December 18, 2011

Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Betrayal, Part 3: Romney Did It Because He Promised He Would

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:05 am

Part 1 — Rick Santorum Exposes the Truth
Part 2 — What Romney Really Did

___________________________________________

In 2006, in the wake of the decision by Catholic Charities in Massachusetts to leave the adoption business because its religious principles would not allow it to place children with same-sex couples, National Organization for Marriage Co-founder Maggie Gallagher wondered aloud in the Weekly Standard about what impact “legalized” (the word is in quotes for a reason, fully explained in Part 2) same-sex marriage will have on the the First Amendment rights of individuals and religious groups, i.e., what will protect them “from persecution for their views about marriage.” Gallagher was pessimistic about what the answer will be after the dueling litigators get done working their cases through the courts.

Five years later, in July 2011, Gallagher told us that we’re learning the answer, and it appears to be “nothing”:

I just returned from interviewing a Toronto sportscaster who was fired for tweeting that he believed “in the true and authentic meaning of marriage.” Next week, I will go to North Carolina to interview another man whose contract was terminated when the HR head of his company found out he had written against gay marriage.

The death threats and hateful mail New York state senator Rev. Ruben Diaz says he has received are not unusual. Whole professions are in the process of being closed to anyone who espouses — and acts — on the view that marriage is the union of husband and wife.

Fox News is not covering this. Conservative media outlets, except for a few beacons such as NR, are virtually silent.

The underlying truth that “pro-equality” Republicans need to understand is this: They are aiding and abetting a political movement that, at this point in history, seeks to make traditional Christian views on sex and marriage unacceptable in the public square — just as racist views on interracial marriage are unacceptable — by heaping scorn and hatred on any American who does something to support marriage as one man and one woman.

The marriage debate is about redefining not only marriage, but the relationship between Judeo-Christian values and the American tradition.

I just wonder what these “pro-equality” conservatives think will be left to conserve after that.

Well, ya gotta admit, those are eloquent and passionate words — and yes, we are heading towards a time in the not-too-distant future where any expression of support for the idea that marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman will likely end your professional and personal life as you know it. From there, the journey to active persecution and prosecution of churches which teach what they have believed for millennia is the proper Bible-based view of marriage and who refuse to perform same-sex marriages is not very far.

Gallagher’s passion is nice, except for one “little” thing — She has also stridently defended the one person who, more than anyone else in the USA, is responsible for emboldening the persecutors — Willard Mitt Romney.

In Part 1, I showed and transcribed Rick Santorum’s mostly correct critique of Romney’s handling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s November 2003 Goodridge same-sex marriage “ruling” at Thursday’s GOP primary debate in Iowa. I then noted Mitt Romney’s public challenge to Santorum that he (in talk show host Steve Deace’s words) “wouldn’t be able to find any respected legal authorities that would agree with his characterization of Romney’s (same-sex marriage) culpability.”

In Part 2, with heavy help from Deace on Friday and WorldNetDaily in 2007, I showed that there are at least three (and surely many, many more) “(highly) respected legal authorities” who not only fundamentally agree with Santorum, but who believe that Romney’s same-sex marriage culpability extends further than Santorum described it. Those three gentlemen are Mat Staver, Herb Titus, and Hadley Arkes.

I also showed in Part 2 that at the time Mitt Romney made his fateful decision to unilaterally impose same-sex marriage on the Bay State, he was well aware, contrary to his Thursday debate claim that “everybody in Massachusetts, and the legal profession in Massachusetts, and my legal counsel” believes that “I fought it (the decision) every way I possibly could,” that dissenting (and correct) “respected legal authorities” were suggesting multiple avenues of resistance, none of which Romney employed. In sum, ignorance was no excuse.

Which leaves one critical question: Why did Romney do what he did?

The answer is: He promised that he would do what he did.

