This is the third of four posts covering:

• What Mitt Romney did to Massachusetts while he was Bay State governor.
• What he did to the nation while he was governor.
• (THIS POST) His risky associations and entanglements. This one has a “surprise.”
• What he did to the nation, the Republican Party, and John McCain during his GOP primary run.

_______________________________________________

MITT ROMNEY’S, HIS FAMILY’S, AND HIS “OLD” FIRM’S UNSAVORY, AND POSSIBLY DANGEROUS, ENTANGLEMENTS

Overview: The bottom-line question that leaps from this post is this –

Why in the world would John McCain even consider risking his one remaining shot at the highest office in the land by associating himself with any part of what you are about to see and read?

_______________________________________________

Let’s start with a video blast from a past post.

It comes from a lefty called “DemRapidReponse,” which is good news and bad news. The good news is that what is presented is mostly, but not entirely, accurate. The bad news is that it’s a sneak preview of the kind of thing the opposition will pound on if John McCain selects Mitt Romney as his running mate. The damage that could arise from the information in this video, combined with Romney’s Personal Financial Disclosure Form, combined with other things I have learned, is hard to underestimate.

The vid doesn’t do a good enough job of distinguishing between Mitt Romney, Bain Capital, and the supposed distance between them. But viewers will get the point.

I know that Romney claims that most of his assets are in a “blind trust,” and that he has satisfied a Massachusetts ethics body over its propriety.

But, as I said back in January, the distance from Romney to Bain and other questionable entities isn’t as far as one might expect, and for being “blind,” an awful lot is pretty visible:

• For one thing, the New York Times has noted that Romney “remains an investor in Bain Capital.” Romney’s no-longer-available GOP primary web site did not disclose that. His bio, when it was there, left readers with the impression that he is not currently involved with Bain in any way.
• The Personal Financial Disclosure form filled out by Romney in August (accessible here; the file itself is a 40-plus page PDF) confirms that Mitt Romney and his wife have substantial ownership interests in various Bain entities.
• The amount of those interests may be understated or obscured because the Form’s preparers appear to have failed to follow some of the specific instructions for completing the Form. I believe that a reader will likely come away from the Disclosure form estimating a valuation of ownership interests that could be tens of millions of dollars lower than it really is.
• Even beyond Bain, the Disclosure Form reveals that Romney and/or his family also have and/or recently had and disposed of likely-substantial investments in the Russian and Chinese entities mentioned in the video.
• (Not noted in video) Certain of the entities Romney and Bain are involved with were implicated in the Oil for Food Scandal. Really: “There were two main types of manipulation: surcharges paid for humanitarian contracts for spare parts, trucks, medical equipment and other supplies; and kickbacks for oil contracts. Among the companies that paid illegal surcharges were South Korea’s Daewoo International and three subsidiaries of Siemens AG of Germany. On the oil side, contractors listed included Texas-based Bayoil and Coastal Corp., Russian oil giant Gazprom, and Lukoil Asia Pacific, a subsidiary of the Russian company, Lukoil.” You will see the names of Gazprom and Lukoil in the video.

Geez, the vid’s only 2:37, so let’s roll it already (direct YouTube link, in case the embed doesn’t work):

(NOTE: CNOOC and Sinopec are Chinese oil companies.)

So while the video is less than perfect (it’s also dated, as we now know that Romney “lent” and is now going to eat $45 million of his own money, not the $9 mil noted in the vid, that he put into his campaign), it is sufficiently valid to raise questions about:

• Romney’s sincerity about Iranian divestment, given his direct and indirect personal interests.
• The complete nature of Bain’s and Romney’s Russian and Chinese investments and entanglements, especially given the state-sponsored or state-sanctioned nature of many of their companies, and the current and potential relationship between the Russian oil firms noted and the Russian government.
• Whether Mitt Romney will ultimately represent this country’s interests, his own interests, those of another country or countries, or some combination of the three if he enters the halls of presidential power. Seriously. I’m not the only one raising security-related questions; GOP presidential candidate Duncan Hunter raised similar concerns about yet another Chinese investment during the primary.
• Finally, whether all of this will be fatal to John McCain’s general election candidacy.

What has been covered here only scratches the surface. When all is said and done, the business dealings and entanglements of the Romneys and Bain may end up constituting the most troubling aspect of all about this man’s presence on a presidential ticket.

