Until lately, most pro-lifers' energies were devoted to the abortion issue. Now, they're also concerned about cloning and embryonic stem-cell research. But how many are aware of this other very troubling area of research: engineering embryos from two parent cells of the same sex.
The homosexual/lesbian population is quite excited about this work. We remember hearing our child speak of a feminist science teacher announcing to the class a few years back that "two women would soon be able to have a baby together -- without a man!" Here's an article on a lesbian website foaming over this possibility: "Parthenogenesis: Do We Need Men Anymore? Creating Children Without Men or Sperm." (Of course, the gay men don't want to be left out.)
John Howard, a Massachusetts activist pushing for legislation banning this frightening research, has reminded us of his blog on this subject. We encourage you to contact him if you're interested in promoting legislation to block this looming nightmare.
Check out this article he's linked: "Three Mothers Make a Baby: Is that Sex? Yes, Or Maybe?" by Nancy L. Jones (from the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity):
Perhaps you haven’t heard, but the doubt in some men’s minds regarding the age-old question “mother-baby, father-maybe?” may one day be forever removed. Results of a scientific experiment announced in April [2004] demonstrated that no paternal role was needed for the creation of a most uncommon baby mouse.* The triumph of Japanese researchers, this mouse (named Kaguya) was the product of two female mice. In creating Kaguya, scientists combined one normal mouse egg and one very manipulated mouse egg to form a “parthenogenic” embryo, who was then implanted into a surrogate female mouse and subsequently born.* Though this process is not reproducible (as of yet) in humans, researchers are nevertheless uncovering the keys for controlling early human development and producing artificial gametes....
...If Kaguya’s mode of creation were to be extrapolated to humans, the very basis of our society would be shattered—opening nearly endless possibilities for overcoming the normal reproductive barriers for mammals that requires both male and female genetic contributions.
Recently, the President’s Council on Bioethics published a report entitled Reproduction and Responsibility: The Regulation of New Biotechnologies.* Several of the report’s recommendations are especially apropos given the Japanese experiment. Among these are prohibitions against “attempts to conceive a child by any means other than the union of egg and sperm” and prohibitions against “attempts to conceive a child by using gametes obtained from a human fetus or derived from human embryonic stem cells.”* While the relevance of the first prohibition is self-explanatory, the second is also germane because if the product of two eggs is to be viable, one of the eggs must be “immature”—which suggests the human fetus as a potential source....
Christians and those concerned about the dignity of human life and the sacredness of human procreation must urge Congress to address reprogenetic issues now! Currently our culture is struggling with what constitutes marriage…but soon the question will be expanded to what constitutes human procreation. We must stay ahead of the technology and be proactive in outlawing any form of human procreation that deviates from the combination of a single sperm and a single egg.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Jeff Jacoby Holds Back on Reason for Opposing "Gay Marriage"
Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe columnist, continues to hold back. Today ("Love, marriage, and the baby carriage") he comments on the proposal in Washington state by homosexual extremists -- which we discussed two weeks ago -- to confine marriage to heterosexual couples who have children within three years of marriage. The homosexual activists are tring to make a point that "it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children." Jacoby tries to shoot this down by saying that no "mainstream opponent" of homosexual "marriage" focuses just on the "raising children" argument.
But as we pointed out, an exclusive focus on children has been Mitt Romney's line (and even Massachusetts Family Institute/VoteOnMarriage, before they switched to "let the people vote"). When Romney, for instance, says we must protect traditional marriage, he gives only one reason: "because every child deserves a mother and a father." So Jacoby is wrong when he says "No mainstream opponent of same-sex marriage claims that having children is the sole purpose of wedlock."
These "mainstreamers" never do discuss the other reasons for real "marriage", because they know that they could apply equally to homosexual couples, or even polygamous arrangements. With one exception. In Jacoby's long list of marriage purposes, only one -- "having a legitimate sexual outlet" -- would not apply to homosexual couples.
It's nice to know that Jacoby still thinks there's such a thing as "legitimate" and "illegitimate" sexuality. But if homosexual sex is "illegitimate", why does Jacoby never himself write of this problem with homosexual "marriage" -- that it's based on sexual perversion, and therefore illegitimate? How odd that Romney, VoteOnMarriage, the Mass. Family Institute, et al. also never bring this up as a reason to oppose homosexual "marriage". Why is that? What are they afraid of?
Jacoby wrote:
... activists are assaulting a straw man. No mainstream opponent of same-sex marriage claims that having children is the sole purpose of wedlock. Marriages can serve any number of purposes -- cementing the bond between partners, guaranteeing financial security, having a legitimate sexual outlet, ensuring companionship, and so on. People get married for various reasons; the desire to raise a family is only one of them.
What makes marriage a public institution, however -- the reason it is regulated by law and given an elevated legal status -- is that it provides something no healthy society can do without: a stable environment in which men and women can create and bring up the next generation, and in which children can enter the world with mothers and fathers committed to their well-being.
But as we pointed out, an exclusive focus on children has been Mitt Romney's line (and even Massachusetts Family Institute/VoteOnMarriage, before they switched to "let the people vote"). When Romney, for instance, says we must protect traditional marriage, he gives only one reason: "because every child deserves a mother and a father." So Jacoby is wrong when he says "No mainstream opponent of same-sex marriage claims that having children is the sole purpose of wedlock."
These "mainstreamers" never do discuss the other reasons for real "marriage", because they know that they could apply equally to homosexual couples, or even polygamous arrangements. With one exception. In Jacoby's long list of marriage purposes, only one -- "having a legitimate sexual outlet" -- would not apply to homosexual couples.
It's nice to know that Jacoby still thinks there's such a thing as "legitimate" and "illegitimate" sexuality. But if homosexual sex is "illegitimate", why does Jacoby never himself write of this problem with homosexual "marriage" -- that it's based on sexual perversion, and therefore illegitimate? How odd that Romney, VoteOnMarriage, the Mass. Family Institute, et al. also never bring this up as a reason to oppose homosexual "marriage". Why is that? What are they afraid of?
Jacoby wrote:
... activists are assaulting a straw man. No mainstream opponent of same-sex marriage claims that having children is the sole purpose of wedlock. Marriages can serve any number of purposes -- cementing the bond between partners, guaranteeing financial security, having a legitimate sexual outlet, ensuring companionship, and so on. People get married for various reasons; the desire to raise a family is only one of them.
What makes marriage a public institution, however -- the reason it is regulated by law and given an elevated legal status -- is that it provides something no healthy society can do without: a stable environment in which men and women can create and bring up the next generation, and in which children can enter the world with mothers and fathers committed to their well-being.
Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth Has Added Perversions
The surreptitiously created Massachusetts "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" has now gone even further out of bounds legally, by adding the terms "Bisexual and Transgender" to its name. At the first official public meeting of the group in February, they handed out literature calling themselves the "Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth."
The "law" creating the Commission did not include mention of "bisexual and transgender" youth. We predicted long ago that the free-range activists would soon add these terms, as they had done last year with their fundraising organization supporting the Commission. (Quite a few members of the Commission identify as "bisexual and transgender.")
Nowhere in Massachusetts statutes are those words "bisexual and transgender" ever mentioned. What do they mean anyhow? Not even the activists in the GLBT community are in agreement on their definition. But now we have an official Commission of the Commonwealth addressing these mythical youth. A Commission which "shall be an independent agency of the commonwealth and shall not be subject to the control of any other department or agency."
See the statute creating the Commission: Chapter 3: Section 67. Commission on gay and lesbian youth; membership; terms; powers and duties.
The "law" creating the Commission did not include mention of "bisexual and transgender" youth. We predicted long ago that the free-range activists would soon add these terms, as they had done last year with their fundraising organization supporting the Commission. (Quite a few members of the Commission identify as "bisexual and transgender.")
Nowhere in Massachusetts statutes are those words "bisexual and transgender" ever mentioned. What do they mean anyhow? Not even the activists in the GLBT community are in agreement on their definition. But now we have an official Commission of the Commonwealth addressing these mythical youth. A Commission which "shall be an independent agency of the commonwealth and shall not be subject to the control of any other department or agency."
See the statute creating the Commission: Chapter 3: Section 67. Commission on gay and lesbian youth; membership; terms; powers and duties.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
MassEquality Plants More Operatives
Who controls the State House?
The State Senator possibly in line to replace Senate President Travaglini, who appears to be planning his exit, is Therese Murray. She has just hired a MassEquality operative as her aide (he runs a nasty little blog). We reported earlier on Sen. Dianne Wilkerson's new legislative aide from MassEquality (also involved in an extremist GLBT blog, Jesse AKA "QueerJay"). Governor Patrick also respects MassEquality's work:
From Bay Windows:
MassEquality loses key operative to Patrick administration
It looks like MassEquality’s success in Bay State politics is both a blessing and curse. Several operatives have leveraged their experience at the organization to broaden their horizons in national or local politics, among them former campaign director Marty Rouse, who departed MassEquality in 2005 to become national field director for the Human Rights Campaign; former field organizer Jesse Sullivan, who is now state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson’s legislative director, and Chris Mason, who left his post as assistant canvass director to work as an aide to state Sen. Therese Murray, the heir apparent to the Senate presidency.
The latest to go is Stan McGee, the director of MassEquality’s civic and business outreach, a successful initiative that recruited some of the state’s most influential business big-wigs to the marriage movement. McGee started his new job as assistant secretary for policy and planning to Secretary of Housing and Economic Development Daniel O’Connell on Feb. 5. And he’s pretty sure that that the coalition-building skills he honed during the past year at MassEquality gave him a leg up on the competition. “I can imagine that in some other states having worked at a gay civil rights nonprofit would have been a liability,” says McGee, a corporate attorney, Harvard Law School alum and Rhodes Scholar. “There’s no doubt in my mind that I would not have been considered as seriously as I was for this position but for the work that I did at MassEquality.”
Solomon [of MassEquality] credited McGee with making “a huge difference” in the fight to preserve marriage equality in Massachusetts, praising his ability to effectively go where no ordinary grassroots activist could: the corporate boardroom.... McGee was responsible for an unprecedented statement issued last June urging the legislature to reject the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-marriage that was signed by 165 high-powered business and civic leaders, among them New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft, Boston Foundation President Paul Grogan and Boston Chamber of Commerce President Paul Guzzi. Along with MassEquality Development Director Scott Gortikov, McGee also leveraged those contacts to stage a fundraiser that netted $100,000 for the organization.
The State Senator possibly in line to replace Senate President Travaglini, who appears to be planning his exit, is Therese Murray. She has just hired a MassEquality operative as her aide (he runs a nasty little blog). We reported earlier on Sen. Dianne Wilkerson's new legislative aide from MassEquality (also involved in an extremist GLBT blog, Jesse AKA "QueerJay"). Governor Patrick also respects MassEquality's work:
From Bay Windows:
MassEquality loses key operative to Patrick administration
It looks like MassEquality’s success in Bay State politics is both a blessing and curse. Several operatives have leveraged their experience at the organization to broaden their horizons in national or local politics, among them former campaign director Marty Rouse, who departed MassEquality in 2005 to become national field director for the Human Rights Campaign; former field organizer Jesse Sullivan, who is now state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson’s legislative director, and Chris Mason, who left his post as assistant canvass director to work as an aide to state Sen. Therese Murray, the heir apparent to the Senate presidency.
