:)
Posted on 01/07/2008 6:18:49 AM PST by xzins
Is Mitt Romney Conservative?
by Gary Glenn Chairman, Campaign for Michigan Families
The Washington, D.C. conservative weekly Human Events last year listed Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in its Top Ten list of RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), ranking him at number 8 in the nation with the following entry:
"Has said, ’I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.’ Supports (homosexual) civil unions and stringent gun laws. After visiting Houston, he criticized the city’s aesthetics, saying, ’This is what happens when you don’t have zoning.’" (Human Events)
Romney should have ranked even higher on the list of RINOs. He famously likes to tell conservative audiences in Iowa and South Carolina that being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention.
I attended last fall’s GOP conference in Michigan, where Romney continued his masquerade as a "conservative," even daring to tell the assembled activists: "I am pro-life" -- knowing full well that he does not mean by that term what those listening would think he meant.
Romney’s ten-year political career has occurred from his late 40s to his late 50s, yet he asks pro-family conservatives to naively believe that he’s just now figuring out his core beliefs.
During that decade, he has insistently supported legal abortion-on-demand. In a televised 1994 campaign debate, Romney said: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice. ...Since that time, my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see my wavering on that." (Boston Globe)
His 2002 gubernatorial campaign web site stated: "As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government’s." (Archive)
Romney’s response to the National Abortion Rights Action League’s 2002 candidate survery: ’’I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government’s. The truth is, no candidate in the governor’s race in either party would deny women abortion rights." (Notably, Romney refused to answer Massachusetts Citizens for Life’s candidate questionnaire.) (Boston Globe)
Not surprisingly, Romney’s clearly stated support for Roe and "a woman’s right to choose" -- i.e., abortion on demand -- earned him the endorsement of the pro-abortion Republican Majority for Choice PAC.
He was also endorsed, twice, by the homosexual "Log Cabin Republicans," the same group that in 2004 spent $1 million attacking President Bush for his support of a Marriage Protection Amendment.
Romney believes the Boy Scouts should allow openly homosexual Scoutmasters: "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation." (Web today)
He endorses Ted Kennedy’s federal "gay rights" legislation. He endorses taxpayer-financed same-sex benefits for the homosexual partners of state employees, and even attacked some Democratic legislators for not supporting such government benefits.
According to the Associated Press, he has appointed at least two openly homosexual lawyers to state judgeships, one a board member of the Lesbian & Gay Bar Association. Imagine how that will fly in Republican presidential primaries in the South, the prospect of a president with a record of appointing homosexual activists to the bench. (See copy of gubernatorial news release below.)
In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized so-called homosexual "marriage," Romney denounced a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual "marriage," civil unions, or same-sex public employee benefits as "too extreme," even after being advised by the media that his own wife and son had just signed a petition to place it on the ballot. (Boston Phoenix)
Now, as he postures to run for president, Romney travels to Iowa and Michigan and South Carolina to claim he’s "pro-life" and brag about fighting homosexual "marriage," saying that at age 59, his position on such issues has "evolved."
(No flip-flop so far, however, on his stated support for homosexual Scoutmasters, forcing taxpayers to fund spousal benefits for the "partners" of state employees involved in homosexual relationships, or Kennedy’s federal "gay rights" legislation.)
Regardless, most pro-family voters don’t believe in the theory of evolution -- including as it applies to politicians, and especially when the alleged "evolution" seems so conveniently timed to produce political benefit.
Gov. Romney can tell all the cattle-rancher-at-a-vegetarian-convention jokes he wants about Massachusetts. But they’re going to fall flat when social conservatives learn -- and they will -- that his long-term record on abortion and elements of homosexual activists’ political agenda has been that of Vegetarian in Chief.
Your pretense that you didn't know NAMBLA espouses elimination of age of consent laws now sets you up to pretend that you don't know that parents, boys, and scoutmasters are all members of the boy scouts, or that litigation between a homosexual man and the boy scouts was the framework in which this question was asked. there are lots of things in print running around the net. You have shown that you will reject those who disparage Romney for this, no matter how well documented they may be.
