C. Marriott Hotel, which reminded us of the story of that hotel chain's founder, Willard Marriott: He is Mitt Willard Romney's namesake. Mitt's father, George Romney, was best friends with Willard Marriott. The Marriotts are big in the Utah Mormon community. One Mr. "Michael Marriott" is a big homosexual activist in Salt Lake City, and got the homosexual community a big role in the Olympics -- managed by Mitt. We're still trying to determine if Michael is a Marriott family friend of Mitt's.]
How come MassResistance didn't get invited to speak at this conference? We think we'd have a lot to say in a "frank debate and discussion of the state of the movement." Do they really think Mitt Romney can discuss the "social issues" from a conservative perspective?
Does Romney think there's any moral or public health problem with homosexuality? Does he still think same-sex couples have every legitimate interest in adopting that heterosexual married couples do? Does he still think Catholic hospitals should be forced to give out the "morning-after pill"? Does he still think "gay and lesbian youth" need special encouragement in our public schools? Does he still believe that the words in constitutions have little or no meaning?
[We noticed the conference is going to be at the D.C. Marriott Hotel, which reminded us of the story of that hotel chain's founder, Willard Marriott: He is Mitt Willard Romney's namesake. Mitt's father, George Romney, was best friends with Willard Marriott. The Marriotts are big in the Utah Mormon community. One Mr. "Michael Marriott" is a big homosexual activist in Salt Lake City, and got the homosexual community a big role in the Olympics -- managed by Mitt. We're still trying to determine if Michael is a Marriott family friend of Mitt's.]
THE NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE
INVITES YOU TO ATTEND A
CONSERVATIVE SUMMIT
Claiming the Future
Speakers include:Jeb Bush, Tony Snow, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, John Bolton, Rich Lowry, John O’Sullivan, Kate O’Beirne, Mark Steyn, Laura Ingraham, Kathryn Lopez ...
Topics include:
Debates on the war in Iraq, the role of the Religious Right, immigration, and energy policy; panels on foreign policy, social issues, domestic policy, small government, and quotas, blacks, and the GOP.
Join fellow conservatives, leading writers, and top policy makers in a frank debate and discussion of the state of the movement.
January 26 - 28, 2007
JW Marriott Hotel, Washington, D.C.
Romney Kicks Off Fundraising with Dismal Poll Numbers
As Mitt Romney kicks off his Presidential fundraising today in Boston, he'll have to hope his would-be supporters aren't aware of how dismally he's doing in the polls. A CBS survey of possible Presidential candidates in the first week of January looks really bad for him.
From a few days ago, on Ankle-Biting Pundit:
"... The big surprise is how bad former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s numbers are. They are, frankly, almost bad enough to bump him out of the first tier of candidates. While very few people have formulated an opinion of him (15%), those that have formed an opinion do not appear to like what they see. His Fav/Unfav is 5/10. In the biz, we say his numbers are “upside down.” I cannot stress enough how bad these numbers are."
From a few days ago, on Ankle-Biting Pundit:
"... The big surprise is how bad former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s numbers are. They are, frankly, almost bad enough to bump him out of the first tier of candidates. While very few people have formulated an opinion of him (15%), those that have formed an opinion do not appear to like what they see. His Fav/Unfav is 5/10. In the biz, we say his numbers are “upside down.” I cannot stress enough how bad these numbers are."
Friday, January 05, 2007
Mass. Legislature's New Media Policy Is Absurd
OK, so now we're open to prosecution for posting something from the Mass. House of Representatives web site? Come and get us! We think we're violating the new "USAGE" POLICY of the Massachusetts House of Representatives by reprinting their "USAGE" policy on our blog (see below). And we'll be guilty in the future if we reprint the text of a bill. Or use excerpts from PUBLIC hearings from their "HouseTV" website. Unbelievable! (Thanks to our friends at Catch of the Day Video News for this tip.)
Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"? Not in Massachusetts! What are they trying to hide? Who are they trying to silence?
We hear that the Connecticut legislature has started a similar media web site, but that state recognizes that anything that happens in their capitol is the PEOPLE'S BUSINESS! And their Legislature’s media documents belong to the PEOPLE. As it should be here.
In the recent past, you could watch State House proceedings on WGBX Ch. 44, but not any more. Now the State House will broadcast some proceedings live online. That's the good news. (See its new media page.) Up till now, they have not adequately documented or archived sessions and hearings -- not even the most important sessions, such as Constitutional Conventions. (And most hearings will probably continue to be undocumented.) The bad news: The citizens/taxpayers cannot download anything posted on its site for ANY USE without permission from the legislature!
