As Mitt Romney kicks off his Presidential fundraising today in Boston, he'll have to hope his would-be supporters aren't aware of how dismally he's doing in the polls. A CBS survey of possible Presidential candidates in the first week of January looks really bad for him.
From a few days ago, on Ankle-Biting Pundit:
"... The big surprise is how bad former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s numbers are. They are, frankly, almost bad enough to bump him out of the first tier of candidates. While very few people have formulated an opinion of him (15%), those that have formed an opinion do not appear to like what they see. His Fav/Unfav is 5/10. In the biz, we say his numbers are “upside down.” I cannot stress enough how bad these numbers are."
Monday, January 08, 2007
Friday, January 05, 2007
Mass. Legislature's New Media Policy Is Absurd
OK, so now we're open to prosecution for posting something from the Mass. House of Representatives web site? Come and get us! We think we're violating the new "USAGE" POLICY of the Massachusetts House of Representatives by reprinting their "USAGE" policy on our blog (see below). And we'll be guilty in the future if we reprint the text of a bill. Or use excerpts from PUBLIC hearings from their "HouseTV" website. Unbelievable! (Thanks to our friends at Catch of the Day Video News for this tip.)
Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"? Not in Massachusetts! What are they trying to hide? Who are they trying to silence?
We hear that the Connecticut legislature has started a similar media web site, but that state recognizes that anything that happens in their capitol is the PEOPLE'S BUSINESS! And their Legislature’s media documents belong to the PEOPLE. As it should be here.
In the recent past, you could watch State House proceedings on WGBX Ch. 44, but not any more. Now the State House will broadcast some proceedings live online. That's the good news. (See its new media page.) Up till now, they have not adequately documented or archived sessions and hearings -- not even the most important sessions, such as Constitutional Conventions. (And most hearings will probably continue to be undocumented.) The bad news: The citizens/taxpayers cannot download anything posted on its site for ANY USE without permission from the legislature!
See the new Mass. House media “usage” regulations:
USAGE
MASSACHUSETTS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTRONIC MEDIA DOWNLOAD AND REUSE POLICY
By downloading electronic media (hereinafter, "media") from the Massachusetts House of Representatives "website", and/or any related web pages, domains, and servers (hereinafter, "the website"), website users (hereinafter, "users") agree to the following terms and conditions:
"Media" may be defined as (but not limited to):
Text, as contained in .html, Microsoft Word, Adobe Acrobat, and other applicable document formats
Streaming audio
Streaming video
Audio files, as contained in MP3, WAV, WMA and other applicable file formats
Video files, as contained in MP4, WMV, AVI, MPEG, MOV, and other applicable file formats
Media downloaded from the website is for private use only; the Massachussetts House of Representatives reserves all rights to all downloaded media.
No downloaded media may be reposted or re-used in its entirety in any application without the express written consent of the House of Representatives.
No excerpts of downloaded media may be edited or incorporated into other productions without the express written consent of the Massachusetts House of Representatives.
Use of any media in the context of political advertising or communication is expressly forbidden.
Usage of VHS or DVD copies of programming ordered from the website is governed by the Broadcast Videocassette Distribution Policy (for discussion purposes).
Hey, guess what: MassResistance does NOT agree to these terms!
Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"? Not in Massachusetts! What are they trying to hide? Who are they trying to silence?
We hear that the Connecticut legislature has started a similar media web site, but that state recognizes that anything that happens in their capitol is the PEOPLE'S BUSINESS! And their Legislature’s media documents belong to the PEOPLE. As it should be here.
In the recent past, you could watch State House proceedings on WGBX Ch. 44, but not any more. Now the State House will broadcast some proceedings live online. That's the good news. (See its new media page.) Up till now, they have not adequately documented or archived sessions and hearings -- not even the most important sessions, such as Constitutional Conventions. (And most hearings will probably continue to be undocumented.) The bad news: The citizens/taxpayers cannot download anything posted on its site for ANY USE without permission from the legislature!
See the new Mass. House media “usage” regulations:
USAGE
MASSACHUSETTS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTRONIC MEDIA DOWNLOAD AND REUSE POLICY
By downloading electronic media (hereinafter, "media") from the Massachusetts House of Representatives "website", and/or any related web pages, domains, and servers (hereinafter, "the website"), website users (hereinafter, "users") agree to the following terms and conditions:
"Media" may be defined as (but not limited to):
Text, as contained in .html, Microsoft Word, Adobe Acrobat, and other applicable document formats
Streaming audio
Streaming video
Audio files, as contained in MP3, WAV, WMA and other applicable file formats
Video files, as contained in MP4, WMV, AVI, MPEG, MOV, and other applicable file formats
Media downloaded from the website is for private use only; the Massachussetts House of Representatives reserves all rights to all downloaded media.
No downloaded media may be reposted or re-used in its entirety in any application without the express written consent of the House of Representatives.
No excerpts of downloaded media may be edited or incorporated into other productions without the express written consent of the Massachusetts House of Representatives.
Use of any media in the context of political advertising or communication is expressly forbidden.
Usage of VHS or DVD copies of programming ordered from the website is governed by the Broadcast Videocassette Distribution Policy (for discussion purposes).
Hey, guess what: MassResistance does NOT agree to these terms!
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Romney Polls 4% Among Republicans
Gov. Mitt Romney handing over symbols of government to
Gov.-Elect Deval Patrick.
They must only be SYMBOLS, because the book of STATUTES he's handing over does NOT include a statute legalizing "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts -- yet everyone pretends it's "legal"!
[Photo: thebostonchannel.com]
So Romney has formally opened his "exploratory" committee for his presidential campaign. As of about 9 pm on 1/3, the "unscientific" Channel 5 poll on his chances of becoming President had 40% saying poor, and 33% saying extremely poor (out of 366 votes). Where does he think he's going with only 4% in a national poll (down from 5% a month earlier), according to Gallup?
12/11-14/06; 11/9-12/06John McCain 28% ; 26%
Rudy Giuliani 28% ; 28%
Condoleezza Rice 12% ; 13%
Newt Gingrich 8% ; 7%
Mitt Romney 4% ; 5%
[+ others all at 2%, 1% or less]
Also, Human Events reported last month in "A Primer on the 2008 GOP Candidates":
[+ others all at 2%, 1% or less]
Also, Human Events reported last month in "A Primer on the 2008 GOP Candidates":
... Mitt Romney is an interesting character. Although he is the outgoing governor of the very liberal state of Massachusetts and was named as one of the Top 10 RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) less than a year ago in HUMAN EVENTS, he's not as liberal as he might appear at first glance.... [A]ccording to recent polls, even if you set aside the debate about how conservative he is or isn't, the "Mormon issue" is starting to look like an insurmountable obstacle to his candidacy. According to Rasmussen Polling, 43% of Americans and 53% of Evangelicals say that they, "wouldn't consider voting for a Mormon candidate." For good or ill, that probably means that Romney is unelectable.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Today's Marriage Amendment Vote Defeat for Homosexual Lobby
So, contrary to all expectations, the Legislature actually voted twice today to push the marriage amendment forward into the next session. Some observations on the day at the State House:
(1) It is unlikely that the vote would have happened today had it not been for the pending lawsuits against the 109 Legislators who were refusing to follow the Constitutional requirement to vote on the citizens' petition. These lawsuits are part of a more assertive, confrontational approach certain pro-family activists have been advocating for the past few years.
(2) Governor-elect Deval Patrick was lobbying today at the State House for the Legislators to again adjourn, and defy their constitutional duty to vote on the citizens' petition. So he's already proven he doesn't respect the Constitution. Not a good start. From the AP story:
Gay rights activists and Democratic Gov.-elect Deval Patrick called on the Legislature to let the measure die without a vote....
Earlier in the day, the governor-elect, who supports gay marriage, met with the leaders of the Democratic-controlled Legislature to argue against a vote, calling it a "question of conscience." Patrick charged that the amendment process was being used to "consider reinserting discrimination into the constitution."
"This is not just another question for popular decision. This is a question, under the equal protection clause, about what freedoms the minority is entitled to," Patrick said.
(3) This was a major blow to the GLBT lobby. Arline Isaacson appears to be barely holding back her tears in the AP photo. But instead of MassEquality closing down (as they speculated they might do after their "victory" in November), we'll have to put up with them for the foreseeable future. Millions will flow into the state to fight the amendment.
(4) The homosexual activists outside on the street had apparently been given orders to tone down their thuggish behavior, after reports and videos of their behavior in November. They were fewer in number and relatively subdued. Inside (in the Gardner Auditorium) after their defeat, they sang defiant songs including "We Shall Overcome" -- still trying to make us believe this is a matter of civil rights, rather than the normalization of perversion.