The latest to go is Stan McGee, the director of MassEquality’s civic and business outreach, a successful initiative that recruited some of the state’s most influential business big-wigs to the marriage movement. McGee started his new job as assistant secretary for policy and planning to Secretary of Housing and Economic Development Daniel O’Connell on Feb. 5. And he’s pretty sure that that the coalition-building skills he honed during the past year at MassEquality gave him a leg up on the competition. “I can imagine that in some other states having worked at a gay civil rights nonprofit would have been a liability,” says McGee, a corporate attorney, Harvard Law School alum and Rhodes Scholar. “There’s no doubt in my mind that I would not have been considered as seriously as I was for this position but for the work that I did at MassEquality.”
Solomon [of MassEquality] credited McGee with making “a huge difference” in the fight to preserve marriage equality in Massachusetts, praising his ability to effectively go where no ordinary grassroots activist could: the corporate boardroom.... McGee was responsible for an unprecedented statement issued last June urging the legislature to reject the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-marriage that was signed by 165 high-powered business and civic leaders, among them New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft, Boston Foundation President Paul Grogan and Boston Chamber of Commerce President Paul Guzzi. Along with MassEquality Development Director Scott Gortikov, McGee also leveraged those contacts to stage a fundraiser that netted $100,000 for the organization.
Questions on Judge Wolf's Ruling on David Parker Case
Federal Judge Mark Wolf just ruled that Lexington father David Parker has to give his little children over to the state for indoctrination in sexual perversion. Here are some questions that immediately come to mind for Judge Wolf:
1. He points to Massachusetts laws banning discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." But how would he define that term, which is not defined anywhere in those laws? Judge Wolf likes to philosophize about the legitimate purpose of a school in preparing children to be good citizens. But nowhere does he help us good citizens understand what "sexual orientation" means. A careful jurist would help fill in the gaps in the law, right? Though once judges start defining "sexual orientation" all sorts of crazy, perverted behaviors could be normalized.
Judge Wolf: What about people who practice bondage & discipline/sadomasochism? Isn't that a "sexual orientation" that must be respected? How about cross-dressing? Can a school administrator, school board, or parent object to a teacher who openly participates in these "sexual orientations" and discusses them in school? Should third-graders be told about transsexual parents, awaiting organ removal surgery, as they recently were in a Newton public school? Don't our little developing citizens need to know about these things too? What if a school says: "Some parents are transsexual. We cannot discriminate against them. We need to read story books about them to the youngest children, so they'll grow up respecting diversity."
2. We thought the books the Lexington parents objected to were "just about different kinds of families." That's what the defendants said. Now the judge is telling us "sexual orientation" is involved. So this is about human sexuality? And the Parental Notification statute (Mass. law) applies after all?
3. When Judge Wolf points to the Massachusetts Health Curriculum Framework, he omits the crucial fact that it is one subject framework NOT required by Massachusetts law, including its recommendations for instruction on homosexuality and different types of families. The health framework is only recommended by the Dept. of Education. (That's why GLBT advocate Rep. Alice Wolf is again trying to pass her bill turning this framework into a requirement!)
4. Judge Wolf cites MGL ch. 69, sec. 1D, which does not mention "sexual orientation" -- that undefined phrase -- but says that public schools should "inculcate respect for the cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity of the commonwealth ... [and] avoid perpetuating gender, cultural, ethnic, or racial stereotypes." Nothing about "sexual orientation." Is he saying that alternative families are part of our cultural diversity? Or that gender stereotypes are perpetuated if children grow up thinking children have a mom and a dad?
5. Judge Wolf is not familiar enough with Massachusetts statutes to know that homosexual "marriage" is still not legal. The laws were never changed after the Goodridge ruling, and only the Legislature can "legalize" homosexual "marriage". That's why Rep. Byron Rushing has re-filed his bill to do so. The homosexual lobby knows this. And we suspect Judge Wolf and his friends at the ACLU do too.
1. He points to Massachusetts laws banning discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." But how would he define that term, which is not defined anywhere in those laws? Judge Wolf likes to philosophize about the legitimate purpose of a school in preparing children to be good citizens. But nowhere does he help us good citizens understand what "sexual orientation" means. A careful jurist would help fill in the gaps in the law, right? Though once judges start defining "sexual orientation" all sorts of crazy, perverted behaviors could be normalized.
Judge Wolf: What about people who practice bondage & discipline/sadomasochism? Isn't that a "sexual orientation" that must be respected? How about cross-dressing? Can a school administrator, school board, or parent object to a teacher who openly participates in these "sexual orientations" and discusses them in school? Should third-graders be told about transsexual parents, awaiting organ removal surgery, as they recently were in a Newton public school? Don't our little developing citizens need to know about these things too? What if a school says: "Some parents are transsexual. We cannot discriminate against them. We need to read story books about them to the youngest children, so they'll grow up respecting diversity."
2. We thought the books the Lexington parents objected to were "just about different kinds of families." That's what the defendants said. Now the judge is telling us "sexual orientation" is involved. So this is about human sexuality? And the Parental Notification statute (Mass. law) applies after all?
3. When Judge Wolf points to the Massachusetts Health Curriculum Framework, he omits the crucial fact that it is one subject framework NOT required by Massachusetts law, including its recommendations for instruction on homosexuality and different types of families. The health framework is only recommended by the Dept. of Education. (That's why GLBT advocate Rep. Alice Wolf is again trying to pass her bill turning this framework into a requirement!)
4. Judge Wolf cites MGL ch. 69, sec. 1D, which does not mention "sexual orientation" -- that undefined phrase -- but says that public schools should "inculcate respect for the cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity of the commonwealth ... [and] avoid perpetuating gender, cultural, ethnic, or racial stereotypes." Nothing about "sexual orientation." Is he saying that alternative families are part of our cultural diversity? Or that gender stereotypes are perpetuated if children grow up thinking children have a mom and a dad?
5. Judge Wolf is not familiar enough with Massachusetts statutes to know that homosexual "marriage" is still not legal. The laws were never changed after the Goodridge ruling, and only the Legislature can "legalize" homosexual "marriage". That's why Rep. Byron Rushing has re-filed his bill to do so. The homosexual lobby knows this. And we suspect Judge Wolf and his friends at the ACLU do too.
Friday, February 23, 2007
"Peeing in Peace" at the Mass. State House
The entire homosexual lobby is gearing up to pass the "transgender rights" and "hate crimes" bill this session. According to Bay Windows,
"Several of the supporting organizations have worked directly with MTPC and the lead sponsors of the bill, Reps. Carl Sciortino (D-Somerville) and Byron Rushing (D-Boston), to help advance the bill. Ryan [Mass. Transgender Political Coalition/MTPC] said GLAD [Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the group behind the homosexual marriage case] and MLGBA [Mass. Lesbian and Gay Bar Assoc.] drafted the language of the bill, which bans discrimination based on gender identity and expression in employment, education, housing, and credit, and adds hate crimes protections based on gender identity and expression.... MassEquality and the Caucus helped plan logistics for the campaign, including working with MTPC to set up the town hall meetings and reach out to the community, and Ryan said the Caucus will be working with MTPC in the state house to try and pass the bill.
One of the "resources" listed on the MTPC web site is a publication entitled "Peeing in Peace." That means bathrooms are about to be debated in the Massachusetts State House (if they dare to hold a hearing on the "Transgender Rights" bill).
The question of toilets is really big. MTPC is holding a seminar called "Toilet Training". Here's the trans "logic":
A man who dresses as a woman has every right to use the ladies' room. And that's because if he "identifies" as a woman, he is a woman. Therefore, it's not a man using the ladies' room. It's a woman, even if there's a male organ. So no one has any grounds for complaint. And if you do complain once this bill passes, you'll be guilty of a hate crime.
Ditto a female "identifying" as a male. If she wants to use the men's room, that's fine, because she is a man... according to her/"him". That's all that matters: how that individual "identifies" or "expresses" him/herself.
(But if the unenlighted still complain, and the hate crimes law is not yet in place, at a minimum there will be demands for single-person bathrooms.)
From the MTPC web site:
Does this mean that women will have to share bathrooms with men, and vice versa?
This ordinance will prevent employers and proprietors of public accommodations from requiring people to use bathrooms that do not correspond to their gender identity. It will not mean that women will have to share bathrooms with men. All people must have access to safe and dignified bathroom facilities, regardless of their gender identity or expression.
The Boston City ordinances currently permit restrooms and other such facilities to be separated by sex. Nothing in this proposed ordinance will change that. What the ordinance will do is prevent the obvious disruptions and problems that arise when people are required to use bathrooms inappropriate to their gender identity, (for example, when transgender women are forced to share bathrooms with men, or transgender men are forced to share bathrooms with women). This ordinance simply will allow individuals to use bathroom facilities based on the gender identity that they "publicly and exclusively assert or express." By adding this language, this ordinance will help resolve awkward bathroom situations, not create them.
Allowing individuals to use the restroom that corresponds with the gender identity that they "publicly and exclusively assert or express" makes sense. There is simply no legitimate way to do "anatomy checks" or "chromosomal checks" before determining who can use what restroom.
Nothing in this proposed ordinance would alter an individual's reasonable privacy and safety expectations in restrooms. Legitimate safety concerns, of course, need to be addressed regardless of who poses them. Proprietors of public accommodations have an obligation to make restroom facilities safe for all people. However, we cannot let legitimate safety concerns become a proxy for bias and prejudice.
"Several of the supporting organizations have worked directly with MTPC and the lead sponsors of the bill, Reps. Carl Sciortino (D-Somerville) and Byron Rushing (D-Boston), to help advance the bill. Ryan [Mass. Transgender Political Coalition/MTPC] said GLAD [Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the group behind the homosexual marriage case] and MLGBA [Mass. Lesbian and Gay Bar Assoc.] drafted the language of the bill, which bans discrimination based on gender identity and expression in employment, education, housing, and credit, and adds hate crimes protections based on gender identity and expression.... MassEquality and the Caucus helped plan logistics for the campaign, including working with MTPC to set up the town hall meetings and reach out to the community, and Ryan said the Caucus will be working with MTPC in the state house to try and pass the bill.
One of the "resources" listed on the MTPC web site is a publication entitled "Peeing in Peace." That means bathrooms are about to be debated in the Massachusetts State House (if they dare to hold a hearing on the "Transgender Rights" bill).
The question of toilets is really big. MTPC is holding a seminar called "Toilet Training". Here's the trans "logic":
A man who dresses as a woman has every right to use the ladies' room. And that's because if he "identifies" as a woman, he is a woman. Therefore, it's not a man using the ladies' room. It's a woman, even if there's a male organ. So no one has any grounds for complaint. And if you do complain once this bill passes, you'll be guilty of a hate crime.
