Sunday, August 31, 2008

Thank you, Nancy Pelosi!

Thank you, Nancy Pelosi!

In the course of your memorable interview with Tom Brokaw, Madam Speaker, you accomplished several things that battle-weary pro-life activists might have considered impossible.

1. You introduced an argument so profoundly stupid that not even pro-abortion editorialists could accept it.

In the 1970s, when abortion supporters concocted a myth about the thousands of poor women who were supposedly injured by back-alley operators, the media pounced on the story and treated it as established fact, without looking for evidence (which they would not have found). In the 1980s, when the pitch-men abortion industry rolled out their campaign based upon "a woman's choice," editorial writers began chanting that phrase like a mantra. But when you based your argument on supposed confusion about whether life begins at conception, and invoked the outdated biological theories of St. Augustine to buttress that argument, you went too far. Not even a liberal journalist will stake his credibility on the scientific understanding of the early 5th century.

In a Los Angeles Times column that was thoroughly sympathetic toward the proponents of legal abortion, and hostile to the teaching of the Catholic Church, Tim Rutten nevertheless found it necessary to distance himself from your line of thought. "If Pelosi had half a wit about her," Rutten wrote, before suggesting what he considered a more plausible approach. Liberals feel obliged to offer different arguments, because they recognize your argument as a sure loser.

2. You turned attention away from the scandal in the Catholic Church.

For the first times since the turn of the 21st century, American newspapers have been cluttered with stories about the Catholic Church that do not mention the sex-abuse crisis. Your interview drew attention away from the scandal. Or perhaps I should say that you called attention to another scandal, because…

3. You prompted American bishops to issue clear teaching statements on abortion and the duties of Catholic political actors.

Denver's Archbishop Charles Chaput might have felt lonely, as he took a courageous public stand against the notion that loyal Catholics can plausibly support unrestricted abortion. With Archbishop Raymond Burke having been promoted from the St. Louis archdiocese to a key Vatican post, no other metropolitan archbishop in the US was prepared to take such an unequivocal stand. But you, Madam Speaker, changed that.

Within hours of your television interview, the Archbishop of Washington had issued a public statement correcting you. The cardinal-archbishop of Philadelphia weighed in, and the chairman of the US bishops' committee on doctrine, and the cardinal-archbishop of New York. Now American bishops are competing with each other to issue the strongest, clearest explanation of Catholic voters' duties. That competition can only serve to advance the pro-life cause, and the cause of Catholic orthodoxy.

4. You ensured that abortion would remain a major issue throughout this year's presidential campaign.

At the Saddleback Forum, when he was asked whether human life begins at conception, Barack Obama wisely tried to wriggle out of the question. But his exit line-- that the issue was "above my pay grade"-- was awkward and unsatisfactory, and other interviewers began to press the question, making life difficult for your party's presidential nominee. Then you, Madam Speaker, plunged headlong into the rhetorical whirlpool, and redoubled public interest in the question of abortion-- and, more particularly, the question of when human life begins.

Your claim that a loyal Catholic can support unrestricted abortion was particularly timely, coming just when Obama named another Catholic Democrat, Joe Biden, as his running-mate. Suddenly Biden found himself in the midst of a heated debate, forced to defend an argument that he had not chosen. The Obama-Biden team is promising "hope for the future." Now the Democratic candidates are forced to defend the biology of the past.

The Republican Party has not always welcomed discussion of abortion. But Senator McCain has seen an opportunity, and issued a ringing re-affirmation of his pro-life stance. So the political battle is joined, and the arguments for and against legal abortion will be revisited frequently between now and November.

Since truth is on our side, we pro-lifers welcome that public debate. Especially because…

5. You focused public attention on a scientific fact that proponents of "choice" cannot explain away.

St. Augustine was wrong about fetal development. We all know that today. Intelligent readers still consult St. Augustine's theological opinions, but his scientific hypotheses are completely untenable in light of the scientific evidence.

And what is that evidence? I'm glad you asked. Have you seen the stunning, beautiful pictures of a fetus developing inside the womb? Something is moving there; something is alive. If it isn't a human, what is it? And if it is a human, why does it have no human rights?

These are questions that pro-lifers have asked for years. Thanks to you, Nancy Pelosi, the questions are being asked again this campaign season.
[http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=263]

Biden's Bishop Will not Permit Him, Even if Elected VP, to Speak at Catholic Schools

Biden's Bishop Will not Permit Him, Even if Elected VP, to Speak at Catholic Schools

By John-Henry Westen

DELEWARE, August 26, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an interview with Bob Krebs, the Communications Director for the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington, to which Senator Joseph Biden belongs, Krebs confirmed that Biden's Bishop will not permit the Senator even if elected Vice President of the United States of America to speak at Catholic schools.

When asked for the Bishop's take on Senator Biden and his stand in favor of abortion, Krebs directed LifeSiteNews.com to Bishop Michael Saltarelli's 2004 statement on 'Catholics in Political Life' which, said Krebs, "very plainly states Bishop's position in this matter."

In that document Bishop Saltarelli notes that, in line with the US Bishops Conference policy, "Our Catholic institutions will not honor Catholic politicians who take pro-abortion legislative positions or invite them to speak at our functions or schools."

LifeSiteNews.com called the diocesan communications director a second time to ask if that specific ban on speaking at Catholic schools or Catholic functions would apply to Biden, even if he became the Vice President.

Krebs replied, "I would say that as long as Senator Biden's stated position on abortion remains the same then it would apply to Senator Biden whether he was a Senator or the Vice President of any type of public figure."

In the same 2004 document, Bishop Saltarelli singled out Catholic politicians like Biden who claim a personal opposition to abortion but that they could not impose their faith's beliefs on others. Wrote the Bishop: "No one today would accept this statement from any public servant: 'I am personally opposed to human slavery and racism but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena.' Likewise, none of us should accept this statement from any public servant: 'I am personally opposed to abortion but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena.'"

In the document, Bishop Saltarelli does not rule out refusing communion to pro-abortion politicians but does say that he much prefers "active engagement and dialogue". He notes that he does not expect priests and others administering communion to withhold it from politicians. "That is ultimately my responsibility," he said.

The Associated Press reports that Biden received Communion last Sunday at his local parish of St. Joseph on the Brandywine near his home in Greenville, Delaware. Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput commented to AP that Biden should not present himself for Communion given his public support for abortion.

Biden "has admirable qualities to his public service," Chaput said in his statement. "But his record of support for so-called abortion 'rights,' while mixed at times, is seriously wrong. I certainly presume his good will and integrity - and I presume that his integrity will lead him to refrain from presenting himself for Communion, if he supports a false 'right' to abortion."

Cardinals, Bishops and Congressmen Slam Pelosi on Abortion

Cardinals, Bishops and Congressmen Slam Pelosi on Abortion

By Tim Waggoner

WASHINGTON, August 26, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – "Catholic" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's blatantly fallacious remarks on August 24 regarding the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion have triggered a tidal wave of criticisms from clergymen, congressmen and Catholics nationwide.

Responding to a question from NBC's Meet the Press moderator Tom Brokaw about when human life begins, Pelsosi appealed to her extensive research on the issue as well as her "ardent" Catholic faith to claim that, "I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins."

She asserted that "over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition," in attempt to support her pro-abortion and pro-contraception stance. Watch the full interview here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUSt7dfj5I)

The response to Pelosi's statements has been intense as Catholic leaders across America are wondering how a "Catholic" with a self-proclaimed broad understanding of the Catholic Church's position on human life could have overseen the straightforward teaching contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).

Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl quoted this teaching (section 2270-2271 of the CCC) in a letter responding to Pelosi's comments: "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception…Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable." (Catechism, 2270-2271)

Rebuking her, Archbishop Wuerl said that, "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion." For the full letter see: (http://www.adw.org/news/news.asp?ID=569&Year=2008)

Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, also issued a release on Pelosi's remarks, explaining that Pelosi's belief that a woman has the "right to choose" to end her baby's life contradicts Catholic teaching and addressing her comments suggesting the Catholic Church has been polarized on the issue over the course of history.

None of the early Fathers "diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong," said Archbishop Chaput.

"Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith," he added. For the full letter see: (http://www.archden.org/images/ArchbishopCorner/ByTopic/onseparationofsense%26state_openlettercjc8.25.08.pdf)

Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Doctrine also wrote a response letter.

After mentioning the fact that scientists are certain that "a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization," the bishops wrote, "In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church teaches that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life." For the full letter see: (http://www.usccb.org/)

Edward Cardinal Egan of the Archdiocese of New York is another Church leader that has stepped up to defend the faith of his people. Please see upcoming separate LifeSiteNews.com coverage on his comments.

It was not only the leaders of the Church that felt the need to correct Pelosi. Ten congressmen have sent Pelosi a letter asking her to publicly rectify her misrepresentation of Catholic teachings.

"As fellow Catholics and legislators, we wish you (Pelosi) would have made a more honest effort to lay out the authentic position of the Church on this core moral issue before attempting to address it with authority," said the congressmen. "Your subsequent remarks mangle Catholic Church doctrine regarding the inherent sanctity and dignity of human life; therefore, we are compelled to refute your error."

"To reduce the scandal and consternation caused amongst the faithful by your remarks, we necessarily write you to correct the public record and affirm the Church's actual and historical teaching that defends the sanctity of human life," concluded their letter, which contained the following signatures.

Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter (MI)
Hon. Steve Chabot (OH)
Hon. Virginia Foxx (NC)
Hon. Phil Gingrey (GA)
Hon. Peter King (NY)
Hon. Steve King (IA)
Hon. Daniel Lungren (CA)
Hon. Devin Nunes (CA)
Hon. John Sullivan (OK)
Hon. Patrick Tiberi (OH)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, August 30, 2008

McCain Accuses Obama of Infanticide and of Lying on the Matter

McCain Himself Accuses Obama of Courting Infanticide

By John-Henry Westen

WASHINGTON, August 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The mainstream media has yet to notice, but Senator McCain last week directly accused Barack Obama of courting infanticide. While the pro-life movement in the nation has been on the issue for weeks, McCain himself delivered the punch line in his radio address for August 23.

McCain noted Obama's vote against the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which McCain described as a "law to require medical care for babies who survive abortions." McCain added to that description: "living, breathing babies whom Senator Obama described as, quote, 'previable.'"

McCain also accused Obama of lying on the matter, a fact which is well known to pro-life Americans who have followed the saga.

"At Saddleback, he [Obama] assured a reporter that he'd have voted 'yes' on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act," said McCain. "Even though the language of both the state and federal bills was identical, Senator Obama said people were, quote, 'lying' about his record." McCain concluded: "When that record was later produced, he dropped the subject but didn't withdraw the slander. And now even Senator Obama's campaign has conceded that his claims and accusations were false."

Taking a shot at Obama's now famous "above my pay grade" cop out on the question of when life begins, McCain concluded his message saying: "I can assure you that if I am president, advancing the cause of life will not be above my pay grade."

Full Text of Senator John McCain's radio address of August 23
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08082708.html

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Denver Archbishop: Democrats don't know Christianity

Archbishop: Democrats don't know Christianity
'It's always important to know what our faith actually teaches'

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput

DENVER - Denver Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput says Democrats simply don't know Christianity if they insist on continuing to spin the Bible's teachings on abortion.

"It's always important to know what our faith actually teaches," he said in a "clarification" for Catholics in northern Colorado as Democratic National Committee members met in Denver this week to hear a speaker from the National Abortion Rights Action League promote Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, as the next "pro-choice" president.

Chaput's also appeared at a pro-life prayer vigil outside the massive new Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Denver, reportedly the largest abortion megaclinic in the nation.

"The future of a community, a people, a church and a nation depends on the children who will inherit it," he said at the event. "If we prevent our children from being born, we remove ourselves from the future. It's really that simple. No children, no future."
[http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73463]

Meet Pro-Life Governor Sarah Palin and Possible VP

http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2008/05/meet-pro-life-governor-sarah-palin.html
Meet Pro-Life Governor Sarah Palin

As Christians who oppose abortion, we should throw our support to politicians who also oppose murdering our unborn. As average citizens, we do not get much flak for our opposition to abortion. Pro-life candidates for political office, on the other hand, can count on much hostility, condemnation, and unfavorable coverage when they speak out openly about their position on abortion, and they should be honored for doing so.
Today, I will pay homage to Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska. Not only is she strongly pro-life, but this lady lives the views she expresses. Many pro-life individuals reconsider their position when they are given the devastating news that they are carrying a child who has Down syndrome. In fact, 90 percent of all couples who receive the news of an expectant child with Down syndrome choose to abort. It is uncertain how many of these babies are carried by women who once called themselves “pro-life.”
Nevertheless, 44-year-old Palin and her husband, Todd, the parents of four children, chose to be in the 10 percent of couples who embrace a child with this disability. An Alaskan columnist, Effie Caldarola, wrote the following story about the Palin family: “Over a month ago, her office announced that the 44-year-old and her husband, Todd, were expecting their fifth child in May. It was a secret the beguiling brunette, a runner, managed to keep from even her staff. Then, April 18, she surprised us again by giving birth a month early to Trig Palin, 6 pounds, 2 ounces. In true Sarah fashion, her amniotic fluid leaked in Texas, she gave a speech at a Republican Governors Association convention as scheduled anyway, and then returned to Alaska to deliver.”
“Immediately the family made this announcement: ‘Trig is beautiful and already adored by us. We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives.’”
“Trig Palin has Down syndrome. Early prenatal testing alerted the Palins to this chromosomal abnormality, as it is alerting more and more families in the early stages of pregnancy. Unfortunately, because of early screening, more children with Down syndrome are aborted and fewer and fewer are being born.”
“Children with Down syndrome do bring ‘unspeakable joy’ into this world. I know the laughter and blessings my 5-year-old nephew, Ethan, with Down syndrome, has brought to our family. But how do you explain this joy to a perfection-at-any-price world?”
“Politicians rarely help. How many politicians are ever called upon to really walk the walk in their lives? Palin, a politician who has been eloquent in her defense of life before birth, has now proven with her own life how much she truly ‘walks the walk.’ Thank you, Sarah, for a beautiful witness given to us through a little one whose Norse name, Trig, means ‘brave victory.’”
What an impressive lady! I wish Pennsylvania could boast of a governor of that caliber. Trig is blessed to be raised by the Palin family. May the good Lord honor her and her husband for the courage and faith to see the child God has given to them as the gift he truly is.


2 Comments:
At 9:53 AM, Ted said...
Despite the Dems and the allied main stream media’s desperation to see Romney as McCain’s Veep, Mitt is clearly out, with (1) Obama doubling down on the class warfare theme (McCain’s 7 houses) and (2) McCain doubling down with ads showing the hypocrisy of Biden attacking Obama in the primaries — Romney did way more than that contra McCain.

This leaves only Govs Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty. Pro-abortion Ridge and Dem-Lieberman were never real considerations, despite relentless media goading. Pawlenty’s lackluster TV performances, coupled with Palin pizzazz, the primacy of oil drilling and the ticked off women/Hillary voters, does now portend a McCain/Palin checkmate on the Dems. This is so albeit the Dems and liberal media dare not mention Palin’s name, that is, everyone but…..

And if there’s any question as to Palin being uniquely positioned and able to more than nullify Biden in debate, see the excellent discussion at palinforvp.blogspot.com

Team McCain, well done!!!


At 6:09 PM, Ted said...
VEEP Debates Q&A

QUESTION: How will Sarah Palin do in a debate with Joe Biden?

ANSWER: How many men watching will be aware that Biden is in the room?

Why is the Media Covering up Romney's Gay Agenda Record?

Why is the Media Covering up Romney's Gay Agenda Record?
The reason the media is for Romney is because he was the Gay Mafia's Top Governor in the US. No Republican even comes close to being as pink as Romney was and is!

What is the difference between Giuliani and Romney?

Romney seems to be deeper in the pocket of the Gay Mafia. Even Giuliani seemed afraid to give a "Christmas Present to the 'Gay' Lobby." He made drag queen Giuliani look like a boy scout. Read the evidence below.


Fred

Mitt Romney's Christmas Present to the 'Gay' Lobby Should End Pro-Family Leaders' Support for his Candidacy

CHICAGO, December 26, 2007/Christian Newswire/ -- Peter LaBarbera, longtime pro- family advocate and founder of the Republicans For Family Values website, is calling on pro-family leaders who have endorsed Mitt Romney to withdraw their support for his candidacy in light of his recent comments on NBC's "Meet the Press" supporting pro-homosexual "sexual orientation" state laws.

"Mitt Romney's Christmas present to the homosexual lobby disqualifies him as a pro-family leader," LaBarbera said. "Laws that treat homosexuality as a civil right are being used to promote homosexual 'marriage,' same-sex adoption and pro- homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren. These same laws pose a direct threat to the freedom of faith- minded citizens and organizations to act on their religious belief that homosexual behavior is wrong.

"Romney may have had a late conversion on abortion, but it appears his ninth-inning flip-flop on homosexuality is falling short due to his strong commitment to 'gay rights,'" LaBarbera said. (See the 'Mitt Romney Deception' report) "Now some pro- family leaders -- who have raised millions of dollars over the years opposing 'gay' activism -- will need to explain how they can go on supporting an openly pro- homosexual-agenda candidate."

LaBarbera said it is "inconceivable after Massachusetts' twin disasters involving homosexual 'marriage' and homosexual adoption that Romney now is recommending pro- homosexual 'orientation' laws -- long derided as "special rights" among social conservatives - to the rest of the nation.

"In Romney's own state of Massachusetts, the state 'sexual orientation' nondiscrimination law laid the groundwork for homosexual activists' campaign to legalize 'same-sex marriage' -- which then-Gov. Romney brought to fruition with his unnecessary and illegal directive granting marriage licenses to homosexual partners," LaBarbera said. "The same pro-gay state law also forced Boston's Catholic Charities to shut down its century-old adoption agency because it would not pledge to place children in homosexual-led households against Catholic teaching.

"Given Romney's extensive pro-homosexual record and willingness now to depart from principle on this crucial issue, should we trust a 'President Romney' not to reverse course again on federal pro- homosexual laws such as 'Hate Crimes' and ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act)?" LaBarbera said.

The following is excerpted from Romney's "Meet the Press" interview December 16 with Tim Russert:

MR. RUSSERT: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it?

GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.

MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level.
GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level.

Republicans For Family Values is a website dedicated to defending pro-life and pro-natural-family principles within the GOP. For identification purposes only, LaBarbera is also president of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality.