SJC Admits It Could Not Have Forced "Gay Marriage"
We'll remind the nation one last time before he leaves office: Governor Mitt Romney was responsible for starting homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts. Last week's ruling by the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court implicitly confirms that their Goodridge ruling alone could not have begun the "marriages".
The Court acknowledged last week that it cannot order the other two branches to do anything, that separation of powers means it cannot order the Legislature to vote on the marriage amendment (even though Article 48 of the state constitution clearly states they must vote).
Meanwhile, all the fuss today is over the Legislature's dereliction of its constitutional duty. But what about Romney? See today's WorldNetDaily for a summary by John Haskins, writer with MassResistance. From "Family group: Mitt Romney chose 'gay' marriage; Activist says Massachusetts court admits it couldn't force change" (WorldNetDaily, 1-2-07):
" ... Mitt Romney, no less than anyone, is subverting the Constitution day by day, having ordered public officials to solemnize sodomy marriages though they remain illegal," Haskins told WND. "On Mitt Romney's order alone, town clerks and justices of the peace are compelled to violate the Constitution they swore to uphold and the statute – which remains among the Massachusetts General Laws."
He said the early advice from conservative activists – for Romney to just ignore the court's conclusion – was the right one. "Hiding in Wednesday's ruling like an elephant in a courtroom is still more proof that Romney had a choice. The court has admitted, as it does whenever it really doesn't want to order the Legislative or Executive branches to obey the Constitution, that it actually can't."
"If there were no Massachusetts Constitution, no other proof of the high crime of Mitt Romney – this ruling proves that Mitt Romney had a choice and he chose wrong. He imposed homosexual marriage illegally, using the Goodridge decision as a smokescreen. No court forced anything on him, nor did they have any such authority, and that historic admission is implicit in this ruling," Haskins said.
The Court acknowledged last week that it cannot order the other two branches to do anything, that separation of powers means it cannot order the Legislature to vote on the marriage amendment (even though Article 48 of the state constitution clearly states they must vote).
Meanwhile, all the fuss today is over the Legislature's dereliction of its constitutional duty. But what about Romney? See today's WorldNetDaily for a summary by John Haskins, writer with MassResistance. From "Family group: Mitt Romney chose 'gay' marriage; Activist says Massachusetts court admits it couldn't force change" (WorldNetDaily, 1-2-07):
" ... Mitt Romney, no less than anyone, is subverting the Constitution day by day, having ordered public officials to solemnize sodomy marriages though they remain illegal," Haskins told WND. "On Mitt Romney's order alone, town clerks and justices of the peace are compelled to violate the Constitution they swore to uphold and the statute – which remains among the Massachusetts General Laws."
He said the early advice from conservative activists – for Romney to just ignore the court's conclusion – was the right one. "Hiding in Wednesday's ruling like an elephant in a courtroom is still more proof that Romney had a choice. The court has admitted, as it does whenever it really doesn't want to order the Legislative or Executive branches to obey the Constitution, that it actually can't."
"If there were no Massachusetts Constitution, no other proof of the high crime of Mitt Romney – this ruling proves that Mitt Romney had a choice and he chose wrong. He imposed homosexual marriage illegally, using the Goodridge decision as a smokescreen. No court forced anything on him, nor did they have any such authority, and that historic admission is implicit in this ruling," Haskins said.
Plotters Still Trying to Scuttle Marriage Amendment
THE GLBT LOBBYING TEAM:Bill Conley, MGLPC ("on leave" after disgraceful arrest for sexual solicitation)
Norma Shapiro, ACLU
Arline Isaacson, MGLPC and Mass. Teachers' Association
Of course it's hard predicting the wily actions those with foul intentions are plotting. But when reading GLBT lobbyist Arline Isaacson's cagey quote in the Globe today ("Gay marriage outcome today uncertain," 1-2-07) . . .
"We don't know what's going to happen for sure, but it does seem certainly a possibility that a vote on the petition will take place.... Isaacson said supporters of same-sex marriage have not decided on a strategy for today's convention, mainly because legislators have been on holidays and it has been difficult to take a head count. She declined to discuss what tactics are being considered. But their most viable options include pushing another vote to adjourn the convention for the year or recessing it to midnight, when the session legally expires."
"We don't know what's going to happen for sure, but it does seem certainly a possibility that a vote on the petition will take place.... Isaacson said supporters of same-sex marriage have not decided on a strategy for today's convention, mainly because legislators have been on holidays and it has been difficult to take a head count. She declined to discuss what tactics are being considered. But their most viable options include pushing another vote to adjourn the convention for the year or recessing it to midnight, when the session legally expires."
. . . we should bear in mind these words from Tom Lang, which appeared on a pro-GLBT hate blog on Dec. 28. (Lang is behind "KnowThyNeighbor", the initimidation site that posts all the marriage petition signers.) Keep them guessing, is Lang's message:
"... what is your opinion about us (the LGBT) announcing every move we are making politically? Handing out Profiles in Courage is great however do you feel that MEQ [MassEquality] should be doing press releases stating that we are asking leges to adjourn? I understand adjournment is the strategy but you understand the press and the otherside have a field day with this when it comes from its opposition. Aaron and I just yesterday took on Mineau and Paleologos on the radio. They threw in my face the BayWindows editorial which spelled out how much money the LGBT brought in for candidates and how these new leges "owe us."
"I mean think about it. This is a war. A war of strategies. Think about what happens everytime an embedded journalist leaks something during combat wars. I have always believed that it is best to keep the other side guessing...of course they find out but these announcements of strategies do us no favors."
(Now, Mr. Lang has asked to come on our MassResistance radio show on WTTT. Would he speak honestly about anything if we did have him on?)
"... what is your opinion about us (the LGBT) announcing every move we are making politically? Handing out Profiles in Courage is great however do you feel that MEQ [MassEquality] should be doing press releases stating that we are asking leges to adjourn? I understand adjournment is the strategy but you understand the press and the otherside have a field day with this when it comes from its opposition. Aaron and I just yesterday took on Mineau and Paleologos on the radio. They threw in my face the BayWindows editorial which spelled out how much money the LGBT brought in for candidates and how these new leges "owe us."
"I mean think about it. This is a war. A war of strategies. Think about what happens everytime an embedded journalist leaks something during combat wars. I have always believed that it is best to keep the other side guessing...of course they find out but these announcements of strategies do us no favors."
(Now, Mr. Lang has asked to come on our MassResistance radio show on WTTT. Would he speak honestly about anything if we did have him on?)
The Globe is clear in its advocacy. Their lead editorial urges Legislators to refuse to vote again:
The SJC asserted clearly last week that the constitution directs the Legislature to vote on the substance of the amendment. But the court was also correct in saying it cannot force an independent branch to act. The only remedy for those who believe legislators are frustrating the constitution by refusing to vote, the court noted, is at the ballot box. Just so. Most legislators would take their chances with the voters in their own districts.... This is a moment for advancing civil rights, not retreating.
Monday, January 01, 2007
MassResistance Blog Celebrates 2nd Anniversary
And the LGBTQIP radical community -- and their allies in the pro-abortion/hate-America crowd, the corrupt Legislature and Court, and the mainstream media -- are not pleased.
They've tried to intimidate us into silence. They broke into our home, warned us to "leave", sent threatening (and apparently criminally harassing) emails, badgered us on our phones, deluged our mailbox with junk, taunted us at public events. They started several hate blogs targeting us. They ID'd us as a favorite adversary in their filthy LGBT newspapers.
Now, lest the our readers think this is an exaggeration, look at what else this community has done in the past two years. They've employed unconstitutional and dishonest maneuvers to block a citizens' petition to define marriage. They used fascist tactics to drown out their opposition's attempts to peaceably assemble, including setting up false assault charges. They enlisted sympathizers in radical city administrations and police departments to extort "protection money". They rioted outside churches, set up coffins in street demonstrations without permits. They poured millions into state legislator elections, stomping on any candidate who dared express support for traditional values. They formed a national coalition of well-funded, legally savvy extremist groups to go on an all-out attack against David Parker and parents' rights. They added transsexual indoctrination to their elementary school bag of tricks.
We will continue to expose the lies, deception, and corruption of these activists and their fellow travelers. But no, we will not open up this blog to comments. Just as you can't compromise with evil, you can't dialogue with evil. If anyone has a legitimate comment to make, they can figure out how to do that through our web site.
They've tried to intimidate us into silence. They broke into our home, warned us to "leave", sent threatening (and apparently criminally harassing) emails, badgered us on our phones, deluged our mailbox with junk, taunted us at public events. They started several hate blogs targeting us. They ID'd us as a favorite adversary in their filthy LGBT newspapers.