Ditto a female "identifying" as a male. If she wants to use the men's room, that's fine, because she is a man... according to her/"him". That's all that matters: how that individual "identifies" or "expresses" him/herself.
(But if the unenlighted still complain, and the hate crimes law is not yet in place, at a minimum there will be demands for single-person bathrooms.)
From the MTPC web site:
Does this mean that women will have to share bathrooms with men, and vice versa?
This ordinance will prevent employers and proprietors of public accommodations from requiring people to use bathrooms that do not correspond to their gender identity. It will not mean that women will have to share bathrooms with men. All people must have access to safe and dignified bathroom facilities, regardless of their gender identity or expression.
The Boston City ordinances currently permit restrooms and other such facilities to be separated by sex. Nothing in this proposed ordinance will change that. What the ordinance will do is prevent the obvious disruptions and problems that arise when people are required to use bathrooms inappropriate to their gender identity, (for example, when transgender women are forced to share bathrooms with men, or transgender men are forced to share bathrooms with women). This ordinance simply will allow individuals to use bathroom facilities based on the gender identity that they "publicly and exclusively assert or express." By adding this language, this ordinance will help resolve awkward bathroom situations, not create them.
Allowing individuals to use the restroom that corresponds with the gender identity that they "publicly and exclusively assert or express" makes sense. There is simply no legitimate way to do "anatomy checks" or "chromosomal checks" before determining who can use what restroom.
Nothing in this proposed ordinance would alter an individual's reasonable privacy and safety expectations in restrooms. Legitimate safety concerns, of course, need to be addressed regardless of who poses them. Proprietors of public accommodations have an obligation to make restroom facilities safe for all people. However, we cannot let legitimate safety concerns become a proxy for bias and prejudice.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
"Sexual Orientation" and "Gender Identity" Not Defined
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Rev. Rob Schenck Mistaken About Romney
There weren't too many people at the protest of Advanced Cell Technologies (ACT) in Worcester in 2001. ACT was working on cloning humans for "therapeutic" uses. About 100 people who understood the ominous implications of human cloning showed up. We were covering the event for MassNews as well as protesting. Also present were Bill Cotter of Operation Rescue, Ray Neary formerly of Mass. Citizens for Life, and pro-life activist Laurie Letourneau. And that's where we met the Rev. Rob Schenck. He was one of the "Pro-Life Leaders Denied Meeting with Advanced Cell Technologies."
What a shock, then, that Schenck should now be falling for Mitt Romney's act, including that it was stem cell research and cloning issues that converted Romney to his new pro-life position -- a tale which just doesn't ring true.
So -- what's up with Rev. Schenck? From Christian Newswire (2-20-07):
Schenck Returns from Private Meetings with Romney and McCain
WASHINGTON -- The Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK), president of the National Clergy Council and its affiliate, Faith and Action in the Nation's Capital, returned today to Washington from Orlando, Florida, where he participated in small private meetings with Republican presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Schenck, who also serves as chair of the Committee on Church and Society for the Evangelical Church Alliance, America's oldest association of Evangelical clergy, said about the Romney and McCain meetings:
"I was able to get a read of these two men away from the cameras, the reporters and rah-rah audiences. These were honest, candid dialogues on critically important aspects of Governor Romney's and Senator McCain's personal and political principles. We got a pretty good assessment of where they are on the key issues for traditional Christians and particularly for Evangelicals. I was impressed by both, but especially Mitt Romney."
Schenck has met previously with Sam Brownback of Kansas, another Republican candidate. He says the Kansas senator remains the gold standard for the top three concerns of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and the family and the public acknowledgment of God.
Schenck is seeking similar meetings with the other '08 presidential candidates from all parties. He is available for further comment beginning Thursday, February 22.
What a shock, then, that Schenck should now be falling for Mitt Romney's act, including that it was stem cell research and cloning issues that converted Romney to his new pro-life position -- a tale which just doesn't ring true.
So -- what's up with Rev. Schenck? From Christian Newswire (2-20-07):
Schenck Returns from Private Meetings with Romney and McCain
WASHINGTON -- The Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK), president of the National Clergy Council and its affiliate, Faith and Action in the Nation's Capital, returned today to Washington from Orlando, Florida, where he participated in small private meetings with Republican presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Schenck, who also serves as chair of the Committee on Church and Society for the Evangelical Church Alliance, America's oldest association of Evangelical clergy, said about the Romney and McCain meetings:
"I was able to get a read of these two men away from the cameras, the reporters and rah-rah audiences. These were honest, candid dialogues on critically important aspects of Governor Romney's and Senator McCain's personal and political principles. We got a pretty good assessment of where they are on the key issues for traditional Christians and particularly for Evangelicals. I was impressed by both, but especially Mitt Romney."
Schenck has met previously with Sam Brownback of Kansas, another Republican candidate. He says the Kansas senator remains the gold standard for the top three concerns of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and the family and the public acknowledgment of God.
Schenck is seeking similar meetings with the other '08 presidential candidates from all parties. He is available for further comment beginning Thursday, February 22.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Gun Advocates Are Not That Stupid, Mitt
Now it's one thing if you let your NRA membership lapse, as yours truly has. It's quite another to suddenly in your late 50's decide you're on board. And it doesn't exactly ring true that one would be a gung-ho Second Amendment supporter, then go on to brag about shooting rabbits with 22's. Hmm.
Today's Boston Globe reports on one of the NRA's newest members, Mitt Romney:
Mitt Romney, who has touted his support of gun owners since launching his presidential campaign, yesterday acknowledged he did not become a member of the National Rifle Association until last August, campaign officials said. Asked why Romney joined only a few months before declaring his candidacy, Madden said: "I would argue not many Americans care when you join, but why you join, and I think I've made that clear."
Speaking on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Romney said he signed up for a life long membership "within the last year." "I think they're doing good things, and I believe in supporting the right to bear arms," Romney said.
Not all gun advocates are convinced of Romney's commitment to their cause....
Today's Boston Globe reports on one of the NRA's newest members, Mitt Romney:
Mitt Romney, who has touted his support of gun owners since launching his presidential campaign, yesterday acknowledged he did not become a member of the National Rifle Association until last August, campaign officials said. Asked why Romney joined only a few months before declaring his candidacy, Madden said: "I would argue not many Americans care when you join, but why you join, and I think I've made that clear."
Speaking on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Romney said he signed up for a life long membership "within the last year." "I think they're doing good things, and I believe in supporting the right to bear arms," Romney said.
Not all gun advocates are convinced of Romney's commitment to their cause....
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Homosexual Lobby Still Trying to Legalize "Gay Marriage"
A story the Boston Globe and the phony "conservative" media will never cover:
The homosexual lobby in the Massachusetts legislature has again filed a bill to legalize homosexual marriage. Because it's still not legal, and they know it. No statute has ever been passed to change existing law which still refers to marriage as only between man/woman, husband/wife.
The homosexual lobby filed a bill last session too, but strategically decided not to bring it up for a vote. Now, with a Governor who favors sodomy "marriage", they'll probably push it through without a hearing on some midnight vote. Who knows, maybe they had an agreement with Mitt Romney last session not to bring it up and embarrass him, and blow open their whole scam.
And no one (except us) will point out that this bill proves "gay marriage" has not been legal in Massachusetts these past three years. Not even National Review, Maggie Gallagher, Massachusetts Family Institute, Human Events, Jay Sekulow's ACLJ, the Alliance Defense Fund, James Dobson, or Mitt Romney.
Here's what Rep. Byron Rushing has filed. The title of the bill is so clever: "An Act to Protect Massachusetts Families Through Equal Access to Marriage." He could have chosen a more accurate title, for instance: "An Act Protecting Sodomy-Based Households Posing as Natural Families."
House Bill 1710:
An Act to Protect Massachusetts Families Through Equal Access to Marriage
SECTION 1. Chapter 207 is hereby amended by adding the
following new section:—
Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility
requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person
regardless of gender.
The homosexual lobby in the Massachusetts legislature has again filed a bill to legalize homosexual marriage. Because it's still not legal, and they know it. No statute has ever been passed to change existing law which still refers to marriage as only between man/woman, husband/wife.
The homosexual lobby filed a bill last session too, but strategically decided not to bring it up for a vote. Now, with a Governor who favors sodomy "marriage", they'll probably push it through without a hearing on some midnight vote. Who knows, maybe they had an agreement with Mitt Romney last session not to bring it up and embarrass him, and blow open their whole scam.
And no one (except us) will point out that this bill proves "gay marriage" has not been legal in Massachusetts these past three years. Not even National Review, Maggie Gallagher, Massachusetts Family Institute, Human Events, Jay Sekulow's ACLJ, the Alliance Defense Fund, James Dobson, or Mitt Romney.
Here's what Rep. Byron Rushing has filed. The title of the bill is so clever: "An Act to Protect Massachusetts Families Through Equal Access to Marriage." He could have chosen a more accurate title, for instance: "An Act Protecting Sodomy-Based Households Posing as Natural Families."
House Bill 1710:
An Act to Protect Massachusetts Families Through Equal Access to Marriage
SECTION 1. Chapter 207 is hereby amended by adding the
following new section:—
Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility
requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person
regardless of gender.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Ambition vs. Family
The Boston Globe and ABC broached the subject. We didn't. But we can't help commenting. Having a family member with MS (multiple sclerosis), which Ann Romney has, makes us wonder about Mitt Romney's decision to run for President. It obviously made the Romney family wonder too, for a while at least, though they obviously decided to roll the dice.
If you have a regular job and a spouse with this condition, it's hard enough on both of you. But if you're running for President? Or become President? It's simply hard to imagine how the Romneys came to this decision. Chronic illnesses don't do well under stressful conditions. Imagine the stress of being First Lady while coping with a degenerative, unpredictable disease...
The Globe reports ("Romney's wife opens up on campaign issues," 2-16-07):
... this week, Ann Romney delved into some of the most private and charged issues facing her husband's campaign. In an extensive and surprisingly frank interview with ABC News, she described her battle with multiple sclerosis, saying her husband will forge ahead with his pursuit of the presidency, even if her health declines.
... and disclosed that she did not want him to run for governor in 2002, when the couple was on a high after the successful Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. "It was just this euphoric feeling, and I did not want to step immediately into something that is so negative, with the campaign, after that," Ann Romney told Kate Snow during an interview that aired Wednesday on Good Morning America. "I wanted to take a breath; I wanted to enjoy what we'd done," she said....
Discussing multiple sclerosis, which she was diagnosed with in 1998, Ann Romney said she was weak for several years and felt "completely crushed."
"I was not an example of strength and courage when I was going through it," she said. "I was pretty frightened."
These says, she said, "I'm feeling well. . . . My health is good." She credited yoga, Pilates, reflexology, and acupuncture, as well as a diet low in sugar and white flour. She also loves horses and tries to ride every day, she said.
She said the family has decided that even if her health worsens, her husband will not stop campaigning for the White House.... "We decided that once we crossed that threshold, that he was going forward, that he was making a commitment," she said. She added, "That was a commitment that I made him promise to make."