Go ahead and show me how brilliantly you can prove Mitt never said what we heard him say. How it didn't matter, or how he didn't mean it, or how it isn't important.
Show us again with your outrage. I'm siding with the children.
Perhaps you can lash out at me for pinging in people who take the same side I do. Of course, a little viewing of the history of those pinged will show that they, like myself, have been advocates for children and opponents of the NAMBLA agenda during their whole history on Free Republic, and that this isn't just something that came up now that Mitt is running for the presidency. We have all (in general) been all over Mitt and Rudy on this issue as we are all over others who put children at the mercy of rapacious adults since long before we came to free republic.
Your desire to play politics with children, Buford, nauseates us. It isn't just about this election. It is about little people who are just beginning life, who matter and who deserve to be cared for. Grow up.
You’re an idiot. We’re did I saw I didn’t know anything about NAMBLA’s disgusting purpose and agenda? I questioned your tieing Romney to NAMBLA.
And I don’t give a poop who you ping.
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/jay_sekulow_responds_to_boy_sc.php
You people are insane.
That’s what I said. You just repeated it with different words.
There are gays serving in the military today. They are allowed to do so. NO candidate for president, in EITHER party, is calling for a ban on gays in the military.
So saying that Mitt Romney “supports” gays in the military is a meaningless charge. There are already gays in the military, they have the official support of the military establishment, and no candidate is saying they do NOT support it.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell just means that nobody knows who is gay, at least no officially. As you said, they can’t act on their impulses, they can’t tell people they are gay.
P.S. I’ve seen the video at least a dozen times.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1949574/posts?page=4#4
He said he changed his position on abortion. Why keep harping on that? And didn’t the Log Cabin Republicans endorse Rudy?
The incredulity is that you would stoop so low as to inaccurately claim that Mitt Romney ever supported anything having to do with NAMBLA.
:)
I am also convinced that don’t ask, don’t tell will lead to gays serving openly in the military.
Do you think that 20 years from now, gay service will still be kept secret? It’s OK if you do, but do you seriously think that after 20 more years of gays serving in the military under don’t ask, don’t tell, we won’t reach the point where someone finds out a guy’s gay and it WON’T bother anybody enough to have to kick them out?
Gay sex will never be moral, but we don’t restrict our military to people who live moral lives.
What did I post that you disagree with?
Power Point of this brochure can be downloaded here
Political alliance is shared agendas and financial backings to promote politicians into office to promote their movement. That was started by Harry Hay and broken out into parties support by David Mixner.
In case the screen capture is hard to read and you don’t have a power point views:
Political Party Alliance
The National Stonewall Democrats
The National Stonewall Democrats is the nation’s only grassroots Democratic lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender organization. The Stonewall Democrats focus on making change in three ways; educating the LGBT community about the differences in the political parties, mobilizing the LGBT community on election day to get-out to vote for fair-minded Democrats and standing up against the Republicans when they attack our families and civil rights.
Dave Noble, Executive Director www.stonewalldemocrats.org
The Log Cabin Republicans
The mission of the Log Cabin Republicans is to work within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for all Americans, including gays and lesbians. Log Cabin’s mission derives from our firm belief in the principles of limited government, individual liberty, individual responsibility, free markets and a strong national defense. We emphasize that these principles and the moral values on which they stand are consistent with the pursuit of equal treatment under the law for gay and lesbian Americans.
Patrick Guerriero, Executive Director www.logcabin.org
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
"[I do not believe] That because Log Cabin Repubs have some sort of affiliation with Stonewall Democrats, ergo Romney is tied in some way to NAMBLA."do you not understand?
If you're handing out leadership positions in your army, do you give the lead to someone who's consistently been one of your warriors for decades,
or do you give the lead to someone who just left the enemy's camp last week?
He CLAIMS he’s conservative. That’s the same, right?
The incredulity is that you would stoop so low as to inaccurately claim that pointing out that the issue is the same agenda is the same as claiming membership in the organisation.
