January 9, 2012

Mitt Romney and the Same-Sex Marriage Betrayal: The Short E-Book, the Shorter 10-Steps, and the Succinct Four-Bullet Point Summary

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 8:51 pm

First, the short E-book:

AmyContradaEBook0112Amy Contrada’s E-book on the topic is available through Amazon:

How “Gay Marriage” Came to Massachusetts:
Governor Mitt Romney’s Failure in a Constitutional Crisis

For $5, you’ll get the core chapters of Amy’s longer book telling you exactly what happened in the aftermath of the Goodridge decision. After this 4-chapter excerpt, you’ll understand why it’s absolutely correct to say that all same-sex marriages supposedly performed in Massachusetts beginning 180 days after the decision have no legal standing under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. You’ll understand the full extent of Mitt Romney planned imposition of same-sex marriage because, as I have noted so many times, he promised that he would. I learned a lot, especially that there were giveaway hints during the critical 180-day period that Romney always intended to “obey” (his false word) the court’s decision — even before Michael Luo’s damning New York Times report in 2007 independently corroborated the treachery.

Anyone going into the voting booth on GOP Primary Day in their state who does not understand what Amy has covered will be casting their ballot less than fully informed about why Mitt Romney is fundamentally unfit to be President.

Amy’s E-book is the best $5 I’ve ever spent; it will be yours too. You don’t need a Kindle. All you need to do is install Amazon’s Kindle app on your computer. I did it; it was easy (even for me), so go for it.

*   *   *   *   *

For those who need a cram course before tomorrow’s voting, here’s a 10-point explanation of what Mitt Romney did, courtesy of Gregg Jackson (bolds are mine; links are in original):

1. Campaigning for governor, Mitt Romney (as reported in the NY Times) meets with the homosexual “Log Cabin Republicans” in a gay bar and promises them he will not oppose same-sex “marriage” as governor. (A few years prior when running for Senate, he promised them he would get more accomplished for them than Ted Kennedy would.)

2. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (who lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to even hear the case in the first place) issues advisory Goodridge opinion declaring that barring same-sex “marriage” is unconstitutional and urges the legislature to amend the current marriage statute (chapter 207 in Massachusetts General Laws) to accommodate same-sex unions.

3. The legislature ignores the court’s opinion and takes no action to amend the current marriage statute which limits marriage to one man and one woman.

4. The court admits in their opinion that they are in no way attempting to change the current marriage statute (chapter 207) — “Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief.”

5. The court admits that the current marriage statute makes homosexual “marriage” illegal — “We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.”

… and that the only way the marriage statute can be amended is by the legislature and the legislature alone – “The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for.” (PART THE FIRST, Article XX.)

“All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved … shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislature…” (PART THE SECOND, Article VI.)

6. Romney, in violation of at least 8 articles of the oldest functioning constitution in the world (which is a constitutional felony), the Massachusetts Constitution authored by John Adams, falsely claims the court (who possesses no law making authority) “legalized same-sex marriage” and that he had no choice but to obey the “new marriage laws.”

7. Romney then authorizes alterations to marriage licenses changing them from “husband” and “wife” to “partner A” and “Partner B” without an accompanying, enabling and legally binding statute as required by the Massachusetts Constitution.

8. Romney forces justices of the peace and town clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or be fired again without an accompanying enabling and legally binding statute as required by the Massachusetts Constitution.

9. Romney personally issues 189 special marriage licenses to same sex couples.

10. The marriage licenses that have been issued to same-sex couples in Massachusetts are as legally null and void today as they were in 2004 when Mitt Romney unilaterally began issuing them.

For those in a rush, here are the four brief bullet points:

  • In order for same sex “marriage” to become “legal “in Massachusetts, the legislature would have had to change the marriage statute to accommodate same-sex “marriage” since only the legislature can make or amend the laws.
  • The legislature never changed the marriage statute.
  • Homosexual “marriage” is still illegal as are the hundreds of thousands of illegally altered marriage licenses issued since 2004.
  • Mitt Romney was unilaterally responsible for the illegal and unconstitutional implementation of same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts as Senator Rick Santorum and a whole host of other highly respected legal scholars have said.

The facts are cut and dried and indisputable.

And facts are, indeed, stubborn things.

Hall of Fame Congrats …

Filed under: General — Tom @ 6:35 pm

to Barry Larkin.