And given what was noted in the first two posts in this four-part series, that’s saying something.

But there’s more.

Back on January 17, I wrote the following (last item at link), and got some heat for it:

By the way, I predict that if Romney is the nominee, there will be a concerted effort by Old Media to get to the bottom of what appears, based on this simple Google search on “Mormons and ‘child abuse’” and other information I have learned, to be a serious child-abuse problem that exists in the Mormon Church and segments of the Mormon community.

Since a Republican is involved, I predict that Old Media will do a thorough job.

I further predict that if they do that thorough job, they will find a lot to write about.

I finally predict that they will get to within, excuse the expression, close enough striking distance of Mitt Romney’s circle of friends and acquaintances to have an impact on his prospects, and that the impact will not be favorable.

I stand by that prediction, applicable now to a McCain-Romney ticket if Romney is selected as John McCain’s running mate. In fact, I am more confident about that prediction now than I was six months ago.

I also now have some confidence that if Old Media does the thorough job I expect it will, it will find questionable and perhaps corrupt business and political arrangements and practices in Michigan that will get close enough to Mitt Romney’s circle of friends and acquaintances to have an impact on a McCain-Romney ticket, and that the impact will not be favorable.

Now for the “surprise.” Let’s watch a second video.

It’s from John McCain’s January 13, 2008 town hall appearance in Howell, Michigan, which is located in Livingston County. It was carried live on CNN:

Here’s a transcript of the relevant portion of that vid in case it disappears from YouTube (I have, however, saved it in a different format):

Questioner: Senator McCain, I have all due respect for you, and the service that you did for our country.

McCain: I’m always afraid of that preface.

Q: My question is coming from my son, who at this time feels hostage in our home, and we may want to have the McCriries and Gaddises (well-known political figures in Livingston County, MI — Ed.) come in on this question, from this very young man who has literally been terrorized for years in this county. My name is Deborah McCord Skousen, and in 1997 I was put on trial under a false police report taken by Susan Gaddis. Later on, a deal was struck with my former husband and the McCriries to sell my home in a divorce agreement. I’m going to tell now what was –

McCain: You’re going to have to ask me a question.

Q: I will ask a question. But my kids have been terrorized and I. When you spoke about Mr. Romney, it might be wise to look into his investments, particularly into Gazprom and Lukoil, and you will notice that there is a company out of Pontiac by the name of Kairos International, which handled –

McCain: You’re going to have to ask me a question, ma’am.

Q: My question is “When are American citizens going to stop being terrorized? I had confronted Mr. Alex Itkin, who was a Russian …..

McCain: Ma’am, you’re going to have to - I apologize. I tell you what. I will have a member of my staff meet with you immediately after this town hall meeting. I will try to get all the facts and I will try to do whatever I can to assist you in this, obviously, what has been a terribly traumatic experience for you. I’ll have my staff sit down with you.

That’s pretty weak, eh?

Now, of course, many will be tempted to marginalize Ms. Skousen, because it’s clear that she was upset and more than a little unprepared.

But you haven’t met her. I have.

Her story about the trial isn’t made up, nor is the discrepancy between what the police officer (who filed the police report) said he saw and what Ms. Skousen claimed.

The third company she named besides Gazprom and Lukoil, namely Kairos International, is a real company, and was involved in Oil for Food in 2001 and 2002.

Ms. Skousen also added the following observations about Senator McCain during the course of her interrupted question:

McCain paced the floor, said repeatedly (with the mic away from his mouth) and indicated by his facial expressions that it was serious, would not let me finish the question, and repeatedly interrupted. He did not interrupt during a later question by another woman who had a lengthy statement followed by a question. He said to speak with one of his people, but there was no one around from his staff when I left, and only a few angry people from the county who gave me an icy look.

I only wish I had the time to fully vet the accuracy of the things I am learning, things I have not revealed because I can’t be sure of them. But you can bet that an Old Media determined to elect a faltering, flip-flopping, gaffe-generating Barack Obama will find the time.

The ultimate question for John McCain is simple: Though the full extent of the seriousness of the items discussed here is not known, how in the world can you even consider risking your one remaining shot at the highest office in the land by associating yourself with any of this?

Please. Don’t do it, John.