Now, lest the our readers think this is an exaggeration, look at what else this community has done in the past two years. They've employed unconstitutional and dishonest maneuvers to block a citizens' petition to define marriage. They used fascist tactics to drown out their opposition's attempts to peaceably assemble, including setting up false assault charges. They enlisted sympathizers in radical city administrations and police departments to extort "protection money". They rioted outside churches, set up coffins in street demonstrations without permits. They poured millions into state legislator elections, stomping on any candidate who dared express support for traditional values. They formed a national coalition of well-funded, legally savvy extremist groups to go on an all-out attack against David Parker and parents' rights. They added transsexual indoctrination to their elementary school bag of tricks.
We will continue to expose the lies, deception, and corruption of these activists and their fellow travelers. But no, we will not open up this blog to comments. Just as you can't compromise with evil, you can't dialogue with evil. If anyone has a legitimate comment to make, they can figure out how to do that through our web site.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Romney Losing Key Michigan Supporters
David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Service reported on Friday (and the Boston Globe repeated today) that Mitt Romney is losing key supporters in Michigan. While the report credits the infamous 1994 letter from Romney to the Mass. Log Cabin Republicans with great impact, no mention is made of the further detail provided by our "Mitt Romney Deception" report. But we know that it, too, has made a difference there.
We've spoken with and emailed a key Republican in Michigan who was disturbed not only by the revelations in the 1994 letter, but also by Romney's record as Governor, especially his failure to stand up to judicial tyranny in Massachusetts. He failed to defy our court's illegitimate homosexual "marriage" ruling, he appointed a homosexual activists and many Democrats to judgeships, and he's refusing to fill judicial openings before leaving office (leaving these openings to an extreme leftist incoming governor to fill). All very disturbing to a committed pro-life, pro-family Republican activist in Michigan.
Brody wrote:
CBN News has been talking to operatives in the state of Michigan and the news is not good for Governor Romney. I've learned that there are at least four Republican Representatives from the Michigan State House that are seriously rethinking their support of Romney for President.
These are members of Romney's steering committee in Michigan who are now having reservations about recent revelations about Romney's past comments in regards to marriage, abortion and the Boy Scouts. There's a good chance that they could jump ship....
... the representatives who may leave Romney are really questioning the legitimacy of his conservative credentials. Romney has always said he has evolved on these issues over the years, but these folks in Michigan think it's okay to evolve, but some of this seems to be major flip flop material, especially on the life issue where they point out how he's gone from pro-choice in 1994, to pro-life in 2000, to pro-choice in 2002 and now back to pro-life.
Romney's office will dispute this, but what they can't dispute is a potential unraveling among their steering committee in Michigan. Michigan is crucial to Romney. He has significant family roots there and it's one of the first four primary states. He needs to do well there....
We've spoken with and emailed a key Republican in Michigan who was disturbed not only by the revelations in the 1994 letter, but also by Romney's record as Governor, especially his failure to stand up to judicial tyranny in Massachusetts. He failed to defy our court's illegitimate homosexual "marriage" ruling, he appointed a homosexual activists and many Democrats to judgeships, and he's refusing to fill judicial openings before leaving office (leaving these openings to an extreme leftist incoming governor to fill). All very disturbing to a committed pro-life, pro-family Republican activist in Michigan.
Brody wrote:
CBN News has been talking to operatives in the state of Michigan and the news is not good for Governor Romney. I've learned that there are at least four Republican Representatives from the Michigan State House that are seriously rethinking their support of Romney for President.
These are members of Romney's steering committee in Michigan who are now having reservations about recent revelations about Romney's past comments in regards to marriage, abortion and the Boy Scouts. There's a good chance that they could jump ship....
... the representatives who may leave Romney are really questioning the legitimacy of his conservative credentials. Romney has always said he has evolved on these issues over the years, but these folks in Michigan think it's okay to evolve, but some of this seems to be major flip flop material, especially on the life issue where they point out how he's gone from pro-choice in 1994, to pro-life in 2000, to pro-choice in 2002 and now back to pro-life.
Romney's office will dispute this, but what they can't dispute is a potential unraveling among their steering committee in Michigan. Michigan is crucial to Romney. He has significant family roots there and it's one of the first four primary states. He needs to do well there....
Will Mass. State House Mourn President Ford on Jan. 2?
President Bush announced a few days ago that Tuesday, January 2 will be a national day of mourning for former President Gerald Ford. He invites those around the world who share grief at his passing to join in this solemn observance.
Will the Massachusetts State House close down that day as a show of respect by the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Will Senate President Travaglini, House Speaker DiMasi, and the errant Legislators decide to honor Gerald Ford at their places of worship, rather than vote on the marriage amendment?
Will the Massachusetts State House close down that day as a show of respect by the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Will Senate President Travaglini, House Speaker DiMasi, and the errant Legislators decide to honor Gerald Ford at their places of worship, rather than vote on the marriage amendment?
Saturday, December 30, 2006
"Mormons Against Romney" Analyze Romney's Promise to "Sustain" Roe v. Wade
Mitt Romney promised to "sustain and support" Roe v. Wade in his 1994 campaign (against Ted Kennedy for the U.S. Senate). We just found this analysis of what "sustain" means within the Mormon faith, on the "Mormons against Romney" blog. (Not being of the Mormon faith, we have no idea if this is an orthodox interpretation. Apparently a left-leaning group, it includes links to "LDS Liberation Front" and "LDS-Left" -- as well as linking to a site peddling "Romney thongs"!) Here is their analysis, for what it's worth:
On Sustaining the Law (12-16-06)
The following statement, which has been widely reported, by Willard Mitt Romney has been rattling around in my head a fair amount recently:
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." -Mitt Romney in a 1994 Senatorial debate
In the LDS context "sustain" has a very special meaning. Whenever someone in a congregation gets a new responsibility (a calling), their names are presented in our sacrament meeting along with what they are being asked to do. This is usually presented to the congregation by a member of the local leadership as follows: "Brother Jones has been asked to serve as the 15 and 16 year-old Sunday School teacher. All that can sustain him in this calling please show by the uplifted hand." At this point members of the congregation who sustain the calling raise their right hand. The leader than says "any opposed may manifest it", and anyone who opposes the calling may raise their hand.
To me this is one of the greatest things about the Mormon experience, that when we are asked to do something in our local congregation, we can look around us and see that the people around us know what we are being asked to do, and are showing a willingness to help and support us. It is an exceptional sense of community, especially considering that at the local and regional levels there is no paid clergy. Since as a rule everyone has some responsibility in the congregation, and those responsibilities change sometimes every 2-3 years, sometimes more frequently, there is a very egalitarian aspect to how local congregations are run.
We are also taught that once we sustain someone we should do all we can to help someone in their calling, and not needlessly tear them down.... Everyone in the Church from the highest ranked ecclesiastical official on down, is supported by a sustaining. This reflection of early Mormon principles of communitarianism might surprise outside observers of Mormonism, especially when one learns how all-pervasive it is.
Current president of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley said:
“The procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected”
-Ensign, May 1995, p. 51 ...
We take the same approach to sustaining other things, such as the law of the land. Our 12th Article of Faith says that we are to sustain the law. What does this mean? The best explanation I have found is when past President of the LDS Church David O. McKay said:
“To sustain the law, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective”
-Conference Report, Apr. 1937, p. 28
When we sustain someone or something, and especially when we make that sustaining an overt public act, we take on very specific responsibilities. Support, strength, assistance even when we might personally disagree with something in the person or thing, are all things required of us in "sustaining".
When Mitt Romney was an LDS bishop he was in charge of the sustaining process every Sunday. On Sundays he didn't officiate in the process, the process was still done under his very close oversight. The LDS concept of "sustaining" can't be far from his mind when he makes statements saying he "sustains" a law. I think that in his 1994 statement quoted above he was completely on solid ground politically and spiritually. He might not love the idea of abortion personally, but it is provided for in the law and we sustain the law. If Romney ever really supported Roe v. Wade (and I know that this is in doubt in spite of his words above) then he should have had in his head the following adaptation of President McKay's counsel:
To sustain Roe v. Wade, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective.
I am not certain which is worse, that he once felt this way and turned has back on it, or that he lied in the first place and the true Romney is just now coming through. In either case, it seems to be a slap in the face for the important role sustaining plays in the Mormon experience.
[italics added]
On Sustaining the Law (12-16-06)
The following statement, which has been widely reported, by Willard Mitt Romney has been rattling around in my head a fair amount recently:
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." -Mitt Romney in a 1994 Senatorial debate
In the LDS context "sustain" has a very special meaning. Whenever someone in a congregation gets a new responsibility (a calling), their names are presented in our sacrament meeting along with what they are being asked to do. This is usually presented to the congregation by a member of the local leadership as follows: "Brother Jones has been asked to serve as the 15 and 16 year-old Sunday School teacher. All that can sustain him in this calling please show by the uplifted hand." At this point members of the congregation who sustain the calling raise their right hand. The leader than says "any opposed may manifest it", and anyone who opposes the calling may raise their hand.