Jan. 2012 at AP: Increase in Consumer Borrowing Is Great News; in Jan. 2004: ‘Ticking Time Bomb’

It more than a little annoying to read a news report containing incomplete information. The irritation level hits the red zone when you realize that the writer is not only concealing important data, but telling you what you’re supposed to think about what little he deigned to tell you.

Such was the case with Martin Crutsinger’s Associated Press item about the Consumer Credit report issued today by the Federal Reserve. Crutsinger only told us how much debt levels increased without bothering to tell us what those debt levels are — something a similar AP item in 2004 at the same point in a presidential reelection cycle was eager to disclose. Additionally, Crutsinger framed today’s reported expansion as good news while Eileen Alt Powell’s January 6, 2004 report framed expanding credit as dangerous. First, several paragraphs from Crutsinger’s report (boots-on alert: it gets really, really deep):

Consumer borrowing surges as economy improves

Americans are feeling confident enough in the economy to go back to a time-honored tradition – taking on a little extra debt.

Consumer borrowing surged in November by $20.4 billion, the Federal Reserve said Monday. That’s the largest monthly gain in a decade.

Consumers took out more loans to buy cars and swiped their credit cards frequently to purchase holiday gifts.

The Fed’s category that measures credit card debt rose by $5.6 billion, the most since March 2008. Its gauge that tracks auto loans increased $14.8 billion, nearly matching July’s gain that was the biggest since February 2005.

The third straight monthly increase in overall borrowing marks a departure from the more thrifty habits practiced during and immediately after the recession, when credit tumbled and the savings rate climbed.

Many Americans are taking on more debt after seeing the unemployment rate drop and the economy improve, albeit modestly.

Consumer confidence is up, holiday sales were solid and the U.S. auto industry is coming off its best two sales months for the year.

And all is right with the world. Zheesh.

Crutsinger never told readers that total consumer debt came in at $2.478 trillion in November, up a full 25% from the $1.98 trillion October 2003 level the AP’s Ms. Powell noted in January 2004. After adjustments for population growth and inflation, per-household consumer credit is still barely lower per household than it was eight years ago — only this time, consumers don’t have a lot (or in any cases, any) home equity on which to lean.

You could make a case that the credit expansion is borne of desperation. What I’d prefer is that Crutsinger just tell me what happened with all the relevant numbers and shut up about what it means. Y’know, just report, and let us decide.

In 2004, Ms. Powell was just as bad in the other direction, telling readers that growing consumer credit was a oncoming disaster. Some snips:

  • “lower-income families without that option (i.e., to refinance homes — Ed.) are finding it harder to cope.
  • “Howard Dvorkin, president of the nonprofit Consolidated Credit Counseling Services in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, (said that) ‘No we’ve got an entire generation that doesn’t know anything about thrift and careful spending. It’s tearing the fabric that’s making this country great.’”
  • “In the long run, it’s a ticking time bomb,” (Sun Wong) Sohn (a quoted expert — Ed.) said.

Ms. Powell used her report as an opportunity to describe the situation of an affected couple, and could possibly defend her work as expanding what she found to others facing predicaments similar to that couple. Crutsinger’s report today has no such defense, as he didn’t speak with any consumers (What would they have told him, “We’re just thrilled to be borrowing more on our credit cards in this still-pathetic economy”?).

Ironically and you can’t make this up, Crutsinger consulted the same Sun Wong Sohn who spoke ominously of a “ticking time bomb” to Ms. Powell eight years ago. Now, with consumer debt at essentially the same level, home equity decimated, and the economy growing anemically — especially compared the final three quarters of 2004, when annualized growth averaged 4.6% — Sohn is nowhere near as worried, even saying, in Crutsinger’s words, that “the increase in consumer demand (caused by more borrowing) should prompt businesses to hire more workers. Those gains would allow consumers to finance their spending with rising incomes.” That’s a pretty bizarre observation, given that incomes have been falling and have shown no signs of getting back up.