But then you always say it depends on what the meaning of "Membership" is, now don't you?
THE CHURCH OF HUCK: GROWING GOV’T. IN THE NAME OF RELIGION
by Selwyn Duke
December 25, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
There is a candidate in the presidential race who has a serious religion problem. No, it’s not Mormon Mitt or recently-religious Rudy. It is Mike Huckabee.
Just for the record, I share Huck’s faith in Jesus Christ. Not only have I no problem with religion in public life, I also understand that one can’t really separate a person’s world view from his politics. The political is merely a reflection of the spiritual; our politics doesn’t emerge in a vacuum.
So what is my problem with Huck? Do I accuse him of false religiosity?
No, what scares me is that his beliefs are all too real.
To that enormous secular conservative voting block out there, I will say, be not afraid. It’s not that Huck would impose religion through government. No, his actions would truly offend you.
He would impose statism in the name of religion through government.
While Huck will say what you want to hear to win office, he will not hear what you want to say once there. He will make tone-deaf Bush seem like a maestro. How do I know this?
He believes.
Belief can be a great thing, of course. Our Founding Fathers’ unprecedented respect for liberty was born of their Christian belief that rights were bestowed by the divine king and not worldly ones. Mother Teresa’s Christian beliefs inspired her to toil tirelessly to aid the destitute and dying in India. But whereas the founders kept charity out of government and Teresa kept government out of charity, Huck conflates the two in a disastrous mix of bad theology and bad political science. Perverting Christianity’s message and violating 2000 years of its tradition, he believes it is his Christian mandate to do good works through government.
With, of course, your money.
Huck invokes faith to justify ambitions ranging from the insidious to the idiotic. For the former, look no further than immigration, where Huck espoused the Christian principle, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” while advocating an apparent open-door policy. This, despite the fact that if any good Christian were to find himself in a country illegally, he would expect its citizens to demand he return home.
This illegal-enabling attitude was also apparent in a deal to establish a partially taxpayer-financed Mexican consulate office in Little Rock, a scheme involving the lease of building space to the Mexican government for $1 a year. Then there was Huck’s support of drivers’ licenses, government benefits and in-state tuition rates for illegals and his opposition to a bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote.
What was the motivation for these outrages? While some critics assert that he created a “magnet” for illegals at the behest of business interests, for certain is that Huck invoked his Christian faith while attacking supporters of the proof-of-citizenship bill. He labeled the measure irresponsible, un-American, anti-life and un-Christian. This prompted one of the assailed legislators, Jim Holt, to say that “Christian charity does not include turning a blind eye to lawbreaking.”
The problem, according to many, is that Huck doesn’t agree. For instance, Daniel Larison at the American Conservative wrote,
“. . . Huckabee regards it as his Christian duty to help subvert and liberalize U.S. immigration laws. Together [with Sam Brownback], they embrace the notion that fidelity to the Gospel requires privileging the interests of non-citizens over those of fellow citizens.”
(Note: This is why immigration crusader Tom Tancredo just exited the presidential race and endorsed Romney; he knows Mexicali Mike must be stopped.)
Huck explicitly cited the same “Christian duty” when explaining a lenient attitude toward felons that would allow for twice as many pardons under his Arkansas administration as those of his last three predecessors combined. Among those pardoned was the notorious Wayne Dumond, a thug serving 25 years for raping a teenage high school cheerleader. But Dumond had no feeling of Christian duty. He then raped and murdered a woman named Carol Sue Shields.
As for that ol’ Huck sense of Christian duty, “Thou shalt not bear false witness” seems no more a part of it than does the imperative to protect the innocent. He denied playing a role in Dumond’s pardon, but this is contradicted by the very man who had to sign the criminal’s parole papers, one Ermer Pondexter. Said he,
“I signed the [parole] papers because the governor wanted Dumond paroled.”
This Clintonesque relationship with truth also evidenced itself in the YouTube debate when Huck was asked about his plan for college tuition benefits for illegals. Writing about this, columnist Jerome Corsi has “identified five specific, easily documented misrepresentations of historical facts” in Huck’s answer to the question.