See the new Mass. House media “usage” regulations:
USAGE
MASSACHUSETTS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTRONIC MEDIA DOWNLOAD AND REUSE POLICY
By downloading electronic media (hereinafter, "media") from the Massachusetts House of Representatives "website", and/or any related web pages, domains, and servers (hereinafter, "the website"), website users (hereinafter, "users") agree to the following terms and conditions:
"Media" may be defined as (but not limited to):
Text, as contained in .html, Microsoft Word, Adobe Acrobat, and other applicable document formats
Streaming audio
Streaming video
Audio files, as contained in MP3, WAV, WMA and other applicable file formats
Video files, as contained in MP4, WMV, AVI, MPEG, MOV, and other applicable file formats
Media downloaded from the website is for private use only; the Massachussetts House of Representatives reserves all rights to all downloaded media.
No downloaded media may be reposted or re-used in its entirety in any application without the express written consent of the House of Representatives.
No excerpts of downloaded media may be edited or incorporated into other productions without the express written consent of the Massachusetts House of Representatives.
Use of any media in the context of political advertising or communication is expressly forbidden.
Usage of VHS or DVD copies of programming ordered from the website is governed by the Broadcast Videocassette Distribution Policy (for discussion purposes).
Hey, guess what: MassResistance does NOT agree to these terms!
Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"? Not in Massachusetts! What are they trying to hide? Who are they trying to silence?
We hear that the Connecticut legislature has started a similar media web site, but that state recognizes that anything that happens in their capitol is the PEOPLE'S BUSINESS! And their Legislature’s media documents belong to the PEOPLE. As it should be here.
In the recent past, you could watch State House proceedings on WGBX Ch. 44, but not any more. Now the State House will broadcast some proceedings live online. That's the good news. (See its new media page.) Up till now, they have not adequately documented or archived sessions and hearings -- not even the most important sessions, such as Constitutional Conventions. (And most hearings will probably continue to be undocumented.) The bad news: The citizens/taxpayers cannot download anything posted on its site for ANY USE without permission from the legislature!
See the new Mass. House media “usage” regulations:
USAGE
MASSACHUSETTS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTRONIC MEDIA DOWNLOAD AND REUSE POLICY
By downloading electronic media (hereinafter, "media") from the Massachusetts House of Representatives "website", and/or any related web pages, domains, and servers (hereinafter, "the website"), website users (hereinafter, "users") agree to the following terms and conditions:
"Media" may be defined as (but not limited to):
Text, as contained in .html, Microsoft Word, Adobe Acrobat, and other applicable document formats
Streaming audio
Streaming video
Audio files, as contained in MP3, WAV, WMA and other applicable file formats
Video files, as contained in MP4, WMV, AVI, MPEG, MOV, and other applicable file formats
Media downloaded from the website is for private use only; the Massachussetts House of Representatives reserves all rights to all downloaded media.
No downloaded media may be reposted or re-used in its entirety in any application without the express written consent of the House of Representatives.
No excerpts of downloaded media may be edited or incorporated into other productions without the express written consent of the Massachusetts House of Representatives.
Use of any media in the context of political advertising or communication is expressly forbidden.
Usage of VHS or DVD copies of programming ordered from the website is governed by the Broadcast Videocassette Distribution Policy (for discussion purposes).
Hey, guess what: MassResistance does NOT agree to these terms!
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Romney Polls 4% Among Republicans
Gov. Mitt Romney handing over symbols of government to
Gov.-Elect Deval Patrick.
They must only be SYMBOLS, because the book of STATUTES he's handing over does NOT include a statute legalizing "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts -- yet everyone pretends it's "legal"!
[Photo: thebostonchannel.com]
So Romney has formally opened his "exploratory" committee for his presidential campaign. As of about 9 pm on 1/3, the "unscientific" Channel 5 poll on his chances of becoming President had 40% saying poor, and 33% saying extremely poor (out of 366 votes). Where does he think he's going with only 4% in a national poll (down from 5% a month earlier), according to Gallup?