To me this is one of the greatest things about the Mormon experience, that when we are asked to do something in our local congregation, we can look around us and see that the people around us know what we are being asked to do, and are showing a willingness to help and support us. It is an exceptional sense of community, especially considering that at the local and regional levels there is no paid clergy. Since as a rule everyone has some responsibility in the congregation, and those responsibilities change sometimes every 2-3 years, sometimes more frequently, there is a very egalitarian aspect to how local congregations are run.
We are also taught that once we sustain someone we should do all we can to help someone in their calling, and not needlessly tear them down.... Everyone in the Church from the highest ranked ecclesiastical official on down, is supported by a sustaining. This reflection of early Mormon principles of communitarianism might surprise outside observers of Mormonism, especially when one learns how all-pervasive it is.
Current president of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley said:
“The procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected”
-Ensign, May 1995, p. 51 ...
We take the same approach to sustaining other things, such as the law of the land. Our 12th Article of Faith says that we are to sustain the law. What does this mean? The best explanation I have found is when past President of the LDS Church David O. McKay said:
“To sustain the law, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective”
-Conference Report, Apr. 1937, p. 28
When we sustain someone or something, and especially when we make that sustaining an overt public act, we take on very specific responsibilities. Support, strength, assistance even when we might personally disagree with something in the person or thing, are all things required of us in "sustaining".
When Mitt Romney was an LDS bishop he was in charge of the sustaining process every Sunday. On Sundays he didn't officiate in the process, the process was still done under his very close oversight. The LDS concept of "sustaining" can't be far from his mind when he makes statements saying he "sustains" a law. I think that in his 1994 statement quoted above he was completely on solid ground politically and spiritually. He might not love the idea of abortion personally, but it is provided for in the law and we sustain the law. If Romney ever really supported Roe v. Wade (and I know that this is in doubt in spite of his words above) then he should have had in his head the following adaptation of President McKay's counsel:
To sustain Roe v. Wade, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective.
I am not certain which is worse, that he once felt this way and turned has back on it, or that he lied in the first place and the true Romney is just now coming through. In either case, it seems to be a slap in the face for the important role sustaining plays in the Mormon experience.
[italics added]
More Romney on Abortion
Time to reread this interview by Chris Wallace (FoxNews Sunday) with Romney from last February, posted on the NewsBusters blog:
Rough on Romney: Wallace Forces Mitt to Admit Abortion Position "Evolved"
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on February 26, 2006
Wallace was implacable when Romney stretched credulity by suggesting that somehow his own view of when life begins was crystallized in the context of a recent debate in his home state over stem cell research.
Wallace didn't hide his skepticism: "I don't understand governor. . . the question of harvesting eggs to be used for stem cells, that isn't why most women get abortions. There's a division there, isn't there?"
Hoping to change the uncomfortable subject, Romney suggested that he was "happy to talk about stem cell research."
Unfortunately for Romney, Wallace wasn't. "But I'm asking about abortion. And the vast majority of women aren't getting an abortion so they can sell their fetus." He again reminded Romney that when running for governor, "you did say women should have the right to make their own choice." Then, clearly skeptical, Wallace asked: "Are you saying you only came to the conclusion about when life begins - this has been an issue for 30, 40 years - in the last three years?"
Romney, cornered, was finally forced to admit: "I'm saying my position has evolved and it changed from where it was before."
Rough on Romney: Wallace Forces Mitt to Admit Abortion Position "Evolved"
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on February 26, 2006
Wallace was implacable when Romney stretched credulity by suggesting that somehow his own view of when life begins was crystallized in the context of a recent debate in his home state over stem cell research.
Wallace didn't hide his skepticism: "I don't understand governor. . . the question of harvesting eggs to be used for stem cells, that isn't why most women get abortions. There's a division there, isn't there?"
Hoping to change the uncomfortable subject, Romney suggested that he was "happy to talk about stem cell research."
Unfortunately for Romney, Wallace wasn't. "But I'm asking about abortion. And the vast majority of women aren't getting an abortion so they can sell their fetus." He again reminded Romney that when running for governor, "you did say women should have the right to make their own choice." Then, clearly skeptical, Wallace asked: "Are you saying you only came to the conclusion about when life begins - this has been an issue for 30, 40 years - in the last three years?"
Romney, cornered, was finally forced to admit: "I'm saying my position has evolved and it changed from where it was before."
Friday, December 29, 2006
Human Events Interviews Romney
We expect better from Human Events. In their interview with Mitt Romney yesterday (12-28-06), editor Rob Bluey doesn't push Romney beyond his 1994 campaign vs. Ted Kennedy, and the Romney's letter groveling for the Mass. Log Cabin Republican endorsement that year.
Of course, we've exposed that Romney's problems are much broader, much more profound. Why didn't Bluey touch on Romney's role in starting "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts? Why didn't he ask about Romney's "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth"?
Even on international affairs and economic issues, Romney avoids substantive answers. A typical response:
"The things I’d offer for all Americans would be similar to, I think, other great Republicans in the past and in the present. And yet in my case, I come with a little different background and different perspective, and therefore, what I’d offer would be slightly different I’m sure in some ways than others.
"The key issues we face, of course, are first, the conflict with the jihadists. This is a conflict which is going on within the world of Islam, and the jihadists are attempting to overcome the moderate, modern factions of Islam and replace them with a caliphate. It’s going to require the involvement of the U.S. as a leader of the world to help move Islam away from that kind of extremism and violence. That’s one challenge.
"Another challenge is our ability to compete with Asia. Asia’s going to be a much tougher competitor than we’ve known before. I spent my life in international business, been to Asia and, of course, other places in the world and done business there. I have a good sense how you make a nation more competitive. And that’s something that’s going to be critical."
Human Events used to be hard-hitting. (It's Ann Coulter's home publication.) So what's going on with their coverage of Romney? Bluey did post a somewhat more critical piece on 12-21, but when he has Romney on the phone, he backs down. Amazing how people cower before celebrity and power.
Of course, we've exposed that Romney's problems are much broader, much more profound. Why didn't Bluey touch on Romney's role in starting "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts? Why didn't he ask about Romney's "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth"?
Even on international affairs and economic issues, Romney avoids substantive answers. A typical response:
"The things I’d offer for all Americans would be similar to, I think, other great Republicans in the past and in the present. And yet in my case, I come with a little different background and different perspective, and therefore, what I’d offer would be slightly different I’m sure in some ways than others.
"The key issues we face, of course, are first, the conflict with the jihadists. This is a conflict which is going on within the world of Islam, and the jihadists are attempting to overcome the moderate, modern factions of Islam and replace them with a caliphate. It’s going to require the involvement of the U.S. as a leader of the world to help move Islam away from that kind of extremism and violence. That’s one challenge.
"Another challenge is our ability to compete with Asia. Asia’s going to be a much tougher competitor than we’ve known before. I spent my life in international business, been to Asia and, of course, other places in the world and done business there. I have a good sense how you make a nation more competitive. And that’s something that’s going to be critical."
Human Events used to be hard-hitting. (It's Ann Coulter's home publication.) So what's going on with their coverage of Romney? Bluey did post a somewhat more critical piece on 12-21, but when he has Romney on the phone, he backs down. Amazing how people cower before celebrity and power.
Caution on Cloned Animal Products, But Not Social Experiments
We're not alone in having the heebie-jeebies over the idea of dairy and meat products from cloned animals. We remember the demonstrations a few years ago outside Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester. The demonstrators hoped their voices might sound an alarm over this descent into the Brave New World. But no, now the FDA has actually approved human consumption of products from cloned animals, though a moratorium is likely through 2007. (Boston Globe, "Milk, meat from cloned herds ruled safe," 12-29-06)
It's notable that liberals like Senators Kennedy and Mikulski expressed reservations. Kennedy suggests some of the science behind the safety studies might be wrong. Mikulski said that cloned animals "have not been proven safe for consumers and are a threat to [other] animals." The International Dairy Foods Association is happy there's still a moratorium. And 58% of Americans recently polled would not buy these products even with FDA approval.
If only we would be so cautious when it comes to approving other grand experiments, whether scientific or social, like embryonic stem cell research, reproductive technologies, welfare, "homosexual marriage," adoption by same-sex couples, etc.
It's notable that liberals like Senators Kennedy and Mikulski expressed reservations. Kennedy suggests some of the science behind the safety studies might be wrong. Mikulski said that cloned animals "have not been proven safe for consumers and are a threat to [other] animals." The International Dairy Foods Association is happy there's still a moratorium. And 58% of Americans recently polled would not buy these products even with FDA approval.