Yet there is another fact: In his quest to fill the schools, Huck hasn’t forgotten citizens. No, not at all. Huck signed a bill in Arkansas making it more difficult to homeschool your children, perhaps at the behest of the left-wing National Education Association (whose New Hampshire endorsement he captured). The homeschooling families supporting him should take note.
Advertisement
But what will concern all families is Huck’s philosophy on one of the biggest issues of our time, terrorism. He has some very definite ideas about thwarting it, and they’re probably a bit different from yours. Said Huck,
We must first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts - which all translates into a lack of opportunity and hope. The United States’ strategic interests as the world’s most powerful country coincide with its moral obligations as the richest.
Ah, true innovation: Giving social programs international scope. And, I wonder, does Huck know that Osama bin Laden is worth about $300 million? I’ll also note that there is no moral obligation to use other people’s money for your government-run charities.
Then there are Huck’s silly health-police measures. He says he would favor a national smoking ban (not the role of the federal government - unconstitutional). Then, many of us have heard about how Huck shed more than 100 pounds after developing diabetes, a commendable achievement. But, not content with personal victory in the battle of the bulge, Huck took his crusade public, creating a program to test the body-fat index of every student in Arkansas’ school system.
Is this Huck’s conception of small government and proper use of tax money? Does a 10-year-old child oft-teased as a double-wide need that assessment affirmed through a taxpayer-funded program? Yes, Christy, just so you know, you’re now officially, legally fat - signed and stamped by the state.
Huck’s puerile passions are understandable, but not excusable. He lost all that weight, and he said his wife’s 1975 battle with cancer left him “scared to death” of the disease. Thus, like gun-control nut Carolyn McCarthy - elected to Congress after her husband and son were shot in the L.I.R.R. massacre - he is a statist who feels compelled to impose his passions through government. But, I’m sorry, I don’t find the nanny state more attractive because she’s dressed up like the church lady.
Protect our borders, Huck; I can protect my own lungs and arteries, thank you.
Perhaps what’s most offensive about the Huck, though, is his clear message that those opposed to his statist measures aren’t good Christians. Yet I will cede that he’s half right, in that we should pursue charity in ways that correspond with our gifts.
And I hear that the Ghatal Missionary Baptist Fellowship in India is looking for candidates.
As for candidates, Huck is the only one who would bring not just missionary zeal to the White House, but missionary intentions. This makes him especially dangerous because, to use a variation on a famous Blaise Pascal line, men never grow government so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with religious conviction.
This is why those who support Huck because he has religious conviction ought to wonder what those convictions actually are. Is it enough that he professes some version of Christianity? I will remind you that Jesus himself said,
“You will know them by their fruits. . . . Not everyone that says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. . . .”
Nor do simple pronouncements qualify one to enter the White House. Sure, Huck now speaks in a tongue palatable to his audience; he’s Tom Tancredo on immigration, Torquemada on punishment and the ancient Chinese on border barriers. But you can believe the rhetoric or the reality. He hasn’t changed his ways and in office would fulfill his statist promise, not his promises. How do I know?
Because he believes.
As a man of faith, I understand that when you believe your principles reflect God’s will, you won’t bend.
Ever.
This is the greatest asset; that is, when you have the right principles.
As to this, it’s just too bad the Church of Huck has nothing to say about lying to get elected.
Related Article:
Huckabee campaigning for 23% sales tax
© 2007 Selwyn Duke - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Selwyn Duke lives in Westchester County, New York. He’s a tennis professional, internet entrepreneur and writer whose works have appeared on various sites on the Internet, including Intellectual Conservative, nenewamerica.us (Alan Keyes) and Mensnet. Selwyn has traveled extensively in his life, visiting exotic locales such as India, Morocco and Algeria and quite a number of other countries while playing the international tennis circuit.
E-Mail: SelwynDuke@optonline.net
Mitt Romney’s not a conservative, but he plays one on TV.
I would like you to show me how you are separating the affiliation from the same political movement.
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.