Christian Newswire

Homosexual "Rights"

Gov. Romney has a long history of promoting and furthering the homosexual agenda, and working closely with leading gay activists
In February 2005, The American Spectator observed of Romney, "He is pro-choice and, aside from the marriage debate, generally in agreement with gay-rights advocates."
- American Spectator, 2/23/2005
In March, 2005, Boston's leading homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows, told its readers that Romney's pro-gay record belies his new-found "conservatism":
"Governor Romney has been touring the country in the past few weeks, courting anti-gay right-wingers in South Carolina, Missouri, and Utah with speeches designed to show that he is firmly in their camp. Yet a look at Romney's record shows that his Rick Santorum drag act is a relatively new phenomenon."
- Bay Windows, 3/3/2005

Romney twice sought and received the endorsement of the homosexual Log Cabin Republican Club
Both times Romney ran for public office - in 1994 running for US Senate against Ted Kennedy and in 2002 running for Governor of Massachusetts - he sought and received the formal endorsement of the Log Cabin Republican (LCR) Club PAC. This is the same group that in 2004 spent $1 million nationally in key swing states on TV ads that attacked President Bush for supporting a federal Marriage Protection Amendment.
In his 1994 US Senate campaign, Romney actually competed with his Republican primary opponent, John Lakian, for the Log Cabin Club's endorsement! Here's how Bay Windows described it:
But what struck the gay GOP during that campaign, according to Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans (LCR), was Romney's accessibility to and comfort within the local gay community. Romney and his Republican primary opponent, John Lakian, attended an LCR-sponsored candidate's forum during the campaign, where they both competitively vied for the organization's endorsement -- which Romney eventually won. During the course of his campaign, LCR member and former president Mark Goshko told Bay Windows, Romney held several meetings with group members and at least two LCR members joined his staff. Though gay Republicans were by no means running Romney's campaign, "it was really a multi-level involvement," Goshko stated. "Our people were very involved officially and outside of [the campaign]."
- Bay Windows, 3/28/2002

"In seeking the support of the Log Cabin Republican Club, Romney wrote them a letter promising that 'as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.' " [His opponent at the time was Sen. Ted Kennedy, perhaps the foremost advocate of homosexual rights in the U.S. Senate.]
- Boston Globe, 10/17/1994
Read Romney's letter to Log Cabin Club (Adobe Acrobat format)

And in the 2002 gubernatorial race, Romney was again courting the homosexual community:
"It's 9:15 a.m. and Republican gubernatorial nominee Mitt Romney is in good spirits. He's just wrapped up a meeting with the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans at Mario's restaurant in Boston, where he won his first endorsement from a gay organization . . . According to Mark Goshko, a former LCR president, the group's 15-member board of governors, the body that votes to endorse candidates, made the unanimous decision after meeting with the Romney campaign and holding extensive discussions."
- Bay Windows, 10/24/2002
Romney's campaign distributed pro-gay rights campaign literature during Boston's "Gay Pride" events
The annual "Gay Pride" events in Boston, as in other cities across the country, regularly feature obscene and degrading floats, handouts, and activities:
"During his 2002 gubernatorial run his campaign distributed bright pink flyers during Pride that declared 'Mitt and Kerry [running mate Kerry Healey] wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference.' Romney also argued that he would not only support gay friendly policies but would fight on behalf of the gay community to secure benefits such as domestic partner benefits and hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples."
- Bay Windows 3/3/2005



Romney supports homosexual "anti-discrimination" laws
Such laws are usually carried out at the expense of freedom of religion and speech. For example, they would allow lawsuits against a Christian book store owner for refusing to hire a homosexual activist applicant.

"The state LCR [Log Cabin Republican Club] worked with Romney's unsuccessful campaign to unseat U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1994. Romney won the LCR endorsement primarily based on his support for the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a pro-gay piece of legislation that at the time had little Republican support."
- Bay Windows, 10/24/2002
"[Romney] did, however, pledge to support the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban job discrimination based on sexual orientation, and other civil rights protections for gays in the areas of housing and credit. He also promised to bring the initiatives begun in Massachusetts to protect gay and lesbian youth to the federal level."
- Bay Windows, 3/28/2002
"[David] Rogers, who was president of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts when Romney was a gubernatorial candidate in 2002, said that while Romney made clear he was opposed to gay marriage, he said that he would fight any form of discrimination and left the impression he wouldn't crusade against gay rights.
- Boston Globe, 3/11/2004
Romney advocates homosexual couples' adoption rights be recognized by the government
"There will be children born to same-sex couples, and adopted by same-sax couples, and I believe that there should be rights and privileges associated with those unions and with the children that are part of those unions." On another occasion, his spokesman "declined to state Romney's position on whether homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt, and declined to say whether the governor opposes gay adoptions."
- State House press conference, 6/15/2005
- Boston Globe, 3/2/2006
Romney supports homosexual domestic partnerships
When he was campaigning for Governor, Romney positioned himself to the left of the Democrat Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran, on domestic partnerships, during an interview with Bay Windows:
"Basically I see the provision of basic civil rights and domestic partnership benefits [as] a campaign against Tom Finneran. I see Tom Finneran and the Democratic leadership as having opposed the application of domestic partnership benefits to gay and lesbian couples and I will support and endorse efforts to provide those domestic partnership benefits to gay and lesbian couples," says Romney.
- Bay Windows, 10/24/2002

"On Gay Rights: All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship."
- Romney's 2002 campaign website
Romney said at a State House press conference:
"If this [proposed constitutional marriage] amendment were to pass, at that stage I would support legislation which would provide certain domestic partnership benefits, like hospital visitation rights, and rights of survivorship, and so forth.- State House press conference, 6/15/2005

Romney supported and promoted legalizing homosexual civil unions
Within days of the Goodridge ruling, Romney announced that he supported homosexual civil unions:
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said yesterday he was ready to work with lawmakers to craft a "civil union"-style law to give some marriage rights to homosexual couples, even though he also supports a constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage . . . Mr. Romney yesterday told TV news stations that he would support a Vermont-style civil union law in Massachusetts, but reiterated his support for a constitutional amendment that would clarify that "marriage is an institution between a man and a woman."
- Washington Times, 11/20/2003

In 2005, Romney tried to tell South Carolina Republicans that he had always opposed civil unions:
Massachusetts Governor Romney is coming under fire for comments he made about gay marriage to Republican activists in South Carolina. Romney told Monday night's gathering in Spartanburg County that he's always been opposed to same-sex marriage as well as what he called "it's equivalent, civil unions." Romney, however, has for months backed a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts constitution that would ban gay marriage but provide for civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. Massachusetts State Representative Phil Travis says Romney can't be for civil unions when he's in Massachusetts and against them when he's out-of-state. Travis has been a leading opponent of same-sex unions.
- Associated Press, 2/23/2005

Romney strong-armed conservative Republicans into supporting a constitutional amendment that included civil unions:
Through all the twists and shifts during the gay-marriage debate this year, there was one constant: 22 Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed every measure that would grant gay couples civil unions in the constitution. That all changed yesterday, however, when 15 of that 22-member bloc broke away at the urging of Governor Mitt Romney and voted in favor of a proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage but create Vermont-style civil unions. Those 15 members provided the margin of victory, observers from both camps said yesterday after the measure passed by just five votes. In the end, the 15 agreed that approving a measure that they viewed as highly undesirable was preferable to the possibility that nothing would be sent to the state ballot for voters to weigh in on.
- Boston Globe 3/30/2004
(Note: This amendment, which included mandated provisions for civil unions, was ultimately defeated in the Legislature and never did go to the voters.)

Romney Opposes the Boy Scouts' Ban on Homosexual Scoutmasters
Despite the over 2,500 pedophilia cases now on record involving homosexual scout leaders, Romney stated, "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation." In the same article, a BSA official criticized Romney for opposing Scout policy.
- Boston Globe, 10/27/1994
Romney barred Boy Scouts from public participation in 2002 Olympics
The 2002 Olympics - run by Mitt Romney - was the only Olympics that restricted the Boy Scouts from participating. According to news reports, this was apparently because of pressure from homosexual activists. (But also, according to reports, homosexual groups participated fairly prominently.) Romney would not respond to reporters' questions about that action.
The largest Boy Scout council in the country responded to the call for volunteers issued by the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee, but the welcome mat was rolled up and the door slammed in its face. Olympic spokesmen for the 2002 winter games say the exclusion has nothing to do with recent protests by gay activists. While the organizing committee for the Olympic event is prominently displaying a call for local volunteers, they have explicitly let it be known that the Boy Scouts need not apply. "For us not to be involved is discouraging, considering the Atlanta games. The Scouting council there was extremely involved," said Kay Godfrey, professional Scout executive for the Great Salt Lake Council of Boy Scouts.
- NewsMax.com, Dec. 18, 2000
Homosexual activism in government
Romney appointed prominent homosexuals to key positions in his administration
"Romney also continues [former Governor] Weld's tradition of appointing openly gay people to key positions in his administration. One of his first cabinet appointments was Daniel Grabauskas, who Romney chose to serve in his cabinet as Secretary of the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction. The new governor's transition team also included several openly gay people, including Grabauskas, former lieutenant governor candidate and current president of the National Log Cabin Republicans Patrick Guerriero and former Mass. Log Cabin president Mark Goshko. Other gay Romney appointees include John Wagner, commissioner of the state welfare department, Mitchell Adams, executive director of the Massachusetts Technology collaborative and Jonathan Spampinato, a member of Romney's Diversity and Equality Opportunity Council."
- Bay Windows, 3/3/2005

