We've heard rumors in recent years that Gordon College is not as solidly anchored in Biblical Christianity as it once was. Doctrinal and political liberalism have crept in. But it's still surprising and disappointing to see that the school has INVITED homosexual extremists, Soulforce's "Equality Riders", to the college to propagandize students. Yet the institution concurrently puts out statements that it's preserving its orthodox Christian stand!
"Equality Riders", a project of the radical pseudo-Christian organization "Soulforce", go to colleges around the country (as described by the radical homosexual "news" organ Bay Windows): "... young activists trek across the country in buses, stopping at Christian colleges and universities with anti-gay policies and trying to start a dialogue with students and administrators about embracing LGBT people and ending their discriminatory policies." But for Gordon College to invite them is to accept Soulforce's premise that Gordon College is wrongly discriminatory, and unchristian.
Soulforce especially targets Focus on the Family: Demonstrators recently invaded the Focus office and "refused to leave until the organization's founder, James Dobson, takes a step toward reconciliation with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities by ceasing his misleading statements about research on lesbian and gay parents. For more than a decade, members and allies of Soulforce have confronted Focus on the Family's anti-gay rhetoric and publicized its harmful impact on the lives of individuals, parents, and children." Clearly, this is a radical group.
From Bay Windows:
Equality Ride coming to Mass.The Equality Riders will touch down in the Boston area later this month. Beginning April 15, Equality Riders will take three days to visit Wenham’s Gordon College, a non-denominational Christian college that bans homosexuality. Kyle DeVries, a rider who is helping organize the eastbound bus of the two-bus Equality Ride tour, said the college has invited the riders to hold two forums on campus, talk with students during classes, and meet with them informally on campus.“Gordon College has actually been one of the most hospitable colleges we’ve dealt with,” said DeVries.On the first day of their visit the Equality Riders will hold a community rally at the North Shore Unitarian Universalist Church in Danvers starting at 6 p.m.
From The Christian Post, on the seminary connected to Gordon College:
With the baton passed on to [its new President James E.] White, Gordon-Conwell is seeking to advance to be the "vanguard of evangelical movement." "We're prepared and we're ready to roll," said White.
In an earlier talk with the Rev. Billy Graham, co-founder of Gordon-Conwell, ... White was enlightened with the original vision that the world-renowned evangelist had when he started the school ... He wanted to create a "force of change" – a school that would bring together evangelicals, uphold biblical orthodoxy, and be the "leader of leaders." ...
Acting on a vision to advance Christ's kingdom in all of life and culture without losing biblical orthodoxy, White commented, "If you don't have biblical orthodoxy but you're trying to reach the culture, then you're not offering the world what it doesn't [already] have."
Gordon-Conwell is also in conversations with such leaders as Chuck Colson, founder of think tank The Wilberforce Forum, to create a center on Christian worldview. The center would help Christians reclaim the culture ...
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary is a multi-denominational, evangelical Protestant graduate school serving more than 2,000 students on campuses in South Hamilton and Boston, Mass., and Charlotte, N.C., and an extension site in Jacksonville, Fla. It is the fifth largest seminary in the nation.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Monday, April 02, 2007
Gov. Patrick's and the Globe's NewSpeak on "Legal Marriages"
The Boston Globe reported today that Gov. Deval Patrick ordered his new Commissioner of Public Health (a man "married" to a man) to record 26 "gay marriages" for out-of-state couples. This despite the FACT that there is still a law on the books barring marriages from taking place in Massachusetts which would not be legal in the state where the couple are residents.
But you'd never really understand what's going on if you read the Globe's twisted reporting, which claims former Gov. Romney was responsible for blocking the supposed marriages "from being entered into the state's vital records." But it wasn't Romney standing in the way, it was the law! There is one line in the Globe story that almost tells the truth:
The issue is largely symbolic; neither Romney's refusal to record the marriages nor Patrick's reversal of that order affects the legal status of the marriages.
But this line is immediately followed by this absurd, contradictory quote:
"There was no legal basis for separating these certificates in the first place," said Kyle Sullivan, a spokesman for Patrick. "It appears like the prior administration was politicizing a routine administrative function."
The Globe always gets it wrong when it says "May 17, 2004, the date gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts." Of course the Globe doesn't report the fact that there's been no change in Mass. laws, to either permit Mass. homosexual couples to "marry", or to allow out-of-state couples to have their Mass. "marriages" recorded here. (That's why the homosexual lobby has filed bills to do both these things.)
But the Globe is doing its propaganda best to change everyone's perceptions by repeating its lies over and over. Note the story never refers to the statutes in question by Mass. General Laws chapter and section. So how's the average Joe going to check?
But you'd never really understand what's going on if you read the Globe's twisted reporting, which claims former Gov. Romney was responsible for blocking the supposed marriages "from being entered into the state's vital records." But it wasn't Romney standing in the way, it was the law! There is one line in the Globe story that almost tells the truth:
The issue is largely symbolic; neither Romney's refusal to record the marriages nor Patrick's reversal of that order affects the legal status of the marriages.
But this line is immediately followed by this absurd, contradictory quote:
"There was no legal basis for separating these certificates in the first place," said Kyle Sullivan, a spokesman for Patrick. "It appears like the prior administration was politicizing a routine administrative function."
The Globe always gets it wrong when it says "May 17, 2004, the date gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts." Of course the Globe doesn't report the fact that there's been no change in Mass. laws, to either permit Mass. homosexual couples to "marry", or to allow out-of-state couples to have their Mass. "marriages" recorded here. (That's why the homosexual lobby has filed bills to do both these things.)
But the Globe is doing its propaganda best to change everyone's perceptions by repeating its lies over and over. Note the story never refers to the statutes in question by Mass. General Laws chapter and section. So how's the average Joe going to check?
"Day of Silence" Silences Opposing Views
Favored speech, special rights: The "Day of Silence" propaganda event is looming in our high schools. Sponsored, organized, and promoted by the national radical homosexual/transgender advocacy group GLSEN, this is billed as a "student-led" event so that school administrators can hide it from parents. Its feebly framed goal is to raise awareness of students for the "oppression" suffered by GLBT people across America. Students supporting this goal remain silent all day, with their school's blessing. (Check the Day of Silence web site to see the incredible machinery behind this event.)
It's set to occur in hundreds of schools across Massachusetts the week after spring vacation, on April 25 in most schools. Why does a tiny fraction of the population, defined by unnatural sexual practices condemned over thousands of years of civilization by its great religions, get to propagate this viewpoint in our public high schools?
Call your local high school and see if this event is scheduled there. A national movement is taking shape to boycott the schools allowing this to happen. See NotOurKids.com.
Check Dennis Byrne's excellent op/ed (Chicago Tribune, 3-27-07): "Free Speech and the Right to Disagree" on a free speech case coming out of this event in Illinois:
If a high school gives students permission to openly express their support of homosexuality, then why shouldn't other students be allowed to voice their disapproval? A federal court judge in Chicago might have to answer that question after a high school student in Naperville, IL, a suburb southwest of Chicago, filed suit charging that her civil rights were violated by school officials by not letting her wear a pro-heterosexual T-shirt last year.
Neuqua Valley High School's refusal to let Heidi Zamecnik, 17, wear a T-shirt saying "Be happy, not gay" on the back and "My day of silence, straight alliance" on the front was especially egregious because it came on the same day that the school permitted other students on the national "Day of Silence" to openly express their support of homosexuality....
Gay activists may say that the heterosexual message is more inflammatory than theirs because of the "long history of bullying, harassment and discrimination" that homosexuals and students of uncommon sexual orientation have had to suffer in schools. But, why should that restrict the free speech of someone who has not participated in "bullying, harassment and discrimination"? Or do you have to prove that you did not engage in such behavior before you are allowed to speak?
Or is the school saying her T-shirt itself constitutes "bullying, harassment and discrimination"? That would be a ridiculous assertion, because the T-shirt does not meet the generally accepted definitions of the terms. Unless we now want to restrict speech that "bothers someone." This is tricky, because it gets into the debate over how "offensive" speech must be before it can be restricted....
Then what if Zamecnik and her friends decide to have their own Day of Silence, to protest the other Day of Silence? This is an important question because gay activists are allowed to remain silent in class even if called upon by their teachers. Would the school allow Zamecnik to organize hundreds of students in opposition to homosexuality, a day on which they could refuse to answer a teacher's questions without facing disciplinary action?