Reporter Matt Luo at New York Times inadvertently and unwittingly let the cat out of the bag in September 2007 in the first three paragraphs of a report which was supposed to demonstrate how Romney had, as a result of campaigning for president, “shifted his tone” on gay rights from support to opposition:

Mitt Romney seemed comfortable as a group of gay Republicans quizzed him over breakfast one morning in 2002. Running for governor of Massachusetts, he was at a gay bar in Boston to court members of Log Cabin Republicans.

Mr. Romney explained to the group that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector, where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon. When the discussion turned to a court case on same-sex marriage that was then wending its way through the state’s judicial system, he said he believed that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman. But, according to several people present, he promised to obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue.

“I’ll keep my head low,” he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer, one participant recalled.

The caption under the picture at the Times story reads:

Mitt Romney, who campaigned on Friday in Littleton, N.H., once promised he would not lead a fight against same-sex marriage.

Again, note that the intent of Luo’s story was to show that Romney had, as he has done in so many other areas, flip-flopped on gay marriage by breaking a campaign promise that he would “not champion a fight on either side of the issue.”

Until Luo’s Times report appeared, Bay State social conservatives, who arguably gave Romney his seven-point, come-from-behind victory margin in the 2002 gubernatorial election, thought that Romney had “merely” changed his mind while in office, perhaps with the help of incompetent or deliberately misleading legal advice.

Nope. As I wrote in December 2007 once I fully understood the scope of Romney’s betrayal, in words which are as true today as they were four years ago:

What we now know is that Mitt Romney promised that he would violate his gubernatorial oath of office even before he took it, and that he carried out that promise.

… Even though there was no “ruling” to obey (as explained in Part 2 — Ed.), only a court opinion that the legislature had not enabled into law, Mitt Romney extra-constitutionally, and in direct violation of his oath of office, imposed same-sex marriage in the Bay State.

Please grasp the significance of this: It isn’t that Mitt Romney was weak and simply caved in to pressure, or was misled by “bad advice.” Instead, Romney consciously kept a 2002 campaign promise to the Log Cabin Republicans to (in typical Times mischaracterization) “obey the courts’ ultimate ruling,” and considered that promise more important than the oath he swore when inaugurated as governor to uphold and follow the Massachusetts Constitution.

This is not arguable.

… someone should ask Mitt Romney what presidential oath-breaking promises he has made to groups whose last interest is the rule of law.

Yet this is a man who has now been endorsed for president by some of the alleged leading lights of conservatism, even of social conservatism.

This is madness. It must be stopped.

What he has consciously, proactively, and cynically done to break the oath he swore to the people of Massachusetts, and before God, while pretending now to be a warrior against the very thing he put into place, makes him objectively unfit to serve as president.

Our country’s Founders would agree.

And that, folks, is also not arguable.

Shame on you, Maggie Gallagher, especially in your position as National Organization for Marriage co-founder, for defending the indefensible: “I cannot stand the injustice with which the idea that Romney is somehow responsible for gay marriage in Massachussetts has taken hold.”

Sorry Maggie, you’re wrong (and sadly, I believe you know it):

  • Mitt Romney is definitely responsible for gay marriage in Massachusetts.
  • He is also responsible for giving other governors (e.g., Arnold Schwarzenegger in California at crunch time there) an example of timidity to disgracefully emulate.
  • He is responsible for creating a legal illusion which has placed additional and in some cases irresistible pressure on other states, culminating with New York earlier this year, to take actions legalizing same-sex marriage which they likely would not have otherwise taken.
  • Crucially, Mitt Romney is, more than any other single man in America, responsible for strengthening the culture of what you described mere months ago as “scorn and hatred on any American who does something to support marriage as one man and one woman.”

Shame on you, Ann Coulter, who, when she’s not hanging up on people who present Mitt Romney’s record in an unfavorable light (i.e., when they tell the truth), has equated the facts as recounted in this three-part write-up as “the equivalent … of the 9/11 truthers” (go to the 5:44 mark in the video at the link where the related discussion begins; her “truther” rant begins at 7:20). Rick Santorum (is he the equivalent of a truther too, Ann?) and many others know the truth, Ann, and it’s on our side.