Web MD: "Multiple sclerosis is a disease of the brain and spinal cord. Its symptoms may include vision problems, muscle weakness, and difficulty with walking, coordination, and balance. Some patients experience relatively mild MS; other cases are severe." (But the course of the disease is unpredictable.)
If you have a regular job and a spouse with this condition, it's hard enough on both of you. But if you're running for President? Or become President? It's simply hard to imagine how the Romneys came to this decision. Chronic illnesses don't do well under stressful conditions. Imagine the stress of being First Lady while coping with a degenerative, unpredictable disease...
The Globe reports ("Romney's wife opens up on campaign issues," 2-16-07):
... this week, Ann Romney delved into some of the most private and charged issues facing her husband's campaign. In an extensive and surprisingly frank interview with ABC News, she described her battle with multiple sclerosis, saying her husband will forge ahead with his pursuit of the presidency, even if her health declines.
... and disclosed that she did not want him to run for governor in 2002, when the couple was on a high after the successful Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. "It was just this euphoric feeling, and I did not want to step immediately into something that is so negative, with the campaign, after that," Ann Romney told Kate Snow during an interview that aired Wednesday on Good Morning America. "I wanted to take a breath; I wanted to enjoy what we'd done," she said....
Discussing multiple sclerosis, which she was diagnosed with in 1998, Ann Romney said she was weak for several years and felt "completely crushed."
"I was not an example of strength and courage when I was going through it," she said. "I was pretty frightened."
These says, she said, "I'm feeling well. . . . My health is good." She credited yoga, Pilates, reflexology, and acupuncture, as well as a diet low in sugar and white flour. She also loves horses and tries to ride every day, she said.
She said the family has decided that even if her health worsens, her husband will not stop campaigning for the White House.... "We decided that once we crossed that threshold, that he was going forward, that he was making a commitment," she said. She added, "That was a commitment that I made him promise to make."
Web MD: "Multiple sclerosis is a disease of the brain and spinal cord. Its symptoms may include vision problems, muscle weakness, and difficulty with walking, coordination, and balance. Some patients experience relatively mild MS; other cases are severe." (But the course of the disease is unpredictable.)
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Weakness of "Marriage-is-about-children" Argument
This story from Washington state points out the weakness of the argument that we must protect marriage so every child will have a mother and father. This is the exclusive line used by Mitt Romney and Massachusetts Family Institute/VoteOnMarriage to justify real marriage.
"Gay marriage" proponents in Washington are pushing a ballot measure "that would require heterosexual married couples to have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled. They say it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children."
All those who don’t want to touch the perverted, unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral aspects of homosexuality cannot satisfactorily answer this line of thinking. Also, note that the pro-homosexual marriage group in Washington state calls itself “Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance”… intentionally sowing confusion.
No Kids, No Marriage?
FOX News, 2-8-07
This is a partial transcript of The Big Story With John Gibson, February 7, 2007, that has been edited for clarity.
JOHN GIBSON, HOST: The "Big Buzz" is about the theater of the absurd going on in the state of Washington . Get this: Gay marriage proponents there are trying to get a measure on the November ballot that would require heterosexual married couples to have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled. They say it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children.
Is what's good for gays also good for straights? "Big Story" correspondent Douglas Kennedy has the rest of the story in this in-your-face ballot initiative.
DOUGLAS KENNEDY, "BIG STORY" CORRESPONDENT: Yes, John, even the backers of this are calling it absurd. But they maintain it makes a point, namely, exposing the hypocrisy of those who say the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KENNEDY (VOICE OVER): If you can't have babies, you can't get married. That would be the law in Washington State if voters there pass a possible ballot initiative. It is a proposal its sponsor says is simply trying to make a point.
GREGORY GADOW, WASH. DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ALLIANCE : If same-sex couples can be denied marriage because of that premise, it logically follows that all couples unable, or unwilling, to have children together, should likewise be prohibited from marriage.
KENNEDY: In addition, the initiative would require that couples unable or unwilling or unable to have babies within three years would have their marriage declared unrecognized. The language is in direct response to a July 2006 state supreme court decision, which upheld a law denying gay people the right to marry.
LISA STONE, NW WOMEN'S LAW CENTER : Essentially, that decision, which my organization, the Northwest Women's Law Center , litigated to the Washington Supreme Court said that the state has an interest in procreation, and that that interest is sufficient to deny marriage to same-sex couples.
TONY PERKINS, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: They're lampooning those who are supporting marriage across this country for very legitimate reasons.
KENNEDY: Tony Perkins heads the Family Research Council, a national group that does not want the gays to marry.
PERKINS: One of the core fabrics of our society is the family. It's preparing the next generation. It is raising children. It is procreation.
STONE: Families come in all shapes and sizes these days. There are inter-generational families, grandparents raising grandchildren. There are single-parent headed families and there are families for one reason or another that don't have children. There are also same-sex families that do have children and that raise those children in loving households.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KENNEDY: Supporters of the initiative say they are now gathering the signatures needed to get it on the November ballot. Still, even if it passes they say they are hoping, John, that it will not pass any constitutional muster.
GIBSON: It will be real weird. Douglas , thank you very much.
"Gay marriage" proponents in Washington are pushing a ballot measure "that would require heterosexual married couples to have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled. They say it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children."
All those who don’t want to touch the perverted, unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral aspects of homosexuality cannot satisfactorily answer this line of thinking. Also, note that the pro-homosexual marriage group in Washington state calls itself “Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance”… intentionally sowing confusion.
No Kids, No Marriage?
FOX News, 2-8-07
This is a partial transcript of The Big Story With John Gibson, February 7, 2007, that has been edited for clarity.
JOHN GIBSON, HOST: The "Big Buzz" is about the theater of the absurd going on in the state of Washington . Get this: Gay marriage proponents there are trying to get a measure on the November ballot that would require heterosexual married couples to have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled. They say it is only fair because they are being denied the right to marry because they cannot have children.
Is what's good for gays also good for straights? "Big Story" correspondent Douglas Kennedy has the rest of the story in this in-your-face ballot initiative.
DOUGLAS KENNEDY, "BIG STORY" CORRESPONDENT: Yes, John, even the backers of this are calling it absurd. But they maintain it makes a point, namely, exposing the hypocrisy of those who say the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KENNEDY (VOICE OVER): If you can't have babies, you can't get married. That would be the law in Washington State if voters there pass a possible ballot initiative. It is a proposal its sponsor says is simply trying to make a point.
GREGORY GADOW, WASH. DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ALLIANCE : If same-sex couples can be denied marriage because of that premise, it logically follows that all couples unable, or unwilling, to have children together, should likewise be prohibited from marriage.
KENNEDY: In addition, the initiative would require that couples unable or unwilling or unable to have babies within three years would have their marriage declared unrecognized. The language is in direct response to a July 2006 state supreme court decision, which upheld a law denying gay people the right to marry.
LISA STONE, NW WOMEN'S LAW CENTER : Essentially, that decision, which my organization, the Northwest Women's Law Center , litigated to the Washington Supreme Court said that the state has an interest in procreation, and that that interest is sufficient to deny marriage to same-sex couples.
TONY PERKINS, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: They're lampooning those who are supporting marriage across this country for very legitimate reasons.
KENNEDY: Tony Perkins heads the Family Research Council, a national group that does not want the gays to marry.
PERKINS: One of the core fabrics of our society is the family. It's preparing the next generation. It is raising children. It is procreation.
STONE: Families come in all shapes and sizes these days. There are inter-generational families, grandparents raising grandchildren. There are single-parent headed families and there are families for one reason or another that don't have children. There are also same-sex families that do have children and that raise those children in loving households.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KENNEDY: Supporters of the initiative say they are now gathering the signatures needed to get it on the November ballot. Still, even if it passes they say they are hoping, John, that it will not pass any constitutional muster.
GIBSON: It will be real weird. Douglas , thank you very much.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Romney & His Dad
Lost in the coverage of Romney's announcement on the 13th that he's running for President is this telling contrast between him and his father, George Romney (who ran in 1968).
The Boston Globe's print edition showed a photo of the New York Times story on George Romney's declaration. Part of the headline: "APPEALS FOR MORALITY"
The Globe juxtaposes these quotes from father and son to emphasize their similarity. But we noticed that George refered to God, Mitt doesn't. Maybe that's why Mitt never appeals to "morality" in any of his pronouncements, whether on abortion or homosexuality. For example, his only defense of marriage as one man and one woman is that "every child needs a father and a mother." From the Globe ("Romney to kick off race in Mich.", 2-13-07):
Here's George Romney in his 1967 announcement speech: "We must recognize that the root source of America's strength is the divinely endowed freedom of its people."
And here's Mitt Romney in a speech to a Republican Governors Association conference two months ago: "If you believe that, as I do, that our source of strength is our people, then when America faces a new generation of challenges like we do today, you don't look to government. . . . You look to make the people stronger, because that has always been and will always be the source of our destiny."
But while George Romney was proud to call himself a moderate, Mitt Romney is running as a conservative.
The Boston Globe's print edition showed a photo of the New York Times story on George Romney's declaration. Part of the headline: "APPEALS FOR MORALITY"
The Globe juxtaposes these quotes from father and son to emphasize their similarity. But we noticed that George refered to God, Mitt doesn't. Maybe that's why Mitt never appeals to "morality" in any of his pronouncements, whether on abortion or homosexuality. For example, his only defense of marriage as one man and one woman is that "every child needs a father and a mother." From the Globe ("Romney to kick off race in Mich.", 2-13-07):
Here's George Romney in his 1967 announcement speech: "We must recognize that the root source of America's strength is the divinely endowed freedom of its people."
And here's Mitt Romney in a speech to a Republican Governors Association conference two months ago: "If you believe that, as I do, that our source of strength is our people, then when America faces a new generation of challenges like we do today, you don't look to government. . . . You look to make the people stronger, because that has always been and will always be the source of our destiny."
But while George Romney was proud to call himself a moderate, Mitt Romney is running as a conservative.
A "conservative" who doesn't mention God or morality.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Young Americans for Freedom in Michigan Oppose Romney
Go Young Americans for Freedom! Brings back memories of siblings in college joining and bragging ... Go Goldwater! ...
Now, they're raining on Romney's parade at the Michigan Republic Party convention. What fun, YAF members from U Michigan and Michigan State, holding signs saying:
RINOs for Romney
and
Don't Like Romney's views?
Wait 10 minutes and they'll Flip Flop
and
Multiple Choice Romney
See the video on www.EyeOn08.com:
http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/02/11/more-grassroots-anti-romney-protests/
EyeOn08 has also posted this from the Pro-Life March in D.C. last month:
"Pro-life students against flip-floppers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYvHqgnEi2o
Now, they're raining on Romney's parade at the Michigan Republic Party convention. What fun, YAF members from U Michigan and Michigan State, holding signs saying:
RINOs for Romney
and
Don't Like Romney's views?
Wait 10 minutes and they'll Flip Flop
and
Multiple Choice Romney
See the video on www.EyeOn08.com:
http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/02/11/more-grassroots-anti-romney-protests/
EyeOn08 has also posted this from the Pro-Life March in D.C. last month:
"Pro-life students against flip-floppers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYvHqgnEi2o
Why No Comments on This Blog?