The school has backed itself into this corner by sanctioning the pro-gay Day of Silence for political purposes. Who next will demand equal time? Peace activists, war supporters? Nazis? Communists? The limits of free speech in K-12 schools is a tricky issue, involving freedom of the press, freedom to publicly criticize administration and faculty, and so forth. But the issue in Naperville shouldn't be a problem. The school is practicing speech discrimination based on a certain belief, and that is unconstitutional.
It's set to occur in hundreds of schools across Massachusetts the week after spring vacation, on April 25 in most schools. Why does a tiny fraction of the population, defined by unnatural sexual practices condemned over thousands of years of civilization by its great religions, get to propagate this viewpoint in our public high schools?
Call your local high school and see if this event is scheduled there. A national movement is taking shape to boycott the schools allowing this to happen. See NotOurKids.com.
Check Dennis Byrne's excellent op/ed (Chicago Tribune, 3-27-07): "Free Speech and the Right to Disagree" on a free speech case coming out of this event in Illinois:
If a high school gives students permission to openly express their support of homosexuality, then why shouldn't other students be allowed to voice their disapproval? A federal court judge in Chicago might have to answer that question after a high school student in Naperville, IL, a suburb southwest of Chicago, filed suit charging that her civil rights were violated by school officials by not letting her wear a pro-heterosexual T-shirt last year.
Neuqua Valley High School's refusal to let Heidi Zamecnik, 17, wear a T-shirt saying "Be happy, not gay" on the back and "My day of silence, straight alliance" on the front was especially egregious because it came on the same day that the school permitted other students on the national "Day of Silence" to openly express their support of homosexuality....
Gay activists may say that the heterosexual message is more inflammatory than theirs because of the "long history of bullying, harassment and discrimination" that homosexuals and students of uncommon sexual orientation have had to suffer in schools. But, why should that restrict the free speech of someone who has not participated in "bullying, harassment and discrimination"? Or do you have to prove that you did not engage in such behavior before you are allowed to speak?
Or is the school saying her T-shirt itself constitutes "bullying, harassment and discrimination"? That would be a ridiculous assertion, because the T-shirt does not meet the generally accepted definitions of the terms. Unless we now want to restrict speech that "bothers someone." This is tricky, because it gets into the debate over how "offensive" speech must be before it can be restricted....
Then what if Zamecnik and her friends decide to have their own Day of Silence, to protest the other Day of Silence? This is an important question because gay activists are allowed to remain silent in class even if called upon by their teachers. Would the school allow Zamecnik to organize hundreds of students in opposition to homosexuality, a day on which they could refuse to answer a teacher's questions without facing disciplinary action?
The school has backed itself into this corner by sanctioning the pro-gay Day of Silence for political purposes. Who next will demand equal time? Peace activists, war supporters? Nazis? Communists? The limits of free speech in K-12 schools is a tricky issue, involving freedom of the press, freedom to publicly criticize administration and faculty, and so forth. But the issue in Naperville shouldn't be a problem. The school is practicing speech discrimination based on a certain belief, and that is unconstitutional.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Sen. Susan Fargo & Breast Confusion
Senator Susan Fargo is confused about the female breast. She has filed conflicting bills. On the one hand she supports breastfeeding as a glory of nature and public health. On the other hand, she supports a bill that would declare it normal for women to surgically remove their breasts.Two of her bills recognize and praise nature: one providing educational information to the public on the health benefits of breastfeeding (S1223), and another declaring breastfeeding most healthy for mother and child, as well as society, and therefore allowing public breastfeeding (S78).
But if Sen. Fargo believes in the goodness of the breast and its place in the natural scheme of things, why is she also sponsoring a loony bill (H1722) which would deny nature, and promote and protect "transgenderism" and so-called "gender expression"? We have learned that in quite a few cases, women "identifying" as males choose to remove their breasts. (To say nothing of the men who "grow" breasts through hormone injections.) Is this also part of the natural scheme of things? Is this good for the public health? Sen. Fargo seems to think so. Here's some of the public "gender expression" Sen. Fargo wants to protect:
"Tranny Bois" marching at a Boston Pride event [Bay Windows photo].
Sen. Fargo: Should female breasts be used as God intended them, or removed? Should male-to-female transsexuals be allowed to breastfeed in public?
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Jeff Jacoby's Heteronormative Propaganda
Dear Jeff Jacoby,
In your "Messages to my son" column (3-28-07), you clearly have not gotten the message from the Massachusetts powers-that-be, including a federal judge: Your son will never grow up to be a good citizen unless he learns to view homosexual "marriages" as a perfectly good option. And you are teaching him that he must marry a woman and have children! Horrors!
Don't you realize that you are spewing heteronormative propaganda? Why, it could even be considered hate speech. Bad enough that you say these things behind closed doors, but to publish these ideas in a public forum? How dare you! Don't you realize that implying something (such as heterosexual marriage, or being a father to children) is to be preferred, or is a norm, is hateful to others who don't share your sexual orientation, your outlook on family life? Don't you realize that as a good citizen (you say you want to be "good") you should be presenting your son with all possible options for his adult life? You need to apologize for writing these hate-filled words:
I want you and Micah [his younger brother] to become loving fathers and husbands, so I make sure that open affection is something you see and get a lot of. Some men are inhibited about kissing or hugging their wives, or addressing them with terms of endearment; you're growing up in an environment where your father makes no secret of his love for your mother. I hope your children will grow up in a similar environment. Speaking of your children, I have been shamelessly propagandizing you for years on the advantages of marrying early and having lots of kids -- two things I didn't do but wish I had....
Jeff, don't you know that you should leave it up to the state to disseminate proper values to your sons? We hope you've received a stern warning from your editors at the Boston Globe. And you'd better watch out: We may have to report you to the Dept. of Social Services for emotional abuse of your son.
In your "Messages to my son" column (3-28-07), you clearly have not gotten the message from the Massachusetts powers-that-be, including a federal judge: Your son will never grow up to be a good citizen unless he learns to view homosexual "marriages" as a perfectly good option. And you are teaching him that he must marry a woman and have children! Horrors!
Don't you realize that you are spewing heteronormative propaganda? Why, it could even be considered hate speech. Bad enough that you say these things behind closed doors, but to publish these ideas in a public forum? How dare you! Don't you realize that implying something (such as heterosexual marriage, or being a father to children) is to be preferred, or is a norm, is hateful to others who don't share your sexual orientation, your outlook on family life? Don't you realize that as a good citizen (you say you want to be "good") you should be presenting your son with all possible options for his adult life? You need to apologize for writing these hate-filled words:
I want you and Micah [his younger brother] to become loving fathers and husbands, so I make sure that open affection is something you see and get a lot of. Some men are inhibited about kissing or hugging their wives, or addressing them with terms of endearment; you're growing up in an environment where your father makes no secret of his love for your mother. I hope your children will grow up in a similar environment. Speaking of your children, I have been shamelessly propagandizing you for years on the advantages of marrying early and having lots of kids -- two things I didn't do but wish I had....
Jeff, don't you know that you should leave it up to the state to disseminate proper values to your sons? We hope you've received a stern warning from your editors at the Boston Globe. And you'd better watch out: We may have to report you to the Dept. of Social Services for emotional abuse of your son.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
"Gay" Adoption Mess in Georgia
Here's a story bringing together the craziness of adoptions by non-biological homosexual "parents", the fluidity of "sexual orientation", and the willingness of the judiciary to ignore state laws.
Lesbian Argues Ga. Gays Can't Adopt Kids
AP, 3-25-07
ATLANTA -- Sara Wheeler's life has become a contradiction. Once a proud lesbian, she's now a pariah in the gay community. Once in a committed relationship with a female partner, she's rethinking her sexuality. And now she's doing something she once would have considered unthinkable -- arguing that gays don't have the legal right to adopt children.
Wheeler is coming to grips with the fact that she's become an outcast for taking this step in a custody fight for her child. But she says that isn't what her fight is about: "It's about motherly rights."
Wheeler, 36, and her partner, Missy, decided to start a family together and share the Wheeler last name. In 2000, Sara Wheeler gave birth to a son, Gavin, through artificial insemination. Two years later, they decided Missy Wheeler should adopt the child and legally become his second parent. Georgia law doesn't specifically say whether gay parents can adopt a child, so the decision was up to a judge in the Atlanta area's DeKalb County. After an adoption investigator determined that both partners wanted it, the judge cleared the request. ...