___________________________________________

UPDATE, July 23: The “Alex Itkin” mentioned in the second YouTube by Ms. Skousen is the President & CEO of Kairos on the company’s “About Us” page. Here’s his bio. Ms. Skousen’s ex-husband Samuel J. Skousen is shown as the company’s Automotive Consultant for the USA & Canada on that same “About Us” page. Kairos’s home page describes the company as “…. dedicated to establishing a conduit for cultural, economic, and business exchange between Russia, America, and Europe, facilitating relationships between government organizations, professional associations, corporations, and individual entrepreneurs.”

This is the second of four posts covering:

• What Mitt Romney did to Massachusetts while he was Bay State governor.
• (THIS POST) What he did to the nation while he was governor.
• His risky associations and entanglements. This one has a “surprise.”
• What he did to the nation, the Republican Party, and John McCain during his GOP primary run.

_______________________________________________

UPDATE, July 24: A lot of people have had to accept or condone the unacceptable for Mitt Romney to get as far as he has. John Haskins and Gregg Jackson name names.
_______________________________________________

HOW MITT ROMNEY DAMAGED AMERICA WHILE HE WAS GOVERNOR

To understand how much damage Mitt Romney’s handling of the Goodridge same-sex marriage situation has done to the country, let’s get back to basics.

Speeding

Let’s say a person is driving down the road at a very high speed, and a police officer pulls him over (I’ll stick with masculine gender throughout for simplicity’s sake).

The officer typically won’t tell the driver, “I think you’re going too fast, so I’m going to give you a ticket.” But if the officer did, the driver’s reasonable reaction would be “So what?”

The officer might point to a nearby sign and say, “well, I clocked you going 53 mph, and the sign there says that the speed limit is 35. So because of that, I’m going to give you a ticket.”

The driver might tempt the fates and ask, “Well, just because the sign is there, why do I have to obey it?”

The officer would then say, “Because there’s a law that says you have to obey speed limit signs. Specific speed limits were set by (let’s assume in this instance) city council, and as an employee of this city headed up by our mayor, it is my job to enforce that law.”

Any time you’re given a speeding ticket, you are charged with violating a specific law. If there were no law on the books saying that you have to obey speed-limit signs, you could ignore them. The police officer, as much as he might think it important that people drive at safe speeds, could not pull you over and charge you unless that law exists. As an Executive Branch employee, he needs the Legislative Branch of Government, in this case City Council, to have first passed a law that he can charge you as having violated.

A driver who wishes to contest his ticket will end up going before a municipal judge, who is of course a member of the Judicial Branch. The judge ordinarily exercises very little discretion. If the officer can demonstrate that the driver was indeed going 53, if the speed limit sign says 35, and if the law says that drivers must obey such a posted sign, the judge will ordinarily find the driver guilty.

But, if the judge feels that the speed limit on the road involved should really be 55, he could, at least in theory, decide that the driver isn’t guilty of anything, and let him or her get away without punishment. He could further declare from the bench that all drivers ought to be able to tool along at up to 55 mph on that stretch of road.

Here are the key clarifying questions about this budding separation of powers controversy:

• Because he ruled as he did in this one instance, has the judge changed the law? No.
• Can police officers continue to pull drivers over on that stretch of road if their speed exceeds 35? Yes.
• SHOULD police officers continue to pull drivers over on that stretch of road if their speed exceeds 35, even if they know that the judge will probably let drivers going under 55 go? Yes, because that’s what the law says they MUST do.
• How would such a dispute get resolved? Either the judge has to be removed by Council through some kind of impeachment process, or City Council has to pass a law changing that speed limit.
• Can the judge force Council to pass such a law? Absolutely NOT.
• Finally, if Council has previously passed a law saying that the speed limit on that stretch of road will be 35, can the Mayor just tell his municipal work crews to go take out that “Speed Limit 35″ sign and replace it with one that says “Speed Limit 55″? NO, he should not and legally cannot do that unless and until Council passes a law changing that speed limit.

This seems pretty easy so far, doesn’t it?

Same-sex Marriage

Now, let’s apply what has just been illustrated to the Goodridge same-sex marriage case. Note that to get through this, no supposedly “oppressive” Biblical, religious, or natural-law arguments need be employed.

Let’s start with the fact that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) had no right to even take the case under Massachusetts’s Constitution, which specifically says at Chapter III, Article V that “All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.” The Court bizarrely and fraudulently “got around” this clear constitutional mandate by deciding to change the centuries-old common law definition of “marriage” to include two members of the same sex.

