“My guess [why Santorum’s popularity is rising] might have to do with the fact that it’s now widely known that Santorum is a loving, devoted father,” Rush argued.

A recent Washington Post/ABC News story stated that Santorum is winning more support from Republican women and is “less unpopular” among Democrat and independent women than his GOP rivals Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich despite his views on abortion, contraception, and prenatal screenings as being perceived by the mainstream media as extreme.

“Santorum does not have an extreme view on contraception,” Limbaugh argued. “He’s not said a thing about it other than he wouldn’t come up with a government program to deal with whatever his view is.”

Limbaugh went on to say that the only reason people are talking about contraception in the first place is because it is a “Democrat trick.”

“We are talking about contraception because mainstream news media controls the conversation. We are talking about it because Obama wants it discussed and the media won’t let it die no matter what the Republicans do,” Limbaugh said.

Limbaugh further argued that social issues were “not a killer,” but rather, Obama’s position on abortion was.

“Abortion is the killer, not the Republican Party. Obama is the guy who supports infanticide, not us.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Rush: America Likes Santorum

The former House speaker’s campaign has announced that it will be purchasing 30-minute blocks of time in key markets between now and Super Tuesday to air an address by Gingrich on the subject of lowering gasoline prices, creating jobs, and achieving energy independence.

“Americans have every right to demand $2.50 gas — we are an oil-rich country,” Gingrich tells Newsmax.

“My plan will have the price of gasoline at $2.50 a gallon so that Americans aren’t penalized every time they go to the pump.”

And Gingrich Communications Director Joe DeSantis says: “The answer to Governor Romney’s 30-second attack ads filled with garbage is a 30-minute address filled with substance.

“Newt’s message about lowering gasoline and other energy prices is resonating and the Obama administration is on defense over their policies hostile to American energy production, which are causing pain at the pump.”

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has called Newt’s message on energy “spot on. Drill now and stop bowing to foreign regimes, begging them to do it for us.”

And Democratic political analyst Donna Brazile said after Newt’s performance at Wednesday night’s presidential debate, in which he discussed his energy policy: “I wouldn’t be surprised if Newt found his way back to be the frontrunner.”

In the address that the Gingrich campaign will air in key markets, he says his energy plan “comes down to a simple idea: What if we had a program that enabled the American people to develop so much new energy that we were, in fact, no longer reliant on Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran? We didn’t care what the Iranians did in the Strait of Hormuz because we were safe, in national security terms.

“What if that new energy program created well over a million new jobs, high paying jobs, jobs that put Americans back to work and kept the money here at home that we had been sending overseas, giving us a dramatic improvement in our balance of payments, strengthening the dollar and giving us a chance to live much freer and more independently?

“What if that very idea also meant that we’d have dramatic increases in federal revenue without a tax increase, that in fact the federal government would have literally an entire new stream of money?

“And finally, what if that big new idea meant that you personally were better off because you are buying gasoline for $2.50 a gallon, not for $3.89 or $4 or what some people project by the summer could be $5 or more?

“How is that possible, you ask? Well, that is what is exciting, and that is one of the reasons I’m running for president.”

Gingrich points out that thanks to new technology and innovative drilling methods, the United States may now have more accessible oil than we have actually pumped since 1870, including huge oil deposits in North Dakota and new discoveries of natural gas large enough by some estimates to supply the nation for more than 100 years.

“Since the mid 1970s,” he goes on to say, “we’ve known that the Arab states and Iran combined have dominated oil production and have used their leverage to raise the cost of oil and to bring political pressure to bear on the Americans and on the Europeans.

“Now, I want to get to a point where we produce so much oil in the United States that no American president will ever again bow to a Saudi king.

“There is at least one study already out there that says by 2017, if we do the right things, we will produce more oil than either Russia or Saudi Arabia, and we will regain, by the end of the decade, being the leading producer of oil in the world.

“What I want to do is accelerate that for a couple of reasons: First of all, to get this economy back on track. If you had $500 billion a year that was not going overseas, that was paying royalties in the U.S., paying landowners, paying people to go out and develop the oil, you would suddenly have a really booming economy right here at home.

