Posted on 04/24/2012 3:02:54 PM PDT by Kaslin
Outrage! Or something! Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has "stepped on a landmine" by having the temerity to appoint -- I hope you're sitting down -- an openly gay national security spokesman, according to one leader of a social conservative group. Once you've pried yourself from the floor, feel free to persuse some choice excerpts from this person's incensed column:
Gov. Mitt Romney stepped on a landmine by appointing Richard Grenell, an out, loud and proud homosexual, to be his spokesman on national security and foreign policy issues. Grenell has for years been an outspoken advocate for homosexual marriage. In fact, word is that he left the Bush administration because President Bush would not formally acknowledge his homosexual partner.
"Word is" that unattributed rumors can be passed off as facts in certain quarters.
Since, as the saying goes in D.C., personnel is policy, this means Gov. Romney has some ‘splaining to do. This clearly is a deliberate and intentional act on his part, since he was well aware of Mr. Grenell’s sexual proclivities and knew it would be problematic for social conservatives. It’s certainly not possible that there are no other potential spokesmen available, men who are experts in foreign policy and who at the same time honor the institution of natural marriage in their personal lives.
So the mere employment of a gay or lesbian person -- regardless of his or her political leanings, or level of expertise -- is "problematic" for "social conservatives?" Is heterosexuality now a prerequisite to work on behalf of a Republican presidential candidate? Quite a standard, I must say. And the kicker:
Given the propensity for members of the homosexual community to engage in frequent and anonymous sexual encounters, the risk to national security of having a homosexual in a high-ranking position with access to secret information is obvious.
What's the "obvious" conclusion here, again? It sounds like this gentleman is suggesting that because some homosexuals engage in "frequent and anonymous" sexual encounters -- as do some straight people -- all gay people with access to sensitive information are ipso facto national security risks. Okay then. Rather than punch holes in this, er, logic, I'll just encourage you to read Jen Rubin's take down of this nonsense here. It seems Romney has repudiated this particular individual in the past over some previous inflammatory rhetoric, so perhaps the whole spat is personal. In any case, here's an actual gay rights-related threat to the American ideal, upon which conservatives of all stripes should agree:
Religious liberty groups are blasting a proposed ordinance that would force churches in Hutchinson, Kan. to rent their facilities for gay weddings and gay parties. The Hutchinson City Council will consider adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes in the city’s human relations code. They are expected to vote on the changes next month. According to the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission, churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate “against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.”
Matthew Staver, chairman of the Liberty Counsel Action, told Fox News the proposed law is “un-American.” “It is a collision course between religious freedom and the LGBT agenda,” Staver said. “This proposed legislation will ultimately override the religious freedom that is protected under the First Amendment.” He argued that churches cannot be forced by the government to set aside their religious convictions and their mission. And, he warned, some churches could even be forced to rent their buildings for drag parties. “What we are ultimately going to see is churches forced to confront this law, forced to do things and allow their facilities to be used by people and for events that diametrically undercut the mission of the church,” he said.
Unlike the "controversy" discussed above, this story truly is outrageous. According to the Constitution -- and recently reaffirmed 9-0 by SCOTUS -- churches and other religious institutions have the right to adhere to the tenets of their faith, especially within the walls of their own places of worship. This proposal (in Kansas, of all places) would sacrifice Americans' sacred religious liberties on the altar of political correctness. It's both flagrantly unconstitutional and totally wrong-headed. Sadly, it's not unprecedented. We've seen pastors persecuted by Canadian "human rights" tribunals for public criticisms of homosexuality, and an EU court ruled last month that churches that decline to carry out gay weddings in member states that have legalized the practice are guilty of discrimination. Oh, but that sort of thing could never happen here, we're told, because we have a First Amendment. Indeed we do, but we've just gotten through witnessing a presidential administration stomp all over said amendment, in furtherance of a tawdry political end. So forgive me for questioning the hard Left's fealty to the United States Constitution.
Bolton is also an open supporter of "gay marriage."
A perfect Romney Republican.
Not really a shock.
Romney can have as many perverts working for him as he wants.