But let’s give the SJC the (undeserved) benefit of the doubt on this, and forge ahead.

The SJC recognized a big “problem,” namely that in the law involved, it was clear that “the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude ….. that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.” Thus, it could not, and did not, strike down that law.

Instead, the SJC said that its newly-discovered common-law definition of marriage meant that “barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution.”

Well, that’s nice, but the SJC recognized its limitations, namely its inability under the Massachusetts Constitution to change the “offending” law involved. The SJC actually found itself in a worse position than the judge in the speed-law example above. At least that judge could in theory let the speeder off the hook. But because of that pesky “207″ law, the SJC had NO power to mandate that Julie and Hillary Goodridge be granted a marriage license. All they could say is that they had rendered a judgment, i.e., expressed their opinion, that the law should be changed. The SJC specifically said that:

“Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion.”

Don’t be fooled by the word “judgment.” The key word is the last one: “opinion.”

Now let’s answer the same questions as were covered earlier in the speeding example, reformulated for Goodridge:

• Did the SJC change the law? No.
• Can those responsible for issuing marriage licenses in Massachusetts continue to refuse to issue them to same-sex couples who apply for them? Yes.
• SHOULD those responsible for issuing marriage licenses in Massachusetts continue to refuse to issue them to same-sex couples who apply for them? Yes. In fact, until the Legislature changes the “207″ law, that’s what they MUST do.
• How would such a dispute get resolved? If the judges are seen to have exceeded their authority either by taking the case or in their arbitrary redefinition of common-law marriage, they could be removed by the Legislature through some kind of impeachment process, or ….. the Legislature, as the SJC could only suggest, could pass a law revising the definition of marriage in the “207″ law.
• Can the SJC force the Legislature to pass such a law? Absolutely NOT, and to this day the Legislature has not passed such a law. The 180-day “stay” was in essence a polite suggestion, and nothing more. Note that no legislators have been prosecuted for allowing the “stay” to “expire,” as they were, and still are, under no compulsion to do anything.
• Finally, could Governor Mitt Romney just tell those responsible for issuing marriage licenses in Massachusetts to start issuing them to same-sex couples? NO, he could not legally do that unless and until the Legislature changed the “207″ law.

But that’s exactly what Mitt Romney did.

Mitt Romney unilaterally, and utterly without authority, ordered that the state’s marriage certificates be changed from “Husband-and-Wife” to a gender neutral “Person A-Person B” format.

Mitt Romney unilaterally, and utterly without authority, ordered those responsible for issuing marriage licenses in Massachusetts to issue them to same-sex couples. Hillary and Julie Goodridge were issued “marriage” licenses in May 2004, along with many other couples.

But you must understand this: Mitt Romney’s actions did NOT make same-sex marriage legal in Massachusetts. It is still illegal, and will remain illegal until the Legislature changes the “207″ law, regardless of how many times misguided reporters, lawmakers, talk-radio hosts, talking heads, pundits, and so-called social conservatives (who not only should know better, but in many cases do know better, because I know for a fact that they have been duly informed) say otherwise.

Mitt Romney’s unilateral actions were totally unnecessary. Not only was he under no compulsion to do anything in response to Goodridge, he was duty-bound under his oath of office (“I, [Mitt Romney], do solemnly swear, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God”) to do nothing. The early suggestion that Romney “defy” the Goodridge ruling by the likes of Hugh Hewitt and others, though perhaps well-intentioned, was fundamentally misguided. As governor, Romney was under no “order” to do anything (Hewitt’s simultaneous suggestion that legislators ignore it was spot-on).

But instead, Mr. Harvard Law 1975 said he was forced by the Court to do what he did. He was, and remains, objectively wrong.

Motivation and Fallout

Why did Romney do this? The evidence is powerful that he did it to keep a campaign promise. Specifically, in order to increase his electoral prospects, Mitt Romney promised the Log Cabin Republicans that he would violate his oath of office.

Incredibly, Romney salvaged his credibility with mainstream social conservatives by citing a 1913 Massachusetts law prohibiting out-of-staters, including same-sex couples, from coming to Massachusetts to marry. Romney thus convinced the gullible that he had “heroically” limited the damage of the Goodridge ruling to the Bay State.