Peter LaBarbera at AmericansForTruth has pointed us to an excellent answer to the question, "Why don't you allow comments on your blog?" Like LaBarbera and Mr. Cramer (see his blog posting below), we have been subject to vile language, threats, harassment, even a house break-in, by activists in the LGBT community. They do not believe in free speech or the polite exchange of ideas.
Why there are no comments on my blog
Pam Spaulding, a lesbian blogger, posted something about Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, which is run by Peter LaBarbera. Like many blogs, Pam’s blog allows readers to add comments–which soon included Peter LaBarbera’s home address, and a suggestion that the park across the street would be a good place for a sniper.
Comments on blogs can either be moderated (which ends up taking a lot of a blogger’s time) or unmoderated (in which case, the blogger may not be aware of what’s being said in the comments). Once informed, Pam Spaulding removed these comments and emphasized that this was not acceptable behavior.
That’s why I have never turned commenting on in my blog. Who needs the aggravation of letting unhinged idiots post trash like that (and worse) in the comments?
I can’t say that I am surprised by what happened on Pam Spaulding’s blog, however. Over the roughly twenty years that I have been using the Internet to engage in political discussion, I have expressed myself strongly (sometimes even a little too strongly) about a very large number of controversial issues. There is one, and only one group of political activists that have ever made harassing phone calls to me (repeated calls at 6:00 AM with silence at the other end), made lewd phone calls to my children (who fortunately, were small enough to be confused rather than shocked), tried to get me fired from a job, or threatened my safety with threats of violence.
Guess which group that was. Not leftists. Not gun control activists. No Islamists. Not Communists. Not labor unionists. Not history professors. Not environmentalists. Homosexual activists are the only group that has engaged in these tactics in response to my political free speech. Obviously, not all homosexuals––or even all homosexual activists––have engaged in these tactics. But part of why I have joined the ranks of those who think that homosexuality reflects something terribly broken is because there is no other group whose activists become so unhinged in response to criticism that they engaged in these tactics. I have never felt at risk because of my political activity–until the unrelenting campaign of harassment started in the early 1990s, and I started to regularly carry a gun because of it.
Why there are no comments on my blog
Pam Spaulding, a lesbian blogger, posted something about Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, which is run by Peter LaBarbera. Like many blogs, Pam’s blog allows readers to add comments–which soon included Peter LaBarbera’s home address, and a suggestion that the park across the street would be a good place for a sniper.
Comments on blogs can either be moderated (which ends up taking a lot of a blogger’s time) or unmoderated (in which case, the blogger may not be aware of what’s being said in the comments). Once informed, Pam Spaulding removed these comments and emphasized that this was not acceptable behavior.
That’s why I have never turned commenting on in my blog. Who needs the aggravation of letting unhinged idiots post trash like that (and worse) in the comments?
I can’t say that I am surprised by what happened on Pam Spaulding’s blog, however. Over the roughly twenty years that I have been using the Internet to engage in political discussion, I have expressed myself strongly (sometimes even a little too strongly) about a very large number of controversial issues. There is one, and only one group of political activists that have ever made harassing phone calls to me (repeated calls at 6:00 AM with silence at the other end), made lewd phone calls to my children (who fortunately, were small enough to be confused rather than shocked), tried to get me fired from a job, or threatened my safety with threats of violence.
Guess which group that was. Not leftists. Not gun control activists. No Islamists. Not Communists. Not labor unionists. Not history professors. Not environmentalists. Homosexual activists are the only group that has engaged in these tactics in response to my political free speech. Obviously, not all homosexuals––or even all homosexual activists––have engaged in these tactics. But part of why I have joined the ranks of those who think that homosexuality reflects something terribly broken is because there is no other group whose activists become so unhinged in response to criticism that they engaged in these tactics. I have never felt at risk because of my political activity–until the unrelenting campaign of harassment started in the early 1990s, and I started to regularly carry a gun because of it.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Romney Is Not Pro-Life: More Proof
Mitt Romney is not pro-life. If he were, he wouldn't think we could vote on abortion.
Abortion either is, or is not, murder. If Romney believes it is murder -- the definition of "pro-life" -- how can he say it's something that can and should be decided by popular vote? Some states choose to allow baby murder, others don't. Sounds "pro-choice" to us. A pro-life leader would not take this position.
Further, pro-lifers respect the innocence of the baby, and do not make the exceptions that it's OK to abort in cases of rape or incest -- as Romney does. (Plus, Romney views Roe v. Wade as "law" -- when it's an illegitimate court ruling.)
Did President Lincoln think the individual states should be able to decide whether or not slavery would be allowed in their state? Or was slavery a moral wrong that had to be dealt with on a national level? Lincoln acted like a man and provided real leadership. Where are the real men today?
We ask Presidential candidate Romney: Is abortion a moral wrong equivalent to slavery? He apparently doesn't think so. He thinks there's some wiggle room. He recommends leaving it to voters in individual states to decide whether or not they'll allow the murder of innocent babies within their borders. Even with the (unacceptable) exceptions for rape and incest built in, Romney does not support a national right-to-life amendment.
Romney earlier explained this in his December schmooze with Kathryn Lopez at National Review. And he was foolish enough to repeat it here:
NATIONAL JOURNAL
February 10, 2007
Q: You would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Is that correct?
Romney: What I've indicated is that I am pro-life, and that my hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decisions with regard to their own abortion law.
Q: If a state wanted unlimited abortion?
Romney: The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn't be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation -- a one-size-fits-all approach -- but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.
Abortion either is, or is not, murder. If Romney believes it is murder -- the definition of "pro-life" -- how can he say it's something that can and should be decided by popular vote? Some states choose to allow baby murder, others don't. Sounds "pro-choice" to us. A pro-life leader would not take this position.
Further, pro-lifers respect the innocence of the baby, and do not make the exceptions that it's OK to abort in cases of rape or incest -- as Romney does. (Plus, Romney views Roe v. Wade as "law" -- when it's an illegitimate court ruling.)
Did President Lincoln think the individual states should be able to decide whether or not slavery would be allowed in their state? Or was slavery a moral wrong that had to be dealt with on a national level? Lincoln acted like a man and provided real leadership. Where are the real men today?
We ask Presidential candidate Romney: Is abortion a moral wrong equivalent to slavery? He apparently doesn't think so. He thinks there's some wiggle room. He recommends leaving it to voters in individual states to decide whether or not they'll allow the murder of innocent babies within their borders. Even with the (unacceptable) exceptions for rape and incest built in, Romney does not support a national right-to-life amendment.
Romney earlier explained this in his December schmooze with Kathryn Lopez at National Review. And he was foolish enough to repeat it here:
NATIONAL JOURNAL
February 10, 2007
Q: You would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Is that correct?
Romney: What I've indicated is that I am pro-life, and that my hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decisions with regard to their own abortion law.
Q: If a state wanted unlimited abortion?
Romney: The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn't be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation -- a one-size-fits-all approach -- but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Wall Street Journal: Romney Flip-Flops on "Gay Marriage"
The Wall Street Journal has serious doubts about Mitt Romney. We highlighted their editorial trashing his Massachusetts health insurance plan -- which he was so proud of, until about a month ago. Now, WSJ is voicing hesitation on his free market bona fides:
Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor, has had some success exploiting conservative unease with Mr. McCain. He has shown he can win votes in a blue state, and he was successful both as a capitalist and as manager of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.
However, he too is something of an empty policy slate. The former business consultant made a big deal of the health-care "reform" he steered through the Massachusetts legislature last year, and we suppose he deserves credit for trying. But he oversold the results--to the applause of the national health-care lobby--and imposed an insurance mandate without reforming the state insurance market.
As it unfolds, this law is turning out to be far from a free-market success. And so now Mr. Romney is distancing himself from it--never mind that he upbraided his critics last year for not understanding its virtues. The episode suggests a thin political skin and perhaps a too malleable policy core.
Also, WSJ today noted that Romney's not only a flip-flopper on abortion and gay rights, but also has changed his position on gay marriage ("Election 2008: A Crowded Field Forms Early"):
Mitt Romney
Strengths: The Republican governor from liberal Massachusetts brokered a bipartisan universal health-care initiative last year. The Bain Capital founder's $6.5 million in pledges last month have built early credibility.
Weaknesses: The fact that Mr. Romney is a Mormon could hurt his support among evangelicals. Attempts to woo social conservatives have been hampered by shifting positions on gay marriage and abortion rights.
Hmm... did the WSJ really mean to say this? "Gay marriage" rather than "gay rights"? A big fan of the editorial page told us, "YES -- they have the best editors, and they probably did pay attention to MassResistance's report."
Well, even if it was a slip, here's the truth about Mitt Romney: HE HAS NOT BEEN CONSISTENT ON HIS SUPPORT FOR REAL MARRIAGE. First, in 2001-2, Romney opposed a proposed constitutional amendment in Massachusetts, which would have banned "gay marriage" and also "civil unions". Romney said that was "too extreme". Understand that he thinks we need to respect all citizens, no matter what choices they may make in their lives. So apparently, in 2001-2, Romney supported civil unions. And if that wasn't the basis for opposing the amendment, maybe he just didn't want to ban "gay marriage"? We ask his Mr. Romney to clarify his opposition to the 2002 Mass. marriage amendment. And further, why didn't he make a stink then that the Legislature unconstitutionally threw it into the dustbin? (He became Governor in January 2003, days after that happened.)
Then in 2005-6, suddenly Romney favored the new proposed Mass. marriage amendment, which would NOT ban civil unions, and which would let stand the existing "gay marriages" (since May 2004).
So first he's against a marriage amendment, then he's for one. Is this a flip-flop? Or -- is there some consistency? Romney seems to want to keep open the possibility for civil unions in both instances. Interesting.
Hello, Romney campaign. Please explain!
Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor, has had some success exploiting conservative unease with Mr. McCain. He has shown he can win votes in a blue state, and he was successful both as a capitalist and as manager of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.
However, he too is something of an empty policy slate. The former business consultant made a big deal of the health-care "reform" he steered through the Massachusetts legislature last year, and we suppose he deserves credit for trying. But he oversold the results--to the applause of the national health-care lobby--and imposed an insurance mandate without reforming the state insurance market.
As it unfolds, this law is turning out to be far from a free-market success. And so now Mr. Romney is distancing himself from it--never mind that he upbraided his critics last year for not understanding its virtues. The episode suggests a thin political skin and perhaps a too malleable policy core.
Also, WSJ today noted that Romney's not only a flip-flopper on abortion and gay rights, but also has changed his position on gay marriage ("Election 2008: A Crowded Field Forms Early"):
Mitt Romney
Strengths: The Republican governor from liberal Massachusetts brokered a bipartisan universal health-care initiative last year. The Bain Capital founder's $6.5 million in pledges last month have built early credibility.
Weaknesses: The fact that Mr. Romney is a Mormon could hurt his support among evangelicals. Attempts to woo social conservatives have been hampered by shifting positions on gay marriage and abortion rights.