If only we would be so cautious when it comes to approving other grand experiments, whether scientific or social, like embryonic stem cell research, reproductive technologies, welfare, "homosexual marriage," adoption by same-sex couples, etc.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
SJC Can Rule Other Branches -- When It Wants To
Lee Swislow (r), Exec. Director of GLAD, is unhappy with the SJC ruling.
She doesn't want her feelings hurt. Who cares about the Constitution?
The Mass. Supreme Judicial Court said yesterday that it cannot do anything to force the Legislature to vote on the marriage amendment, but it stated that the Legislators' vote is clearly required by Article 48 (referendum amendment procedure) of the Mass. Constitution.
In their ruling, the SJC documents that it was unimaginable to the legislators who passed Article 48 in 1918 that elected representatives would ever act to violate their oaths in such a way, by refusing to vote. And the SJC makes the argument that what was in the minds of those who drafted and approved that Article is what defines it for us today. So why doesn't the Court follow the clear historical understanding of the word "marriage" which John Adams, who wrote the Massachusetts Constitution, included in the original document?
The Boston Globe also reported on GLAD executive director Lee Swislow's response to the SJC ruling that the legislators are clearly required to vote. Robbed of any legal or rational arguments for the legislators not voting, she was reduced to arguing from her personal, emotional needs:
Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said she hoped the legislators would continue to balk, even if it seemed like a cynical maneuver. "This is my right to marry the person I love, and putting that [measure] on the ballot feels like the most cynical thing that could happen, on a very personal level," said Swislow, who married her partner of 10 years in June 2004.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Romney's Pre-Presidential-Campaign Fundraising
A few weeks ago, the Boston Phoenix ran this on Romney's "Commonwealth PAC" donors: "Romney's Real Friends; Cash Flow" (12-13-06). Romney's doled out these funds to Republican candidates in key presidential states. He's raised far less than McCain, but more of it from big-business donors.
"Romney has reported raising a total of $6.5 million, including $2.7 million in his federal committee and $3.8 million in separate state committees. (Some committees have only reported through September, others through the election.) ... Very little money flowed from the South or the Heartland, however, where traditional social values are said to dwell. The bulk came from solid blue states like Massachusetts, California, and New York — and specifically, the sinful centers of secular commerce in Boston, Silicon Valley, and New York City.
"John McCain’s federal Straight Talk America PAC, by comparison, raised $9.2 million since the Arizona Senator formed it last year. Those donations, limited to $2000 a person, came from far more individuals, including a great many within the Washington Beltway. ... Commonwealth PAC has now run its course —Romney can’t use it while explicitly running for president, which he will be doing in a few weeks."
"Romney has reported raising a total of $6.5 million, including $2.7 million in his federal committee and $3.8 million in separate state committees. (Some committees have only reported through September, others through the election.) ... Very little money flowed from the South or the Heartland, however, where traditional social values are said to dwell. The bulk came from solid blue states like Massachusetts, California, and New York — and specifically, the sinful centers of secular commerce in Boston, Silicon Valley, and New York City.
"John McCain’s federal Straight Talk America PAC, by comparison, raised $9.2 million since the Arizona Senator formed it last year. Those donations, limited to $2000 a person, came from far more individuals, including a great many within the Washington Beltway. ... Commonwealth PAC has now run its course —Romney can’t use it while explicitly running for president, which he will be doing in a few weeks."
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Romney Retrospective in Globe
The Boston Globe's retrospective (12-26-06) on Romney's four years as absentee Governor of Massachusetts is a mixed bag. They're correct to report (and editorialize) on how little he accomplished.
But the Globe is wrong to suggest his lack of accomplishments is partly due to time he spent on the social issues. In fact, he spent next to NO time standing up for social conservative values. That was his biggest failure, both as chief executive and head of the Republican Party. He was totally disengaged from building his own party, a must if we are to dismantle the one-party tyranny in this state. (Remember: He was an Independent before deciding to run against Kennedy in 1994.) He never spoke out for life issues. He never used the bully pulpit even to roll back taxes, as the voters have demanded!
This says a lot about Romney: It's all about him, not about political/moral principles, or the greater good of the state (or country) he's governing. How could we trust him as President?
Even honest Democrats recognize that absolute power of one party has corrupted this state. Romney had a golden opportunity to do something about that. What happened in 2004? His party's candidates were not properly supported, and what directives there were from the top instructed them to avoid discussing same-sex marriage! And in the 2006 election, he did nothing to support Republican legislative candidates, and only campaigned for Kerry Healey the day before the election! And where did he spend his Commonwealth PAC money? In states with important Presidential primaries (as the Globe reported on 12-24: "Romney left Mass. on 212 days in '06").
Romney did not devote his attention to the marriage issue. He basically let it ride, watched and waited for the least risky opportunities to speak out -- and then in only the mildest terms. In South Carolina he said that same-sex marriage must be halted, but back here he didn't lift a finger to see that the original protection of marriage referendum from 2002 was voted on (which we understand was still constitutionally alive when he took office). His brief, waffling statements from the Goodridge ruling on reveal a spineless politician without values or understanding of his Constitutional role.
To call a marriage amendment which bans civil unions "bigoted" -- as Romney did in 2002 --reveals his serious failings. Remember: GLAD is now openly using the legalization of civil unions in Connecticut as a legal argument for same-sex "marriage". (We warned you . . .) This demonstrates how little foresight Romney has on this issue. Or how dishonest he is being. Either way, do you want him as President?
Another example of failure to uphold conservative social values: He never lifted a finger to clean house at his Dept. of Education, or come to the support of David Parker and other parents around the state, whose schools routinely violate the parental notification law (on sex education). And what kind of "social conservative" would have a "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth"?
But the Globe is wrong to suggest his lack of accomplishments is partly due to time he spent on the social issues. In fact, he spent next to NO time standing up for social conservative values. That was his biggest failure, both as chief executive and head of the Republican Party. He was totally disengaged from building his own party, a must if we are to dismantle the one-party tyranny in this state. (Remember: He was an Independent before deciding to run against Kennedy in 1994.) He never spoke out for life issues. He never used the bully pulpit even to roll back taxes, as the voters have demanded!
This says a lot about Romney: It's all about him, not about political/moral principles, or the greater good of the state (or country) he's governing. How could we trust him as President?
Even honest Democrats recognize that absolute power of one party has corrupted this state. Romney had a golden opportunity to do something about that. What happened in 2004? His party's candidates were not properly supported, and what directives there were from the top instructed them to avoid discussing same-sex marriage! And in the 2006 election, he did nothing to support Republican legislative candidates, and only campaigned for Kerry Healey the day before the election! And where did he spend his Commonwealth PAC money? In states with important Presidential primaries (as the Globe reported on 12-24: "Romney left Mass. on 212 days in '06").
Romney did not devote his attention to the marriage issue. He basically let it ride, watched and waited for the least risky opportunities to speak out -- and then in only the mildest terms. In South Carolina he said that same-sex marriage must be halted, but back here he didn't lift a finger to see that the original protection of marriage referendum from 2002 was voted on (which we understand was still constitutionally alive when he took office). His brief, waffling statements from the Goodridge ruling on reveal a spineless politician without values or understanding of his Constitutional role.
To call a marriage amendment which bans civil unions "bigoted" -- as Romney did in 2002 --reveals his serious failings. Remember: GLAD is now openly using the legalization of civil unions in Connecticut as a legal argument for same-sex "marriage". (We warned you . . .) This demonstrates how little foresight Romney has on this issue. Or how dishonest he is being. Either way, do you want him as President?
Another example of failure to uphold conservative social values: He never lifted a finger to clean house at his Dept. of Education, or come to the support of David Parker and other parents around the state, whose schools routinely violate the parental notification law (on sex education). And what kind of "social conservative" would have a "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth"?
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Christmas
Merry Christmas
Matthias Grunewald
Nativity and Concert of Angels
from the Isenheim Altarpiece
from the Isenheim Altarpiece
Unterlinden Museum, Colmar, France
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Governor Romney: Defend the Constitution!
DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTSat the State House, Boston, November 19, 2006
[photo (c) 2006 MassResistance]
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Homofascism
As you read about the phony charges being brought against Larry Cirignano, organizer for Catholic Vote, picture this vicious crowd at another event targeted by GLBT radicals. This video, shot on Nov. 19 at the State House, documents an earlier attempt by these homofascists to shut down a pro-marriage rally. Towards the end of the video clip, you see a tall man with glasses, looking very smug and proud of his handiwork organizing this exercise in intimidation. (Black jacket, white shirt.) That's Marc Solomon, head of MassEquality (617-878-2300; info@MassEquality.org). This is what he really does for a living.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fseDXR-huXI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fseDXR-huXI
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
The Pain of Not Knowing Your Biological Parent
After we wrote yesterday's post, we saw David Frum's blog in National Review (12-17-06). He links to this intriguing article in the Washington Post, by a young woman whose "father an was anonymous sperm donor."