(Note: These appointees aren't just "gay" people, they're committed homosexual activists. Grabauskas, for example, had previously served as head of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles where he instituted a policy of placing a sex-change check-off box on drivers license renewal forms.)
Drivers license renewal form
Romney appointed prominent homosexual activists and Democrats as judges
"Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found. Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats."
- Boston Globe 7/25/2005
Romney Rewards one of the State's Leading Anti-Marriage Attorneys by Making him a Judge
Romney told the U.S. Senate on June 22, 2004, that the "real threat to the States is not the constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate, but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage . . ." Romney sounds tough but yet he had no qualms advancing the legal career of one of the leading anti-marriage attorneys. He nominated Stephen Abany to a District Court. Abany has been a key player in the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association which, in its own words, is "dedicated to ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision on marriage equality is upheld, and that any anti-gay amendment or legislation is defeated."
Press release from governor's office 5/4/2005
- U.S. Senate testimony by Gov. Mitt Romney, 6/22/2004

Stephen Abany testified at the State House in 1999 advocating a bill to repeal the sodomy laws in Massachusetts. This type of activism obviously did not bother Romney.
- Lawyers' Weekly 2/14/2000
Romney announces he won't fill judicial vacancies before term ends
Despite his rhetoric about judicial activism, Romney announced that he won't fill all the remaining vacancies during his term - but instead leave them for his liberal Democrat successor!
Governor Mitt Romney pledged yesterday not to make a flurry of lame-duck judicial appointments in the final days of his administration . . . David Yas, editor of Lawyers Weekly, said Romney is "bucking tradition" by resisting the urge to fill all remaining judgeships. "It is a tradition for governors to use that power to appoint judges aggressively in the waning moments of their administration," Yas said. He added that Romney has been criticized for failing to make judicial appointments. "The legal community has consistently criticized him for not filling open seats quickly enough and being a little too painstaking in the process and being dismissive of the input of the Judicial Nominating Commission," Yas said.
- Boston Globe 11/2/2006

Romney's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth used huge taxpayer funding to promote homosexuality in the public schools
During most of Romney's term in office, there existed an agency called the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. It was established before Romney came to power but it existed throughout his tenure. Even though he had legal control over this entity and the Commissioners served at his pleasure, he never dissolved the Commission, nor attempted to dictate who its members were, nor even restricted how it used its funding. Romney could have appointed pro-family people or representatives from ex-homosexual groups to serve on this Commission, but he never did.



The Governor's Commission was perhaps the largest government-sanctioned promoter of the homosexual agenda to children in the United States. This entity spent millions of state tax dollars promoting the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender (GLBT) radicalism in Massachusetts schools by inundating them with GLBT speakers, presentations, films, books, parades, dances, posters, handouts, and help establishing GLBT clubs on campus. These events provided a model for homosexual activists around the country.


(Note: See entire section below - "Romney's Commission organized public gay 'Youth Pride Day' parades and 'transgender proms' which promote unhealthy and risky behavior.")
Instead of dissolving the Commission, Romney continued to fund it:
More recently Romney proposed allocating $250,000 for the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth for fiscal year 2006, twice what he proposed for FY05. The Legislature ultimately funded the commission at $250,000 for FY05, so Romney's proposal for next year amounts to level funding, and the proposal is still a far cry from $1.6 million the commission received in the mid-'90s before the state budget crisis. Yet as commission co-chair Kathleen Henry said, Romney could just as easily have dissolved the program. "We serve completely at the will of the governor," said Henry.
- Bay Windows 3/3/2005

When Romney was criticized for Commission's funding, the homosexual activists came to his defense:
Kathleen Henry, chairwoman of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, defended Romney. Henry said the governor's fiscal 2006 budget plan included $250,000 for the commission, twice as much as he proposed spending in 2005. ''The fact that he doubled last year's [proposed budget allocation] this year is huge to us. It's really huge. It says to us clearly that he gets the service for what it really is," said Henry.
- Boston Globe 7/1/2005

Twice after the Legislature approved funding for the Commission, Romney then appeased pro-family activists by vetoing it! However, since there are not enough Republicans to sustain vetoes, a veto is largely a charade, and the homosexual lobby was never seriously concerned when it happened. And Romney never put any effort into sustaining the vetoes. This enabled Romney to appear "pro-family," while the homosexuals still got their funding.
When Romney vetoed money for his Governor's Commission, here's what he told the Boston Globe his reasons were (still pandering to the homosexual activists):
Romney said his vetoes were motivated by fiscal prudence, not opposition to the programs or presidential politics. Even with his vetoes, the state would spend more than $1 million on teen pregnancy prevention and $250,000 on the programs for gay and lesbian youth. . . [Romney said,] ''The work that they're doing to prevent suicide and prevent violence is important work, and we support the work which they're doing . . . [but] we didn't see a need to raise their budget by 40 percent."
- Boston Globe, 7/1/2005

In May 2006, as he prepared his run for the presidency, MassResistance presented the Governor's office with shocking photographs of events and activities sponsored or organized by the Commission. A few days later, Romney announced his intention to dissolve the Commission. But within hours of that announcement, under pressure from the homosexual community, the Governor changed his mind. "We inundated him with outrage," one homosexual activist told the Boston Globe. So instead, the governor simply told the Commission members that it must focus on its "original mission" [which involves affirming homosexuality to children in the schools].
- Boston Globe, 5/12/2006 In June 2006, fearful that a future Governor might dissolve the Governor's Commission for Gay and Lesbian Youth, homosexual activists in the Legislature slipped an item into the 2007 budget creating a much more powerful "Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth" which is independent of control by the Governor. Under extreme pressure from pro-family activists Romney vetoed that line item, but he made no effort to sustain the veto (the effort to sustain it was led by a Democrat!) and the veto was overridden. At that point, Romney simply dissolved the old Governor's Commission because, he said, it was now "duplicative."
Governor's executive order.
Romney's Commission organized public gay "Youth Pride Day" parades and "transgender proms" which promote unhealthy and risky behavior
The Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth had no restrictions on the mixing of unscreened adult homosexuals and children. The Commission sponsored a "Youth Pride Parade" each year which features boys - some wearing women's clothes -- and adult homosexual activists.
Photos of this parade
Details of the homosexual youth group funded by Romney which organizes "Youth Pride"
Youth Pride Day ends with a "GLBT Prom" at Boston City Hall Plaza where children as young as middle school age are allowed to mingle with cruising homosexual adults. Perhaps Romney should have proclaimed this day "Pedophile Heaven Day." The prom is promoted by the Governor's Commission and sponsored by the Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth (BAGLY), a group that has promoted adult-child sex and has received funding from the Governor's Commission. (The executive director of BAGLY is a male-to-female transsexual.)
Photos of the prom and a flyer handed out by pedophiles seeking boys at that event.
Info on the BAGLY, pedophilia and its connection to the Commission
More info on BAGLY and its connection to the Commission

This shocking and sad spectacle of promoting the homosexual lifestyle to youth continued right through 2006. On March 27, 2006, Romney's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth issued a statement on Romney's Governor's Commission letterhead stating, "There's no place like Youth Pride….In celebration of their lives and diversity, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer (GLBTQ) youth and their supporters [mostly adult homosexuals] will gather by the thousands to kick off Massachusetts' 12th annual Youth Pride on Saturday, May 13th at noon on Boston Common."
Press release from Governor's office on this event

Romney issues a proclamation celebrating gay "Youth Pride Day"
In 2004, Romney issued an official state proclamation celebrating "Gay Youth Pride Day" even though there was no legal reason requiring him to do this. The proclamation proudly touted "landmark" gay rights legislation in Massachusetts and boasted of supporting "the Commonwealth's gay and lesbian youth through school-based and educational programs."
Proclamation from the Governor's office
Note by always using the phrase "gay and lesbian youth," Romney has accepted the dangerous myth that homosexuals are born that way despite zero evidence. He has also accepted the homosexual movement's propaganda that young teens can understand and "declare" themselves to be gay. The Proclamation also urges, "all citizens to take cognizance of this event and participate fittingly in its observance." So not only does Romney honor this shocking event promoting a dangerous and immoral lifestyle to children, but he wants the rest of the state to honor it as well!
Romney's Department of Education promotes the homosexual agenda
Under Romney's leadership, the Massachusetts Department of Education (DOE) continued to be rabidly pro-homosexual. The Department's website is full of "How To" information for homosexual activists within the public schools. One document titled "10 Easy Steps to Starting a GSA [Gay/Straight Alliance]", advises organizers to "find a meeting spot that gives members a sense of security and privacy." Other documents discuss "coming out to friends and family." Many of the programs come under the name of "Safe Schools" or "Anti-Bullying" programs but the goal of these activities is to reassure children that "It's OK to be Gay." This is a horrible fraud perpetrated on children and nowhere on this website do they mention groups that counsel sexually confused youth, state that the behavior is reversible or even mention the names of ex-homosexual organizations. To see the DOE's pro-homosexual propaganda, go to the DOE website or go to these links on that website:
The Safe Schools Program for Gay & Lesbian Students
"Outright" pamphlet distributed to kids
How to start a Gay/Straight Alliance at school
Gay/Straight Alliance Student Guide
Gay/Straight Alliance resources page

In conjunction with The Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, the DOE has worked hand and hand with the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and Parents, Friends, and Families of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) to sponsor radical pro-homosexual assemblies and workshops at public schools. Before Romney was elected, one such session was taped by pro-family activists at which presenters described to children how to engage in a highly dangerous homosexual activity called "fisting" which violated both health and obscenity codes. This received nationwide publicity. Despite this incident, the incoming Romney administration did nothing to institute new regulations to prevent such atrocities from happening again. Indeed, during Romney's tenure, the Commission and the DOE continued to work closely with GLSEN and PGLAG, organizations that distribute literature and books with highly inappropriate sexual themes including adult-children sex.
Full report on the "fisting" incident
Info on how GLSEN works with the Governor's Commission
How PFLAG promotes pedophilia
The DOE's "Youth Risk Behavior Survey", given to school children across the state in several grades, asks them if they are heterosexual, gay or lesbian, bisexual, or "not sure" and how frequently they engage in hetero and homosexual sex.
Info on 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey

Romney's DOE has failed to properly enforce the state's Parental Notification Act, the parents' right to opt their children out of sex ed curricula, when school systems have claimed that the law's "human sexuality issues" phrase does not apply to homosexuality or transgender subject matter. This has caused enormous stresses for parents trying to uphold their own values, and has led to incidents such as in Lexington, where parent David Parker was arrested and spent a night in jail over the school's refusal to obey the notification law regarding his 6-year-old son in kindergarten. As there was no redress within the DOE, Parker ultimately initiated an expensive federal Civil Rights lawsuit which is still in process.
Information on the David Parker incident

Romney's Department of Public Health (DPH) cooperates with the homosexual activist movement
Romney's Department of Public Health contributed to the The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century, a shocking publication apparently in violation of obscenity codes. Distributed to middle-school and high-school students at a GLSEN conference at Brookline High School, it discussed highly dangerous homosexual practices such as fisting and what homosexuals call "water sports." To be more specific, here's one quote: "There is little risk of STD infection and no risk of HIV infection from playing with pee." Massachusetts physician John Diggs commented that this book is "alarming, disheartening, and medically unethical." It is clear that one of the major themes of Romney's DPH (including the outreach programs it supports for homosexual adults) is how to have homosexual sex "safely," a philosophy that in reality endangers the health of its own citizens.
Full report on Little Black Book

After The Little Black Book attracted statewide and nationwide attention, Romney belatedly issued a statement that the book is "grossly inappropriate," but no DPH employees suffered any consequences, nor did this incident result in any restrictions on how the DPH spends its money. As usual, Romney's statement was just rhetoric.
Romney's Director of the HIV/AIDS Bureau in the DPH, Kevin Cranston, is a long-time gay activist with no known medical training and was a co-founder of BAGLY (see above). Cranston fought compliance with the CDC's recommendation to track HIV-infected patients by name rather than anonymous ID numbers (as demanded by gay activists).
- Bay Windows, 2/9/2006
The above stories should be considered in light of the Boston Globe's report that Romney keeps a tight rein on his DPH. - Boston Globe, 9/10/2006
Romney opposed federal legislation that would stop public schools from promoting homosexuality
When Romney was running against Sen. Ted Kennedy, Bay Windows asked him how he would have voted on an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that would ban federal funds from public schools which are “encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative.” He answered:
"I would have opposed that amendment. I don’t think the federal government has any business dictating to local school boards what their curriculum or practices should be. I think that’s a dangerous precedent in general. I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there’s an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it’s wrong-headed and unfortunate and hurts the party by being identified with the Republican party."
- Bay Windows, 8/25/1994

Romney's Dept. of Social Services honors homosexual "married" couple as adoptive "Parents of the Year"
The Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS), run by the Romney administration, honored a homosexual "married" couple (two men) as their adoptive "Parents of the Year" for 2006. The DSS has gained a reputation for being aggressively pro-homosexual over recent years. This incident sparked outrage across the country, but to our knowledge no policies or personnel at DSS were changed as a result.
- Waltham Daily News Tribune, 8/4/2006
Homosexual "Marriage"
Romney refused to endorse the original 2002 Mass. constitutional amendment absolutely defining marriage as one man and one women
In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage protected by the Constitution, Romney denounced as "too extreme" the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits.
- Boston Phoenix, May 14-20, 2004

"Mitt Romney's wife, son, and daughter-in-law signed a petition in support of a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban both gay marriage and domestic-partner benefits in Massachusetts - an amendment that Romney himself condemned as too extreme after being told of his family's support for it. … Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney campaign spokesman, said Romney opposes gay marriage but also opposes the amendment, since he sees no reason to change the current laws, which allow for domestic-partner benefits to public employees.… 'Mitt did not know they signed it, and Mitt does not support it,' he said. 'As far as Mitt is concerned, it goes farther than current law, and therefore it's unnecessary.' "
- Boston Globe 3/22/2002
"Romney was unaware his family members had signed the amendment petition, said Fehrnstrom, and he does not support the "Protection of Marriage" amendment. "He is opposed to gay marriage, but in the case of the 'defense of marriage' amendment Mitt believes it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept."
- Bay Windows 3/28/02
Romney unnecessarily (and unconstitutionally) implemented homosexual marriages in Massachusetts
After the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that same-sex "marriages" were protected by the Massachusetts Constitution, Romney (1) issued altered marriage licenses and (2) ordered town clerks to issue the licenses and Justices of the Peace to perform same-sex marriages when requested, or be fired. However, he did not have to do this, and there is strong evidence that this was illegal. The Court ruling simply advised the Legislature to pass legislation codifying its opinion on changing the marriage statutes. Romney was NOT bound to enforce same-sex marriages prior to legislative action. Yet Romney jumped the gun and needlessly advanced the homosexual agenda by granting the marriage rights without a fight. Furthermore, Romney still has the authority to reverse his actions via Executive Order before his term is out.
Research & report on Romney and same-sex marriage in Mass.
For a legal review of Romney's implementation of same-sex marriage

Many pro-family leaders inside and outside Massachusetts, including columnist Patrick J. Buchanan, Professor Hadley Arkes of Amherst College, and Mathew Staver, Esq. of Liberty Counsel all urged Romney to defy the Court ruling and halt the marriages via Executive Order. But there was no public response from Romney.
- Patrick J. Buchanan, 2/9/2004
- Agape Press, 3/30/2004
- Prof. Hadley Arkes, in National Review Online, 5/17/2004
- Matt Staver, Esq., Liberty Counsel, July 2004
Despite his rhetoric against judicial activism, Romney refused to support the "Bill of Address" resolution to remove the judges. (Similar to impeachment, this is a procedure whereby a judge is removed for abusing his office. Interestingly, it was sponsored by conservative Democrats!) Romney would not support this effort even though it was obvious by the wording of the ruling that the judges had displayed their personal biases - and ignored facts - to rule in favor of homosexual marriages. But more troubling was that Chief Justice Margaret Marshall had clearly violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by appearing as keynote speaker advocating expansion of homosexual rights at a Mass. Lesbian and Gay Bar Association fundraiser in 1999. (Judges are forbidden to speak at any fundraiser, and must recuse themselves from a case if they have publicly advocated a position relating to it.) Yet Romney ignored all this, and he told a press conference in June 2005, "I'm not looking to recall the judges."
- State House press conference, 6/15/2005 (Romney quote)
- WorldNetDaily, 4/24/2004 (Bill of Address)
- WorldNetDaily, 5/8/2004 (Chief Justice Marshall's ethical issues)
In February 2004, Romney wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal attacking judicial activism and urging legislators around the country to strengthen their marriage statutes. But he later made no effort to support bills which were in the State Legislature to remove the four Mass. Supreme Court judges (the "Bill of Address") and to strengthen the definition of marriage.
- Wall Street Journal, 2/5/2004
- MassNews, 12/2/2004 (bills filed by Article 8 Alliance)
Romney had marriage licenses changed to allow same-sex marriages
Some time in early 2004 (no record can be found of the order), Romney directed his Department of Public Health to change the state marriage license to read "Party A" and Party "B", replacing "Husband" and "Wife". None of this was required by any law passed by the legislature or even ordered by the court.
See an actual copy of a Massachusetts marriage license
But later in 2005, Romney made it clear that he understood that only the Legislature could change certificates of this nature, when he refused to alter birth certificates for children of same-sex couples to say "Parent A" and "Parent B", instead of "Mother" and "Father".
- Boston Globe, 7/22/2005
Romney administration ordered Justices of Peace to perform homosexual "marriages" when asked - or be fired!
Gov. Romney's Legal Counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages or "face personal liability" or be fired. The directive was given to perform the homosexual marriages without citing any statute permitting this, though a statute is cited as a basis for not marrying out-of-state homosexual couples. (No date is given on the directive; it was apparently issued approximately 4-27-06.) Said Romney's Chief Legal Counsel, David Winslow: "Your task is straightforward and can be summed up in three words: follow the law."
Directive by Romney's legal counsel (See Section E)
- New York Times, 4/26/2004
At least one Justice of the Peace, Linda Gray Kelley, was forced to resign for religious reasons because of the Romney Administration's strict requirement that Justices of the Peace perform same-sex marriages when asked or be fired.
Justice of the Peace resignation letter, Justice of the Peace Assoiation Newsletter, Summer 2004
It was reported that Romney first led Justices of the Peace to believe that there would be "conscientious objector" status available for those who had moral or religious objections to same-sex marriage, but he apparently later reneged on this.
"On April 26, Gov. Mitt Romney's chief legal counsel, Daniel Winslow, told the state's 1,200 justices of the peace that they had to marry same-sex couples, or be fired…. After being assured in February that the justices would be able file for conscientious-objector status, [a JP] was shocked to hear Winslow say they couldn't-and to hear an official from the state board of discrimination warn that trying to get out of officiating same-sex ceremonies could get them sued for $25,000 to $1 million." David Fried of the Mass. Commission Against Discrimination (a Romney appointed agency) said "that justices could be personally liable under the state's antidiscrimination law if they turned away same-sex couples who requested their services."
- Citizen (Focus on the Family online), 7/2004 and
- New York Times, 4/26/2004