Hmm... did the WSJ really mean to say this? "Gay marriage" rather than "gay rights"? A big fan of the editorial page told us, "YES -- they have the best editors, and they probably did pay attention to MassResistance's report."
Well, even if it was a slip, here's the truth about Mitt Romney: HE HAS NOT BEEN CONSISTENT ON HIS SUPPORT FOR REAL MARRIAGE. First, in 2001-2, Romney opposed a proposed constitutional amendment in Massachusetts, which would have banned "gay marriage" and also "civil unions". Romney said that was "too extreme". Understand that he thinks we need to respect all citizens, no matter what choices they may make in their lives. So apparently, in 2001-2, Romney supported civil unions. And if that wasn't the basis for opposing the amendment, maybe he just didn't want to ban "gay marriage"? We ask his Mr. Romney to clarify his opposition to the 2002 Mass. marriage amendment. And further, why didn't he make a stink then that the Legislature unconstitutionally threw it into the dustbin? (He became Governor in January 2003, days after that happened.)
Then in 2005-6, suddenly Romney favored the new proposed Mass. marriage amendment, which would NOT ban civil unions, and which would let stand the existing "gay marriages" (since May 2004).
So first he's against a marriage amendment, then he's for one. Is this a flip-flop? Or -- is there some consistency? Romney seems to want to keep open the possibility for civil unions in both instances. Interesting.
Hello, Romney campaign. Please explain!
Friday, February 09, 2007
Linguine Spines in Maine State House
Mike Heath, Executive Director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, tells the truth there, as we do in Massachusetts. In this spineless age, that can make you pretty unpopular in places like State Houses. Here is the depressing news from Maine -- plus Heath's CALL TO ACTION. Where are the men and women of principle? Heath writes:
Want to Join Me?
You may have noticed that no proposal has surfaced in Maine's legislature to enact sodomy-based marriage, otherwise known as same sex marriage. I don't like to use the phrase "same sex marriage" because that is their term of art.... The only reason Maine didn't beat Massachusetts and become the first state in America with sodomy-based marriage is because the Christian Civic League of Maine looked around at the army and decided that someone needed to confront the giant.
We haven't slain Goliath yet. We are still polishing our stones. Many Christian forces are more like Saul and his army camped in the field drinking and making merry while Goliath wanders out to the middle of the field each day to taunt them and their God. Just as Saul's army was entertained by Goliath, Christians allow themselves today to be entertained by the antics of the anti-God crowd. They'd prefer not to confront the giant.
And make no mistake, the anti-God crowd is in power in Maine.
The leader of Maine's REPUBLICAN party says he has no interest in social issues. His number two man defends the foolish "diversity days" that are popping up in public schools all over Maine. The most recent one at Cony High School included a "transgendered" teenager as a workshop leader.
Make no mistake. The anti-God crowd runs the Maine State House. They are happy with abortion and homosexuality. And the Christians who serve there do not have the stomach to fight them. When I angered the anti-God left a few years ago the State House stopped business to craft a letter condemning me. Every Senator signed the letter condemning me, even some I consider to be friends. I consider the letter to be a badge of honor.
And you know something. I don't blame the Christians for camping out. Goliath is big and scary while the army that camps behind him on the battlefield is bigger and scarier.
The bigness and scariness of the enemy army isn't important to God. He always works though individuals. He works through men like David. Individuals like you. Your courage, clear- headedness and morality will glorify God today. God isn't impressed by armies, nations and technology. David was called a man after God's own heart.
See the news from the Christian Civic League of Maine.
Want to Join Me?
You may have noticed that no proposal has surfaced in Maine's legislature to enact sodomy-based marriage, otherwise known as same sex marriage. I don't like to use the phrase "same sex marriage" because that is their term of art.... The only reason Maine didn't beat Massachusetts and become the first state in America with sodomy-based marriage is because the Christian Civic League of Maine looked around at the army and decided that someone needed to confront the giant.
We haven't slain Goliath yet. We are still polishing our stones. Many Christian forces are more like Saul and his army camped in the field drinking and making merry while Goliath wanders out to the middle of the field each day to taunt them and their God. Just as Saul's army was entertained by Goliath, Christians allow themselves today to be entertained by the antics of the anti-God crowd. They'd prefer not to confront the giant.
And make no mistake, the anti-God crowd is in power in Maine.
The leader of Maine's REPUBLICAN party says he has no interest in social issues. His number two man defends the foolish "diversity days" that are popping up in public schools all over Maine. The most recent one at Cony High School included a "transgendered" teenager as a workshop leader.
Make no mistake. The anti-God crowd runs the Maine State House. They are happy with abortion and homosexuality. And the Christians who serve there do not have the stomach to fight them. When I angered the anti-God left a few years ago the State House stopped business to craft a letter condemning me. Every Senator signed the letter condemning me, even some I consider to be friends. I consider the letter to be a badge of honor.
And you know something. I don't blame the Christians for camping out. Goliath is big and scary while the army that camps behind him on the battlefield is bigger and scarier.
The bigness and scariness of the enemy army isn't important to God. He always works though individuals. He works through men like David. Individuals like you. Your courage, clear- headedness and morality will glorify God today. God isn't impressed by armies, nations and technology. David was called a man after God's own heart.
See the news from the Christian Civic League of Maine.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Gill's Homosexual $Millions Coming Into Massachusetts
We've warned Massachusetts that millionaire homosexual activist "philanthropist" Tim Gill was sending $MILLIONS into Massachusetts to help overturn sane government. He's already targeted State Rep. Phil Travis (and maybe others). We're sure he'll donate massive funds to defeat VoteOnMarriage's amendment in any way he can. Remember his chief operative on this, Patrick Guerriero, is a Massachusetts boy working closely with Arline Isaacson (Mass. Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus) and the MassEquality crowd.
From today's Bay Windows, "On Snickers bars, ... and political activist Tim Gill":
Worth a read: This month’s Atlantic Monthly includes a terrific piece by Joshua Green on the state-by-state strategy of defeating anti-gay politicians taken by wealthy gays like Tim Gill. Titled “They Won’t Know What Hit Them,” the piece includes an interview with the reclusive Gill, who explains his strategy of targeting state lawmakers for defeat: “The strategic piece of the puzzle we’d been missing — consistent across almost every legislature we examined — is that it’s often just a handful of people, two or three, who introduce the most outrageous legislation and force the rest of their colleagues to vote on it. If you could reach these few people or neutralize them by flipping the chamber to leaders who would block bad legislation, you’d have a dramatic effect.”Gill had a list of 70 lawmakers targeted for defeat; it included Massachusetts representative Phil Travis (who ultimately resigned rather than seek reelection). Fifty of those Gill set out to unseat lost their jobs. He’s already at work on a much bigger list for 2008.
From today's Bay Windows, "On Snickers bars, ... and political activist Tim Gill":
Worth a read: This month’s Atlantic Monthly includes a terrific piece by Joshua Green on the state-by-state strategy of defeating anti-gay politicians taken by wealthy gays like Tim Gill. Titled “They Won’t Know What Hit Them,” the piece includes an interview with the reclusive Gill, who explains his strategy of targeting state lawmakers for defeat: “The strategic piece of the puzzle we’d been missing — consistent across almost every legislature we examined — is that it’s often just a handful of people, two or three, who introduce the most outrageous legislation and force the rest of their colleagues to vote on it. If you could reach these few people or neutralize them by flipping the chamber to leaders who would block bad legislation, you’d have a dramatic effect.”Gill had a list of 70 lawmakers targeted for defeat; it included Massachusetts representative Phil Travis (who ultimately resigned rather than seek reelection). Fifty of those Gill set out to unseat lost their jobs. He’s already at work on a much bigger list for 2008.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Polygamy & BDSM Advocate Behind Anti-Bullying Programs in Schools
Valerie White of Sharon, MA Polyamory/polygamy advocate, founder of "UU's for Polyamory Awareness"
Legal defender of sadomasochists
Advocate for "anti-bullying" programs in schools
Who's really behind the "anti-bullying" agenda in the schools? (MassResistance has spotlighted this issue before.) It's the radical homosexual movement and its allies among the "transgenders", polyamorists/would-be polygamists, and "alternative sexuality" crowd (including the sado-masochists). It's their latest propaganda ploy: using kids' normal cruelty to one another as an entree for their message about accepting everyone --no matter how they're different.
Don't believe it? Have a look at the person behind an innocuous sounding letter published in the Boston Globe (2-2-07): "Bullying infects the school setting," by one Valerie White of Sharon, Massachusetts. And you can be sure the editors at the Boston Globe know exactly who Valerie White is....
Valerie White (see her web site) is an activist for "alternative sexual expression" -- including polygamy, polyamory, and BDSM (torture, sadomasochism, dangerous sexual perversions, etc.). She's a board member of the Unitarian pro-polyamory group called "Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness," and an ordained "Humanist" minister. (Now recall that the Unitarians have been a huge prime mover for "homosexual marriage." Their national headquarters building is immediately adjacent to the Mass. State House; how convenient!)
White has set up a legal foundation to defend practitioners of "alternative sexual expression," including BDSM, the Sexual Freedom Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. (See "BDSM & the law" web posting):
People who practice alternative sexual expression can sometimes find themselves in trouble. Like the 'Paddleboro' defendants in Massachusetts, they may be charged with crimes under archaic laws. They may face the loss of custody of their children. The Sexual Freedom Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. has been established to help people who find themselves in this kind of trouble.... The agency has applied for 501c3 status as a tax exempt organization. "We want to focus on alternative sexual expression among consenting adults, like polyamory, swinging, BDSM, fetishism and so forth" White says. "GLBT folks already have a great resource in the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund."
Just this past October, Ms. White gave two lectures at the PFLAG/Transgender conference in Worcester (Transcending Boundaries):
1. Valerie White: Polyamory 101
Limited to participants who are 18 and older. What is "polyamory" anyway? Don't people get jealous? Isn't polyamory just a fancy word for good old-fashioned cheating? How is it different from swinging? Is polyamory the same thing as polygamy? Is it safe to be "out" as polyamorous? What about the kids? How did this movement get started? How is it different from the "free love" of the sixties? How can people find out if this lovestyle is for them? Participants at all levels are welcome.
2. NELA (New England Leather Alliance) Representative Vivienne Kramer and Valerie White: Legal Issues and Being Kinky: Oil and Water!
Limited to participants who are 18 and older. How can you express kinky sexuality without encountering law enforcement? What should you do if you are questioned by police about what you do in the bedroom? This workshop will identify varieties of kinky sex and provide some clear guidelines to help you stay out of trouble. It will answer your questions about the current state of the law in the areas of a variety of alt.sex communities, sex toys, BDSM, sodomy, and assault as well as what’s on the horizon nationally.
Limited to participants who are 18 and older. How can you express kinky sexuality without encountering law enforcement? What should you do if you are questioned by police about what you do in the bedroom? This workshop will identify varieties of kinky sex and provide some clear guidelines to help you stay out of trouble. It will answer your questions about the current state of the law in the areas of a variety of alt.sex communities, sex toys, BDSM, sodomy, and assault as well as what’s on the horizon nationally.