“There is a second part: Every time gas prices go up, they are the equivalent of a tax on working Americans and retired Americans. Think about it: You go to the gas station. If you are paying $4 a gallon, you have a lot less money left each week than if you are paying $2.50 a gallon. Now $2.50 may sound like it is an impossible number, but that’s baloney.

“When I was speaker of the House, we paid $1.13 on average during the four years that I was speaker. When Barack Obama became president, we paid $1.89 that week.

“But the Obama administration is so anti-oil, so anti-gas, so anti-fossil fuels in general . . .

“Under President Obama, because he is so anti American energy, we have actually had a 40 percent reduction in development of oil offshore, and we have had a 40 percent reduction in the development of oil on federal lands. This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

“What we should do and what I will do as your president is I will authorize the development of offshore [drilling], as long as it is far enough out that it is not visible, and it is not a threat to tourism or the fisheries. And I will authorize the development of federal lands that are appropriate.”

Gingrich calls on the country to set three basic goals:

First, become energy independent for national security reasons.

Second, develop enough new energy here at home to create well over a million high-paying jobs in the next few years.

Third, use the trillions of dollars collected in royalties to pay down the federal debt. “By using federal property and by allowing offshore development on federally controlled waters, we get paid a royalty,” Gingrich says. “One of the leading experts on North Dakota has suggested that we might well have over the next generation $18 trillion, not billion, $18 trillion in royalties that we could gather for the federal government with no tax increases.”

Gingrich also vows that on his first day as president, he would sign an executive order approving the Keystone pipeline to deliver Canadian oil to refineries on our Gulf Coast and create thousands of new jobs in this country.

In conclusion, Gingrich says gasoline at $2.50 a gallon will put more money in every American’s pocket, noting: “Every time you can lower the cost of energy, you make it easier for us to have manufacturing and you lower the cost of living. It is a win win environment.

“You also know that if you do this, we have a lot more jobs, and we need a growing economy with a lot of new jobs, because we want to be a country where America works best when Americans are working.

“We are not a country of food stamps and welfare. We are a country of the work ethic, of a job, of take home pay, of opening up our own business. And this kind of energy program will do just that.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Newt Unveils Plan for $2.50 Gas to Kickstart Campaign Comeback

It appears that a federal grand jury investigating the hiring and promotion practices of the state’s Probation Department may have expanded its reach to court officers.

Multiple sources familiar with the investigation, who all spoke on the condition of anonymity, say a grand jury acting under the direction of U.S. Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz has subpoenaed court officers to testify in the case.

“I’m told they are working from the bottom up,” says one State House source. “But I have no doubt that it’s expanded beyond probation.”

The news comes at a time when prosecutors are expected to call former House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi to the grand jury.

DiMasi, who is serving an eight-year sentence for accepting illegal kickbacks from a Burlington-based software company, was recently transported from a prison in Tennessee to the Wyatt Detention Facility in Rhode Island.

Martin G. Weinberg of Boston – who represented a co-defendant in DiMasi’s public corruption trial last summer and is involved in the ex-speaker’s appeal — says he has no knowledge of the court officer investigation.

But Weinberg notes that an assistant U.S. attorney does not need outside authorization to broaden the scope of a grand jury matter.

“Whereas an independent counsel appointed to investigate federal political matters requires approval to expand its investigation, there is no comparable obligation of a federal prosecutor to get anyone’s permission to expand or constrict the scope of inquiry,” he says.

Weinberg says he does not believe the convicted politician has entered into any kind of agreement with prosecutors.

“My judgment is there is no deal or pre-arrangement with Sal, and Sal didn’t initiate this transportation through the bellows of the federal system,” he says. “This is an attempt to determine whether or not they could extract testimony. If I was a federal prosecutor, I wouldn’t be handing out immunity tickets to a guy with a very substantial appeal without giving it serious thought.”

– David E. Frank

http://masslawyersweekly.com/the-docket-blog/2012/02/15/probation-grand-jury-probe-may-be-expanding-to-court-officers/

About Us

Nstar mega-merger gets boost from pact

Nstar ratepayers could see their electricity bills balloon by as much as $382 million over 15 years under a merger deal with the state that forces the utility to buy energy from Cape Wind — a power premium that dwarfs a one-time $21 million customer credit touted yesterday by the Patrick administration.