Finally, shame on anyone who claims to believe in the sanctity and/or the civilizational and cultural importance of maintaining marriage as a one-man, one-woman proposition — or in the fundamental freedom to express one’s religious views in public without fear of persecution — if they continue to support Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney for president after reading through this three-part presentation.

Sunday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (121811)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 9:00 am

Rules are here. Possible comment fodder may follow later. Other topics are also fair game.

__________________________________________

President Obama told CBS’s 60 Minutes (uncut version here) that “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history.” CBS recognized what a complete embarrassment and political liability that statement is, and edited it out of what aired over the network.

Please note that the three former presidents mentioned are only offered up as possible exceptions.

__________________________________________

Occupy Updates — just a sampling of items which have appeared the past week or so concerning the Obama-endorsed (proof hereherehere, and hereOccupy movement (HTs mostly to OWSexposed.com):

  • The latest Maxine WatersThat’s Life, It Happens” Update shows the following:
    - John Nolte’s incomplete but nonetheless useful compilation at BigJournalism.com was halted as of Friday, December 9, at 417 incidents. At least dozens more which could have been reportable have occurred since.
    - The total arrest count at list compiled at OWSexposed.com is at 5,425 (in 94 cities).
    - Then of course there are the deaths (eight), sexual assaults (19 items in a very incomplete compilation), and other items over at OWSexposed.com (whose numbers are light in certain instances).
  • Dec. 16, at the Washington Examiner“Protester takes $5,500 from Occupy DC bank account”
  • Dec. 16, at the Blaze (my title) — “Video reveals Seattle occupiers threw bricks and steel rebar at police.”
  • Dec. 16, at Fox Business (“Time’s 2011 Person of the Year is a Wimp”), by Al Lewis — “Last year, to be person of the year, you had to invent Facebook. This year, all you had to do was complain. Time magazine on Wednesday named “The Protester” as its “2011 Person of the Year.” If you happened to have ragged about anything in the past 12 months, take a bow.”
  • Dec. 15, from Portland, Oregon (“Portland occupiers block food donations to the poor”) — “Their protest stopped volunteer truckers from unloading at the Port of Portland so they could turn around and fill them with donated produce.” Another trucking company stepped up to transport the goods and save the effort orchestrated by K-12 kids from the Occupy Scrooges.
  • Dec. 14, at NewsBusters“OWS protester featured on Colbert Report outed as scam artist forger”
  • Dec. 14, again from Portland, Oregon“Occu-Mom puts 4-year-old daughter on train tracks at Portland port protest.”
  • Dec. 14, via Jim Treacher at the Daily Caller’s Daily Trawler“Somebody please explain to me how this doesn’t qualify as child abuse.” I think it does.
  • Dec. 12, at the New York Post (“OWS teach faked docs”) — “A leader of Occupy Wall Street abruptly quit his job as a city public school teacher after getting caught red-handed falsifying time sheets, The Post has learned.”
  • Dec. 10, at the Washington Post“DC occupiers arrested for assaulting counter-protester.”

Finally, from the “Who Do You Think You’re Foolin’?” Dept.“Occupy activists stake camp at Obama office”

__________________________________________

Ari Fleischer at the Wall Street Journal (“Calling Obama’s Payroll Tax Bluff”) –

  • Obama billed last year’s cut as a one-year holiday to boost the economy. Now preserving it is about fairness.” Money quotes:
  • “.. cutting the payroll tax while holding Social Security payments steady means there really is no trust fund and Social Security is just another redistribution-of-income program.”
  • “… a president who famously said there is “no red America or blue America, just a United States of America” has become the great divider, pitting taxpayer against tax receiver, this time by making taxpayers pay for someone else’s Social Security.”
  • “Make no mistake, if the payroll-tax cut is extended, it will become permanent. Social Security will become another welfare program as the tie between what someone pays and what they receive gets broken.”