In an article in Weekly Standard, Stanley Kurtz quoted White as a prominent advocate for polyamory and polygamy. (See "Here Come the Brides: Plural marriage is waiting in the wings," 12-26-05):
Valerie White,... founder of the [Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA)] let Bi Magazine know in 2003 that UUPA planned to keep its quest for recognition on temporary hold: "It
put too much ammunition in the hands of the opponents of gay marriage.... Our brothers and sisters in the LGBT community are fighting a battle that they're close to winning, and we don't want to do anything that would cause that fight to take a step backwards." In short, the Unitarians are holding the polyamorists at arm's length only until gay marriage has been safely legalized across the nation. At that point, the Unitarian campaign for state-recognized polyamorous marriage will almost certainly begin.
White's web site brags: "Valerie has spoken on polyamory and on sexual freedom and the law at True Colors, Transcending Boundaries, PolyCampCon, Poly Pride New York, Unitarian Universalist General Assembly, Boston Area Sex and Spirituality Network, PolyLiving, Loving More East Coast, the Bedford Lyceum and Building Bridges. She has had articles on polyamory published in 'The Humanist' and 'Loving More' magazines."
Her "Sexual Freedom Legal Defense & Education Fund" links to these groups:
Alternatives to Marriage Project; BDSM and the Law; International Lifestyle Association (for swingers); Kink Aware Professionals; Loving More magazine; National Association of Swing Clubs; National Leather Association; National Coalition for Sexual Freedom; New England Leather Alliance; Pagan Sex Cult; Polyamory Awareness and Acceptance; The Institute for 21st Century Relationships; Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness; Woodhull Freedom Foundation.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Proof Romney Is Not Conservative
More Romney "news" -- His "go-t0 guy for conservatives," Peter Flaherty, is profiled in the Boston Globe today. But none of Brian Camenker's comments to the reporter, Scott Helman, made it into the article.
Brian pointed out that if Romney is such a conservative, why does he need a liaison to conservatives? And why does he need someone to think through conservative issues for him?
The answer is that neither Romney nor the people he surrounds himself with have ever been conservatives. Does Hillary Clinton need to hire a liaison to liberals? Of course not.
Brian pointed out that if Romney is such a conservative, why does he need a liaison to conservatives? And why does he need someone to think through conservative issues for him?
The answer is that neither Romney nor the people he surrounds himself with have ever been conservatives. Does Hillary Clinton need to hire a liaison to liberals? Of course not.
Romney Gets Personal
Some of us involved in politics -- especially we grassroots activist types -- deal with ISSUES and FACTS. The Romney campaign believes in PERSONAL attacks:
"A Republican candidate, former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, most recently moved to regain control of his image as a social conservative after being confronted with video clips from 1994 that showed him defending abortion rights and gay rights. As that video moved through the YouTube universe, Romney responded quickly, saying he had been wrong on some issues in 1994, a statement that was swiftly captured on YouTube as well.
" 'In previous campaigns you'd think or hope that the threat would just go away, but now it's imperative that you attack back quickly and personally, and with advanced technology,' said Kevin Madden, an adviser to Romney."
--"Downloading a new era in presidential politics," International Herald Tribune, 1-31-07.
"A Republican candidate, former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, most recently moved to regain control of his image as a social conservative after being confronted with video clips from 1994 that showed him defending abortion rights and gay rights. As that video moved through the YouTube universe, Romney responded quickly, saying he had been wrong on some issues in 1994, a statement that was swiftly captured on YouTube as well.
" 'In previous campaigns you'd think or hope that the threat would just go away, but now it's imperative that you attack back quickly and personally, and with advanced technology,' said Kevin Madden, an adviser to Romney."
--"Downloading a new era in presidential politics," International Herald Tribune, 1-31-07.
National Republican Pro-Life Group Contests Romney's Claims
Mitt Romney is running for the Republican nomination for President. It doesn't appear he'll be able to fool the real pro-life Republicans much longer. Killing human embryos for research and aborting babies resulting from rape or incest are both anathema to the true pro-lifer. The Republican National Coalition for Life reminds us that "The Republican Party was founded on the principle that no human being should be considered the property of another." And that includes babies.
From their "FaxNotes" (2-3-07):
MITT ROMNEY SUPPORTS KILLING HUMAN EMBRYOS FOR RESEARCH
Despite his recent professed conversion to the pro-life side of the debate after more than thirty years of supporting Roe v. Wade and legal abortion, when it comes to respect for the sanctity of human life, Mitt Romney is on the wrong side.
Governor Romney’s claim that he is “pro-life” is belied by his position on the “use” of human embryos for research purposes. We know that every one of us started life as an embryo. An embryois a human organism. An embryo is a human being at the earliest stage ofdevelopment. As such, human embryos deserve respect and protection under the law. They are denied that respect and protection in the United States of America. That is because it is legal to kill them and use their stem cells for scientific experiments, as long as it is done with private money.
It is a practice that ought to be banned in this country, as it has been in others. Instead, all that has been done on their behalf is to deny the expenditure offederal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), except for the stem cell lines taken from embryos killed prior to August 9, 2001, a date chosen by President Bush in a Solomon-like compromise with the biotech industry which supports ESCR and those who warn of the ethical and moral implications of killing and using human beings in pursuit of some potential--but very likely unachievable--benefit to others.
Governor Romney, who has established an exploratory committee for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, says he is now “pro-life”after more than thirty years of staunch support for Roe v. Wade. How can he make that claim when, on the one hand he says he opposes creating human embryos for research purposes (cloning), yet, on the other hand he says he supports using human embryos created for another purpose, that of in vitro fertilization? It’s a distinction without a difference! He sanctions the killing of embryos “left over” from IVF treatments “provided that those embryos are obtained after a rigorous parental consent process that includesadoption as an alternative.”
Mitt Romney’s position on embryonic stem cell research is not pro-life, and no one should say that it is. The embryos engendered through IVF are the children of the couples involved. Even though they can only be seen under a microscope, should their parents be allowed to have them killed? The answer to that would be YES if your views have been molded by 34 years ofthe effects of Roe v. Wade.
In addition, Mitt Romney justifies abortion for babies conceived through rape or incest. That is not a pro-life position. It is a pro-abortion-choice position that is held by Senator John McCain, another 2008 hopeful who also supports ESCR. The third candidate listed by the media as a “top-tier” contender for the nomination is former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a strong proponent of Roe and supporter of abortion on demand.
Pro-life voters should look elsewhere for a candidate to support. Never forget that you were once an embryo!
From their "FaxNotes" (2-3-07):
MITT ROMNEY SUPPORTS KILLING HUMAN EMBRYOS FOR RESEARCH
Despite his recent professed conversion to the pro-life side of the debate after more than thirty years of supporting Roe v. Wade and legal abortion, when it comes to respect for the sanctity of human life, Mitt Romney is on the wrong side.
Governor Romney’s claim that he is “pro-life” is belied by his position on the “use” of human embryos for research purposes. We know that every one of us started life as an embryo. An embryois a human organism. An embryo is a human being at the earliest stage ofdevelopment. As such, human embryos deserve respect and protection under the law. They are denied that respect and protection in the United States of America. That is because it is legal to kill them and use their stem cells for scientific experiments, as long as it is done with private money.
It is a practice that ought to be banned in this country, as it has been in others. Instead, all that has been done on their behalf is to deny the expenditure offederal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), except for the stem cell lines taken from embryos killed prior to August 9, 2001, a date chosen by President Bush in a Solomon-like compromise with the biotech industry which supports ESCR and those who warn of the ethical and moral implications of killing and using human beings in pursuit of some potential--but very likely unachievable--benefit to others.
Governor Romney, who has established an exploratory committee for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, says he is now “pro-life”after more than thirty years of staunch support for Roe v. Wade. How can he make that claim when, on the one hand he says he opposes creating human embryos for research purposes (cloning), yet, on the other hand he says he supports using human embryos created for another purpose, that of in vitro fertilization? It’s a distinction without a difference! He sanctions the killing of embryos “left over” from IVF treatments “provided that those embryos are obtained after a rigorous parental consent process that includesadoption as an alternative.”
Mitt Romney’s position on embryonic stem cell research is not pro-life, and no one should say that it is. The embryos engendered through IVF are the children of the couples involved. Even though they can only be seen under a microscope, should their parents be allowed to have them killed? The answer to that would be YES if your views have been molded by 34 years ofthe effects of Roe v. Wade.
In addition, Mitt Romney justifies abortion for babies conceived through rape or incest. That is not a pro-life position. It is a pro-abortion-choice position that is held by Senator John McCain, another 2008 hopeful who also supports ESCR. The third candidate listed by the media as a “top-tier” contender for the nomination is former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a strong proponent of Roe and supporter of abortion on demand.
Pro-life voters should look elsewhere for a candidate to support. Never forget that you were once an embryo!
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Romney Polling Poorly in Michigan
Thanks to Gary Glenn, American Family Association in Michigan, for this tip:
Romney is polling poorly in Michigan. But why? Is it because voters are not yet "familiar with his positions on important issues"? Or is it because they are? If not, they certainly will be soon. At any rate, Romney doesn't appear to be a viable alternative to McCain in Michigan at this point. From the Detroit Free Press:
Romney's name doesn't help him in poll (2-4-07)
One surprise in the Free Press/Local 4 Michigan poll was the weak showing of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who finished a distant fourth among Republicans and lost by the largest margins in head-to-head match-ups against the top three Democrats.
The poll of Republican voters had a significant plus or minus 8 percentage points margin of error, but Rudy Giuliani and John McCain were both around 30%, far ahead of Romney's 8%. [Newt Gingrich ranked third.] The margin of error in the head-to-head races was plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.
Romney's father, the late George Romney, was Michigan's governor in the 1960s. Romney has been endorsed by at least 50 state legislators and several members of the state's GOP congressional delegation.
Romney spokeswoman Sarah Pompei said while people in Michigan may know his name, they're not yet familiar with his positions on important issues.
John Haskins comments:
Apparently, there are still plenty of people in the grass roots in places like Michigan who prefer facts and truth to the infallible guidance of the "conservative" nomenklatura, more and more of whom are selling their dubious seals of approval in return for cash, flattery, and promises from Slick Willard Romney.
Facts are very stubborn things, even when much of the "conservative" establishment insists the truth is either a lie or irrelevant. How terribly tragic that "conservatism" -- even the "pro-family" variety -- more and more often comes down to respectable collective denial of legal, constitutional, historical, sociological, psychological, theological and moral reality. Reality has terrible table manners and there's nothing establishment "conservatives" detest more than poor table manners. They'd rather just admit that they're really just liberals who don't like bumps in the road.
Establishment "conservatives" -- whatever that debauched word still means -- share the deathwish of the shriveling, wrinkled, contorted remains of Western Civilization. They just want the irritating doctor to go away. A slow couch-potato death, ameliorated by the narcotics of material wealth, is just plain easier than cutting the cancer out. As Joseph Farah (WorldNetDaily) points out, the fatal flaw in conservatism is that it is conservative where Christ, His apostles and prophets -- not to mention the Founding Fathers -- were radical.