Read it and weep. And think of all the children coming into the world this way to single women, or women with lesbian partners, or homosexual male couples paying for donor eggs and surrogate mother services.
There really should be a rethinking of the whole reproductive technology "industry". So much evil is rising to the surface now, including the abortion side of this coin: The embryonic stem cell debate has recently focused attention on all the "leftover" embryos. And "selective reduction" of multiple pregnancies resulting from IVF is another way of killing the smallest babies.
Read it and weep. And think of all the children coming into the world this way to single women, or women with lesbian partners, or homosexual male couples paying for donor eggs and surrogate mother services.
There really should be a rethinking of the whole reproductive technology "industry". So much evil is rising to the surface now, including the abortion side of this coin: The embryonic stem cell debate has recently focused attention on all the "leftover" embryos. And "selective reduction" of multiple pregnancies resulting from IVF is another way of killing the smallest babies.
Excerpts from the Washington Post article:
...I was angry at the idea that where donor conception is concerned, everyone focuses on the "parents" -- the adults who can make choices about their own lives. The recipient gets sympathy for wanting to have a child. The donor gets a guarantee of anonymity and absolution from any responsibility for the offspring of his "donation." As long as these adults are happy, then donor conception is a success, right?
Not so. The children born of these transactions are people, too. Those of us in the first documented generation of donor babies -- conceived in the late 1980s and early '90s, when sperm banks became more common and donor insemination began to flourish -- are coming of age, and we have something to say.
I'm here to tell you that emotionally, many of us are not keeping up. We didn't ask to be born into this situation, with its limitations and confusion. It's hypocritical of parents and medical professionals to assume that biological roots won't matter to the "products" of the cryobanks' service, when the longing for a biological relationship is what brings customers to the banks in the first place.
... when I was small, I would daydream about a tall, lean man picking me up and swinging me around in the front yard, a manly man melting at a touch from his little girl. ... My daydreams always ended abruptly; I knew I would never have a dad. As a coping mechanism, I used to think that he was dead. That made it easier. . . .
My heart went out to those others [donor children], especially after I participated in a couple of online groups. When I read some of the mothers' thoughts about their choice for conception, it made me feel degraded to nothing more than a vial of frozen sperm. It seemed to me that most of the mothers and donors give little thought to the feelings of the children who would result from their actions. It's not so much that they're coldhearted as that they don't consider what the children might think once they grow up.
Those of us created with donated sperm won't stay bubbly babies forever. We're all going to grow into adults and form opinions about the decision to bring us into the world in a way that deprives us of the basic right to know where we came from, what our history is and who both our parents are. . . .
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Mary Cheney's Baby
Regarding Mary Cheney's baby ... Most conservative commentators, including James Dobson ("Two Mommies Is One Too Many," Time Magazine, 12-12-06), continue to focus on "every child needing both a father and a mother."
Speaking as a parent of both biological and adopted children, I have something else to add. I agree that ideally a child should have parents of both sexes. But beyond that, same-sex parenting burdens the child's life in other ways.
Through conscious, selfish action on the part of these parents -- in some cases, a biological parent, and in some cases not -- he or she deliberately uses modern reproductive technology to help give birth to a child who will not know one (or both) biological parent(s). It is unconscionable for an adult to knowingly inflict such pain on an innocent child.
An adopted child who does not know anything (or even much) of his or her biological parent(s) is haunted by those unknowable facts every day, from the time he or she is old enough to understand what "adoption" means. Even if the child knows just a little about one bio parent, it is still a terribly painful loss, knowing they'll likely never meet her. If the child knows nothing, there is an even greater void. It becomes an unhealing sore affecting the child in myriad, unpredictable, unverbalized ways.
Who knows who the biological father is in the case of Mary Cheney's child? It may not bother her or her "partner" if they've decided to anonymously inseminate. But it will bother the child. And if they do know who the father is, how will this man be a part of the child's life in any way that's not terribly sad for the child? Will they have some sort of "poly" household? How will they explain to their child who his/her father is?
For most adopted children, their adoption is the "happier ending" that keeps them from orphanage or a sequence of foster homes. In the case of children born to parents who give them up, adoption (without the child's knowledge of the biological parents) is a still a positive outcome. But for a child born to same-sex "parents" through modern reproductive technologies, the child is beset with another burden -- her/she is not the outcome of a natural biological process, but is an engineered product two adults who had plenty of time to reflect. How selfish on the part of these two women. Their child will soon instinctively know that something's amiss in his/her little world, and will be pained by it every day. Does this matter to the two mommies?
No one's advocating removing the child from this household. But I will say that modern reproductive technologies are not a good thing. It's hard enough for the adopted child who's already in existence. It's worse for a child whose unnatural existence was carefully planned by two (or more) people lacking the excuse that they were caught up in the passion of the moment.
(P.S.: I have a real problem with IVF for married heterosexual couples too.)
Dobson wrote: "No-fault divorce reflected our selfish determination to do what was convenient for adults, and it has been, on balance, a disaster. We should not enter into yet another untested and far-reaching social experiment, this one driven by the desires of same-sex couples to bear and raise children."
Romney Has NOT Shifted to Right on "Gay Rights"
The Boston Globe persists in portraying Gov. Mitt Romney as shifting to the right on "gay rights." That's because they refuse to discuss what he really accomplished for the "gay rights" movement: the implementation of homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts, and the entrenchment of radical GLBT organizations in our public high schools.
While Scott Helman ("Romney's journey to the right," 12-17-06) grudgingly acknowledges MassResistance as the instigator of the ongoing national re-examination of Romney's positions, he does not seem to have digested the parts of our report outlining:
In today's Herald, George Will's commentary, "Ghosts of comments past haunt McCain, Romney," also fixates on Romney's 1994 statements to the Log Cabin Republicans, and ignores these major problems with his record.
For now, it seems, we have to settle for the mainstream media's hyper-focus on Romney's 1994 statements and the abortion issue. But they cannot go on ignoring these major stories much longer. Eventually they'll be forced to notice (by his Republican primary opponents) that his advocacy and implementation of "gay rights" has extended throughout his tenure as Governor. Will the Globe then refer to such information as a "screed" from the McCain or Brownback campaign headquarters?
While Scott Helman ("Romney's journey to the right," 12-17-06) grudgingly acknowledges MassResistance as the instigator of the ongoing national re-examination of Romney's positions, he does not seem to have digested the parts of our report outlining:
- Romney's role in homosexual "marriage";
- Romney's role pushing homosexuality in our public schools (through his "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth"); and
- Romney's appointment of liberal and "gay" activists to administrative posts and judgeships (and leaving many judgeships open for Governor-elect Patrick to fill).
In today's Herald, George Will's commentary, "Ghosts of comments past haunt McCain, Romney," also fixates on Romney's 1994 statements to the Log Cabin Republicans, and ignores these major problems with his record.
For now, it seems, we have to settle for the mainstream media's hyper-focus on Romney's 1994 statements and the abortion issue. But they cannot go on ignoring these major stories much longer. Eventually they'll be forced to notice (by his Republican primary opponents) that his advocacy and implementation of "gay rights" has extended throughout his tenure as Governor. Will the Globe then refer to such information as a "screed" from the McCain or Brownback campaign headquarters?
Friday, December 15, 2006
Romney's National Review Interview: STILL NOT Pro-Life, Still Not Held Accountable for "Gay Marriage"!
Romney just confirmed: He's still "pro-choice"! This unwittingly comes out in his latest interview in National Review Online. (See our analysis below.)
And, the political media is STILL not dealing with the larger constitutional issue of Gov. Romney's record in Massachusetts, revealed in our report: his illegal implementation of homosexual "marriage" -- and the continuing myth that these "marriages" are real and legal! On both the right and the left, prominent political journals are willfully ignoring this HUGE subject -- a significant failure by professional journalists to deal with an issue of monumental historic significance!
On the Right: Kathryn Lopez ("KLo") at National Review Online's blog (12-14-06), is once again fawning over Romney, in a specially timed and placed fluffy interview (more on that below). Apparently in line to be his press secretary (should the truth about his record never get out), she gives him every opportunity to explain away his inconsistencies on abortion and ENDA. But never presses him on his role in starting homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts.
And over on the Left: At The New Republic, Ryan Lizza (12-15-06) points out Romney's failure to control his Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, but focuses inordinately on "golden showers" and "fisting" discussions in the "Little Black Book". (Hmm...) He fails to mention the detailed, unassailable information we gave him on Romney's failure to uphold the Constitution and his unilateral implementation of homosexual "marriage". In the long run, the focus of this article may not be a bad thing, because the X-rated stuff Romney put kids in touch with (through his Youth Commission and his DOE's encouragement of gay clubs in the schools) is truly shocking.