But the main point is that we would be better served if journalists like Crutsinger would stick to reporting facts instead of crowding them out with spin. Alas, that’s far too much to hope for. As demonstrated, the AP spins similar news in a negative manner if an incumbent Republican facing reelection is in the White House, while going positive if that incumbent is a beloved Democrat.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

AP’s Steve Peoples Hits Romney for Daring to Question Economy’s Health After Dec. Jobs Numbers

In an early-Sunday version of an Associated Press report which has since been revised to exclude the paragraph I’m about to cite, the wire service’s Steve Peoples (authorship shown here) apparently had a hard time understanding how Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney could possibly have criticized President Barack Obama’s economic stewardship in Saturday’s New Hampshire debate in light of what he (Peoples) must have thought were wondrous numbers in the government’s Friday employment report.

Even if you ignore the fact (which you really shouldn’t) that December’s reported 200,000 job additions after seasonal adjustment hid a mediocre actual performance on the ground in historical context, Peoples’ reaction was remarkably ignorant and offensively aggressive:

Three days before the first in-the-nation New Hampshire primary, Romney largely ignored his fellow Republicans and turned instead on President Barack Obama. “His policies have made the recession deeper and his policies have made the recovery more tepid,” he said, despite a declining unemployment rate and the creation of 200,000 jobs last month.

Steve-o, the “declining” unemployment rate is still higher than any level seen under any president since Ronald Reagan — and Reagan fixed that problem, without sending hordes of discouraged and disinterested potential workers to the sidelines. To say that the unemployment and under-employment problems under Barack Obama remain un-fixed is a huge understatement.

As to those 200,000 seasonally adjusted jobs (again, ignoring the figure’s overstatement due to calculation quirks at the Bureau of Labor Statistics):

  • Even before adjusting for population growth, the post-recession economy under Ronald Reagan added over 200,000 jobs during 23 of the first 30 months after the recession’s official end (November 1982). That included an above-200K streak of 17 months in a row, and a 30-month grand total of over 6.5 million jobs. A similar post-recession performance during the thirty months after the most recent recession officially ended in June 2009 would have required the addition of at least nine million jobs. Instead, since June 2009 the economy has added only 1.4 million jobs.
  • Employment in the post-recession economy under Reagan exceeded its June 1981 pre-recession peak of just under 91.6 million in November 1982, the twelfth month after the recession ended. Thirty months after the most recent recession’s official end, the economy’s seasonally adjusted workforce of 131.9 million is still 6.1 million jobs short of its January 2008 pre-recession peak of 138 million.
  • The 200,000 seasonally adjusted jobs added in December weren’t even that strong in recent context. Three other months in 2011 (February, April, and September) show greater seasonally adjusted job growth.

We’ll probably never know whether Steve People’s pathetic paragraph was revised out due to normal story updates or if it was removed because it was such a complete insult to readers’ intelligence. We do know that such a paragraph would never have been composed in the first place unless the reporter involved was either breathtakingly ignorant, determined to score a cheap political point against a GOP presidential candidate on behalf of his bosses at what has become the Administration’s Press — or both.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Don Feder: Romney-cide

When MSNBC’s pathological (item 3 at definition) pundit Laurence O’Donnell is saying that the Obama campaign fears Mitt Romney the most, you know that they really want that matchup.

Don Feder predicts with copious support that the GOP’s nomination of Romney would be “Romneycide” (HT Gregg Jackson in an email):

Since 1976, every time the GOP has run a RINO for president, the party has suffered an ignominious defeat – against a peanut farmer in ’76, a serial lecher in ’92 and a Marxist in 2008.

But Mitt Romney isn’t taking any chances. Should he secure the nomination, his primary campaign will ensure his defeat in November – 9% unemployment, a national debt hurtling toward the abyss, socialism and surrender notwithstanding.

… In New Hampshire, Mitt’s most impressive move was trotting out Geritol John McCain to endorse him, and to tell the rest of the Republican field to step aside and let the coronation of Willard Mitt Romney proceed. It’s hard to say which was goofier, McCain’s crotchety performance or Romney’s conviction that he’d be helped by the endorsement of a man who called him a liar in 2008, and went on to lose to the most unqualified presidential candidate in history.

… Mitt continues to wow ‘em in the Granite state and nationwide. On January 5, The Boston Herald reported: “During a lackluster performance in front of an uninspired crowd at Manchester Central High School yesterday, Romney was overshadowed by Sen. John McCain.” Overshadowed by John McCain? Cool!

… (In 2012) Mitt has decided to campaign on something called “electability.” He ran Bain Capital. He saved the 2002 Winter Olympics. He was elected to one term as the governor of an Eastern, liberal state, and proceeded to rack up an undistinguished record – except for socialized medicine and helping to make Massachusetts the first state with gay marriage.

