Replies

Mitt Romney has always supported homo activists in their war against the Boy Scouts.

Starting during the Clinton Administration (does the name Roberta Achtenberg ring a bell?) the Boy Scouts came under relentless fire by the Democrats and their newsrooms for rejecting the idea that they, the Boy Scouts of America, should welcome homosexual scout leaders into the organization and let them take little boys off into the woods. Boy Scouts leaders didn’t think this was such a good idea. Naturally, Massachusetts Mittens sided with the homo activists.

Below are a couple of columns from 10 and 12 years ago about the Boy Scouts being turned away by Mitt Romney and the Olympics Committee for volunteer work on the Salt Lake Olympics. The Boy Scouts had been very active and high profile at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics and were looking forward to participating once again. But the Boy Scouts had just won an important Supreme Court case (in June 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that the BSA was a private organization that could choose whoever they wanted as scout leaders and could therefore reject sodomites) and the Democrats/homos were still mighty ticked off about it. Massachusetts Mittens could always be counted on to pander to homo activists, of course, so he gladly came up with a lame lie of an excuse for turning the Boy Scouts away from the Salt Lake Olympics. The Boy Scouts’ disappointment was palpable, and Mitt Romney never returned their calls.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/12/15/214301.shtml

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/2/7/135258.shtml

Good post, Lancey, showing how Romney actualizes his "respect" for the Boy Scouts' right of free association. About the same as he "respected" the right of adoption agencies to refuse to allow the innocents entrusted to them to be adopted by homosexual "married with children" wannabees. Law in Massachusetts passed by him FORCED adoption agencies to cooperate or else -- and Catholic adoption agencies CLOSED after being in the biz for more than a century, rather than condemn the souls of innocent children in the name of Romney's depraved social engineering.

Voting for Romney is clearly as nuts as voting for Obama. I'm voting for a plurality -- third party -- to help in the vote count to deny either Romney or Obama a majority. The last time a liberal president was elected on a plurality, he was IMPEACHED -- and the time before that, he was bulldozed by the Republican Revolution and forced to the right. People piss and moan about the "Perot plurality" and at the time I was furious with folks who voted for Perot, but in retrosepct it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that the plurality created the opportunity for significant advances for conservatism that simply wouldn't have happened if HWB had been re-elected or if Clinton had ever won a majority -- which he didn't; he was elected by a plurality both times.

I'm voting FOR A PLURALITY because pluralities favor conservatives as per Clinton's two plurality wins. Others here are pretending to vote "against" Obama by voting TO strengthen liberalism in the Republician party. They don't mean to do that, but it is exactly what they are on the verge of voting for.