12/11-14/06; 11/9-12/06John McCain 28% ; 26%
Rudy Giuliani 28% ; 28%
Condoleezza Rice 12% ; 13%
Newt Gingrich 8% ; 7%
Mitt Romney 4% ; 5%
[+ others all at 2%, 1% or less]
Also, Human Events reported last month in "A Primer on the 2008 GOP Candidates":
[+ others all at 2%, 1% or less]
Also, Human Events reported last month in "A Primer on the 2008 GOP Candidates":
... Mitt Romney is an interesting character. Although he is the outgoing governor of the very liberal state of Massachusetts and was named as one of the Top 10 RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) less than a year ago in HUMAN EVENTS, he's not as liberal as he might appear at first glance.... [A]ccording to recent polls, even if you set aside the debate about how conservative he is or isn't, the "Mormon issue" is starting to look like an insurmountable obstacle to his candidacy. According to Rasmussen Polling, 43% of Americans and 53% of Evangelicals say that they, "wouldn't consider voting for a Mormon candidate." For good or ill, that probably means that Romney is unelectable.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Today's Marriage Amendment Vote Defeat for Homosexual Lobby
So, contrary to all expectations, the Legislature actually voted twice today to push the marriage amendment forward into the next session. Some observations on the day at the State House:
(1) It is unlikely that the vote would have happened today had it not been for the pending lawsuits against the 109 Legislators who were refusing to follow the Constitutional requirement to vote on the citizens' petition. These lawsuits are part of a more assertive, confrontational approach certain pro-family activists have been advocating for the past few years.
(2) Governor-elect Deval Patrick was lobbying today at the State House for the Legislators to again adjourn, and defy their constitutional duty to vote on the citizens' petition. So he's already proven he doesn't respect the Constitution. Not a good start. From the AP story:
Gay rights activists and Democratic Gov.-elect Deval Patrick called on the Legislature to let the measure die without a vote....
Earlier in the day, the governor-elect, who supports gay marriage, met with the leaders of the Democratic-controlled Legislature to argue against a vote, calling it a "question of conscience." Patrick charged that the amendment process was being used to "consider reinserting discrimination into the constitution."
"This is not just another question for popular decision. This is a question, under the equal protection clause, about what freedoms the minority is entitled to," Patrick said.
(3) This was a major blow to the GLBT lobby. Arline Isaacson appears to be barely holding back her tears in the AP photo. But instead of MassEquality closing down (as they speculated they might do after their "victory" in November), we'll have to put up with them for the foreseeable future. Millions will flow into the state to fight the amendment.
(4) The homosexual activists outside on the street had apparently been given orders to tone down their thuggish behavior, after reports and videos of their behavior in November. They were fewer in number and relatively subdued. Inside (in the Gardner Auditorium) after their defeat, they sang defiant songs including "We Shall Overcome" -- still trying to make us believe this is a matter of civil rights, rather than the normalization of perversion.
SJC Admits It Could Not Have Forced "Gay Marriage"
We'll remind the nation one last time before he leaves office: Governor Mitt Romney was responsible for starting homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts. Last week's ruling by the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court implicitly confirms that their Goodridge ruling alone could not have begun the "marriages".
The Court acknowledged last week that it cannot order the other two branches to do anything, that separation of powers means it cannot order the Legislature to vote on the marriage amendment (even though Article 48 of the state constitution clearly states they must vote).
Meanwhile, all the fuss today is over the Legislature's dereliction of its constitutional duty. But what about Romney? See today's WorldNetDaily for a summary by John Haskins, writer with MassResistance. From "Family group: Mitt Romney chose 'gay' marriage; Activist says Massachusetts court admits it couldn't force change" (WorldNetDaily, 1-2-07):
" ... Mitt Romney, no less than anyone, is subverting the Constitution day by day, having ordered public officials to solemnize sodomy marriages though they remain illegal," Haskins told WND. "On Mitt Romney's order alone, town clerks and justices of the peace are compelled to violate the Constitution they swore to uphold and the statute – which remains among the Massachusetts General Laws."
He said the early advice from conservative activists – for Romney to just ignore the court's conclusion – was the right one. "Hiding in Wednesday's ruling like an elephant in a courtroom is still more proof that Romney had a choice. The court has admitted, as it does whenever it really doesn't want to order the Legislative or Executive branches to obey the Constitution, that it actually can't."
"If there were no Massachusetts Constitution, no other proof of the high crime of Mitt Romney – this ruling proves that Mitt Romney had a choice and he chose wrong. He imposed homosexual marriage illegally, using the Goodridge decision as a smokescreen. No court forced anything on him, nor did they have any such authority, and that historic admission is implicit in this ruling," Haskins said.
The Court acknowledged last week that it cannot order the other two branches to do anything, that separation of powers means it cannot order the Legislature to vote on the marriage amendment (even though Article 48 of the state constitution clearly states they must vote).