But then the couple broke up, and the biological parent, Wheeler, wanted sole custody of her son. She asked the court to "toss the adoption that she had previously pushed for, claiming it should never have been approved because it runs afoul of state law." Her lawsuit was rejected by the county judge and state Court of Appeals, then went to the Georgia Supreme Court, which refused to hear it (but is reconsidering). The local GLBT newspaper accused Wheeler of "self-hating".
"There's nothing that states this is an acceptable adoption," [Wheeler] said. "If Georgia wants to allow it, it needs to make proper laws." Aside from a few gay friends, she has turned away from the gay community. She no longer dates, and doesn't go to gay clubs or events any more. She said she is rethinking whether she is still a lesbian or whether she should abandon dating for good.
"I just don't feel comfortable in that scene," she says. "I'm just trying to figure it all out." She knows she's seen as a betrayer; but in a sense, she feels she was the one betrayed. "Before I'm anything -- gay or lesbian -- I'm a mother," she says. "And the most important thing is to make sure my son has a relationship with his biological mother."
Lesbian Argues Ga. Gays Can't Adopt Kids
AP, 3-25-07
ATLANTA -- Sara Wheeler's life has become a contradiction. Once a proud lesbian, she's now a pariah in the gay community. Once in a committed relationship with a female partner, she's rethinking her sexuality. And now she's doing something she once would have considered unthinkable -- arguing that gays don't have the legal right to adopt children.
Wheeler is coming to grips with the fact that she's become an outcast for taking this step in a custody fight for her child. But she says that isn't what her fight is about: "It's about motherly rights."
Wheeler, 36, and her partner, Missy, decided to start a family together and share the Wheeler last name. In 2000, Sara Wheeler gave birth to a son, Gavin, through artificial insemination. Two years later, they decided Missy Wheeler should adopt the child and legally become his second parent. Georgia law doesn't specifically say whether gay parents can adopt a child, so the decision was up to a judge in the Atlanta area's DeKalb County. After an adoption investigator determined that both partners wanted it, the judge cleared the request. ...
But then the couple broke up, and the biological parent, Wheeler, wanted sole custody of her son. She asked the court to "toss the adoption that she had previously pushed for, claiming it should never have been approved because it runs afoul of state law." Her lawsuit was rejected by the county judge and state Court of Appeals, then went to the Georgia Supreme Court, which refused to hear it (but is reconsidering). The local GLBT newspaper accused Wheeler of "self-hating".
"There's nothing that states this is an acceptable adoption," [Wheeler] said. "If Georgia wants to allow it, it needs to make proper laws." Aside from a few gay friends, she has turned away from the gay community. She no longer dates, and doesn't go to gay clubs or events any more. She said she is rethinking whether she is still a lesbian or whether she should abandon dating for good.
"I just don't feel comfortable in that scene," she says. "I'm just trying to figure it all out." She knows she's seen as a betrayer; but in a sense, she feels she was the one betrayed. "Before I'm anything -- gay or lesbian -- I'm a mother," she says. "And the most important thing is to make sure my son has a relationship with his biological mother."
Monday, March 26, 2007
Phony Basis for Federal "Hate Crimes" Bill
Is there an epidemic of transgender bashing? Not according to FBI crime statistics. Yet Rep. John Conyers, who again introduced the federal "hate crimes" bill last week, falsely claims that there is. Let's hope President Bush has the sense to veto this crazy bill.
Then we have to deal with the transgender rights and "hate crimes" bill that's been filed here in Massachusetts! More on that soon...
From Traditional Values Coalition:
Pro-Homosexual/Drag Queen ‘Hate Crimes’ Bill Introduced
March 22, 2007 – Far left Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has once again introduced his so-called “hate crimes” bill to provide special federal protection for homosexuality, cross-dressing, and transsexualism. H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, is a rehash of his 2005 bill, according to sources in Congress.
H.R. 1592 claims there is an epidemic of “hate” against homosexuals and cross-dressers that is so pervasive throughout our nation, that local law enforcement officials are overwhelmed in dealing with the problem. In addition, Conyers’ and his congressional cohorts claim – without any evidence whatsoever – that homosexuals, cross-dressers, etc., are so persecuted in their home states that they are fleeing into neighboring states to avoid persecution. The legislation asserts that violence against these groups forces “such members to move across state lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.” Liberals also claim things are so bad for homosexuals, cross-dressers, etc., that these individuals are prevented “from purchasing goods and services; obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.” The bogus claim that interstate travel is involved in “hate,” is needed by Conyers to invoke federal involvement in local law enforcement through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution....
Contrary to what John Conyers claims, there is no epidemic of hate against individuals because of their sexual orientation. FBI hate crime statistics from 2005 (the latest available) report only 1,171 cases of sexual orientation bias against individuals. Of those, 301 were listed as “intimidation,” which is name-calling. Another 333 were listed as “simple assault,” which is pushing or shoving. Only 177 were listed as aggravated assault against a person because of his sexual orientation. “In a nation of 300 million, the existence of 1,171 “hate crimes” against individuals hardly constitutes a national epidemic that is overwhelming local police departments or sheriff’s departments [said Andrea Lafferty of Traditional Values].
“The ultimate goal of Conyers’ bill is to silence all opposition to the homosexual/transgender political agenda. So-called ‘hate speech’ will be suppressed because it supposedly incites individuals to violence against homosexuals/ transgenders. Defined by homosexuals, hate speech is any verbal or printed materials that criticize the normalization of sodomy in our culture. The goal is to undermine the First Amendment and persecute Christians who oppose homosexuality” said Lafferty.
Then we have to deal with the transgender rights and "hate crimes" bill that's been filed here in Massachusetts! More on that soon...
From Traditional Values Coalition:
Pro-Homosexual/Drag Queen ‘Hate Crimes’ Bill Introduced
March 22, 2007 – Far left Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has once again introduced his so-called “hate crimes” bill to provide special federal protection for homosexuality, cross-dressing, and transsexualism. H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, is a rehash of his 2005 bill, according to sources in Congress.
H.R. 1592 claims there is an epidemic of “hate” against homosexuals and cross-dressers that is so pervasive throughout our nation, that local law enforcement officials are overwhelmed in dealing with the problem. In addition, Conyers’ and his congressional cohorts claim – without any evidence whatsoever – that homosexuals, cross-dressers, etc., are so persecuted in their home states that they are fleeing into neighboring states to avoid persecution. The legislation asserts that violence against these groups forces “such members to move across state lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.” Liberals also claim things are so bad for homosexuals, cross-dressers, etc., that these individuals are prevented “from purchasing goods and services; obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.” The bogus claim that interstate travel is involved in “hate,” is needed by Conyers to invoke federal involvement in local law enforcement through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution....
Contrary to what John Conyers claims, there is no epidemic of hate against individuals because of their sexual orientation. FBI hate crime statistics from 2005 (the latest available) report only 1,171 cases of sexual orientation bias against individuals. Of those, 301 were listed as “intimidation,” which is name-calling. Another 333 were listed as “simple assault,” which is pushing or shoving. Only 177 were listed as aggravated assault against a person because of his sexual orientation. “In a nation of 300 million, the existence of 1,171 “hate crimes” against individuals hardly constitutes a national epidemic that is overwhelming local police departments or sheriff’s departments [said Andrea Lafferty of Traditional Values].
“The ultimate goal of Conyers’ bill is to silence all opposition to the homosexual/transgender political agenda. So-called ‘hate speech’ will be suppressed because it supposedly incites individuals to violence against homosexuals/ transgenders. Defined by homosexuals, hate speech is any verbal or printed materials that criticize the normalization of sodomy in our culture. The goal is to undermine the First Amendment and persecute Christians who oppose homosexuality” said Lafferty.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Criminalization of Christianity and Traditional Values Continues
See LifeSiteNews for these disturbing stories from England, Brazil, and Germany. The criminalization of traditional values is happening just a bit faster there than here. But our federal and state "hate crimes" laws and their implementation plans are coming together in the U.S., while few pay attention.