As anyone should have expected in a Democrat-controlled state, that fig leaf is about to disappear. Last week, the Massachusetts Senate approved a law that would repeal 1913 statute. This week, barring a major surprise, the Massachusetts House will do the same. Romney’s Democratic gubernatorial successor, Deval Patrick, has said he will sign the repeal.

Brilliant, Mitt.

The damage Mitt Romney has done to the rule of law is incalculable. Hundreds, if not thousands of same-sex couples think they’re legally married; they aren’t. Employers, tax authorities, divorce courts, and others are erroneously “recognizing” the marriage licenses that have been issued; this doesn’t change the fact that they aren’t valid.

Worst of all, the American people believe that same-sex marriage is “legal” in Massachusetts; it objectively isn’t.

This same sad scenario has just been played out, and extended, in California. That state’s Supreme Court “ruled” (i.e., opined) that the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage passed by voters in 2000 is unconstitutional. But, as in Massachusetts, the judicial majority could only express its opinion that the related laws should be changed to accommodate same-sex couples who wish to obtain marriage licenses.

As in Massachusetts, the law hasn’t been changed. But weeks ago, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did a reprise of what Mitt Romney did (it’s always easier the second time around), and ordered that same-sex marriage licenses be issued, saying he had to do what the Court ordered, even despite what the voters said in 2000. He did not have to do anything. He was under a Constitutional obligation to do nothing.

As in Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is still illegal in California, and will remain illegal unless and until the legislature passes required legislation. There is a traditional marriage constitutional amendment on the November ballot in California that would in theory override the court ruling and any legislation that might pass in the interim. But the California courts have been notorious for overriding the voters’ will. If the courts were to do that, based on his track record, the smart money would be on Schwarzenegger rolling over yet again.

Same-sex marriage is, in fact, illegal in all 50 states, but it is becoming the perceived “law of the land” because two governors (so far) have unilaterally and illegally imposed it.

By unilaterally exercising executive powers they didn’t have, and violating their oaths of office, Mitt Romney, and now Arnold Schwarzenegger, have demonstrated that they are objectively unfit to hold public office.

Mitt Romney and Arnold Schwarzenegger have brought us closer to total acquiescence, in Paul Weyrich’s words, to “the devastating myth that judges have the power to make and redefine our laws,” and that there’s nothing, short of replacing the judges, that we can do about it. That notion totally subverts what our Founding Fathers intended.

Yet presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain is seriously considering Mitt Romney, a man who demonstrated in his four years as governor that he either doesn’t understand the Constitution and separation of powers, or doesn’t care, as his running mate.

This is sheer madness, and a recipe for electoral slaughter.

But I Don’t Have Any Time For:

(Some final closet cleaning [until the darn thing fills up again when I’m not looking], and some other more recent items)

• Cincy gas prices are down about 4% from a week ago, and (not pictured) more like 5% from 8-9 days ago:

  

  All 15 low-end listings at the site are $3.78 or lower.

  Of course, President Bush’s Executive Order, his release of 3.9 million acres in Alaska for immediate access, the building pressure on Congress to get off their collective butts, and the fact that Congress has to proactively renew a drilling ban that expires on September 30 have nothing to do with any of this (/sarc).

• BothWaysBarack — Well done.
• Back to gas and oil — If there was time, this would be a NewsBusters post. The AP’s Andrew Taylor deceptively used different rules for disclosing time frames to (in my opinion) deliberately hide a very important point:
  

  Dems try to spur oil exploration on available land

  …… Democrats pointed out that any new offshore leasing — sought by the administration, most Republicans and some Democrats — would not produce oil for a decade or so and therefore would not effect (sic) today’s $4-plus per gallon gasoline prices.

  ….. Bush this week lifted an executive prohibition on drilling for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. He acknowledged that getting any oil to market would take a lot of time. An annual ban by Congress remains in place.

  The time frame in the FT.com article about the 3.9 million freed-up acres (since sent behind the subscription wall) was something like “a few years.” In fact, a third graf excerpted at another blog (sorry, I lost track of it) before the wall came up says that “the Alaskan land that will now be offered requires no other approvals and will be up for leasing in the autumn.” Beyond that, Captain Ed at Hot Air cites a New York Times article noting that production could begin there as early as 2010 (”2010 to2012,” per the Times).

  I believe Taylor avoided being specific about the Alaskan acreage because he didn’t want to dilute the Democrats’ totally bogus “10-year” talking point.

  The AP demonstrates once again that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.

