A group from MassResistance greeted would-be Romney supporters at the NH Republican State Convention on Saturday (Sept. 30). We warned them that Romney is not the pro-family champion he claims to be in his tours around the country. The response to our handouts ran the gamut from steely straight-ahead glances (from those receiving $ from Romney's Commonwealth PAC for their campaigns? and college students rumored -- we were told by a delegate -- to be paid by Romney to come cheer him?) -- to nods and smiles from those who already knew they couldn't trust him.
As we pointed out in our posting on the RI "lesbian marriage" ruling, Romney is still confused about the LAW. Why insist on enforcing it in some cases (re: the REAL 1913 LAW barring out-of-staters marrying in Mass. if that marriage is not allowed in their home state), but make it up in others (where's the statute authorizing in-state homosexual marriages?)
"I have to follow the law. This is a nation of laws, even if I don't like them," Romney said in NH on Saturday. We gather he believes he can also MAKE the laws sometimes. So is the law he made up -- allowing homosexual marriage -- one he likes, or not? We're not just dealing with judicial tyranny in Massachusetts. We also have executive branch tyranny. And a royal state of confusion, encouraged by the mainstream media.
So there are lots of confused Republicans, partly due to Romney's dishonesty, partly due to media coverups, and partly due to the money that's being spread around.
The Boston Globe reported yesterday that Romney's Commonwealth PAC gave $100,000 to NH Republicans last year, and gave the Republican State Committee another $60,000 over the summer. So there's quite a bit of goodwill built up. No wonder many NH Republicans didn't want to take our handouts. He's also doling out money to key primary states in his role as chairman of the Republican Governors Association (to Florida, Michigan, Iowa), according to the Globe (10-1-06).
Back to the question which raged in 2004: Why does Romney think anyone has to follow the latest crazy ruling by a judge, anyhow? Why doesn't he order Massachusetts officials to deny the marriage licenses or ceremonies to the out-of-staters? Then he'd be upholding the law.
Monday, October 2, 2006
Sunday, October 1, 2006
Rep. Foley and Pedophile "Mentoring"
Florida Rep. Mark Foley's story reminds us once again of all the pedophiles out there. Note that the Congressman lyingly told another Congressman he was just "mentoring" the page he harassed.
This reminded us of the volunteer opportunities we saw listed on the "Friends of the Governor's Commission on GLBT Youth" web site. Sure, most of these people are probably OK. But, are we being careful enough? Are Commission members or its "Friends" who volunteer with these vulnerable youth subject to criminal background checks -- as are most parents who just want to go on field trips with their own children's schools? Just asking.
Also over the weekend we encountered the series Oprah is doing on pedophiles (thanks to Americans for Truth). She points us to this NY Times report by Kurt Eichenwald on pedophiles' use of the internet (8-21-06). Pedophiles claim they're struggling to achieve "rights" for children. Excerpts:
Today, pedophiles go online to seek tips for getting near children — at camps, through foster care, at community gatherings and at countless other events. [Like the Youth Pride march and prom?] They swap stories about day-to-day encounters with minors. And they make use of technology to help take their arguments to others, like sharing online a printable booklet to be distributed to children that extols the benefits of sex with adults....
In this online community, pedophiles view themselves as the vanguard of a nascent movement seeking legalization of child pornography and the loosening of age-of-consent laws. They portray themselves as battling for children’s rights to engage in sex with adults, a fight they liken to the civil rights movement. And while their effort has brought little success, they celebrated online in May when a small group of men in the Netherlands formed a pedophile political party, and they rejoiced again last month when a Dutch court upheld the party’s right to exist....
In essence, the groups deem potentially injurious acts and beliefs harmless. That is accomplished in part by denying that a victim is injured, condemning critics and appealing to higher loyalties — in this case, an ostensible struggle for the sexual freedom of children.
From summaries of the recent Oprah segments:
Many sexual predators choose to keep their preferences a secret, while others are vocal about their attraction to minors. In 1978, a support group for men who have sexual feelings toward young boys was founded in Boston. It is known as NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. According to NAMBLA's website, members "support the rights of youth, as well as adults, to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies." This controversial organization doesn't advocate breaking any laws, and it is not illegal to become a member....