Meanwhile, all the fuss today is over the Legislature's dereliction of its constitutional duty. But what about Romney? See today's WorldNetDaily for a summary by John Haskins, writer with MassResistance. From "Family group: Mitt Romney chose 'gay' marriage; Activist says Massachusetts court admits it couldn't force change" (WorldNetDaily, 1-2-07):
" ... Mitt Romney, no less than anyone, is subverting the Constitution day by day, having ordered public officials to solemnize sodomy marriages though they remain illegal," Haskins told WND. "On Mitt Romney's order alone, town clerks and justices of the peace are compelled to violate the Constitution they swore to uphold and the statute – which remains among the Massachusetts General Laws."
He said the early advice from conservative activists – for Romney to just ignore the court's conclusion – was the right one. "Hiding in Wednesday's ruling like an elephant in a courtroom is still more proof that Romney had a choice. The court has admitted, as it does whenever it really doesn't want to order the Legislative or Executive branches to obey the Constitution, that it actually can't."
"If there were no Massachusetts Constitution, no other proof of the high crime of Mitt Romney – this ruling proves that Mitt Romney had a choice and he chose wrong. He imposed homosexual marriage illegally, using the Goodridge decision as a smokescreen. No court forced anything on him, nor did they have any such authority, and that historic admission is implicit in this ruling," Haskins said.
Plotters Still Trying to Scuttle Marriage Amendment
THE GLBT LOBBYING TEAM:Bill Conley, MGLPC ("on leave" after disgraceful arrest for sexual solicitation)
Norma Shapiro, ACLU
Arline Isaacson, MGLPC and Mass. Teachers' Association
Of course it's hard predicting the wily actions those with foul intentions are plotting. But when reading GLBT lobbyist Arline Isaacson's cagey quote in the Globe today ("Gay marriage outcome today uncertain," 1-2-07) . . .
"We don't know what's going to happen for sure, but it does seem certainly a possibility that a vote on the petition will take place.... Isaacson said supporters of same-sex marriage have not decided on a strategy for today's convention, mainly because legislators have been on holidays and it has been difficult to take a head count. She declined to discuss what tactics are being considered. But their most viable options include pushing another vote to adjourn the convention for the year or recessing it to midnight, when the session legally expires."
"We don't know what's going to happen for sure, but it does seem certainly a possibility that a vote on the petition will take place.... Isaacson said supporters of same-sex marriage have not decided on a strategy for today's convention, mainly because legislators have been on holidays and it has been difficult to take a head count. She declined to discuss what tactics are being considered. But their most viable options include pushing another vote to adjourn the convention for the year or recessing it to midnight, when the session legally expires."
. . . we should bear in mind these words from Tom Lang, which appeared on a pro-GLBT hate blog on Dec. 28. (Lang is behind "KnowThyNeighbor", the initimidation site that posts all the marriage petition signers.) Keep them guessing, is Lang's message:
"... what is your opinion about us (the LGBT) announcing every move we are making politically? Handing out Profiles in Courage is great however do you feel that MEQ [MassEquality] should be doing press releases stating that we are asking leges to adjourn? I understand adjournment is the strategy but you understand the press and the otherside have a field day with this when it comes from its opposition. Aaron and I just yesterday took on Mineau and Paleologos on the radio. They threw in my face the BayWindows editorial which spelled out how much money the LGBT brought in for candidates and how these new leges "owe us."
"I mean think about it. This is a war. A war of strategies. Think about what happens everytime an embedded journalist leaks something during combat wars. I have always believed that it is best to keep the other side guessing...of course they find out but these announcements of strategies do us no favors."
(Now, Mr. Lang has asked to come on our MassResistance radio show on WTTT. Would he speak honestly about anything if we did have him on?)
"... what is your opinion about us (the LGBT) announcing every move we are making politically? Handing out Profiles in Courage is great however do you feel that MEQ [MassEquality] should be doing press releases stating that we are asking leges to adjourn? I understand adjournment is the strategy but you understand the press and the otherside have a field day with this when it comes from its opposition. Aaron and I just yesterday took on Mineau and Paleologos on the radio. They threw in my face the BayWindows editorial which spelled out how much money the LGBT brought in for candidates and how these new leges "owe us."
"I mean think about it. This is a war. A war of strategies. Think about what happens everytime an embedded journalist leaks something during combat wars. I have always believed that it is best to keep the other side guessing...of course they find out but these announcements of strategies do us no favors."
(Now, Mr. Lang has asked to come on our MassResistance radio show on WTTT. Would he speak honestly about anything if we did have him on?)
The Globe is clear in its advocacy. Their lead editorial urges Legislators to refuse to vote again:
The SJC asserted clearly last week that the constitution directs the Legislature to vote on the substance of the amendment. But the court was also correct in saying it cannot force an independent branch to act. The only remedy for those who believe legislators are frustrating the constitution by refusing to vote, the court noted, is at the ballot box. Just so. Most legislators would take their chances with the voters in their own districts.... This is a moment for advancing civil rights, not retreating.