"UK Regulations Barring Religious Schools from Teaching Against Homosexuality Approved"
and
"More Details on the Proposed Brazil Law to Jail Pastors who Preach Homosexual Activity is Sin"
and
"German Court Places Custody of Yet Another 5 Homeschooling Children with Government's Youth Office"
John Haskins comments on these stories:
LifeSiteNews reports that England has outlawed teaching against homosexuality in religious schools. Brazil may make criticism of homosexuality a criminal offence; conviction would result in prison sentences of between two and five years. Children are being stolen from their parents in Germany.
See the story on England (above): "The one thing the government doesn't want to see right now is priests and ministers in prison. That means they are going to start with schools or businesses. They've been pushing hard in education for years," Fr. Finigan said. Why is it that priests and ministers in prison is "the one thing the UK government doesn't want to see?" Because that is the one thing that could cause good to win over evil.
Do we have the leaders we need to prevent such things in this country? It doesn't seem so. You either have spiritual leaders who are more than willing to be arrested, beaten, impoverished and imprisoned for their faith and as an example to others, or you have no spiritual leadership at all. The big budgets, fancy cars, nice houses and everything else are not proof that God is blessing our pastors and "pro-family leaders." They are merely proof that we are the Church of Laodicea.
Why has Tony Perkins (Family Research Council), for example, never been arrested? Pat Robertson? James Dobson? Gary Bauer? If they haven't stood up, why should anyone else? Is there really still nothing worth getting arrested for?
Why has Jay Sekulow (American Center for Law & Justice) not accused judges of violating their oaths of office -- does he fear being sanctioned by the American Bar Association ? Why is it not common for prominent pro-family lawyers and law professors to speak publicly of the corrupt lawyers in the way that Christ descibed them in the Gospel of Luke? How is it possible for "pro-family" lawyers to lie about the constitutions they have sworn to defend? If the Founding Fathers or Martin Luther King, Jr. had used their methods, they would have achieved nothing. For too many "leaders," pro-family activism turns out over the long run to be just a career.
One day down the road it will occur to some people who should have seen it when it was happening: the criminalization of Christianity happened not in spite of our resistance, but because of what we thought was our "resistance." Our silly, half-hearted children's games created the moral vacuum needed to draw in the evil that is smothering the legal and cultural inheritance that we owe to our children. The criminalization of virtue was inevitable once we decided, unconsciously, to tolerate the counterfeit Christianity in us and around us.
"UK Regulations Barring Religious Schools from Teaching Against Homosexuality Approved"
and
"More Details on the Proposed Brazil Law to Jail Pastors who Preach Homosexual Activity is Sin"
and
"German Court Places Custody of Yet Another 5 Homeschooling Children with Government's Youth Office"
John Haskins comments on these stories:
LifeSiteNews reports that England has outlawed teaching against homosexuality in religious schools. Brazil may make criticism of homosexuality a criminal offence; conviction would result in prison sentences of between two and five years. Children are being stolen from their parents in Germany.
See the story on England (above): "The one thing the government doesn't want to see right now is priests and ministers in prison. That means they are going to start with schools or businesses. They've been pushing hard in education for years," Fr. Finigan said. Why is it that priests and ministers in prison is "the one thing the UK government doesn't want to see?" Because that is the one thing that could cause good to win over evil.
Do we have the leaders we need to prevent such things in this country? It doesn't seem so. You either have spiritual leaders who are more than willing to be arrested, beaten, impoverished and imprisoned for their faith and as an example to others, or you have no spiritual leadership at all. The big budgets, fancy cars, nice houses and everything else are not proof that God is blessing our pastors and "pro-family leaders." They are merely proof that we are the Church of Laodicea.
Why has Tony Perkins (Family Research Council), for example, never been arrested? Pat Robertson? James Dobson? Gary Bauer? If they haven't stood up, why should anyone else? Is there really still nothing worth getting arrested for?
Why has Jay Sekulow (American Center for Law & Justice) not accused judges of violating their oaths of office -- does he fear being sanctioned by the American Bar Association ? Why is it not common for prominent pro-family lawyers and law professors to speak publicly of the corrupt lawyers in the way that Christ descibed them in the Gospel of Luke? How is it possible for "pro-family" lawyers to lie about the constitutions they have sworn to defend? If the Founding Fathers or Martin Luther King, Jr. had used their methods, they would have achieved nothing. For too many "leaders," pro-family activism turns out over the long run to be just a career.
One day down the road it will occur to some people who should have seen it when it was happening: the criminalization of Christianity happened not in spite of our resistance, but because of what we thought was our "resistance." Our silly, half-hearted children's games created the moral vacuum needed to draw in the evil that is smothering the legal and cultural inheritance that we owe to our children. The criminalization of virtue was inevitable once we decided, unconsciously, to tolerate the counterfeit Christianity in us and around us.
Friday, March 23, 2007
GLBT Anchor Babies
It's clear that children in GLBT-headed households are crucial to the argument for homosexual "marriage". They are the "anchor babies" for the movement. The radical homosexuals understood this long before any of us regular folks were paying attention. That's why they got adoption to homosexual couple "parents" OK'd back in the early 1990s.
Now we see a bill filed in the Mass. legislature this session to legalize homosexual "marriage" (which filing, by the way, proves that homosexual "marriage" is still not legal here) ... It's called: "An act to protect Mass. families through equal access to civil marriage" (H1710). If you've ever been to State House hearings, you'll appreciate their theatrical use of children as props for their "homosexual marriage" argument.
The emotional needs of the "parents" are paramount in such households. But the burdens placed on the children who don't know their biological parent, and who are lacking a parent of each sex [... yes -- there are only two sexes ...] are plastered over with phony studies about same-sex parents (or even single parents by choice) and their children.
(See our earlier posting, "The Pain of not knowing your biological parent.")
So when we see these two articles about labs catering to same-sex parents, it makes us cringe. This biotech intervention in baby-making is out of control.
"Clinics recruit surrogates to provide eggs for gay couples; Homosexuals can pay extra to choose the sex of their baby." (Focus on the Family, CitizenLink, 3-20-07) And if it's the wrong sex, abort!
"News in brief: Growing Generations hits 500-baby milestone" (Bay Windows, 3-22-07)
Now we see a bill filed in the Mass. legislature this session to legalize homosexual "marriage" (which filing, by the way, proves that homosexual "marriage" is still not legal here) ... It's called: "An act to protect Mass. families through equal access to civil marriage" (H1710). If you've ever been to State House hearings, you'll appreciate their theatrical use of children as props for their "homosexual marriage" argument.
The emotional needs of the "parents" are paramount in such households. But the burdens placed on the children who don't know their biological parent, and who are lacking a parent of each sex [... yes -- there are only two sexes ...] are plastered over with phony studies about same-sex parents (or even single parents by choice) and their children.
(See our earlier posting, "The Pain of not knowing your biological parent.")
So when we see these two articles about labs catering to same-sex parents, it makes us cringe. This biotech intervention in baby-making is out of control.
"Clinics recruit surrogates to provide eggs for gay couples; Homosexuals can pay extra to choose the sex of their baby." (Focus on the Family, CitizenLink, 3-20-07) And if it's the wrong sex, abort!
"News in brief: Growing Generations hits 500-baby milestone" (Bay Windows, 3-22-07)
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Senate Pres. Murray Will Have Vote on Marriage Amendment?
Update: Senate President Murray said today she will hold a vote on the marriage amendment. She must have had enough time in the past 24 hours to have that "discussion with herself." But we can be sure, with her MassEquality ties, that she means it when she says, "I will try to help the advocates get the votes that they need."
See Bay Windows, "MassEquality beefs up lobby strategy," on the extraordinary efforts being made on this score. MassEquality has just hired 13 new field staffers and Deval Patrick's grassroots strategist! (Could the Gill Action Fund be paying for this?)
MURRAY TO CALL FOR VOTE ON GAY MARRIAGE BAN
State House News, 3/22/07
Senate President Therese Murray, a gay marriage supporter, will call for a vote on the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but work to secure votes to defeat the measure, she said today. "My vote is going to be just what it was the last time, but I am not going to move to adjourn. I will call for a vote and I will try to help the advocates get the votes that they need." Speaking with reporters on her way into a Senate session, and asked why she planned to allow a vote despite her opposition, she said, "Well, because I think it’s important that we vote."
Fear of a lawsuit had nothing to do with it?