“The merger has some good things in the early years, but once the Cape Wind contract kicks in, it will erase any savings that ratepayers will have gotten,” said Robert Rio of Associated Industries of Massachusetts, a group that represents some 7,000 employers.

Gov. Deval Patrick wrangled a slice of the savings Nstar and Connecticut-based Northeast Utilities expect through their proposed $4.7 billion merger, along with a four-year freeze on electric and gas rates.

“What we have is a landmark agreement for customers. It will protect ratepayers from rate increases now and into the future,” Patrick said.

But under the settlement, Nstar’s contract for 27.5 percent of Cape Wind’s power must be “substantially the same” as the contract of National Grid, which has already lined up to buy 50 percent of Cape Wind’s energy.

An analysis by the state Department of Public Utilities — the regulatory agency that will review Nstar’s new merger deal — found National Grid customers will likely be hit with “above-market costs” of $420 million to $695 million over the 15-year contract.

That means Nstar’s portion of Cape Wind would hike costs for the utility’s 1.6 million customers by $231 million to $382 million.

And factoring in falling energy prices, the availability of federal subsidies and whether the full, 130-turbine project is built, Nstar’s deal with Cape Wind could be even more expensive.

Cape Wind president Jim Gordon said regulators have found the project “provides a unique set of benefits for Massachusetts and is cost-effective and will place downward pressure on wholesale energy prices while avoiding the external costs of burning fossil fuels.”

The Boston developer appears primed to finally secure financing, thanks to pressure from the Patrick administration during the lengthy merger review that focused on rates and benefits to the state’s clean-energy agenda.

Nstar faces an early April deadline to consummate the merger that was announced in October 2010. CEO Tom May said the settlement comes after a year-long effort “to reach agreements that appropriately balance all of the interests affected by the merger.”

Political analyst and Democratic pollster Doug Schoen tells Newsmax that Romney’s presidential bid is in “deep trouble” and his campaign badly needs a win in the Great Lakes State before heading into the do-or-die Super Tuesday contests on March 6, where voters in 10 states will pick their candidate to become the GOP presidential nominee.

“Romney is in deep trouble. He’s out of arguments. People don’t buy the central premise of his candidacy that he’s a businessman who can get things moving again,” Schoen said in an exclusive interview on Wednesday. “He’s entirely negative — whether it’s about President Obama, Newt Gingrich and now Rick Santorum. And Rick Santorum’s ad basically sums up the case against Mitt Romney: He’s a serial attacker who offers nothing other than negative ads, super PACs, bundlers and special interest money. It’s a recipe for failure.”

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely Republican primary voters released on Wednesday shows Santorum leading with 39 percent support, compared with 27 percent for Romney nationwide.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich follows with 15 percent, while Texas Rep. Ron Paul trails with 10 percent. Another 3 percent of likely Republican voters prefer some other candidate, while 6 percent are undecided, according to the poll.

“Just over a week ago, it was Romney leading the pack with 34 percent after his win in the Florida primary, followed by Gingrich 27 percent, Santorum 18 percent and Paul 11 percent,” said Scott Rasmussen, founder and president of Rasmussen Reports.

“Perhaps more tellingly, Santorum now trounces Romney — 55 percent to 34 percent — in a one-on-one matchup among likely GOP primary voters,” adds Rasmussen. “This is the first time any challenger has led Romney nationally in a head-to-head match-up. Santorum also leads Romney head-to-head in Michigan.”

Nationally, Romney still maintains a lead of 47 percent to 38 percent against Gingrich and 47 percent to 42 percent against Paul.

“Like Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Gingrich before him, Santorum has emerged as the leading anti-Romney candidate and taken the lead in the GOP race. Now the question is will he, unlike his predecessors, be able to hold onto that lead,” Rasmussen said.

He added that 64 percent of likely primary voters nationwide still think Romney ultimately will win the Republican nomination, which is down from 75 percent only a week ago. Some 18 percent now see Santorum as the GOP nominee — up from 3 percent in the previous Rasmussen survey.

“Still, only 45 percent are certain of their vote at this time,” added Rasmussen. “Forty-nine percent say they could yet change their minds, and six percent have no initial preference.”