• It will be a test of US media interest in accuracy and completeness to see if they report this item noted at Spiegel Online (HT Hot Air) relating to the world tour currently being taken by the presidential candidate I refer to as “Mr. BOOHOO-OUCH” (Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein “Obambi” Obama - Objectively Unfit Coddler of Haters) — “Is Obama Speech Site Contaminated by Nazi Past?” I expect them to flunk the test, and not report it.
• I knew that the welfare (”Benefit”) system in the UK has a lot of free riders, but …. wow:
  

  In February government welfare adviser David Freud suggested less than a third of the 2.7 million people claiming the benefit were doing so legitimately.

• Barack Obama’s home city of Chicago is so out of control (HT Tom Elia via Michelle Malkin) that “Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Wednesday raised the possibility of bringing in state troopers or even the Illinois National Guard.” This is the price the Second City is paying for years of overaggressive gun control, which Barack Obama supported wholeheartedly until his post-Heller decision flip-flop — one of 34 you can find at Weapons of Mass Discussion’s Flip-Flop Collection (See Update 9 at that post, or go here for a fuller description).
• This Reuters item about what Iraqis think of Obama seems like a cross between The Onion and a DNC press release. Michael M. Bates at NewsBusters reported over the weekend that the wire service put out a Kill Alert on it, but it is not known why. Nor is it known why the “killed” story still hasn’t been taken down as of 7 AM this morning, with no noticeable changes.

From Grand Blanc, Michigan (must-see cute-kids picture is at link):

Thursday July 03, 2008, 8:11 PM

Their mother describes it as “an absolute miracle.”
Their doctor — cancer specialist Jeffrey W. Taub of Children’s Hospital of Michigan in Detroit — says their recovery from a rare form of cancer was “one of the most gratifying medical outcomes I’ve ever experienced.”

Happy birthday, Madeline and Isabella Dunn.

Born to Michael and Alissa Dunn on July 4, 2007, Maddie and Bella of Grand Blanc are celebrating their first birthdays Friday — six months after the identical twins survived stage-four neuroblastoma, a potentially fatal type of cancer.

“We were thrilled that Maddie and Bella had been born on the Fourth of July,” said Michael Dunn, a 32-year-old mechanical engineer in Lake Orion. “They were our two little firecrackers, and it was terribly painful when they became so ill.”

When the twins barely were 2 months old, an MRI revealed a tumor the size of a softball in Madeline’s abdomen and cancer cells in her liver and bone marrow. Two days later, further tests revealed that Isabella also had cancer cells in her liver and bone marrow.

Neuroblastoma occurs in nerve tissue. The cause is unknown, but many researchers believe it is caused by a genetic disorder that occurs during nerve-cell development in the womb, according to the Neuroblastoma Children’s Cancer Society.

The survival rate for an infant diagnosed with stage-four neuroblastoma is 20 percent.

With their lives in peril, the tiny infants faced major surgery, and the doctors who were treating them warned that they might not live through the procedure.

Devastated by the news that their two daughters had been attacked by a rare form of neuroblastoma — which affects 650 children in the U.S. each year — Michael and Alissa Dunn clung to each other, to their families and to their strong religious faith.

“We knew God had sent the twins to us as a gift,” Alissa Dunn said. “And we do believe that everything that happens is part of God’s plan.”

As they steeled themselves for the grueling surgery, Michael and Alissa Dunn were “praying around the clock” for their struggling babies.

Then they received the miracle they’d been praying for.

At the suggestion of a family friend who was knowledgeable about cancer in children, they decided to transfer the girls to the Detroit Medical Center children’s facility, where they could be cared for by Taub, a veteran pediatric oncologist who successfully had treated more than 100 children with cancer in recent years.

Taub also has published numerous research articles on childhood cancer during the past two decades at Children’s Hospital.

After he examined the twins, Taub recommended against surgery — much to the relief of Michael and Alissa Dunn.

The Detroit physician believed the two girls would do better on cancer-fighting drugs alone, sparing them the rigors of surgery.

The twins went through chemotherapy at Children’s Hospital last fall and spent 44 consecutive days in intensive care.

So weak that they often needed a ventilator to breathe, Maddie and Bella hung onto a slender thread of life.

Through four rounds of chemotherapy and against the odds, they survived the ordeal and eventually returned home to their parents and their older brother, 3-year-old Isaiah. …..

Go here for the rest of the story.