More on KLo's NR interview:
This part of Romney's response -- on how he evolved on abortion from pro-choice to pro-life (at the age of 57) -- struck us, because it shows ROMNEY IS STILL NOT PRO-LIFE !
[Romney:] "But I do believe that the one-size-fits-all, abortion-on-demand-for-all-nine-months decision in Roe v. Wade does not serve the country well and is another example of judges making the law instead of interpreting the Constitution. What I would like to see is the Court return the issue to the people to decide. ... I understand there are people of good faith on both sides of the issue. They should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that our democratic process is the best place to handle these issues."
We say, NO! This is not a true pro-life position either! People should NOT vote on either the definition of marriage, or the definition of human life! Marriage is marriage, and murder is murder! Either a human fetus is a human life, or it is not. If you believe it is a HUMAN, how can we leave it up to the voters to decide whether it can be murdered? Come on, Romney. Come on, KLo -- and National Review. Romney: You're still "pro-choice" if you think the people should be given the opportunity to vote on abortion! "Let the People Vote!" -- on murder???
Also: If Romney has suddenly become pro-life in the last two years of his political career, then why did he force the morning-after pill on private hospitals just one year ago (with no conscience exemption to protect freedom of religion)?
December 7, 2005: "The state Department of Public Health has determined that Catholic and other privately-run hospitals in Massachusetts can opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections, despite a new law that requires all hospitals who treat such victims to provide them with emergency contraception."
("Private hospitals exempt on pill law," Boston Globe)
December 9, 2005 -- Flip-Flop: "Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state's new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds."
("Romney says no hospitals are exempt from pill law," Boston Globe)
And, the political media is STILL not dealing with the larger constitutional issue of Gov. Romney's record in Massachusetts, revealed in our report: his illegal implementation of homosexual "marriage" -- and the continuing myth that these "marriages" are real and legal! On both the right and the left, prominent political journals are willfully ignoring this HUGE subject -- a significant failure by professional journalists to deal with an issue of monumental historic significance!
On the Right: Kathryn Lopez ("KLo") at National Review Online's blog (12-14-06), is once again fawning over Romney, in a specially timed and placed fluffy interview (more on that below). Apparently in line to be his press secretary (should the truth about his record never get out), she gives him every opportunity to explain away his inconsistencies on abortion and ENDA. But never presses him on his role in starting homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts.
And over on the Left: At The New Republic, Ryan Lizza (12-15-06) points out Romney's failure to control his Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, but focuses inordinately on "golden showers" and "fisting" discussions in the "Little Black Book". (Hmm...) He fails to mention the detailed, unassailable information we gave him on Romney's failure to uphold the Constitution and his unilateral implementation of homosexual "marriage". In the long run, the focus of this article may not be a bad thing, because the X-rated stuff Romney put kids in touch with (through his Youth Commission and his DOE's encouragement of gay clubs in the schools) is truly shocking.
More on KLo's NR interview:
This part of Romney's response -- on how he evolved on abortion from pro-choice to pro-life (at the age of 57) -- struck us, because it shows ROMNEY IS STILL NOT PRO-LIFE !
[Romney:] "But I do believe that the one-size-fits-all, abortion-on-demand-for-all-nine-months decision in Roe v. Wade does not serve the country well and is another example of judges making the law instead of interpreting the Constitution. What I would like to see is the Court return the issue to the people to decide. ... I understand there are people of good faith on both sides of the issue. They should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that our democratic process is the best place to handle these issues."
We say, NO! This is not a true pro-life position either! People should NOT vote on either the definition of marriage, or the definition of human life! Marriage is marriage, and murder is murder! Either a human fetus is a human life, or it is not. If you believe it is a HUMAN, how can we leave it up to the voters to decide whether it can be murdered? Come on, Romney. Come on, KLo -- and National Review. Romney: You're still "pro-choice" if you think the people should be given the opportunity to vote on abortion! "Let the People Vote!" -- on murder???
Also: If Romney has suddenly become pro-life in the last two years of his political career, then why did he force the morning-after pill on private hospitals just one year ago (with no conscience exemption to protect freedom of religion)?
December 7, 2005: "The state Department of Public Health has determined that Catholic and other privately-run hospitals in Massachusetts can opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections, despite a new law that requires all hospitals who treat such victims to provide them with emergency contraception."
("Private hospitals exempt on pill law," Boston Globe)
December 9, 2005 -- Flip-Flop: "Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state's new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds."
("Romney says no hospitals are exempt from pill law," Boston Globe)
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Robert Paine, Esq. Sets "Americans for Mitt" Straight
Americans for Mitt, one of the cloned Mitt for Prez sites popping up all over, had a brief exchange with a reader, "J", who shared her correspondence with us. We sent it on to Robert Paine, Esq., the lawyer behind our Constitutional legal analysis of Romney's role in the homosexual "marriage" fiasco, who generously gave his valuable time to educate the Mitt clones around the country. Paine wrote:
Nathan [Americans for Mitt fellow],
You stated in an email to "J" [who had sent him a link to our "Romney Deception" report]:
Thanks again, but the Massachusetts Legislature is to blame for gay marriage, along with the Supreme Court. They had 180 days to act after the court ruling, but did not do so. Governor Romney can't single-handedly outlaw gay marriage, despite what Mass Resistance and others would have you believe.
and in another earlier one you said: Thanks for the warning "J", but that report has been out for three weeks. And much of it is a case of selective reporting.
You suffer from a case of selective reading or just an utter lack of knowledge. You make no sense. Before you start offering legal opinions, you might read the law and suppress your desire to write nonsensical gibberish. If you are going to blame others for gay marriage, you might want to read up a bit first.
Try starting with the Massachusetts Constitution where it says:
Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.
Then read the Goodridge case. In it you will find that the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) did not strike the marriage law which they said does not and never did permit same-sex marriage.
Then read Mitt Romney's own words in the Boston Globe (April 16, 2004):
‘‘I believe the reason that the court gave 180 days to the Legislature was to allow the Legislature the chance to look through the laws developed over the centuries and see how they should be adjusted or clarified for purposes of same-sex marriage; the Legislature didn’t do that,’’ Romney said.
Then go to the State House and research what the Legislature did in response to the SJC's "suggestion" that they change the laws. What you will find is that no laws have ever been changed in Massachusetts.
Then go back to the Constitution and read:
Article X. …(T)he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.
and read which of the three branches, the judiciary or the legislature or the supreme executive, legally has the authority to suspend a statute. There you will find that only the legislature can "make law," legislate, redefine, rewrite, etc.
Article XX. The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for. [See Comm'r of Public Health v. The Bessie M. Burke Memorial Hospital, 366 Mass. 734 (1975) (“When one takes into account the historical basis of art. 20 in the attempts of the Crown to suspend the laws or operation of the laws without consent of Parliament,(fn13) one must agree with the occasional remarks in the decided cases that the core meaning of art. 20 is that only the Legislature, not the Executive or Judicial branches, may suspend an existing law.) ]
Then read Mitt Romney's May 2004 training powerpoint for Town Clerks:
Clerks should be ready to implement the new law on . . . May 17, 2004.
What new law? Which gets us to your nonsensical legal analysis . . .
How could the Legislature be responsible for gay marriage? They did nothing to institute gay marriage (granted they have in the past and continue to prevent the people from amending a constitution which already protects the institution of marriage, but "establishing" gay marriage rests with Romney). How could the SJC be responsible for gay marriage?
Is not the Executive Branch (Gov. Mitt Romney) a co-equal branch? Are there not three co-equal branches of government? Does that not mean that neither branch can point to another and say "the other made me do it"? There are three separate powers and three separate sets of duties and responsibilities.
The Massachusetts Constitution mandates that Romney, the Governor, is the "supreme executive." Only the supreme executive is permitted and obligated to execute the laws. Romney now acts like he had no choice, that the justices of the peace and town clerks are somehow not members of the executive branch and that they did this on their own ... But if they are not, why then did he threaten their jobs through his Legal Counsel saying that JP's must resign if they were unwilling to perform these illegal marriages?
Romney acts, like you just ignorantly claimed, as if the Legislature and the Judiciary have power over him. For Romney to claim that he can do nothing when the SJC violates the Constitution is to surrender democracy. Thomas Jefferson explains it this way:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." O'Coin's Inc. v. Treasurer of the County of Worcester , 362 Mass. 507 (1972) (“It was certainly never intended that any one department, through the exercise of its acknowledged powers, should be able to prevent another department from fulfilling its responsibilities to the people under the Constitution.”)