Romney administration's training of Town Clerks (on how to issue same-sex marriage licenses) states that marriage statutes were not changed
There is no Executive Order or record of Town Clerk training sessions on any official government web page source. Interestingly, only the homosexual legal advocacy organization GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) has any record of the content of these sessions. The training document admits that the marriage statutes have not been changed. Yet the Town Clerks are told they must "implement" the Court decision and uphold the law. [See training document (slides)]
- Associated Press, 4/12/2004
Apparently, Romney was paying attention to mistaken reports in the press, instead of the Constitution. From a typical mainstream article during this period of confusion, an AP report stated: "The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November the state must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples by mid-May, which means changes for clerks and justices of the peace."
- Associated Press, 4/24/2004
When it came to same-sex couples from outside the state wanting to marry in Massachusetts, Romney made it clear that a statute still on the books (from 1913) would prevent this from being legal. Romney said that he does not want Massachusetts to become ''the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage.'' But he did not choose to follow the other sections of the marriage statute (never changed by the Legislature after the Goodridge ruling), which made it crystal clear that marriage in Massachusetts is between a "husband" and "wife", or a "man" and a "woman".
- New York Times, 5/19/2004
Romney signs bill eliminating Sexual Transmitted Disease (STD) testing requirement for marriage
In October 2005, Gov. Romney signed a law eliminating the section of the marriage statute requiring an STD health certificate before receiving a marriage license. (This is apparently the only part of the marriage statutes altered since the Goodridge marriage ruling.) Was this because many homosexual males would not have been able to obtain marriage licenses with the syphilis clean-bill-of-health requirement intact? Why did he eliminate this bulwark of public health?
Letter from the DPH Registry of Vital Records & Statistics

When requested of him, Romney personally issues special one-day certificates to allow otherwise unqualified people to perform homosexual "marriages"
Romney has issued many special one-day marriage certificates (allowing anyone of the couple's choice to perform the marriage ceremony) to homosexual couples. But, because of the special nature of these certificates, it would be his prerogative as Chief Executive to refuse to issue them for any reason. Yet he gave out 189 one-day certificates in 2005 to homosexual couples, including one to a leading openly homosexual activist state senator. His legal counsel said that in granting these special marriage certificates to homosexual couples, Romney is evenly applying the "statute" [what statute?].
"His harsh criticism of what he calls ''judicial over-reaching" always wins applause from Republican audiences. But the governor has at times taken pains to promote tolerance of gays and lesbians. When an administration official was dismissed and asserted that the action was related to her intention to marry her lesbian partner, Romney strongly denied it and noted that several high-ranking officials in his administration were gay…. The applications Romney approved from same-sex couples included at least four from state legislators, including Jarrett T. Barrios, a state senator from Cambridge, members of the clergy from out-of-state, family members, and friends …"
- Boston Globe, 1/2/2006

Was Romney's public opposition to homosexual "marriage" based on expediency, not principle?
"Romney's meeting with Log Cabin Club members in October of that year [2002], less than a month before the gubernatorial election, led members to believe he was not morally opposed to gay marriage. "He said, `Right now, it's not popular, and it would cost money,' " he said. "He didn't say, when we met with him, `I'm sorry, folks; I'm against gay marriage because it's morally wrong.' He didn't say that." [said David Rogers, vice-president of Log Cabin Club.]"
- Boston Globe 3/11/2004
At an October 2002 endorsement meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans of Massachusetts, a 300-member organization of GOP gays, Romney led attendees to believe that his anti-gay-marriage stance stemmed from political considerations. According to David Rogers, who served as the group's president at the time, "Candidate Romney said he wasn't for gay marriage because it wasn't popular yet. But he didn't seem to care one way or the other."
- Boston Phoenix, 5/14-2/2004
In summary, Romney has never said that homosexual marriage (especially the sodomy characteristic of the male unions) presents a problem for values, morality, public health, or parental rights in the schools. In almost every speech he gives on the topic, he simply focuses on "every child needing a father and a mother."

Gun Control
Romney favors "Assault" Weapons Ban
"He [Romney] is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban."
- Romney 2002 campaign website
Romney Favors Waiting Periods
Regarding the Brady Bill which required waiting periods to buy a handgun, Romney stated, "I don't think [the waiting period] will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect."
- Boston Herald, 8/1/1994
Economic Issues
Romney supports minimum wage laws
In as a candidate for Governor 2002, Romney proposed indexing the Massachusetts minimum wage with inflation, telling the Boston Globe "I do not believe that indexing the minimum wage will cost us jobs. I believe it will help us retain jobs." - - Boston Globe, 7/25/2002
"The minimum wage is important to our economy and Mitt Romney supports minimum wage increase, at least in line with inflation."
- Romney 2002 campaign website
Romney Balances Budget with $500 Million in New Fees
"His first budget, presented under a cloud of a $2 billion deficit, balanced the budget with some spending cuts, but a $500 million increase in various fees was the largest component of the budget fix." Cato Institute annual Fiscal Policy Report Card - America's Governors, 2004. Romney was rated a "C" overall by Cato.
See presentation on Cato website
Romney imposes "socialized" health care on Massachusetts
In 2006, Romney introduced a universal health care bill (which passed the Legislature in a slightly amended version) which has been criticized by conservatives as being socialistic.
Republican Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is trying to accomplish in his final year in office what Democrats can only dream of these days: boosting government spending on and regulation of health care and requiring individuals to purchase government-designed policies. Romney's plan, which is backed by such liberals as Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, Mass.), is being pitched as a compact between citizens and the state.
- National Review Online, 1/26/2006

The main supporter and cheerleader of Romney's health plan has been, interestingly, the Heritage Foundation. However, there would appear to be just a bit of a conflict of interest in that. According to news reports, Romney's charitable foundation recently donated $25,000 to the Heritage Foundation. And Heritage Foundation helped Romney research and write his health plan.
- Boston Globe, 8/17//2006
The Heritage Foundation's defense of Romney's plan

Party Leadership
Romney's dismal record as the Republican leader in Massachusetts
Romney pledged to build the Massachusetts Republican Party, but in fact he did almost nothing. During his tenure there were two elections for the entire Legislature (2004 and 2006). In each election the Republicans lost seats. Republicans now hold the fewest seats in the Legislature since the Civil War. During the four years of Romney's tenure, the number of registered Republicans in Massachusetts fell by 31,000. During that same period, the Massachusetts Democratic Party gained 30,000.
- Boston Globe 11/2/2006
In the 2006 elections, most offices were not even challenged by Republican candidates. In the November general election for the six statewide Massachusetts constitutional offices there were more Green-Rainbow Party candidates on the ballot than Republicans!
The party's slide has been so precipitous that Republicans yesterday did not contest 130 of 200 legislative seats, fielded a challenger in only three of 10 congressional districts, and put up fewer candidates for statewide office (three) than the Green-Rainbow Party (four).
- Boston Globe, 11/8/2006

In 2006, while Romney was chairman of the National Republican Governors Association - a group dedicated to electing more Republican governors - his own hand-picked Republican successor as governor lost badly to the Democrat, despite the fact that Republicans have held the governorship in Massachusetts since 1990. Romney largely ignored the Massachusetts elections and spent most of the time during the campaign out of state building his presidential campaign. He came back and publicly campaigned for the Republican candidate the day before the general election!
"Locally, this is a rebuke to Mitt Romney and checking out within six months after being elected and having accomplished almost nothing," said [Jim] Rappaport [former chairman of the state Republican Party].
- Boston Globe, 11/8/2006

"Romney arrived on the scene with great promise, but is leaving the Republican Party here in shambles. Not only are the Republicans yielding the governor's office for the first time in 16 years, but registered Republicans have fallen by 31,000 since Romney took office, and their legislative presence is at historic lows. But it worked out fine for him: He is now chasing the prize he really covets, the presidency."
- Boston Globe 11/8/2006
"The Massachusetts Republican Party died last Tuesday. The cause of death: failed leadership. The party is survived by a few leftover legislators and a handful of county officials and grassroots activists who have been ignored for years. Services will be public and a mass exodus of taxpayers will follow. In lieu of flowers, send messages to New Hampshire Republican voters warning them about a certain presidential candidate named Romney."
- Boston Herald, 11/12/2006
Conclusion
For over ten years MassResistance has observed Mitt Romney and his actions. On issue after issue, Romney would search for a way to look like he was governing as a conservative, but in every case, the liberals would ultimately be the victors. He would double the money for programs that promoted homosexuality in the schools but then turn around and veto what he himself had allocated, knowing full well his veto would be overturned.

On the marriage issue, he made it look like he was "forced" into recognizing homosexual marriages, but he refused to pursue other options that would have rallied anti-gay marriage forces and perhaps turned this issue around.

He would issue statements critical of obscene pro-homosexual books and about the treatment of David Parker, yet it was the actions of his own agencies that created these controversies to begin with. Nor would he lift a finger to make internal changes to prevent his agencies from promoting the liberal agenda or reprimand any employees possibly engaged, for example, in illegal activities.

To any observer, his seemingly contradictory tactics and strategies looked as though he was preparing a "conservative track record" for his run for higher office. He has issued enough conservative sounding statements and engaged in enough "battles" with liberals (as fake as many of them were), that to an uninformed observer, it may look like he was an embattled conservative triumphing over the forces in liberalism in one of the most liberal states in America.