Monday, January 01, 2007
MassResistance Blog Celebrates 2nd Anniversary
And the LGBTQIP radical community -- and their allies in the pro-abortion/hate-America crowd, the corrupt Legislature and Court, and the mainstream media -- are not pleased.
They've tried to intimidate us into silence. They broke into our home, warned us to "leave", sent threatening (and apparently criminally harassing) emails, badgered us on our phones, deluged our mailbox with junk, taunted us at public events. They started several hate blogs targeting us. They ID'd us as a favorite adversary in their filthy LGBT newspapers.
Now, lest the our readers think this is an exaggeration, look at what else this community has done in the past two years. They've employed unconstitutional and dishonest maneuvers to block a citizens' petition to define marriage. They used fascist tactics to drown out their opposition's attempts to peaceably assemble, including setting up false assault charges. They enlisted sympathizers in radical city administrations and police departments to extort "protection money". They rioted outside churches, set up coffins in street demonstrations without permits. They poured millions into state legislator elections, stomping on any candidate who dared express support for traditional values. They formed a national coalition of well-funded, legally savvy extremist groups to go on an all-out attack against David Parker and parents' rights. They added transsexual indoctrination to their elementary school bag of tricks.
We will continue to expose the lies, deception, and corruption of these activists and their fellow travelers. But no, we will not open up this blog to comments. Just as you can't compromise with evil, you can't dialogue with evil. If anyone has a legitimate comment to make, they can figure out how to do that through our web site.
They've tried to intimidate us into silence. They broke into our home, warned us to "leave", sent threatening (and apparently criminally harassing) emails, badgered us on our phones, deluged our mailbox with junk, taunted us at public events. They started several hate blogs targeting us. They ID'd us as a favorite adversary in their filthy LGBT newspapers.
Now, lest the our readers think this is an exaggeration, look at what else this community has done in the past two years. They've employed unconstitutional and dishonest maneuvers to block a citizens' petition to define marriage. They used fascist tactics to drown out their opposition's attempts to peaceably assemble, including setting up false assault charges. They enlisted sympathizers in radical city administrations and police departments to extort "protection money". They rioted outside churches, set up coffins in street demonstrations without permits. They poured millions into state legislator elections, stomping on any candidate who dared express support for traditional values. They formed a national coalition of well-funded, legally savvy extremist groups to go on an all-out attack against David Parker and parents' rights. They added transsexual indoctrination to their elementary school bag of tricks.
We will continue to expose the lies, deception, and corruption of these activists and their fellow travelers. But no, we will not open up this blog to comments. Just as you can't compromise with evil, you can't dialogue with evil. If anyone has a legitimate comment to make, they can figure out how to do that through our web site.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Romney Losing Key Michigan Supporters
David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Service reported on Friday (and the Boston Globe repeated today) that Mitt Romney is losing key supporters in Michigan. While the report credits the infamous 1994 letter from Romney to the Mass. Log Cabin Republicans with great impact, no mention is made of the further detail provided by our "Mitt Romney Deception" report. But we know that it, too, has made a difference there.
We've spoken with and emailed a key Republican in Michigan who was disturbed not only by the revelations in the 1994 letter, but also by Romney's record as Governor, especially his failure to stand up to judicial tyranny in Massachusetts. He failed to defy our court's illegitimate homosexual "marriage" ruling, he appointed a homosexual activists and many Democrats to judgeships, and he's refusing to fill judicial openings before leaving office (leaving these openings to an extreme leftist incoming governor to fill). All very disturbing to a committed pro-life, pro-family Republican activist in Michigan.
Brody wrote:
CBN News has been talking to operatives in the state of Michigan and the news is not good for Governor Romney. I've learned that there are at least four Republican Representatives from the Michigan State House that are seriously rethinking their support of Romney for President.
These are members of Romney's steering committee in Michigan who are now having reservations about recent revelations about Romney's past comments in regards to marriage, abortion and the Boy Scouts. There's a good chance that they could jump ship....
... the representatives who may leave Romney are really questioning the legitimacy of his conservative credentials. Romney has always said he has evolved on these issues over the years, but these folks in Michigan think it's okay to evolve, but some of this seems to be major flip flop material, especially on the life issue where they point out how he's gone from pro-choice in 1994, to pro-life in 2000, to pro-choice in 2002 and now back to pro-life.
Romney's office will dispute this, but what they can't dispute is a potential unraveling among their steering committee in Michigan. Michigan is crucial to Romney. He has significant family roots there and it's one of the first four primary states. He needs to do well there....