  • (he) refused to sign the pro-life pledge of the Susan B. Anthony List, his mythical (prolife) conversion notwithstanding. (What would you expect from the guy who put $50-co-pays for abortion in his health-care plan?)
  • … Willard Mitt did an about-face on gays in the military.
  • … Interviewed on The O’Reilly Factor, also in December — and following the establishment Republican don’t-say-mean-things-about-our-first-black-president guidelines — Romney couldn’t bring himself to call Mr. Class Warfare a socialist.
  • … After his landslide victory in Iowa, Mitt issued a call to arms: “President Obama is a nice guy. He just doesn’t understand how to run the economy.”
  • … Romney supported TARP, the $700-billion if-it-moves-bail-it-out program.

… This year, Team Romney is counting on our fear and loathing of Obama to get us behind Mitt.

… To win, the Republican candidate will have to light a wildfire at the grassroots.

Nobody with a brain, even his most ardent fans, can possibly think Romney can do that.

Expanding on the Romney-cide theme, Feder could also have mentioned the fact Mitt Romney left the Massachusetts Republican Party far worse off in 2007 than it was in 2003, and that it is even worse off today than five years ago.

The state’s candidates have seldom if ever been paragons of conservative principles, but at least the party held the governor’s mansion for a dozen years before Romney’s term.

People beat up on Rick Santorum for losing in 2006, and on Newt Gingrich for his party’s poor performance in the 1998 congressional elections (while still holding their majority). But at least they didn’t bring an entire statewide party to its knees.

Romney’s approval numbers were so bad in early 2006 that it’s obvious he would have been crushed by a margin that would have dwarfed Santorum’s had he tried for reelection. The party’s legislative minorities in the Bay State steadily shrunk while he was in office, and have contracted even more since.

In Romniacs’ minds, that qualifies you to go to the next level. Wrong. What it does is qualify you to sit on the sidelines and give somebody who can win a shot at doing so.

Monday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (010912)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 7:30 am

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

__________________________________________

Positivity: A shot of young stem cells made rapidly aging mice live longer and healthier

Filed under: Life-Based News,Positivity — Tom @ 5:56 am

From Pittsburgh (HT LifeNews.com):

Public release date: 3-Jan-2012

Pitt: A shot of young stem cells made rapidly aging mice live longer and healthier

PITTSBURGH, Jan. 3 – Mice bred to age too quickly seemed to have sipped from the fountain of youth after scientists at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine injected them with stem cell-like progenitor cells derived from the muscle of young, healthy animals. Instead of becoming infirm and dying early as untreated mice did, animals that got the stem/progenitor cells improved their health and lived two to three times longer than expected, according to findings published in the Jan. 3 edition of Nature Communications.

Previous research has revealed stem cell dysfunction, such as poor replication and differentiation, in a variety of tissues in old age, but it’s not been clear whether that loss of function contributed to the aging process or was a result of it, explained senior investigators Johnny Huard, Ph.D., and Laura Niedernhofer, M.D., Ph.D. Dr. Huard is professor in the Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery and of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Pitt School of Medicine, and director of the Stem Cell Research Center at Pitt and Children’s Hospital of PIttsburgh of UPMC. Dr. Niedernhofer is associate professor in Pitt’s Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics and the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute (UPCI).

“Our experiments showed that mice that have progeria, a disorder of premature aging, were healthier and lived longer after an injection of stem cells from young, healthy animals,” Dr. Niedernhofer said. “That tells us that stem cell dysfunction is a cause of the changes we see with aging.”

Their team examined a stem/progenitor cell population derived from the muscle of progeria mice and found that compared to those from normal rodents, the cells were fewer in number, did not replicate as often, didn’t differentiate as readily into specialized cells and were impaired in their ability to regenerate damaged muscle. The same defects were discovered in the stem/progenitor cells isolated from very old mice.

“We wanted to see if we could rescue these rapidly aging animals, so we injected stem/progenitor cells from young, healthy mice into the abdomens of 17-day-old progeria mice,” Dr. Huard said. “Typically the progeria mice die at around 21 to 28 days of age, but the treated animals lived far longer – some even lived beyond 66 days. They also were in better general health.” …

Go here for the rest of the story.