Both that's the myth his campaign staff wants to perpetrate. Any close observer will tell you that the pro-abortion and pro-homosexual forces never lost any battles under his tenure and that in fact, they grew in power and influence. Romney did nothing to restrain the groups who have launched a jihad on America's Judeo-Christian culture.

On so many occasions, the liberal agenda could have been slowed down or even defeated with the smallest internal regulatory decision or executive order and yet he never used the power he had to do that. He gave up the battlefield to our enemies over and over again.

This is why every conservative in America needs to question his overly hyped conversion to conservatism. How can we trust a man who has done so much damage to causes dear to our hearts who has suddenly become a conservative only after deciding to run for President?

Fourteen years ago the country was duped by a charming, smooth talking "moderate" Democrat named Bill Clinton who used the power of the Presidency to inflict great damage to America's military, to our intelligence agencies, and to our culture. The gap between how Clinton appeared to most Americans and how he really governed was huge. We cannot afford another President like that.

Sources
Boston Herald, 5/19/1994 (re: morning after pill) - archive

Boston Herald, 8/1/1994, "Gays split in Governor race; Both Weld and Roosevelt are laying claims for support," - archive

Bay Windows, 8/25,1994, "Romney: I'll be better than Ted for gay rights."

Boston Globe, 10/17/1994, "Kennedy, Romney continue trading charges over facts" - archive

Boston Globe, 10/27/1994 (re: Boy Scouts) - archive

Lawyers' Weekly, 2/14/2000 (re: Stephen Abany)

NewsMax, 12/18/2000, "2002 Salt Lake Committee Bans Boy Scouts From Olympics" by David M. Bresnahan

Boston Globe, 3/19/2002, "Supporters want to see real Romney" - archive

Boston Globe, 3/22/2002, "Romney kin signed petition to ban same-sex marriage" - archive

Bay Windows, 3/28/2002, "Gay GOP touts Romney as good for the community"

Romney 2002 Campaign web site

Associated Press / South Coast Today, 10/3/2002, "O'Brien, Romney tout abortion rights credentials"

Bay Windows, 10/24/2002, "Don't dismiss Romney, gay Republicans say"

Washington Times, 11/20/2003, "Romney pursues law on gay unions"

Wall Street Journal, 2/5/2004, "One Man, One Woman - A citizen's guide to protecting marriage," by Mitt Romney

Patrick J. Buchanan, 2/9/2004, "Mitt Romney: Meet Calvin Coolidge"

Boston Globe, 3/11/2004, "Republican gay rights group hits Bush, Romney Stances" - archive

Agape Press, 3/30/2004, "Nobody Happy; Proposed Mass. Amendment Backs Marriage, Endorses Civil Unions; Massachusetts' Voters 'Blackmailed,' Say Supporters of Traditional Marriage"
Boston Globe, 3/30/2004, "In crucial shift, governor sways 15 in GOP to support measure"

Boston Globe, 4/11/2004, "Weeks ahead crucial for foes, supporters of gay marriage"

Associated Press, 4/12/2004, "Clerks to receive training on gay marriage licensing, while governor weighs options"

Boston Globe, 4/18/2004, "Justices of the peace confront dilemmas on gay marriage; Opponents face wedding quandary"

Associated Press, 4/24/2004, "Mass. Seeks Compliance on Gay Weddings"

WorldNetDaily, 4/24/2004, "Bill seeks ouster of Massachusetts justices; Last-minute effort to remove 4 who ruled for same-sex marriage"

New York Times, 4/26/2004, "Obey Same-Sex Marriage Law, Officials Told" - archive

WorldNetDaily, 5/8/2004, "9 Days to Same-Sex Marriage"

Boston Phoenix, 5/14-20/2004, "Schiz Romney: Do national aspirations explain the governor's switch from nice guy to anti-gay-marriage activist?"

National Review Online, 5/17/2004, "The Missing Governor," by Prof. Hadley Arkes

New York Times, 5/19/2004, "Governor Moves on Non-Massachusetts Couples" - archive

U.S. Senate testimony by Gov. Mitt Romney, 6/22/2004

Citizen (Focus on the Family), 7/2004, "Massachusetts Marriage Chaos; Gay Marriage a Reality in Massachusetts; No Opt-Out Clause for Justices of the Peace" (archived)

MassNews, 12/2/2004, "Article 8 files bills in Massachusetts legislature to remove 4 SJC judges and eliminate homosexual marriage"

National Review Online, 2/11/2005, "Romney vs. Harvard" by Kathryn Jean Lopez

American Spectator, 2/23/2005, "Mitt Romney's Choice" by W. James Antle III

Associated Press / WIS-TV10 News, 2/23/2005, "Some say Gov. Romney changed tune on gay civil unions in Spartanburg Mon."

Bay Windows, 3/3/2005, "Mitt Romney's secret gay history!"

Boston Globe, 3/25/2005, "Roe v. Wade omitted from proclamation"

Governor's Office, 5/14/2005, "Romney Names Stephen Abany to Wrentham District Court"

State House press conference, 6/15/2005, transcript

Boston Globe, 7/1/2005, "Governor's vetoes raise more questions on national run" - archive

Boston Globe, 7/3/2005, "Clarity sought on Romney's abortion stance"

Boston Globe, 7/7/2005, "Eyes on Romney as morning-after pill OK'd"
Boston Globe, 7/22/2005, "Birth certificate policy draws fire; Change affects same-sex couples"

Boston Globe, 7/25/2005, "Romney jurist picks not tilted to GOP; Independents, Democrats get call"

WBUR (PBS) Radio Boston / AFA Michigan, 12/9/2005 "Romney changes position on morning after pill"

Human Events, 12/27/2005, "Top 10 RINOs"

Boston Globe, 1/2/2006, "Some see conflict for Romney on gay marriage; Ceremonial licensing belies his opposition"

National Review Online, 1/26/2006, "Unhealthy in Massachusetts - The Romney plan doesn't cut it," by Sally C. Pipes

Bay Windows, 2/9/2006, "Will Bay State switch to names reporting of HIV cases?"

Boston Globe, 3/2/2006, "Romney's Revolving World" by Joan Vennochi

Boston Globe, 3/2/2006, "Seven quit charity over policy of bishops; Deplore effort to exclude same-sex adoptions"

Boston Globe, 5/12/2006, "Romney to limit gay panel activities"

AFA Online (American Family Association), 5/30/2006, "GOP Presidential Hopeful Blamed for Massachusetts' Marriage Fiasco"

Boston Globe, 7/1/2005, "Governor's vetoes raise more questions on national run"

Boston Globe, 7/25/2006, "Romney jurist picks not tilted to GOP"

Waltham Daily News Tribune, 8/4/2006, "Parents of the Year: Newton Couple Honored by DSS"

Boston Globe, 8/17/2006, "Romney aided conservative groups"

Boston Globe, 9/10/2006, "Romney keeps tight rein on health dept."

Boston Globe, 11/2/2006, "Romney pledges no flurry of lame-duck appointments"

Boston Globe, 11/2/2006, "GOP ranks dropped by 31,000 since state elected Romney"

Boston Globe, 11/8/2006, "For Republicans in Mass., a feeling of out and down"

Boston Globe, 11/8/2006, "After Romney" by Steve Bailey

Boston Herald, 11/12/2006, "Bold Rx for Bay State GOP," by Holly Robichaud
[http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:YZp8hH7VrVwJ:www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/+Romney+Patrick+Guerriero+2004+Civil+Unions&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]

Ten Reasons Romney Should't Be the VP Nominee

By David Frum
Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Romney as VP? - 2 in a series

A friend writes:

Ten Reasons Mitt Romney Should Not Be the VP Nominee

10. Inexperience. Romney, a one-term governor who did not run for reelection, has precisely one-third of the elective experience that Dan Quayle had when nominated for Vice President, and Quayle was attacked for his inexperience. A Romney nomination would cut against the grain of one of McCain’s best arguments – Obama’s inexperience – and this is particularly true when placed against Joe Biden.

9. Rommey supporters typically say that he would be good on the economy. But why, exactly? Paul O’Neill and John Snow were both highly successful businessmen, and yet were weak as Treasury Secretary. Why would Romney be any different – and would McCain want to be seen to hand over control of the economy to his vice president? Business and government require different leadership styles. Few people can handle both well, and Romney’s thin record as governor provides little evidence he can. The conservative Tax Foundation stated that the total state and local tax burden in Massachusetts rose 5.1 percent on Romney’s watch, and the state ranked 46th in job growth from 2003-2005 (in the middle of a boom). In any event, skill in business is very different from skill in finance – or governing.

8. Thin skin. In the Republican debates, Romney always wanted to be the focus of attention, taking more than his allotted share of time and reacting badly when others questioned his statements or views. McCain clobbered him in the debates, helping assure his own nomination. Joe Biden would do likewise.

7. While “anybody but _______” efforts rarely work in American politics (think Carter, Reagan, Mondale), this one did. At least three candidates – Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson – decided that they simply preferred beating Romney and effectively worked together to stop him. What was it about Romney they so disliked? This also doesn’t say much about his ability to unite the party, keep support, or exert political leadership.

6. Whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, Romney’s flip-flop on abortion seems terribly insincere. To believe the story as it was originally told, Romney was concerned over stem cell research. Ask any of your active pro-life friends: they will probably know many people who are pro-life except for the stem cells issue and will have met no one who became pro-life because of it. His palpable anger when asked detailed questions about his views does not give credence to the sincerity of his conversion.