We've spoken with and emailed a key Republican in Michigan who was disturbed not only by the revelations in the 1994 letter, but also by Romney's record as Governor, especially his failure to stand up to judicial tyranny in Massachusetts. He failed to defy our court's illegitimate homosexual "marriage" ruling, he appointed a homosexual activists and many Democrats to judgeships, and he's refusing to fill judicial openings before leaving office (leaving these openings to an extreme leftist incoming governor to fill). All very disturbing to a committed pro-life, pro-family Republican activist in Michigan.
Brody wrote:
CBN News has been talking to operatives in the state of Michigan and the news is not good for Governor Romney. I've learned that there are at least four Republican Representatives from the Michigan State House that are seriously rethinking their support of Romney for President.
These are members of Romney's steering committee in Michigan who are now having reservations about recent revelations about Romney's past comments in regards to marriage, abortion and the Boy Scouts. There's a good chance that they could jump ship....
... the representatives who may leave Romney are really questioning the legitimacy of his conservative credentials. Romney has always said he has evolved on these issues over the years, but these folks in Michigan think it's okay to evolve, but some of this seems to be major flip flop material, especially on the life issue where they point out how he's gone from pro-choice in 1994, to pro-life in 2000, to pro-choice in 2002 and now back to pro-life.
Romney's office will dispute this, but what they can't dispute is a potential unraveling among their steering committee in Michigan. Michigan is crucial to Romney. He has significant family roots there and it's one of the first four primary states. He needs to do well there....
Will Mass. State House Mourn President Ford on Jan. 2?
President Bush announced a few days ago that Tuesday, January 2 will be a national day of mourning for former President Gerald Ford. He invites those around the world who share grief at his passing to join in this solemn observance.
Will the Massachusetts State House close down that day as a show of respect by the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Will Senate President Travaglini, House Speaker DiMasi, and the errant Legislators decide to honor Gerald Ford at their places of worship, rather than vote on the marriage amendment?
Will the Massachusetts State House close down that day as a show of respect by the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Will Senate President Travaglini, House Speaker DiMasi, and the errant Legislators decide to honor Gerald Ford at their places of worship, rather than vote on the marriage amendment?
Saturday, December 30, 2006
"Mormons Against Romney" Analyze Romney's Promise to "Sustain" Roe v. Wade
Mitt Romney promised to "sustain and support" Roe v. Wade in his 1994 campaign (against Ted Kennedy for the U.S. Senate). We just found this analysis of what "sustain" means within the Mormon faith, on the "Mormons against Romney" blog. (Not being of the Mormon faith, we have no idea if this is an orthodox interpretation. Apparently a left-leaning group, it includes links to "LDS Liberation Front" and "LDS-Left" -- as well as linking to a site peddling "Romney thongs"!) Here is their analysis, for what it's worth:
On Sustaining the Law (12-16-06)
The following statement, which has been widely reported, by Willard Mitt Romney has been rattling around in my head a fair amount recently:
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." -Mitt Romney in a 1994 Senatorial debate
In the LDS context "sustain" has a very special meaning. Whenever someone in a congregation gets a new responsibility (a calling), their names are presented in our sacrament meeting along with what they are being asked to do. This is usually presented to the congregation by a member of the local leadership as follows: "Brother Jones has been asked to serve as the 15 and 16 year-old Sunday School teacher. All that can sustain him in this calling please show by the uplifted hand." At this point members of the congregation who sustain the calling raise their right hand. The leader than says "any opposed may manifest it", and anyone who opposes the calling may raise their hand.
To me this is one of the greatest things about the Mormon experience, that when we are asked to do something in our local congregation, we can look around us and see that the people around us know what we are being asked to do, and are showing a willingness to help and support us. It is an exceptional sense of community, especially considering that at the local and regional levels there is no paid clergy. Since as a rule everyone has some responsibility in the congregation, and those responsibilities change sometimes every 2-3 years, sometimes more frequently, there is a very egalitarian aspect to how local congregations are run.
We are also taught that once we sustain someone we should do all we can to help someone in their calling, and not needlessly tear them down.... Everyone in the Church from the highest ranked ecclesiastical official on down, is supported by a sustaining. This reflection of early Mormon principles of communitarianism might surprise outside observers of Mormonism, especially when one learns how all-pervasive it is.
Current president of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley said:
“The procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected”
-Ensign, May 1995, p. 51 ...