According to Kurt [Eichenwald, NY Times reporter], many online predators believe children have a desire to have sex with adults and that other adults—like parents—force them to "deny their desires."A lot of what passes for advocacy, Kurt says, is simply a smoke screen in these communities. The crime takes place when fantasies translate into real, daily life, he says.
During his investigation, Kurt found predators may have acted upon fantasies in one place where children should feel safe—the classroom. Kurt was shocked to learn through his research that the most common job for pedophiles is teaching. He says one principal said in an online chat that he met his first "YF"—a popular abbreviation for "Young Friend"—when he was sent to his office for discipline.
This reminded us of the volunteer opportunities we saw listed on the "Friends of the Governor's Commission on GLBT Youth" web site. Sure, most of these people are probably OK. But, are we being careful enough? Are Commission members or its "Friends" who volunteer with these vulnerable youth subject to criminal background checks -- as are most parents who just want to go on field trips with their own children's schools? Just asking.
Also over the weekend we encountered the series Oprah is doing on pedophiles (thanks to Americans for Truth). She points us to this NY Times report by Kurt Eichenwald on pedophiles' use of the internet (8-21-06). Pedophiles claim they're struggling to achieve "rights" for children. Excerpts:
Today, pedophiles go online to seek tips for getting near children — at camps, through foster care, at community gatherings and at countless other events. [Like the Youth Pride march and prom?] They swap stories about day-to-day encounters with minors. And they make use of technology to help take their arguments to others, like sharing online a printable booklet to be distributed to children that extols the benefits of sex with adults....
In this online community, pedophiles view themselves as the vanguard of a nascent movement seeking legalization of child pornography and the loosening of age-of-consent laws. They portray themselves as battling for children’s rights to engage in sex with adults, a fight they liken to the civil rights movement. And while their effort has brought little success, they celebrated online in May when a small group of men in the Netherlands formed a pedophile political party, and they rejoiced again last month when a Dutch court upheld the party’s right to exist....
In essence, the groups deem potentially injurious acts and beliefs harmless. That is accomplished in part by denying that a victim is injured, condemning critics and appealing to higher loyalties — in this case, an ostensible struggle for the sexual freedom of children.
From summaries of the recent Oprah segments:
Many sexual predators choose to keep their preferences a secret, while others are vocal about their attraction to minors. In 1978, a support group for men who have sexual feelings toward young boys was founded in Boston. It is known as NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. According to NAMBLA's website, members "support the rights of youth, as well as adults, to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies." This controversial organization doesn't advocate breaking any laws, and it is not illegal to become a member....
According to Kurt [Eichenwald, NY Times reporter], many online predators believe children have a desire to have sex with adults and that other adults—like parents—force them to "deny their desires."A lot of what passes for advocacy, Kurt says, is simply a smoke screen in these communities. The crime takes place when fantasies translate into real, daily life, he says.
During his investigation, Kurt found predators may have acted upon fantasies in one place where children should feel safe—the classroom. Kurt was shocked to learn through his research that the most common job for pedophiles is teaching. He says one principal said in an online chat that he met his first "YF"—a popular abbreviation for "Young Friend"—when he was sent to his office for discipline.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
R.I. Lesbian Couple -- and Romney -- Confused
More idiocy from a Massachusetts judge. What's shocking this time is that the arrogant ruling comes from a measly County judge who's proclaimed that a lesbian couple resident in Rhode Island may "marry" in Massachusetts and take the "marriage" back to RI.
What no one seems to realize is that even in Massachusetts their "marriage" is invalid. Let the fools go on living their fantasy. It really doesn't matter, because at least the authorities in RI have the sense to refuse to acknowledge the "marriage":
A Suffolk Superior Court judge ruled yesterday that a lesbian couple from Rhode Island may get married in Massachusetts, finding that Rhode Island's laws do not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriages. Rhode Island officials responded that gay marriages by the state's residents would not be recognized unless the courts [the RI officials are also a little confused] or lawmakers there say so.
Gov. Romney, not to be trusted as a judge of judicial good behavior, said the county judge overstepped his authority. Where was Romney in November 2003, when four justices of the SJC had that same problem?
Romney denounced the Superior Court decision, saying that Connolly overstepped his authority. He called on Reilly to appeal the ruling or appoint a special prosecutor to do so.