5. Can Romney supporters point to even one poll – just one poll – showing that he would have won reelection in 2006? It is not good enough to say “oh, but he said he wanted to run for President, so there were no polls.” (What about Romney internals?) George Bush faced this dilemma in 1998 and won reelection handily as Governor of Texas. What does this say about Romney’s record as Governor? Isn’t the better conclusion that he won (with less than 50% of the vote) only against a very weak Democratic candidate from western Massachusetts and governed in an undistinguished fashion? If we want to say that Barack Obama’s record is thin, we must say the same about Romney’s, so he cannot be the nominee.

4. In 2004, some very effective advertising mocked John Kerry for windsurfing off Nantucket as a sign he was out of touch with the people. How, then, would the people react, in a time of economic gloom, to learning that Romney’s hedge funds – based offshore, presumably to avoid U.S. taxation – are named after a lighthouse on the same island? Can’t you just picture the ads now?

3. With McCain’s implicit one-term pledge, a Romney nomination – giving the vice presidency to a deep-pocketed candidate – would sharply divide the Republican party by effectively conceding the 2012 nomination to him, sidelining both up-and-coming candidates like Governors Pawlenty, Palin, and Jindal and current figures such as Mike Huckabee (who came in second, remember – Romney did not). How will the party react? The same consideration does not apply for a pick of, for instance, Pawlenty, Jindal, Governor Jon Huntsman, or Rep. Eric Cantor. They do not have the money to dominate the party and the conservative movement as Romney does. The 1988 primaries show that a sitting Vice President can be effectively challenged – but Romney would begin the race with a huge advantage simply because of his personal wealth. Allegations have already been raised that Romney’s foundation money has been used (improperly?) to bolster his political image And given this, would President McCain have any assurance that Romney would be loyal?

2. Can Romney supporters name a single major accomplishment of Romeny’s as Governor that would please conservatives? His “RomneyCare” health plan? Unlikely, as the candidate himself walked away from it during the primaries. Did he have any ability to persuade the legislature? After the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage, did Romney even switch a single legislator to vote in favor of placing a constitutional amendment on gay marriage on the ballot, so the people could deicide rather than judges? If so, who? The burden should be on Romney supporters to provide the names and details. Did the Legislature not like him, or is it better to say that he simply walked away from the issue? The Boston Globe’s valedictory editorial (December 26, 2006) sums it up well: "Romney himself admits that a number of his goals remain unmet. His inability to lower the nation's highest unemployment insurance rate, to secure merit pay for teachers, and to reinvigorate the Republican Party were among the frustrations he listed."

1. On a family vacation, he put the family dog in a cage on top of the car while driving for 12 hours, across an international border – an experiment in logistics, aerodynamics, and animal welfare that predictably failed when the dog became ill. Over 50 million American dogs – and 40 million American dog owners – would be horrified.
For my own part, I think Obama's selection of Joe Biden (one of the least wealthy men in the US Senate) makes a Romney pick a very, very dangerous exercise in bad optics ...
[http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzhjZTk4MWY2NDY3Njc4NjRlMTYxMWVmYWEwM2Q3ZTU=]

Obama Supports:"The Baby's Skull [being] Stabbed with Scissors in the Birth Canal"

Obama Supports:"The Baby's Skull [being] Stabbed with Scissors in the Birth Canal"
"[Obama]supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.

Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, 'comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary.'

Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be 'tireless' in keeping legal this 'legitimate medical procedure.'"

http://townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2008/08/12/a_catholic_case_against_barack?page=full&comments=true

A Catholic Case Against Barack
by Patrick J. Buchanan

In the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama rolled up more than 90 percent of the African-American vote. Among Catholics, he lost by 40 points. The cool liberal Harvard Law grad was not a good fit for the socially conservative ethnics of Altoona, Aliquippa and Johnstown.

But if Barack had a problem with Catholics then, he has a far higher hurdle to surmount in the fall, with those millions of Catholics who still take their faith and moral code seriously.

For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.

Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary."

Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure."

And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women."

As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama," the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death."

Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.

How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?

If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath?

How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate.

When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf:

"Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous."

Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?

Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right?

Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."

In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion.

What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.

Before any devout Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Orthodox Jew votes for Obama, he or she might spend 15 minutes in Chapter 10 of Freddoso's "Case Against Barack." For if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v. Wade eternal and eliminate all restrictions on a practice Catholics legislators have fought for three decades to curtail?

And which Catholic priests and prelates will it be who give invocations at Obama rallies, even as Mother Church fights to save the lives of unborn children whom Obama believes have no right to life and no rights at all?

Monday, August 25, 2008

Attack on Rick Salbato Shows Ignorance

Paul Baylis, the editor of the Marian Times, claims Rick Salbato couldn't know if Sister Lucia of Fatima's "support" of Medjugorje is not true.

Mr. Editor google Mel Gibson and Sister Lucia of Fatima. Rick lived in Fatima for some time and knew Sister Lucia.

Fred


Unity Publishing - More Dangerous Than Any False Apparition
By Paul Baylis, editor Marian Times

I have spent a good deal of time talking to atheists and just trying to get them to believe "in God". So, from a purely personal perspective, I am very disappointed with some corners of the so-called Christian media who make this task even more difficult than it was. God is not a God of division. Jesus came to unify mankind in the love of God. Medjugorje, to me, is all about UNITY of religious thought and practice, of keeping it simple, of loving God without man-made restraint.

But, it's not my personal issues with Unity Publishing (and others like them) that really matter. Unity Publishing, in the vein of many other quarters thriving on a diet of disinformation from all around the world (and we know who is the cause of that!) have made up their minds that Medjugorje is false and they want the world to know what they think the Vatican should have found out and acted on by now, if not long ago. In their apparent quest for the eyeballs of the sensation-seekers, and casting themselves in the light of maverick crime-busters, they are doing immense damage, splitting the Catholic Church and contributing to a potential fulfillment the end-times prophecy of "brother against brother". This, more than anything, Satan wishes to accomplish. God might be able to forgive millions of people being duped, at His allowance, by the enemy (just as Job received God's mercy for not knowing that he was the meat in the sandwich of God's testing), but I'm not so sure God would smile so brightly on any individual bold enough to negligently afflict the Church founded through the blood and suffering of His only begotten Son. Thus, I say that these people are more dangerous than any false apparition.

I came upon some Medjugorje-related book reviews on different websites which repeated the same warning against Medjugorje and invited people to go to Unity Publishing and "read as many articles as possible" to avoid being deceived. This is very similar to the line I read on Unity Publishing's main Medjugorje page, which is a litany of detraction at its worst. I conclude that Rick has been busy setting forth his maggots of detraction and division into the very living rooms of people who are open to conversion - not conversion to Medjugorje per se, but conversion to the Lord. Most of these "reviews" pertained to Sister Emmanuel's "Medjugorje - the 90's", which gives evidence for Sister Lucia of Fatima and Pope John Paul II supporting Medjugorje. The review states: "The quotes in favor of Medjugorje, attributed to the pope and Sister Lucia of Fatima, could not be proved and are most likely lies". Run this line in Google and see how many times the same review has been placed! Nobody makes such a comment unless their sole intention is to defend a negative position on Medjugorje. A normal person with an open mind says "Hmmm, if Sister Lucia really said that about Medjugorje, then....". Rick's writing on Medjugorje is full of this fanatical defensiveness of a position that is scarcely defendable. The weight of evidence against his position is likened to a mountain against a molehill. But, Rick squirms and wriggles and refuses to give. Now, that's scarey!

His mission statement is the promotion of unity and a pledge to "dispel the darkness", "break the spells" and free us all from "baffling deceptions" when in reality it is really people like himself who have created the darkness and the spells. He has jumped on the bandwagon of people who created the bafflement where there was none before. He says his articles are "thoroughly researched", whereas it appears more evident that Rick has simply trawled through Google for any detraction article he can find and, without vetting them for complete accuracy, has simply added the information to his own articles or tacked them one after the other in a long list of anti-Medjugorje articles which he has labelled "humble testimonies", encouraging those who are "genuinely interested in discerning the truth about this issue" to "take the time to scan as many of the links as possible".

Let us analyse an article by Rick Salbato of Unity Publishing. Rick once wrote that he thought God liked what he was doing on his website. I nearly choked on my coffee cake when I read this comment, after reading what he has on his website. I want to give Rick the benefit of the doubt as being sincerely trying to warn the world of potential false apparitions, but after just a short read of the type of journalism he uses and the sheer determination he displays, at any cost, to literally destroy Medjugorje, I simply cannot conscience it. I simply cannot see any good in what he is doing.

It is a long, long essay, possibly Rick thought it necessary to be so, because the guts just aren't there and most debaters will know that if the guts aren't there, you have to pad out the content, use tactics such as straw men and tarring with the same brush, and basically dig and dredge and connect dots and all those other juicy spy thriller things. But as you will see he falls well short. But, what is more amazing is that he found the need or the time to do all this. I'm giving up valuable praying time to write this rebuttal. But, I hope I will pray a little better after I'm through. I am compelled to write and write I will!

From a reading of Rick's writings, he comes across as very much lacking in experience at putting together an argument. He also seems to be lacking in some basic theology and his penchant for making statements and claims literally off the top of his head is astounding. All this would be absolutely fine EXCEPT for the fact that it is not just reflecting upon himself, but on the whole Catholic Church and his rash comments and conclusions are doing a lot of damage to the hearts and minds of Catholics. It's time to put a stop to this and let cooler heads prevail.
[http://www.marian-times.com/articles/medjugorje/unity-publishing.cfm]