We take the same approach to sustaining other things, such as the law of the land. Our 12th Article of Faith says that we are to sustain the law. What does this mean? The best explanation I have found is when past President of the LDS Church David O. McKay said:
“To sustain the law, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective”
-Conference Report, Apr. 1937, p. 28
When we sustain someone or something, and especially when we make that sustaining an overt public act, we take on very specific responsibilities. Support, strength, assistance even when we might personally disagree with something in the person or thing, are all things required of us in "sustaining".
When Mitt Romney was an LDS bishop he was in charge of the sustaining process every Sunday. On Sundays he didn't officiate in the process, the process was still done under his very close oversight. The LDS concept of "sustaining" can't be far from his mind when he makes statements saying he "sustains" a law. I think that in his 1994 statement quoted above he was completely on solid ground politically and spiritually. He might not love the idea of abortion personally, but it is provided for in the law and we sustain the law. If Romney ever really supported Roe v. Wade (and I know that this is in doubt in spite of his words above) then he should have had in his head the following adaptation of President McKay's counsel:
To sustain Roe v. Wade, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective.
I am not certain which is worse, that he once felt this way and turned has back on it, or that he lied in the first place and the true Romney is just now coming through. In either case, it seems to be a slap in the face for the important role sustaining plays in the Mormon experience.
[italics added]
On Sustaining the Law (12-16-06)
The following statement, which has been widely reported, by Willard Mitt Romney has been rattling around in my head a fair amount recently:
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." -Mitt Romney in a 1994 Senatorial debate
In the LDS context "sustain" has a very special meaning. Whenever someone in a congregation gets a new responsibility (a calling), their names are presented in our sacrament meeting along with what they are being asked to do. This is usually presented to the congregation by a member of the local leadership as follows: "Brother Jones has been asked to serve as the 15 and 16 year-old Sunday School teacher. All that can sustain him in this calling please show by the uplifted hand." At this point members of the congregation who sustain the calling raise their right hand. The leader than says "any opposed may manifest it", and anyone who opposes the calling may raise their hand.
To me this is one of the greatest things about the Mormon experience, that when we are asked to do something in our local congregation, we can look around us and see that the people around us know what we are being asked to do, and are showing a willingness to help and support us. It is an exceptional sense of community, especially considering that at the local and regional levels there is no paid clergy. Since as a rule everyone has some responsibility in the congregation, and those responsibilities change sometimes every 2-3 years, sometimes more frequently, there is a very egalitarian aspect to how local congregations are run.
We are also taught that once we sustain someone we should do all we can to help someone in their calling, and not needlessly tear them down.... Everyone in the Church from the highest ranked ecclesiastical official on down, is supported by a sustaining. This reflection of early Mormon principles of communitarianism might surprise outside observers of Mormonism, especially when one learns how all-pervasive it is.
Current president of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley said:
“The procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected”
-Ensign, May 1995, p. 51 ...
We take the same approach to sustaining other things, such as the law of the land. Our 12th Article of Faith says that we are to sustain the law. What does this mean? The best explanation I have found is when past President of the LDS Church David O. McKay said:
“To sustain the law, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective”
-Conference Report, Apr. 1937, p. 28
When we sustain someone or something, and especially when we make that sustaining an overt public act, we take on very specific responsibilities. Support, strength, assistance even when we might personally disagree with something in the person or thing, are all things required of us in "sustaining".
When Mitt Romney was an LDS bishop he was in charge of the sustaining process every Sunday. On Sundays he didn't officiate in the process, the process was still done under his very close oversight. The LDS concept of "sustaining" can't be far from his mind when he makes statements saying he "sustains" a law. I think that in his 1994 statement quoted above he was completely on solid ground politically and spiritually. He might not love the idea of abortion personally, but it is provided for in the law and we sustain the law. If Romney ever really supported Roe v. Wade (and I know that this is in doubt in spite of his words above) then he should have had in his head the following adaptation of President McKay's counsel:
To sustain Roe v. Wade, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective.
I am not certain which is worse, that he once felt this way and turned has back on it, or that he lied in the first place and the true Romney is just now coming through. In either case, it seems to be a slap in the face for the important role sustaining plays in the Mormon experience.
[italics added]
More Romney on Abortion
Time to reread this interview by Chris Wallace (FoxNews Sunday) with Romney from last February, posted on the NewsBusters blog:
Rough on Romney: Wallace Forces Mitt to Admit Abortion Position "Evolved"
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on February 26, 2006
Wallace was implacable when Romney stretched credulity by suggesting that somehow his own view of when life begins was crystallized in the context of a recent debate in his home state over stem cell research.
Wallace didn't hide his skepticism: "I don't understand governor. . . the question of harvesting eggs to be used for stem cells, that isn't why most women get abortions. There's a division there, isn't there?"