"It seems that Massachusetts courts are intent on exporting gay marriage to states that don't permit it," said a statement Romney issued. "A federal marriage amendment may be the best and most reliable way to prevent confusion between the states and preserve the institution of marriage."
What no one seems to realize is that even in Massachusetts their "marriage" is invalid. Let the fools go on living their fantasy. It really doesn't matter, because at least the authorities in RI have the sense to refuse to acknowledge the "marriage":
A Suffolk Superior Court judge ruled yesterday that a lesbian couple from Rhode Island may get married in Massachusetts, finding that Rhode Island's laws do not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriages. Rhode Island officials responded that gay marriages by the state's residents would not be recognized unless the courts [the RI officials are also a little confused] or lawmakers there say so.
Gov. Romney, not to be trusted as a judge of judicial good behavior, said the county judge overstepped his authority. Where was Romney in November 2003, when four justices of the SJC had that same problem?
Romney denounced the Superior Court decision, saying that Connolly overstepped his authority. He called on Reilly to appeal the ruling or appoint a special prosecutor to do so.
"It seems that Massachusetts courts are intent on exporting gay marriage to states that don't permit it," said a statement Romney issued. "A federal marriage amendment may be the best and most reliable way to prevent confusion between the states and preserve the institution of marriage."
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Healey Was Keynote Speaker at Pro-Abortion Republican Event
Lt. Gov. Healey (2nd from left) with Planned Parenthood women at Republicans for Choice event last April. [Photo: Planned Parenthood website.]
What are they smiling about? Is it fun to advocate baby killing? Is it a noble cause? Are they raising money so they can encourage the deathly practice?
Back in April we exposed Planned Parenthood's participation at the overly big-tent Republican state convention. MassEquality was also there with a table promoting sodomy "marriage".
But WORSE was Republican Gov. candidate Kerry Healey's appearance as KEYNOTE SPEAKER at the Planned Parenthood "Mass. Republicans for Choice" party following the last day of the convention. What a lovely occasion for cocktails! Celebrating a woman's right to "choose" death for her child! Reed Hillman, Healey's running mate for Lt. Gov., was also in attendance as an honored guest. A national representative of "Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice" was also present.
Remember that Planned Parenthood doesn't just kill babies. It runs workshops for high school students on Revolutionary Gender Models (promoting transgenderism, bisexuality, and homosexuality) and pushes the most radical sex ed programs in our schools.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Romney Popular with Know-Nothing Conservatives
John Fund's article on Gov. Romney in today's Opinion Journal (Wall Street Journal online) is an ill-informed disgrace: "Romney Rides High: A Mormon from Massachusetts wows social conservatives." Well, Romney doesn't wow us. Mr. Fund should do a bit more research with the Massachusetts conservatives before posting with such confidence.
He doesn't understand Romney's role in creating homosexual "marriage" -- well documented by Robert Paine, Esq., John Haskins, and yours truly. Homosexual “marriage” is still NOT legal here, and was NOT created by the Goodridge ruling. Even the homosexual lobby in our legislature knows this to be true, or they would not have filed their Bill #H977 to legalize homosexual "marriage" -- which they still have not had the confidence to bring to the floor for a vote!
In fact, it was Governor Mitt Romney who was ultimately responsible for homosexual “marriages” taking place. The Supreme Judicial Court only ordered the Legislature to act (which it never did). But Romney created these “marriages” through an unconstitutional and illegal directive to his Department of Public Health (to print new “marriage” licenses), and threats to fire any Town Clerk or Justice of the Peace who failed to implement the (non-existent) “new law.”
Mr. Fund also speaks of the Heritage Foundation's admiration for Romney and his mandatory health insurance bill. What he doesn't mention is that Romney gave Heritage a generous gift of $25,000, and that they worked together on the plan. No wonder Fund can get a good quote out of a Heritage guy.
From "Romney aided conservative groups," Boston Globe, 8-16-06:
Analysts with the Heritage Foundation worked closely with Romney in the past year to develop his healthcare initiative, which would require all Bay State residents to obtain medical insurance, a collaboration he often cites during his travels. Romney spoke at Heritage Foundation events at least three times since 2004.
The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 as a research and education institute dedicated to promoting "conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense," according to the group's website.