Obama’s Policies Are Gutting the Middle Class

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 7:59 am

They don’t work. They’ve never worked.

_________________________________

Note: This column went up at Pajamas Media and was teased here at BizzyBlog on Friday.

_________________________________

It was more than a little disconcerting to watch President Barack Obama pretend to be a friend of the middle class in Kansas on December 6, and to watch the press lap it up as if it was the gospel truth. The record shows that Obama’s and his party’s policies, plans, and proposals have done more harm to the middle class than any administration in my lifetime.

One of Obama’s core claims is that the policies of the past, coming from largely Republican administrations espousing and carrying out conservative ideas, are what brought the economy to the brink, and that those ideas and policies must never again be considered.

Setting aside for the moment the fact that those ideas and policies were often not conservative enough, Obama’s historical revisionism is about as brazenly dishonest as it gets. After all:

  • I don’t recall the Community Reinvestment Act, which over several decades morphed into a sledgehammer forcing banks to act against their own interests or face endless litigation at the hands of ACORN-like groups, being a Republican or conservative policy.
  • I don’t recall current New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s determination to make mortgage financing available based on ethnicity instead of ability and willingness to pay when he ran the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the 1990s under President Bill Clinton something that Republicans or conservatives cheered.
  • Finally, I don’t recall the systematic undermining of the market for mortgage-backed securities undertaken by Democratic Party cronies who ran the frauds by design known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac having Republican or conservative approval. While it’s true that Fan and Fred had some RINO defenders, none of them — and for that matter almost no one else in the country besides Democratic insiders — knew that for fifteen years, Fan and Fred “routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring,” presenting them as being of higher quality than they really were. As a result, mortgage-backed securities holders unknowingly bought hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of junk.

The housing and mortgage lending messes, which were almost entirely the creation of Democratic Party policies and Democrat apparatchiks’ backroom scheming, are what brought the economy down. It certainly wasn’t the straw-man, “on your own” mindset Obama chose to demonize in his speech.

The principal economic policy features of the quarter-century stretch Obama wants to send down the memory hole were tax cuts (with booming tax receipts, which the smarties said would never happen) and at least some regulatory restraint (but really not enough). The president claimed that this set of policies “doesn’t work. It has never worked.”

Horse manure. Until things came to a head in housing, as James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute pointed out on December 7:

The U.S. economy grew at an average pace of 3.3 percent from 1983-2007, inflation … was slayed, and the stock market rose by 1,400 percent. Median middle-class incomes rose by roughly 50 percent. Reaganomics worked. But Obama acts as if that generation of steady growth … never happened since it doesn’t fit into his disingenuous narrative.

Once we were in the mess, the policies the newly-elected Obama chose to get us out were the ones which so obviously failed to get us out of serious difficulty in the past — which leaves Obama’s seriousness about wanting to get us out open to question. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s statist “solutions” for the Depression never brought unemployment below 12% during the 1930s. Similarly, three years of round after round of Keynesian stimulus, Keynesian money-printing, and unprecedented Keynesian deficits, combined with previously unseen regulatory excesses, have left the private sector’s output smaller than it was almost four years ago. We still have supposedly grown men and women on the left who continue to claim, during the worst recovery since World War II, that the best form of economic stimulus is continuing to give money to those who aren’t working.