See Bay Windows, "MassEquality beefs up lobby strategy," on the extraordinary efforts being made on this score. MassEquality has just hired 13 new field staffers and Deval Patrick's grassroots strategist! (Could the Gill Action Fund be paying for this?)
MURRAY TO CALL FOR VOTE ON GAY MARRIAGE BAN
State House News, 3/22/07
Senate President Therese Murray, a gay marriage supporter, will call for a vote on the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but work to secure votes to defeat the measure, she said today. "My vote is going to be just what it was the last time, but I am not going to move to adjourn. I will call for a vote and I will try to help the advocates get the votes that they need." Speaking with reporters on her way into a Senate session, and asked why she planned to allow a vote despite her opposition, she said, "Well, because I think it’s important that we vote."
Fear of a lawsuit had nothing to do with it?
Senate Pres. Murray Unlikely to Allow Marriage Amendment Vote
We all know what's coming. Immediately after Senator Therese Murray's elevation to Senate President yesterday, Mass. Family Institute released an email alert. They know their VoteOnMarriage amendment is in serious danger again.
Outgoing Senate Pres. Travaglini apparently just kicked the can down the road when he forced the marriage amendment vote on January 2, contrary to expectations. Delaying tactics. He wasn't really for the citizens' rights. He just wanted to go out with a "clean" record, and string pro-family citizens along for a while. Defuse things a bit.
The VoteOnMarriage people are right to worry. Look at the people Murray hires: A major MassEquality operative is now her executive assistant -- a radical allied with QueerToday. (See our report on MassResistance.) Marc Solomon, head of MassEquality, "said the group was pleased to see a like-minded legislator would be wielding the gavel," according to State House News.
Regular readers of this blog know that we don't like the weak wording of the VoteOnMarriage amendment. But we are in absolute agreement that it must be voted on by the Legislature.
Murray on the marriage amendment (Boston Globe, 3-22-07): Though a strong supporter of same-sex marriage, she declined to say whether she would require an up-or-down vote on a constitutional ban when she presides over the Constitutional Convention this spring or whether she would allow it to be defeated with procedural maneuvers. "I haven't even discussed that with myself," she told reporters.
Outgoing Senate Pres. Travaglini apparently just kicked the can down the road when he forced the marriage amendment vote on January 2, contrary to expectations. Delaying tactics. He wasn't really for the citizens' rights. He just wanted to go out with a "clean" record, and string pro-family citizens along for a while. Defuse things a bit.
The VoteOnMarriage people are right to worry. Look at the people Murray hires: A major MassEquality operative is now her executive assistant -- a radical allied with QueerToday. (See our report on MassResistance.) Marc Solomon, head of MassEquality, "said the group was pleased to see a like-minded legislator would be wielding the gavel," according to State House News.
Regular readers of this blog know that we don't like the weak wording of the VoteOnMarriage amendment. But we are in absolute agreement that it must be voted on by the Legislature.
Murray on the marriage amendment (Boston Globe, 3-22-07): Though a strong supporter of same-sex marriage, she declined to say whether she would require an up-or-down vote on a constitutional ban when she presides over the Constitutional Convention this spring or whether she would allow it to be defeated with procedural maneuvers. "I haven't even discussed that with myself," she told reporters.
State Senator Brian Joyce (quoted in Bay Windows, 3-22-07): As state Sen. Brian A. Joyce points out, Murray’s position as Senate president means that the three most powerful figures on Beacon Hill — Murray, House Speaker Sal DiMasi and Gov. Deval Patrick — “are all foursquare against discrimination.” Under those circumstances, added the Milton Democrat, “I’m hard-pressed to see a scenario whereby this matter advances.” The leadership changes in both the Senate and the corner office, along with the increased acceptance of marriage equality as time has passed, leave Joyce “cautiously optimistic” that the amendment will soon be “dying a peaceful death.”
Mass. Family Institute email alert (3-20-07): Now [Murray] decides if the legislature will have a fair vote on the marriage amendment at the Constitutional Convention this May 9. The state high court said the constitution requires a vote on the marriage amendment. But as an avowed supporter of same sex marriage, will politics get in Therese Murray's way?
Take Action NOW! Call Senate President Therese Murray at (617) 722-1330. Tell her that as Senate President, she now represents ALL the people. Tell her she is free to vote "no" on the marriage amendment. But she is constitutionally obligated to hold a vote on this important, citizen-initiated amendment.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
How to Define "Gay and Lesbian Youth"
Elementary children (grades K-8) in all Massachusetts public schools now fall under the authority of the new "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth," according to the Commissioners at last night's meeting. And who will reign in the Commissioners? Up until now, the accepted and assumed target of the Commission was high school students.
Why are definitions important in statutes? If there is a new concept, such as "gays" or "lesbians" (that is, as opposed to homosexual behaviors), and there is supposedly such a thing as "gay and lesbian youth" enshrined in a statute, those new concepts or terms should be clearly defined before the legislature passes a new law. Otherwise, watch out for all sorts of abuses.
And that's just where the new law creating the independent Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth has brought us. Their abuse of children will now officially be extended to the youngest students. Last night at their meeting, the Commission members made it perfectly clear that since "youth" was not defined in the statute creating their commission, they would on their own authority extend the definition of "youth" to cover little children, grades K-8. (So much for interpreting statutes according to definitions commonly accepted at the time it was written.)
Dictionary.com (based on the Random House dictionary), however, gives these pertinent definitions of "youth":
4. the period of life from puberty to the attainment of full growth; adolescence.
7. a young person, esp. a young man or male adolescent.
The American Heritage dictionary gives this definition:
1.c. A young person, especially a young male in late adolescence.
Why are definitions important in statutes? If there is a new concept, such as "gays" or "lesbians" (that is, as opposed to homosexual behaviors), and there is supposedly such a thing as "gay and lesbian youth" enshrined in a statute, those new concepts or terms should be clearly defined before the legislature passes a new law. Otherwise, watch out for all sorts of abuses.
And that's just where the new law creating the independent Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth has brought us. Their abuse of children will now officially be extended to the youngest students. Last night at their meeting, the Commission members made it perfectly clear that since "youth" was not defined in the statute creating their commission, they would on their own authority extend the definition of "youth" to cover little children, grades K-8. (So much for interpreting statutes according to definitions commonly accepted at the time it was written.)
Dictionary.com (based on the Random House dictionary), however, gives these pertinent definitions of "youth":
4. the period of life from puberty to the attainment of full growth; adolescence.
7. a young person, esp. a young man or male adolescent.
The American Heritage dictionary gives this definition:
1.c. A young person, especially a young male in late adolescence.
Monday, March 19, 2007
No Homosexual "Marriage" in France
LifeSiteNews is reporting that the French are standing strong for common sense on marriage. Note that the French recognize the problem with adoption and "procreation for homosexual couples."
Top French Court Rejects Gay Marriage
Mar. 15, 2007 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) - On March 13, France's highest court upheld the decision of a lower court and rejected the 2004 'marriage' of two homosexual men.The court declared the marriage annulled, finding that "under French law, marriage is a union between a man and a woman." ...
As previously reported by LifeSiteNews.com, a commission formed by the President of the French National Assembly advised in 2006 that, despite recognition of the fact that the French concept of family has become “more diverse and less institutionalized,” homosexual marriage and adoption and artificial procreation for homosexual couples should not be permitted under French law.
Top French Court Rejects Gay Marriage
Mar. 15, 2007 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) - On March 13, France's highest court upheld the decision of a lower court and rejected the 2004 'marriage' of two homosexual men.The court declared the marriage annulled, finding that "under French law, marriage is a union between a man and a woman." ...
As previously reported by LifeSiteNews.com, a commission formed by the President of the French National Assembly advised in 2006 that, despite recognition of the fact that the French concept of family has become “more diverse and less institutionalized,” homosexual marriage and adoption and artificial procreation for homosexual couples should not be permitted under French law.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Trans Madness at Mass. High School
Is anyone paying attention? For years, the GLBT activists have been pushing on our children not only homosexuality, but also "bisexual" and "transgender" behaviors. Only the new Parents' Rights Opt-In Bill we've filed will stop this madness.