He doesn't understand Romney's role in creating homosexual "marriage" -- well documented by Robert Paine, Esq., John Haskins, and yours truly. Homosexual “marriage” is still NOT legal here, and was NOT created by the Goodridge ruling. Even the homosexual lobby in our legislature knows this to be true, or they would not have filed their Bill #H977 to legalize homosexual "marriage" -- which they still have not had the confidence to bring to the floor for a vote!
In fact, it was Governor Mitt Romney who was ultimately responsible for homosexual “marriages” taking place. The Supreme Judicial Court only ordered the Legislature to act (which it never did). But Romney created these “marriages” through an unconstitutional and illegal directive to his Department of Public Health (to print new “marriage” licenses), and threats to fire any Town Clerk or Justice of the Peace who failed to implement the (non-existent) “new law.”
Mr. Fund also speaks of the Heritage Foundation's admiration for Romney and his mandatory health insurance bill. What he doesn't mention is that Romney gave Heritage a generous gift of $25,000, and that they worked together on the plan. No wonder Fund can get a good quote out of a Heritage guy.
From "Romney aided conservative groups," Boston Globe, 8-16-06:
Analysts with the Heritage Foundation worked closely with Romney in the past year to develop his healthcare initiative, which would require all Bay State residents to obtain medical insurance, a collaboration he often cites during his travels. Romney spoke at Heritage Foundation events at least three times since 2004.
The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 as a research and education institute dedicated to promoting "conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense," according to the group's website.
Kerry Healey & Reed Hillman Pro-Civil Unions
"Republicans" deserve to lose the corner office in 2006. Both Kerry Healey and Reed Hillman are for "civil unions". Why should any conservative bother to vote? The pro-intimidation website, KnowThyNeighbor.org (which published the names of all the signers of the Mass. marriage amendment) posted this on their blog a few days ago:
Kerry Healey, Republican for Governor, still just does not get it. In an interview in June 2006 Healey spokeswoman, Amy Lambioso, told KnowThyNeighbor, "Kerry is against same-sex marriage but for civil unions. She is for the amendment to ban same-sex marriage and would vote for it if it reaches the ballot in 2008. If elected Governor, Healey will work on civil union legislation." When asked by KnowThyNeighbor what the language would be in Healey's "civil union" proposal i.e. "civil unions with all the rights of marriage" or "civil unions with rights 'to be determined,'" we were told, "it is premature to ask that as that would not be until 2008."
Don't think that Reed Hillman, who is Healey's and the GOP's choice for Lt. Governor is any better. When KnowThyNeighbor asked what Hillman's stance was on the subject, the spokeswoman told us, "Reed Hillman believes in everything that Healey does." When I responded with, "surely there must be something that Hillman would like to add or clarify in a statement, " I was told, "No, everything that Kerry Healey says is EXACTLY what Hillman says."
Kerry Healey, Republican for Governor, still just does not get it. In an interview in June 2006 Healey spokeswoman, Amy Lambioso, told KnowThyNeighbor, "Kerry is against same-sex marriage but for civil unions. She is for the amendment to ban same-sex marriage and would vote for it if it reaches the ballot in 2008. If elected Governor, Healey will work on civil union legislation." When asked by KnowThyNeighbor what the language would be in Healey's "civil union" proposal i.e. "civil unions with all the rights of marriage" or "civil unions with rights 'to be determined,'" we were told, "it is premature to ask that as that would not be until 2008."
Don't think that Reed Hillman, who is Healey's and the GOP's choice for Lt. Governor is any better. When KnowThyNeighbor asked what Hillman's stance was on the subject, the spokeswoman told us, "Reed Hillman believes in everything that Healey does." When I responded with, "surely there must be something that Hillman would like to add or clarify in a statement, " I was told, "No, everything that Kerry Healey says is EXACTLY what Hillman says."
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Boycott Citgo, Buy Exxon-Mobil
Boycotting Citgo is a great way to slap down Chavezian, leftist anti-Americanism. And we never bought into that garbage about the Citgo sign by Fenway Park being a landmark worth saving. We always found it an eyesore. Take it down!
But it's nice to know you can feel good about buying at Exxon-Mobil instead. They are one of the companies rated ZERO by the so-called "Human Rights Campaign," an extremist GLBT organization. That means the corporation has not kowtowed to all the absurd demands of the GLBTs for diversity training, partner benefits, and transsexual surgery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)