We’ve had a chance to see what the policies Obama said would work will continue to bring us if sustained. It has not been pretty, especially when compared to the analogous Reagan-era time period:

  • In the 29 months since the recession ended in June 2009, the economy has added a bit less than 2 million seasonally adjusted private-sector jobs. Federal government employment is virtually unchanged despite substantial job losses at the postal service, while previously bloated state and local governments have shed over 550,000 jobs. During the first 29 months after the last full quarter of the Reagan-era recession when the workforce was about 25% smaller, what “doesn’t work” brought us over 7.3 million additional jobs, including more than 400,000 in the public sector.
  • During the nine quarters after the most recent recession ended, the economy has grown by 5.5%. During the analogous nine quarters under Reagan, what “has never worked” caused the economy to grow by 14%, a full 2-1/2 times faster.
  • The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate since the most recent recession ended has gone from 9.5% to 8.6% — and November’s reading had many disturbing “going Galt” elements underlying it. The comparable drop during the Reagan era? From 10.1% to 7.2%, over three times greater.
  • The economy’s cadre of temporary, seasonal, and part-time workers continues to swell. Incredibly, the economy had only 417,000 more full-time workers in November than it did at the end of the recession. The comparable Reagan-era period saw 6.9 million full-timers added. Employers are avoiding and will continue to avoid adding full-time help as long as they can until they see whether the malaise known as Obamanomics will get another four-year run, and whether the monstrosity known as ObamaCare survives court challenges.

Slow growth, out-of-control regulation, and chronic uncertainty have caused millions of the unemployed to stay that way, making them even more unemployable with each passing day. Millions of others are seeing their skills underutilized. Team Obama’s gutting of the middle class thus far has been quite effective. Give ‘em four more years, and they might just finish the job, all the while pretending to be the average American’s best friend.

Positivity: Mexican Church leaders overjoyed at news of papal visit

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 6:59 am

From Mexico City:

Dec 14, 2011 / 06:10 pm (CNA).- Cardinal Norberto Rivera of Mexico City said that he and other Church leaders in the country are thrilled over Pope Benedict’s plans to travel to Mexico and Cuba in 2012.

“We are very happy that the Pope is coming to Mexico, and we are going to welcome him with great affection, because we all know what the Holy Father means to us,” he told CNA.

During a Mass for Latin America on the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Pope Benedict said he would travel to the two countries before Easter of 2012 in order to “proclaim the Word of Christ there and to and convince people that this is the time to evangelize with strong faith, living hope and burning charity.”

Cardinal Rivera said the bishops of Mexico are also happy that the Pope is traveling to the city of Leon in the state of Guanajuato, “a region that is very symbolic in Mexico.”

Outside the city, a 65-foot statue of “Christ the King of Peace” sits atop Cubilete Hill, where young people gather on pilgrimage each year.

The statue has a long history going back to the Mexican Revolution. It was originally built in 1920, but the government blocked access to the hill in 1923. After Mexicans continued to defy the government and visit the shrine, it was destroyed by dynamite in 1928. Pieces of the original statue, including the head and the Sacred Heart, are preserved in a museum located at the shrine today.

In December of 1944, construction began on the statue that currently sits atop the hill. Pope Pius XII personally sent his blessing for the project. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

Positivity: Layaway Angels Are Making Christmas 2011 Very Special

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 6:59 am

Besides being a great story, this should — but won’t — teach those people who compile their “Stories of the Year” lists to wait until December 30 or so before releasing them:

Here’s a Cincinnati-area version of the story about what are from all appearances spontaneous acts of kindness occurring all over the country this Christmas season:

3:16 PM, Dec. 17, 2011

‘Layaway angels’ strike local Kmarts
Strangers come forward to pay for shoppers’ Christmas gifts

Two women were in the Newport Kmart store Saturday morning, fretting about how to buy gifts for the 60-plus children on their Christmas-party list when a tall woman with short blonde hair provided the answer.

“She said, ‘I’m here to pay for this’,” recalled a grateful Marquicia Jones-Woods, 46, of Cincinnati’s West End, who was shopping for kids who were going to attend the party for the Q-Kidz Just Say No to Drugs and Violence Drill Team, which practices at the Lincoln Recreation Center on Linn Street in the West End.

“It was truly a blessing,” Jones-Woods said. “She didn’t even want to give her name.”

Such random gifts of kindness have been happening at Kmarts locally and nationally, including about 15 times at the Newport store alone. Givers have offered no explanation of whether they were spurred by a church or other group.
(more…)