Mitt Romney is an empty mannequin, a stage prop whose purpose is to maintain, for another brief moment in history, the illusion that social conservatism and its pathetic political bedmates are still vibrant and viable. On the contrary, social conservatism is being killed off by its own "leaders," lawyers and pundits, for whom the crusade to save American decency long ago became merely a career.
Thanks in part to true conservatives, like Gary Glenn in Michigan, lots of people in that state are not quite ready for their children's culture to die while they vegetate comfortably before their large-screen TV's.
Romney is polling poorly in Michigan. But why? Is it because voters are not yet "familiar with his positions on important issues"? Or is it because they are? If not, they certainly will be soon. At any rate, Romney doesn't appear to be a viable alternative to McCain in Michigan at this point. From the Detroit Free Press:
Romney's name doesn't help him in poll (2-4-07)
One surprise in the Free Press/Local 4 Michigan poll was the weak showing of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who finished a distant fourth among Republicans and lost by the largest margins in head-to-head match-ups against the top three Democrats.
The poll of Republican voters had a significant plus or minus 8 percentage points margin of error, but Rudy Giuliani and John McCain were both around 30%, far ahead of Romney's 8%. [Newt Gingrich ranked third.] The margin of error in the head-to-head races was plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.
Romney's father, the late George Romney, was Michigan's governor in the 1960s. Romney has been endorsed by at least 50 state legislators and several members of the state's GOP congressional delegation.
Romney spokeswoman Sarah Pompei said while people in Michigan may know his name, they're not yet familiar with his positions on important issues.
John Haskins comments:
Apparently, there are still plenty of people in the grass roots in places like Michigan who prefer facts and truth to the infallible guidance of the "conservative" nomenklatura, more and more of whom are selling their dubious seals of approval in return for cash, flattery, and promises from Slick Willard Romney.
Facts are very stubborn things, even when much of the "conservative" establishment insists the truth is either a lie or irrelevant. How terribly tragic that "conservatism" -- even the "pro-family" variety -- more and more often comes down to respectable collective denial of legal, constitutional, historical, sociological, psychological, theological and moral reality. Reality has terrible table manners and there's nothing establishment "conservatives" detest more than poor table manners. They'd rather just admit that they're really just liberals who don't like bumps in the road.
Establishment "conservatives" -- whatever that debauched word still means -- share the deathwish of the shriveling, wrinkled, contorted remains of Western Civilization. They just want the irritating doctor to go away. A slow couch-potato death, ameliorated by the narcotics of material wealth, is just plain easier than cutting the cancer out. As Joseph Farah (WorldNetDaily) points out, the fatal flaw in conservatism is that it is conservative where Christ, His apostles and prophets -- not to mention the Founding Fathers -- were radical.
Mitt Romney is an empty mannequin, a stage prop whose purpose is to maintain, for another brief moment in history, the illusion that social conservatism and its pathetic political bedmates are still vibrant and viable. On the contrary, social conservatism is being killed off by its own "leaders," lawyers and pundits, for whom the crusade to save American decency long ago became merely a career.
Thanks in part to true conservatives, like Gary Glenn in Michigan, lots of people in that state are not quite ready for their children's culture to die while they vegetate comfortably before their large-screen TV's.
Even Liberals Are Laughing at Mitt Romney
See commentary by John Haskins below on Ellen Goodman's op-ed in the Boston Globe a few days back. Here's an excerpt from Goodman's column, "Mitt's turnaround" (2-2-07):
... Bay State politicians -- from John Adams to Mike Dukakis -- have long suffered from Potomac Fever. But Steve Crosby, dean of the McCormack Graduate School at the UMass-Boston and a chief honcho for two previous Republican governors, says Romney suffers from "Potomac Ebola Virus." A particularly virulent strain has infected the man running from Massachusetts. Or should I say, running away from Massachusetts. Or against Massachusetts.
Our man Mitt is positioning himself to the right of every Republican candidate except Kansas Senator Sam Brownback. He has famously told audiences that "being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention." He's repeatedly described himself as a lonely figure fighting the values fight against "the Kennedy-apologist, knee-jerk Clinton supporters" and ... you get the idea.
Even "Evangelicals for Mitt" -- yes, there is such a website -- says that "He shares our values, and he's fought for those values in hostile territory."
The idea, the pitch, the shtick is that if Romney can make it as a conservative Republican here, he can make it anywhere. There's only one small problem: He didn't make it here as a conservative. Romney ran and won as the fourth in a direct line of moderate GOP governors....
... you can also regard Romney as the veritable model of the Venture Capitalist as Politician, doing and saying whatever it takes. Indeed, [Steve] Crosby ["dean of the McCormack Graduate School at the UMass-Boston and a chief honcho for two previous Republican governors"] describes Romney's governorship as like "a corporate takeover. . . . He took over the asset, stripped it of what it was worth to leverage him into another asset, the presidency. There's no way to think he has any core beliefs other than leveraging to the next acquisition." ...
John Haskins comments:
Yep. I'm fairly sure Mitt does share the values of "Evangelicals for Mitt." That's why he illegally imposed sodomy-based marriage and claimed the smirking judges "made him do it." Unfortunately for Mitt and the mercenary "lawyers" at "Evangelicals for Mitt," the same judges later admitted to the whole world that they had absolutely no legal power to compel Slick Willard to do anything.
Poor Mitt. Whom can he trust? He goes the extra mile to give "activist judges" more than they ever asked for, even proving that he was willing to violate a constitution, make liars and fools of the Founding Fathers and mock the solemn oath he took. Then what do those unprincipled liberal "activist judges" do? They turn around and stab him in the back by telling everyone that judges can't make governors (or legislators) impose homosexual "marriage."
That was supposed to be Romney's little secret! Even superlawyers "Jay-Jay the Jet Plane" Sekulow, Mr. Bopp and ADF's constitutional-surrender experts, Glen Lavy and David French, were with Mitt on that -- pretending the Court made him do it!
So with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court having humiliated Jay-Jay, Bopp, and the ADF by confirming the supposedly "amateurish and bizarre" (French's words) legal analysis on the Pro-Family Leaders' Letter to Romney, why does Slick Willard Romney still think he can pass himself off as a conservative? Well, because people like French and his wife apparently can continue to pass themselves off as conservatives, merely by calling others "liars" for publicizing the indisputable facts on Mitt.
The great Malcolm Muggeridge observed that we don't believe political lies because they are credible; we believe them because we want to. And that observation explains why the pro-family movement keeps hiring lawyers and decision-makers who shoot those who are "amateurish and bizarre" enough not to collaborate in the permanent surrender.
As for Romney's famous boast -- "being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention" -- well, Mitt, it's great to speculate. Now talk from experience: What's it like to be the Ivy League vegetarian trying to fake it as a cowboy on the big cattle drive? That would seem to be an impossible task, unless you've identified the moles among the cowboys: "pro-family constitutional attorneys" who spend their credibility ignoring or lying about constitutions.
As I've said all along: there are people who will either lose their jobs or they will continue to fake it as "pro-family constitutionalists" and who will continue to destroy the movement from within ... until there's nothing left to destroy.
John Haskins is a frequent contributor to the MassResistance blog.
... Bay State politicians -- from John Adams to Mike Dukakis -- have long suffered from Potomac Fever. But Steve Crosby, dean of the McCormack Graduate School at the UMass-Boston and a chief honcho for two previous Republican governors, says Romney suffers from "Potomac Ebola Virus." A particularly virulent strain has infected the man running from Massachusetts. Or should I say, running away from Massachusetts. Or against Massachusetts.
Our man Mitt is positioning himself to the right of every Republican candidate except Kansas Senator Sam Brownback. He has famously told audiences that "being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention." He's repeatedly described himself as a lonely figure fighting the values fight against "the Kennedy-apologist, knee-jerk Clinton supporters" and ... you get the idea.
Even "Evangelicals for Mitt" -- yes, there is such a website -- says that "He shares our values, and he's fought for those values in hostile territory."
The idea, the pitch, the shtick is that if Romney can make it as a conservative Republican here, he can make it anywhere. There's only one small problem: He didn't make it here as a conservative. Romney ran and won as the fourth in a direct line of moderate GOP governors....
... you can also regard Romney as the veritable model of the Venture Capitalist as Politician, doing and saying whatever it takes. Indeed, [Steve] Crosby ["dean of the McCormack Graduate School at the UMass-Boston and a chief honcho for two previous Republican governors"] describes Romney's governorship as like "a corporate takeover. . . . He took over the asset, stripped it of what it was worth to leverage him into another asset, the presidency. There's no way to think he has any core beliefs other than leveraging to the next acquisition." ...
John Haskins comments:
Yep. I'm fairly sure Mitt does share the values of "Evangelicals for Mitt." That's why he illegally imposed sodomy-based marriage and claimed the smirking judges "made him do it." Unfortunately for Mitt and the mercenary "lawyers" at "Evangelicals for Mitt," the same judges later admitted to the whole world that they had absolutely no legal power to compel Slick Willard to do anything.
Poor Mitt. Whom can he trust? He goes the extra mile to give "activist judges" more than they ever asked for, even proving that he was willing to violate a constitution, make liars and fools of the Founding Fathers and mock the solemn oath he took. Then what do those unprincipled liberal "activist judges" do? They turn around and stab him in the back by telling everyone that judges can't make governors (or legislators) impose homosexual "marriage."
That was supposed to be Romney's little secret! Even superlawyers "Jay-Jay the Jet Plane" Sekulow, Mr. Bopp and ADF's constitutional-surrender experts, Glen Lavy and David French, were with Mitt on that -- pretending the Court made him do it!
So with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court having humiliated Jay-Jay, Bopp, and the ADF by confirming the supposedly "amateurish and bizarre" (French's words) legal analysis on the Pro-Family Leaders' Letter to Romney, why does Slick Willard Romney still think he can pass himself off as a conservative? Well, because people like French and his wife apparently can continue to pass themselves off as conservatives, merely by calling others "liars" for publicizing the indisputable facts on Mitt.
The great Malcolm Muggeridge observed that we don't believe political lies because they are credible; we believe them because we want to. And that observation explains why the pro-family movement keeps hiring lawyers and decision-makers who shoot those who are "amateurish and bizarre" enough not to collaborate in the permanent surrender.
As for Romney's famous boast -- "being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention" -- well, Mitt, it's great to speculate. Now talk from experience: What's it like to be the Ivy League vegetarian trying to fake it as a cowboy on the big cattle drive? That would seem to be an impossible task, unless you've identified the moles among the cowboys: "pro-family constitutional attorneys" who spend their credibility ignoring or lying about constitutions.
As I've said all along: there are people who will either lose their jobs or they will continue to fake it as "pro-family constitutionalists" and who will continue to destroy the movement from within ... until there's nothing left to destroy.
John Haskins is a frequent contributor to the MassResistance blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)