Hoping to change the uncomfortable subject, Romney suggested that he was "happy to talk about stem cell research."
Unfortunately for Romney, Wallace wasn't. "But I'm asking about abortion. And the vast majority of women aren't getting an abortion so they can sell their fetus." He again reminded Romney that when running for governor, "you did say women should have the right to make their own choice." Then, clearly skeptical, Wallace asked: "Are you saying you only came to the conclusion about when life begins - this has been an issue for 30, 40 years - in the last three years?"
Romney, cornered, was finally forced to admit: "I'm saying my position has evolved and it changed from where it was before."
Rough on Romney: Wallace Forces Mitt to Admit Abortion Position "Evolved"
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on February 26, 2006
Wallace was implacable when Romney stretched credulity by suggesting that somehow his own view of when life begins was crystallized in the context of a recent debate in his home state over stem cell research.
Wallace didn't hide his skepticism: "I don't understand governor. . . the question of harvesting eggs to be used for stem cells, that isn't why most women get abortions. There's a division there, isn't there?"
Hoping to change the uncomfortable subject, Romney suggested that he was "happy to talk about stem cell research."
Unfortunately for Romney, Wallace wasn't. "But I'm asking about abortion. And the vast majority of women aren't getting an abortion so they can sell their fetus." He again reminded Romney that when running for governor, "you did say women should have the right to make their own choice." Then, clearly skeptical, Wallace asked: "Are you saying you only came to the conclusion about when life begins - this has been an issue for 30, 40 years - in the last three years?"
Romney, cornered, was finally forced to admit: "I'm saying my position has evolved and it changed from where it was before."
Friday, December 29, 2006
Human Events Interviews Romney
We expect better from Human Events. In their interview with Mitt Romney yesterday (12-28-06), editor Rob Bluey doesn't push Romney beyond his 1994 campaign vs. Ted Kennedy, and the Romney's letter groveling for the Mass. Log Cabin Republican endorsement that year.
Of course, we've exposed that Romney's problems are much broader, much more profound. Why didn't Bluey touch on Romney's role in starting "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts? Why didn't he ask about Romney's "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth"?
Even on international affairs and economic issues, Romney avoids substantive answers. A typical response:
"The things I’d offer for all Americans would be similar to, I think, other great Republicans in the past and in the present. And yet in my case, I come with a little different background and different perspective, and therefore, what I’d offer would be slightly different I’m sure in some ways than others.
"The key issues we face, of course, are first, the conflict with the jihadists. This is a conflict which is going on within the world of Islam, and the jihadists are attempting to overcome the moderate, modern factions of Islam and replace them with a caliphate. It’s going to require the involvement of the U.S. as a leader of the world to help move Islam away from that kind of extremism and violence. That’s one challenge.
"Another challenge is our ability to compete with Asia. Asia’s going to be a much tougher competitor than we’ve known before. I spent my life in international business, been to Asia and, of course, other places in the world and done business there. I have a good sense how you make a nation more competitive. And that’s something that’s going to be critical."
Human Events used to be hard-hitting. (It's Ann Coulter's home publication.) So what's going on with their coverage of Romney? Bluey did post a somewhat more critical piece on 12-21, but when he has Romney on the phone, he backs down. Amazing how people cower before celebrity and power.
Of course, we've exposed that Romney's problems are much broader, much more profound. Why didn't Bluey touch on Romney's role in starting "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts? Why didn't he ask about Romney's "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth"?
Even on international affairs and economic issues, Romney avoids substantive answers. A typical response:
"The things I’d offer for all Americans would be similar to, I think, other great Republicans in the past and in the present. And yet in my case, I come with a little different background and different perspective, and therefore, what I’d offer would be slightly different I’m sure in some ways than others.
"The key issues we face, of course, are first, the conflict with the jihadists. This is a conflict which is going on within the world of Islam, and the jihadists are attempting to overcome the moderate, modern factions of Islam and replace them with a caliphate. It’s going to require the involvement of the U.S. as a leader of the world to help move Islam away from that kind of extremism and violence. That’s one challenge.
"Another challenge is our ability to compete with Asia. Asia’s going to be a much tougher competitor than we’ve known before. I spent my life in international business, been to Asia and, of course, other places in the world and done business there. I have a good sense how you make a nation more competitive. And that’s something that’s going to be critical."
Human Events used to be hard-hitting. (It's Ann Coulter's home publication.) So what's going on with their coverage of Romney? Bluey did post a somewhat more critical piece on 12-21, but when he has Romney on the phone, he backs down. Amazing how people cower before celebrity and power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)