Yesterday we posted on our web site an article from a Massachusetts high school newspaper, reporting on a talk by a "transgender" (or is it "transsexual"?) young woman, claiming she's a man. She told kids about the wonders of her "transition", beginning with male hormone treatments at age 12. Note the mention of her Social Studies teacher. And how the teenage reporter has totally bought into the usage of the masculine pronouns for this young woman. From the Newton North High School newspaper (Dec. 2006):
Yesterday we posted on our web site an article from a Massachusetts high school newspaper, reporting on a talk by a "transgender" (or is it "transsexual"?) young woman, claiming she's a man. She told kids about the wonders of her "transition", beginning with male hormone treatments at age 12. Note the mention of her Social Studies teacher. And how the teenage reporter has totally bought into the usage of the masculine pronouns for this young woman. From the Newton North High School newspaper (Dec. 2006):
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Romney Video 2002: Ann Says "TRUST" Mitt to Protect Abortion
Another video gem has been uncovered. In the 2002 Governor's race, Ann Romney (soon to be the "special guest" at the Mass. Citizens for Life fundraiser!) assures the liberal ladies of Massachusetts that they can TRUST Mitt on the social issues! Mitt assures them he'll preserve and protect the right to choose. Then Mitt offers some little children -- presumably his grandchildren -- some bananas.
Now we must ask: Would it have been acceptable to Ann & Mitt if their daughter-in-law had decided to abort these lovely little children? Apparently, some such thought must have come to Ann Romney sometime in the last year or so, and converted her to pro-life --an "epiphany" that just happened to coincide with Mitt's.
Watch this brief video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKwVNUz52vo
Transcript from 2002 video --
Ann Romney: I think women also recognize that they want someone that is going to manage the state well. I think they may be more nervous about him on social issues. They shouldn't be, because he's gonna be just fine. But the perception is that he won't be. It's an incorrect perception.
Mitt Romney: So when asked, will I preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, I make an unequivocal answer: Yes.
Mitt to children: Do you want some banana?
Now we must ask: Would it have been acceptable to Ann & Mitt if their daughter-in-law had decided to abort these lovely little children? Apparently, some such thought must have come to Ann Romney sometime in the last year or so, and converted her to pro-life --an "epiphany" that just happened to coincide with Mitt's.
Watch this brief video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKwVNUz52vo
Transcript from 2002 video --
Ann Romney: I think women also recognize that they want someone that is going to manage the state well. I think they may be more nervous about him on social issues. They shouldn't be, because he's gonna be just fine. But the perception is that he won't be. It's an incorrect perception.
Mitt Romney: So when asked, will I preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, I make an unequivocal answer: Yes.
Mitt to children: Do you want some banana?
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Mitt's Latest Hits
Mitt's taking some more BIG hits.
Like Sunday's New York Times article on how he's buying conservative groups: "In Romney’s Bid, His Wallet Opens to the Right" (3-11-07).
And Janet Folger's commentary today in WorldNetDaily on the same: "Straw poll and the straw man" (3-14-07).
And Virginia Buckingham in the Boston Herald on Mitt's flip-flops on illegal aliens: "Immigration stance improv: From Mitt, another dubious act" (3-14-07).
We take some credit for getting this ball rolling. Of course, the problem for Mitt Romney is that there is SO MUCH of this, just waiting to be revealed. The real question for conservatives now is how long some of their supposed leaders will play along. We're thinking of National Review, Human Events, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Jay Sekulow. The obvious question: Since Mass. Citizens for Life and Mass. Family Institute are documented to have received gifts from Mitt, and even National Review apparently had help with a party, what does this imply about all his other endorsers?
And hey, how come Mitt didn't give us a Christmas gift? Oh yeah, he calls us "extremists." It's extreme to want to protect parental rights in the schools. It's extreme to say "no homosexual marriage & no civil unions." And it's extreme to say abortion is not something that can be put up to a vote in the states. He only gives gifts to compromisers.
Like Sunday's New York Times article on how he's buying conservative groups: "In Romney’s Bid, His Wallet Opens to the Right" (3-11-07).
And Janet Folger's commentary today in WorldNetDaily on the same: "Straw poll and the straw man" (3-14-07).
And Virginia Buckingham in the Boston Herald on Mitt's flip-flops on illegal aliens: "Immigration stance improv: From Mitt, another dubious act" (3-14-07).
We take some credit for getting this ball rolling. Of course, the problem for Mitt Romney is that there is SO MUCH of this, just waiting to be revealed. The real question for conservatives now is how long some of their supposed leaders will play along. We're thinking of National Review, Human Events, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Jay Sekulow. The obvious question: Since Mass. Citizens for Life and Mass. Family Institute are documented to have received gifts from Mitt, and even National Review apparently had help with a party, what does this imply about all his other endorsers?
And hey, how come Mitt didn't give us a Christmas gift? Oh yeah, he calls us "extremists." It's extreme to want to protect parental rights in the schools. It's extreme to say "no homosexual marriage & no civil unions." And it's extreme to say abortion is not something that can be put up to a vote in the states. He only gives gifts to compromisers.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
A Needless Death; A Pack of Lies
How sad. Human Rights Campaign mourns the death of AIDS activist Bob Hattoy. But the video of his speech at the 1992 Democrat Convention reminds us of the needlessness of his death; and the lies still being pushed by radical homosexuals about the AIDS epidemic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUashmbh1zQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUashmbh1zQ
How Our Governors Treat Their First Ladies
Fascinating juxtaposition of two stories in the Boston Globe today. How our Governors use their wives politically, how the wives let themselves be used, and what happens when the wife is in distress as a result:
Newly elected Governor Deval Patrick's wife Diane, a high-powered attorney used to pressure (and apparently otherwise healthy), is reported to be suffering from depression. Depression is often triggered by extreme stress, the story says. So the Governor announces he needs to step back from his job to spend more time with her. While we may not offer Patrick much praise on policy issues, we think this is the way to go here. (He'll just need to prioritize better in the corner office -- we suggest not meddling so much in the lives of the citizens!)
Meanwhile, former Governor Mitt Romney's wife Ann, who suffers from multiple sclerosis (MS), is being pushed onto a pedestal at every campaign appearance she can manage. "My sweetheart," Romney repeats over and over. The photo ops are great: Lovey-dovey couple, five handsome sons and daughters-in-law, picture-perfect grandchildren. But poor Ann. The course of MS is unpredictable, though there seems to be a link between extreme stress and worsening symptoms.
We noted this a few weeks back in our posting "Ambition vs. Family." From the Globe article we quoted there:
... 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. ...
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."
Bottom line: We wish politicians and candidates would leave their spouses out of it. Keep your private life and family relations separate, please. That goes for you too, Hillary!
Newly elected Governor Deval Patrick's wife Diane, a high-powered attorney used to pressure (and apparently otherwise healthy), is reported to be suffering from depression. Depression is often triggered by extreme stress, the story says. So the Governor announces he needs to step back from his job to spend more time with her. While we may not offer Patrick much praise on policy issues, we think this is the way to go here. (He'll just need to prioritize better in the corner office -- we suggest not meddling so much in the lives of the citizens!)
Meanwhile, former Governor Mitt Romney's wife Ann, who suffers from multiple sclerosis (MS), is being pushed onto a pedestal at every campaign appearance she can manage. "My sweetheart," Romney repeats over and over. The photo ops are great: Lovey-dovey couple, five handsome sons and daughters-in-law, picture-perfect grandchildren. But poor Ann. The course of MS is unpredictable, though there seems to be a link between extreme stress and worsening symptoms.
We noted this a few weeks back in our posting "Ambition vs. Family." From the Globe article we quoted there:
... 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. ...
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."
Bottom line: We wish politicians and candidates would leave their spouses out of it. Keep your private life and family relations separate, please. That goes for you too, Hillary!
Romney Unpresidential in Dealing with Critics
Romney can't take criticism. Or truth-telling about his record. In January, he unleashed an amateurish press release personally attacking Brian Camenker, following our "Mitt Romney Deception" report. The attack did not answer any of the embarassing factual revelations in our report.
Now, he's having problems dealing with Holly Robichaud's new PAC. In eyeon08 we saw this bit:
MA GOPers for Truth forms
March 9, 2007
... I met Robichaud at the RNC Winter Meeting and again at CPAC. At the RNC Winter Meeting, she was verbally assaulted by Romney staffers. And Romney himself became extremely uncomfortable when she was in the room. The Romney team is quite nervous about MA Republicans standing up and criticizing him.