Mitt Romney had and continues on a daily basis to have a constitutional responsibility to uphold the marriage law that has never been stricken, changed, amended, or repealed. That law prohibits gay marriage. Thus, Romney is a lawbreaker and a felon for violating his oath of office (subject to 20 years in prison).
Welcome to America. Separation of powers. Read the Constitution Nathan, it matters. No matter how much you claim otherwise by pointing to the Judges, to the legislators, to the rogue town clerks and JP's, this all comes back to who was in charge of executing the laws of Massachusetts.
Romney should have the courage and character to admit that contrary to many legal advisors' pleas, he made a political decision to suspend the constitution and the marriage laws of Massachusetts. He should admit that in hindsight that was a really bad decision, because it is about to end his chances of becoming president.
Imagine a truly contrite Governor Romney before the American people. Imagine if he announced to the people he was ending the fraud of gay marriage in America. Imagine who the next president might be. If that doesn't happen imagine where you will be on inauguration day 2009. Please save this letter and on that day I suggest you pull it out and send me an e-mail. I would love to hear where you were.
Sincerely,
Robert Paine, Esq.
RobertPaine.blogspot.com
Nathan [Americans for Mitt fellow],
You stated in an email to "J" [who had sent him a link to our "Romney Deception" report]:
Thanks again, but the Massachusetts Legislature is to blame for gay marriage, along with the Supreme Court. They had 180 days to act after the court ruling, but did not do so. Governor Romney can't single-handedly outlaw gay marriage, despite what Mass Resistance and others would have you believe.
and in another earlier one you said: Thanks for the warning "J", but that report has been out for three weeks. And much of it is a case of selective reporting.
You suffer from a case of selective reading or just an utter lack of knowledge. You make no sense. Before you start offering legal opinions, you might read the law and suppress your desire to write nonsensical gibberish. If you are going to blame others for gay marriage, you might want to read up a bit first.
Try starting with the Massachusetts Constitution where it says:
Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.
Then read the Goodridge case. In it you will find that the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) did not strike the marriage law which they said does not and never did permit same-sex marriage.
Then read Mitt Romney's own words in the Boston Globe (April 16, 2004):
‘‘I believe the reason that the court gave 180 days to the Legislature was to allow the Legislature the chance to look through the laws developed over the centuries and see how they should be adjusted or clarified for purposes of same-sex marriage; the Legislature didn’t do that,’’ Romney said.
Then go to the State House and research what the Legislature did in response to the SJC's "suggestion" that they change the laws. What you will find is that no laws have ever been changed in Massachusetts.
Then go back to the Constitution and read:
Article X. …(T)he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.
and read which of the three branches, the judiciary or the legislature or the supreme executive, legally has the authority to suspend a statute. There you will find that only the legislature can "make law," legislate, redefine, rewrite, etc.
Article XX. The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for. [See Comm'r of Public Health v. The Bessie M. Burke Memorial Hospital, 366 Mass. 734 (1975) (“When one takes into account the historical basis of art. 20 in the attempts of the Crown to suspend the laws or operation of the laws without consent of Parliament,(fn13) one must agree with the occasional remarks in the decided cases that the core meaning of art. 20 is that only the Legislature, not the Executive or Judicial branches, may suspend an existing law.) ]
Then read Mitt Romney's May 2004 training powerpoint for Town Clerks:
Clerks should be ready to implement the new law on . . . May 17, 2004.
What new law? Which gets us to your nonsensical legal analysis . . .
How could the Legislature be responsible for gay marriage? They did nothing to institute gay marriage (granted they have in the past and continue to prevent the people from amending a constitution which already protects the institution of marriage, but "establishing" gay marriage rests with Romney). How could the SJC be responsible for gay marriage?
Is not the Executive Branch (Gov. Mitt Romney) a co-equal branch? Are there not three co-equal branches of government? Does that not mean that neither branch can point to another and say "the other made me do it"? There are three separate powers and three separate sets of duties and responsibilities.
The Massachusetts Constitution mandates that Romney, the Governor, is the "supreme executive." Only the supreme executive is permitted and obligated to execute the laws. Romney now acts like he had no choice, that the justices of the peace and town clerks are somehow not members of the executive branch and that they did this on their own ... But if they are not, why then did he threaten their jobs through his Legal Counsel saying that JP's must resign if they were unwilling to perform these illegal marriages?
Romney acts, like you just ignorantly claimed, as if the Legislature and the Judiciary have power over him. For Romney to claim that he can do nothing when the SJC violates the Constitution is to surrender democracy. Thomas Jefferson explains it this way:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." O'Coin's Inc. v. Treasurer of the County of Worcester , 362 Mass. 507 (1972) (“It was certainly never intended that any one department, through the exercise of its acknowledged powers, should be able to prevent another department from fulfilling its responsibilities to the people under the Constitution.”)
Mitt Romney had and continues on a daily basis to have a constitutional responsibility to uphold the marriage law that has never been stricken, changed, amended, or repealed. That law prohibits gay marriage. Thus, Romney is a lawbreaker and a felon for violating his oath of office (subject to 20 years in prison).
Welcome to America. Separation of powers. Read the Constitution Nathan, it matters. No matter how much you claim otherwise by pointing to the Judges, to the legislators, to the rogue town clerks and JP's, this all comes back to who was in charge of executing the laws of Massachusetts.
Romney should have the courage and character to admit that contrary to many legal advisors' pleas, he made a political decision to suspend the constitution and the marriage laws of Massachusetts. He should admit that in hindsight that was a really bad decision, because it is about to end his chances of becoming president.
Imagine a truly contrite Governor Romney before the American people. Imagine if he announced to the people he was ending the fraud of gay marriage in America. Imagine who the next president might be. If that doesn't happen imagine where you will be on inauguration day 2009. Please save this letter and on that day I suggest you pull it out and send me an e-mail. I would love to hear where you were.
Sincerely,
Robert Paine, Esq.
RobertPaine.blogspot.com
MassResistance's "Mitt Romney Deception" Report Makes Brit Hume's Special Report
MassResistance is given as the source of the latest Romney buzz on Brit Hume's "Special Report" on Fox News (Tuesday, December 12). See Mort Kondracke's comments below. [Transcript at RealClearPolitics.]
HUME: Well, there you got two views of the McCain candidacy, at least in Iowa, which, of course is, the earliest (ph) state. If you don't do well in Iowa, you're fighting an uphill battle. What she said was reflected by many others, conservatives, and particularly conservative and active Christians in Iowa which is an important voting bloc, applies to Rudy Giuliani, as well. So, back with our panel now to discus this. How -- I mean, is this a- - chicken, so to speak, that are going to come home to roost, sooner or later and we're -- and this is just a sign of it -- this report we had from Steve Brown tonight about the very negative attitudes toward those two guys because of their views on abortion and certain other key issues.
KONDRACKE: But, McCain's view on abortion is down the line pro-life.
HUME: Giuliani.
KONDRACKE: And Giuliani is pro-choice. The fascinating case is Mitt Romney, who wasn't covered in that report. There's an organization named Mass resistance, which is pro-life organization, very conservative, in Massachusetts that is blasting Romney has being the most pro-abortion, most pro gay-rights, they say, in the country. That can't be because he's not as pro-gay and pro-choice as Arnold Schwarzenegger, but you know, they're questioning his credentials...
HUME: Well, let's talk for a moment about Iowa and McCain and Giuliani in Iowa. What is your sense, Michael, of whether -- so, McCain passes muster, if he does, with these people on abortion.
HUME: Well, there you got two views of the McCain candidacy, at least in Iowa, which, of course is, the earliest (ph) state. If you don't do well in Iowa, you're fighting an uphill battle. What she said was reflected by many others, conservatives, and particularly conservative and active Christians in Iowa which is an important voting bloc, applies to Rudy Giuliani, as well. So, back with our panel now to discus this. How -- I mean, is this a- - chicken, so to speak, that are going to come home to roost, sooner or later and we're -- and this is just a sign of it -- this report we had from Steve Brown tonight about the very negative attitudes toward those two guys because of their views on abortion and certain other key issues.
KONDRACKE: But, McCain's view on abortion is down the line pro-life.
HUME: Giuliani.
KONDRACKE: And Giuliani is pro-choice. The fascinating case is Mitt Romney, who wasn't covered in that report. There's an organization named Mass resistance, which is pro-life organization, very conservative, in Massachusetts that is blasting Romney has being the most pro-abortion, most pro gay-rights, they say, in the country. That can't be because he's not as pro-gay and pro-choice as Arnold Schwarzenegger, but you know, they're questioning his credentials...
HUME: Well, let's talk for a moment about Iowa and McCain and Giuliani in Iowa. What is your sense, Michael, of whether -- so, McCain passes muster, if he does, with these people on abortion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)