He is not a conservative and he is not going to beat Obama.
In the end it doesn’t matter........
While I oppose gay marriage, there are some things that are more important, like protecting this nation from its foreign enemies and saving it from socialism. Gay marriage is far down the list.
Even though the public tolerates Democrat homosexuals (assuming most of them are probably homosexuals) they punish the Republicans for turning more of these people loose to run for office or make policy.
Sorry Mikey, your money is good, their money is good, even their free will unpaid help is good, BUT we simply can no longer carry their baggage!
This particular personnel action proves that ROMNEY has no sense when it comes to politics outside of the closed little group of clowns in the GOP establishment!
Bolton and his gay buddies can be easily replaced.
The crowd who hang out at public restrooms are into really neat hair ~
I care.
“But I can’t imagine that his political view of homosexuality squares with his Mormon faith. To me, just more of an indication that the guy is a blank slate from a values perspective.”
There is a pattern here. Willard promotes abortion and formal homosexual copulatory arrangements as public policy, but not within amongst his own co-religionists. He encourages fecundity and stability narrowly within his own group, and sterile, self destructive behavior amongst ALL others.
Willard is not hypocritical, nor schizophrenic, nor empty. He is a malefactor, and works to as certain a purpose as did his moral and intellectual equivalent, Margaret Sanger.
The snide condescending tone of the article doesn’t do Romney any favors either. We get enough of that crap from the idiot himself.
Well, you wouldn't think so if you realized that homosexual practices are the sorts of things for which God turns nations over to their enemies, to those who destroy them economically and physically.
Or, to put it in another way, that in the natural course of things that it is the destruction of families and personal morals that makes nations collapse economically, and makes them easy targets for external enemies.
-- Thomas Jefferson"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."
Without its moral basis, this republic cannot stand.
-- Thomas Jefferson "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time...They therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure and which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." -- Charles Carroll, U.S. Senator and signer of the Declaration of Independence "[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." -- John Adams, An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, 1763 “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.” -- George Washington "Peace, prosperity, liberty and morals have an intimate connection." -- Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1813
"We are firmly convinced, and we act on that conviction, that with nations as with individuals our interests soundly calculated will ever be found inseparable from our moral duties..."
Agreed in all respects. Romney is not a conservative or even a moderate. He's a big government liberal at a time when that could be as fatal to a free country as Obama himself, although perhaps with a slower death. I will not vote for Romney in November either (I reserve the right to vote for him in 2016 if he governs as the conservative he is pretending to be, but I would be extremely surprised if he could pull that off). However, I will vote in the House and Senate elections and the state and local election. Whether we get stuck with Obama or Romney in our White House, we cannot afford to have anything but the most conservative Congress attainable. We need the legislative branch to restrain either one of those big government liberals.
“Whether we get stuck with Obama or Romney in our White House, we cannot afford to have anything but the most conservative Congress attainable.”
Wholehearted agreement here.
Guy Benson is Townhall.com’s Political Editor.
So, Townhall is pro-homosexual now?
Yeah. It's only an existential threat to the family and 7000 years of civilization.
After the movement gays get through queering marriage, what are we going to do for "families"? There will be no "families", or nothing we can recognize as such. Which is their entire purpose -- they've said so.
States and civilizations blithely break their bonds with their patrimonies at their mortal peril. That's because people who "rise above" the disciplines of civilization, are no longer capable of sustaining it in any meaningful way.
Townhall seems to be pro-Romney, at any rate.
After reading this, I wondered whether Guy Benson was gay, but I can’t find anything on that.
He has worked with Hugh Hewitt, who is strongly pro-Romney, and for Breitbart’s Big this and that. Breitbart was mostly very conservative, but he was very supportive of gay activism, along with Ann Coulter. It really makes you wonder.
Because movement homosexuals and their politics are a curse on the land. Did you read the rest of the article?
But he isn't a socialist doosh. After 4 more years of Obama, radicals will rule.
Mitt doesn't really consider The Constitution to be a pain in the *ss like the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue does.
Sure looks like it, doesn't it?
Wonder if Guy has something to tell us?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.