This will be a fascinating dynamic. Can a guy run for President whose position really is:
"Romney aides have dismissed criticism from the hometown crowd, saying his message is resonating with voters nationwide."
We don’t need the people back home?
Now, he's having problems dealing with Holly Robichaud's new PAC. In eyeon08 we saw this bit:
MA GOPers for Truth forms
March 9, 2007
... I met Robichaud at the RNC Winter Meeting and again at CPAC. At the RNC Winter Meeting, she was verbally assaulted by Romney staffers. And Romney himself became extremely uncomfortable when she was in the room. The Romney team is quite nervous about MA Republicans standing up and criticizing him.
This will be a fascinating dynamic. Can a guy run for President whose position really is:
"Romney aides have dismissed criticism from the hometown crowd, saying his message is resonating with voters nationwide."
We don’t need the people back home?
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Romney's Alternate Truths
Anyone who dares to criticize Mitt Romney had better watch out. The "establishment Republicans" he runs with don't want anyone reminding Republican voters what the party USED TO BE and SHOULD BE about.
So we're not surprised to see Holly Robichaud's little foray into truth telling slapped down by Romney's campaign, or to hear of party operative Ron Kauffman's political threat to her partner Ron Vining. See "Mitt camp fires back at critics: Romney foes claim threat by GOP brass":
Mitt Romney’s campaign blasted a pair of Massachusetts Republicans bent on “exposing” the ex-governor’s record in his race for the White House, while the duo said they were threatened by a top Bay State GOP official.
Romney campaign spokesman Kevin Madden lashed out at the founders of MassRepublicans for Truth - GOP strategists Holly Robichaud and Ron Vining - calling them “disgruntled political operatives.”
“I expect they’re going to peddle a bunch of distortions and anger in their efforts,” Madden said. “They may be entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts. And the facts about Gov. Romney’s stellar record of fiscal conservatism and his pro-family advocacy are very clear.” ...
Note: Romney has never challenged the FACTS in our report, "The Mitt Romney Deception." That's because he can't. And guess what: there's only one set of facts.
Back to the Herald:
When the pair was toying with the idea, Robichaud sent an e-mail to Vining and copied it to several people, Vining said. The e-mail was passed along to Ron Kauffman, a key player in Romney’s presidential bid and a GOP national committeeman from Massachusetts.
At the Republican State Committee meeting in January, Vining said, Kaufman pulled him into the hall. Vining said he told him he wasn’t leading an effort against Romney.
“He said, ‘You are dead to me and as far as I’m concerned, you have no future in the Massachusetts Republican Party,’ ” Vining recalled. “He said something to the effect of, ‘If you’re looking to hurt Mitt, then we’ll see to it that you’re history.’ ”
So we're not surprised to see Holly Robichaud's little foray into truth telling slapped down by Romney's campaign, or to hear of party operative Ron Kauffman's political threat to her partner Ron Vining. See "Mitt camp fires back at critics: Romney foes claim threat by GOP brass":
Mitt Romney’s campaign blasted a pair of Massachusetts Republicans bent on “exposing” the ex-governor’s record in his race for the White House, while the duo said they were threatened by a top Bay State GOP official.
Romney campaign spokesman Kevin Madden lashed out at the founders of MassRepublicans for Truth - GOP strategists Holly Robichaud and Ron Vining - calling them “disgruntled political operatives.”
“I expect they’re going to peddle a bunch of distortions and anger in their efforts,” Madden said. “They may be entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts. And the facts about Gov. Romney’s stellar record of fiscal conservatism and his pro-family advocacy are very clear.” ...
Note: Romney has never challenged the FACTS in our report, "The Mitt Romney Deception." That's because he can't. And guess what: there's only one set of facts.
Back to the Herald:
When the pair was toying with the idea, Robichaud sent an e-mail to Vining and copied it to several people, Vining said. The e-mail was passed along to Ron Kauffman, a key player in Romney’s presidential bid and a GOP national committeeman from Massachusetts.
At the Republican State Committee meeting in January, Vining said, Kaufman pulled him into the hall. Vining said he told him he wasn’t leading an effort against Romney.
“He said, ‘You are dead to me and as far as I’m concerned, you have no future in the Massachusetts Republican Party,’ ” Vining recalled. “He said something to the effect of, ‘If you’re looking to hurt Mitt, then we’ll see to it that you’re history.’ ”
Friday, March 09, 2007
Mass. Republicans vs. Romney
The Boston Herald reports today on a Republican PAC from Massachusetts led by one of their columnists, Holly Robichaud. The 527 will go after Romney's flip-flopping, because Robichaud said, “He’s running for the highest office in the nation and voters need to know the entire record. We can’t elect an unknown quantity to president of the United States.”
Great. The more truth out there the merrier. We trust their web site will credit sources. We came out with "The Mitt Romney Deception" before Thanksgiving, and have been keeping a close watch on Romney since then. (Just enter "Romney" on this blog's search.) Last week, for instance, we issued a new report on his donation to the radical homosexual group, "AIDS Action Committee of Mass."
Is Robichaud's group conservatives, or RINOs? Will they have the courage to expose Romney's role in subverting the Mass. constitution and implementing homosexual "marriage"? Will they not only point out his flip-flops, but explain the true conservative position on any given issue, and where he falls short?
While the Herald mentions Rep. Loscocco as a Republican opposing Romney, a call to his office confirms he is not in any way connected to Robichaud's effort. Note also that Robichaud's PAC is being hyped by a newspaper that pays her for commentary.
From the Boston Herald, "Right jab floors Mitt: Mass. Repubs rip flip-flopping Romney" (3-9-07)
A Web-based “truth” squad is poised to chase Mitt Romney in an effort to trip him up on the presidential campaign trail - and its members are Republicans from his very own Bay State.
Founded by GOP consultants Holly Robichaud and Ron Vining, the Mass Republicans for Truth plans to launch a nationwide attack on the former governor’s record - including radio and TV ads.
“He’s running for the highest office in the nation and voters need to know the entire record,” said Robichaud. “We can’t elect an unknown quantity to president of the United States.”
The group will post “The Romney Report” on its website on Monday, vowing to expose his flip-flops on a host of key issues, from abortion to taxes to gay rights....
So far, about 40 Massachusetts Republicans, including elected state committee members and activists who have been involved in campaigns for years, have joined Massachusetts Republicans for Truth. Robichaud, a contributor to the Herald’s Monday political briefing, said she would not yet identify the other members. The group’s website goes live Monday.
The website, www.MassRepublicansforTruth.com which is still under construction, promises “The Romney Report” will assess Romney’s performance as governor in several key areas....
Romney has lost the support of several Massachusetts conservatives, including state Rep. Paul Loscocco (R-Holliston) and former Massachusetts GOP chairwoman Jean Inman....
Robichaud says she hasn’t decided who she’ll back for president, and said the group is not carrying water for any of Romney’s GOP rivals.
Great. The more truth out there the merrier. We trust their web site will credit sources. We came out with "The Mitt Romney Deception" before Thanksgiving, and have been keeping a close watch on Romney since then. (Just enter "Romney" on this blog's search.) Last week, for instance, we issued a new report on his donation to the radical homosexual group, "AIDS Action Committee of Mass."
Is Robichaud's group conservatives, or RINOs? Will they have the courage to expose Romney's role in subverting the Mass. constitution and implementing homosexual "marriage"? Will they not only point out his flip-flops, but explain the true conservative position on any given issue, and where he falls short?
While the Herald mentions Rep. Loscocco as a Republican opposing Romney, a call to his office confirms he is not in any way connected to Robichaud's effort. Note also that Robichaud's PAC is being hyped by a newspaper that pays her for commentary.
From the Boston Herald, "Right jab floors Mitt: Mass. Repubs rip flip-flopping Romney" (3-9-07)
A Web-based “truth” squad is poised to chase Mitt Romney in an effort to trip him up on the presidential campaign trail - and its members are Republicans from his very own Bay State.
Founded by GOP consultants Holly Robichaud and Ron Vining, the Mass Republicans for Truth plans to launch a nationwide attack on the former governor’s record - including radio and TV ads.
“He’s running for the highest office in the nation and voters need to know the entire record,” said Robichaud. “We can’t elect an unknown quantity to president of the United States.”
The group will post “The Romney Report” on its website on Monday, vowing to expose his flip-flops on a host of key issues, from abortion to taxes to gay rights....
So far, about 40 Massachusetts Republicans, including elected state committee members and activists who have been involved in campaigns for years, have joined Massachusetts Republicans for Truth. Robichaud, a contributor to the Herald’s Monday political briefing, said she would not yet identify the other members. The group’s website goes live Monday.
The website, www.MassRepublicansforTruth.com which is still under construction, promises “The Romney Report” will assess Romney’s performance as governor in several key areas....
Romney has lost the support of several Massachusetts conservatives, including state Rep. Paul Loscocco (R-Holliston) and former Massachusetts GOP chairwoman Jean Inman....
Robichaud says she hasn’t decided who she’ll back for president, and said the group is not carrying water for any of Romney’s GOP rivals.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Youths Promote Polygamy at Mass. State House
YMCA's from around Massachusetts sponsor a "Youth & Government" program, which includes a day at the Massachusetts State House. On Thursday, March 1, hundreds of high schoolers came to the State House and held mock hearings on fanciful bills. We got ahold of the program handed out at that event.
Two mock bills advocated legalizing polygamy, and we heard about a mock hearing on the subject that afternoon in the State House. The polygamy bills were mixed in with some silly bills (annex Maine; change the state muffin from corn to cranberry, etc.), and others on arguably legitimate topics (legalize gambling; require state-owned vehicles to use alternative energy; ban cell phones in public schools, etc.).
One of the mock student bills, TX2411H, reads: "Legalize Polygamy in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts." Another, WMB3011S, reads: "Expand marriage rights in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from a union of two people to a union of two or more people." There is also a proposal that Gardasil vaccination (for HPV) be covered by insurance for all schoolgirls.
Now who is putting these ideas into young teens' heads? Or are they just in the air in a state permitting sodomy "marriage"? We were told that a person at the Springfield YMCA, when asked about this hearing topic, opined that it's good that kids are thinking outside of the box.
The very fact polygamy is being discussed by teens under adult supervision at our State House lends it legitimacy. This is shocking ... then again, nothing shocks in Massachusetts.
Two mock bills advocated legalizing polygamy, and we heard about a mock hearing on the subject that afternoon in the State House. The polygamy bills were mixed in with some silly bills (annex Maine; change the state muffin from corn to cranberry, etc.), and others on arguably legitimate topics (legalize gambling; require state-owned vehicles to use alternative energy; ban cell phones in public schools, etc.).
One of the mock student bills, TX2411H, reads: "Legalize Polygamy in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts." Another, WMB3011S, reads: "Expand marriage rights in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from a union of two people to a union of two or more people." There is also a proposal that Gardasil vaccination (for HPV) be covered by insurance for all schoolgirls.
Now who is putting these ideas into young teens' heads? Or are they just in the air in a state permitting sodomy "marriage"? We were told that a person at the Springfield YMCA, when asked about this hearing topic, opined that it's good that kids are thinking outside of the box.
The very fact polygamy is being discussed by teens under adult supervision at our State House lends it legitimacy. This is shocking ... then again, nothing shocks in Massachusetts.
Romney Polls Poorly in New Hampshire
This is what happens when the candidate hasn't bought the results, and people know him pretty well:
N.H. Presidential Preference Poll
Mar 6, 2007: 5:41 pm ET
THE POLL: Suffolk University New Hampshire telephone survey Feb. 24-28.
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE -- 199 Republicans and those who lean Republican, sampling error plus or minus 4 percentage points
Rudy Giuliani 37%
John McCain 27%
Mitt Romney 17%
Ron Paul 2%
Tom Tancredo 2%
No opinion 12%
N.H. Presidential Preference Poll
Mar 6, 2007: 5:41 pm ET
THE POLL: Suffolk University New Hampshire telephone survey Feb. 24-28.
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE -- 199 Republicans and those who lean Republican, sampling error plus or minus 4 percentage points
Rudy Giuliani 37%
John McCain 27%
Mitt Romney 17%
Ron Paul 2%
Tom Tancredo 2%
No opinion 12%
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Romney, Straw Polls, and Deceit
Janet Folger, nationally syndicated talk show host, has a good piece in today's WorldNetDaily on the nonsense of straw polls, "Straw poll and brick values." (And see our report, "Romney campaign buys victory in CPAC presidential straw poll.") Folger:
And now the "Republicans" everyone's talking about. The RINOs (Republican in Name Only)....
And then there's Mitt Romney, making a convenient flip from his ardent pro-abortion stance just in time to run for president. It just seems to me that if you really come to the realization that dismembering children is not good public policy, you'd remember not to FUND it with taxpayer dollars in your state health-care plan … after such a conversion. Oh yeah, suddenly he's pro-marriage, too. So why did Romney publicly beat up on pro-marriage activist Brian Camenker last month? If that's how he treats people on our side of the issue, that doesn't bode well for future White House relations. And finally, mandating that homosexual "marriage licenses" be issued without any change in the law requiring it (in direct violation of the Massachusetts State Constitution) isn’t very convincing, either.
But here's what I find even more troubling. Our conservative leaders who are willing to flush away everything we stand for to "get on the bandwagon" and support one of these up front. I know the "tent" is big and everything, but is it really too much to ask for a candidate from the Republican Party that actually agrees with the party platform? Oh, wait a minute; there are candidates like that in the race. You just don't hear much about them.... Read more.
And now the "Republicans" everyone's talking about. The RINOs (Republican in Name Only)....
And then there's Mitt Romney, making a convenient flip from his ardent pro-abortion stance just in time to run for president. It just seems to me that if you really come to the realization that dismembering children is not good public policy, you'd remember not to FUND it with taxpayer dollars in your state health-care plan … after such a conversion. Oh yeah, suddenly he's pro-marriage, too. So why did Romney publicly beat up on pro-marriage activist Brian Camenker last month? If that's how he treats people on our side of the issue, that doesn't bode well for future White House relations. And finally, mandating that homosexual "marriage licenses" be issued without any change in the law requiring it (in direct violation of the Massachusetts State Constitution) isn’t very convincing, either.
But here's what I find even more troubling. Our conservative leaders who are willing to flush away everything we stand for to "get on the bandwagon" and support one of these up front. I know the "tent" is big and everything, but is it really too much to ask for a candidate from the Republican Party that actually agrees with the party platform? Oh, wait a minute; there are candidates like that in the race. You just don't hear much about them.... Read more.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Mass. Citizens for Life Changed Its Tune on Romney after Donation
Outrageous. Mitt Romney gave Mass. Citizens for Life (MCFL) a nice $15,000 donation in December 2006. Prior to that time, he'd given them nothing, and the organization had been critical of his lack of support for pro-life issues.
Now in March 2007 -- after his donation -- Romney can get away with handing out a flyer to the thousands of conservative activists at CPAC in D.C. last weekend that reads:
Massachusetts Citizens for Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis: "Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts. His actions concerning life issues have been consistent and he has been helpful down the line for us in the Bay State."
But in 2002 when Romney was running for Governor, Sturgis "said that her group had never offered an endorsement to Romney. Romney is 'not pro-life and does not meet their requirements.' (MIT News, 11-1-02)
In March 2005, Sturgis "said she hasn't detected any change in Romney's stance. The group considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, as do national antiabortion groups such as the Family Research Council." (Boston Globe, 3-05)
In May 2005, MCFL doubted the sincerity of Romney's move to pro-life positions: "Massachusetts Citizens for Life says it considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, and it is unimpressed with those moves." (Boston Globe, 5-25-05).
Now in March 2007 -- after his donation -- Romney can get away with handing out a flyer to the thousands of conservative activists at CPAC in D.C. last weekend that reads:
Massachusetts Citizens for Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis: "Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts. His actions concerning life issues have been consistent and he has been helpful down the line for us in the Bay State."
But in 2002 when Romney was running for Governor, Sturgis "said that her group had never offered an endorsement to Romney. Romney is 'not pro-life and does not meet their requirements.' (MIT News, 11-1-02)
In March 2005, Sturgis "said she hasn't detected any change in Romney's stance. The group considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, as do national antiabortion groups such as the Family Research Council." (Boston Globe, 3-05)
In May 2005, MCFL doubted the sincerity of Romney's move to pro-life positions: "Massachusetts Citizens for Life says it considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, and it is unimpressed with those moves." (Boston Globe, 5-25-05).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)