Forty-one percent of those surveyed continue to view Romney as the strongest potential candidate against President Barack Obama, but that’s also down from 49 percent last week. Another 25 percent of those surveyed now see Santorum as the strongest general election candidate, up from 10 percent. Republican voters view Paul to be the weakest national candidate.

Schoen said that Michigan won’t end Romney’s chances should he lose there. “But if he doesn’t win in Michigan and he loses four straight going into Super Tuesday, Super Tuesday will be do-or-die and he’ll be heading in the wrong direction distinctively and decisively.”

GOP strategist and Fox News contributor Bradley A. Blakeman tells Newsmax that Romney can recover from a loss in Michigan but the momentum will clearly be against him.

“I would say it is must win for Romney,” said Blakeman in an exclusive interview Wednesday. “Romney won that state in 2008. It’s his home state. It’s where his father was the governor. It would be very hard to spin a loss in Michigan. I don’t think it’s over, but it certainly makes things a lot more difficult and certainly Santorum is going to crow all over the place.”

Even if Romney were to prevail in the Arizona contest, which like Michigan is Feb. 28, the focus will be on Romney’s loss.

“It’s going to be very bad if he does not win Michigan,” said Blakeman. “There’s always the next story which is Super Tuesday. Super Tuesday will tell this tale in my opinion for this race and where this race is going. But if Romney were to lose Michigan, and then have trouble on Super Tuesday, I think he’s got some real trouble as to whether he can continue.”

According to Rasmussen, Santorum is leading Romney in Michigan by a margin of 35 percent to 32 percent based on a survey of likely Michigan GOP primary voters released on Tuesday.

Romney was leading Santorum by a margin of 38 percent to 17 percent less than two weeks ago in Michigan.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Santorum Opens 12-Point Lead Over Romney, Rasmussen Poll Shows

Please find below a special message from our sponsoring advertiser,
Tea Party Command. They have some important information to share with you. Thank you.

Newsmax.com

Since Last Friday, House Speaker John Boehner has been avoiding questions from and whether he supports the 103 members of the House of Representatives who want action to remove Attorney General Eric Holder over Operation Fast and Furious. Insiders are now telling media sources that Boehner has made a deal with President Obama NOT to continue the investigation of Attorney General Eric Holder over Operation Fast and Furious. Please sign our petition and to send a free fax demanding Speaker Boehner continue the investigation of Holder and Operation Fast and Furious or RESIGN! In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the “big fish.” But ATF whistleblowers told the media Congress it was a dangerous practice called “gunwalking,” and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. It has now been a little over a year since, Marine & Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry was gunned down in Arizona near the Mexican border by illegal immigrants armed with weapons from the now-infamous ATF “Fast and Furious” gunwalking operation. Support the Brian A. Terry Memorial Act – HR 2668 – it will honor the service and sacrifice of fallen Border Patrol Agent Terry, who died protecting Americans and securing the border on December 15, 2010. Semper Fidelis & Honor First. The Border Patrol station in Bisbee, Ariz., will be renamed to honor the memory of agent Brian Terry who died December 15, 2010 after being shot in the line of duty. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, introduced the bill in the House of Representatives July 27. Please sign our petition and send a free fax demanding Speaker Boehner continue the investigation of Holder and Operation Fast and Furious or RESIGN!

An unsettling glimpse into a Romney Administration . . .

http://www.massresistance.org/

As the campaigning for the Iowa caucuses on January 3 heats up, Mitt Romney has publicly — and rather shockingly — restated his support for many of the homosexual movement’s goals. These recent statements, while fairly shocking, certainly square with his actions as Governor of Massachusetts, which we have documented. They differ sharply from the hardcore “social conservative” façade he presented when he ran for president in 2008. He did his best to disguise his radical viewpoint and record on “sexual orientation” then.

But Romney was candid about his pro-gay positions during the national televised candidates’ debate in Iowa on Thursday, Dec. 15 and also during a newspaper editorial board meeting on Dec. 9. He said he always opposed “discriminating against people based upon their sexual orientation.”

At national Fox News debate in Iowa on Dec. 15. From left: Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, and Jon Huntsman.

Romney emphasized that the one exception to his pro-gay positions is regarding marriage. He said he always did everything possible to fight against same-sex “marriage.” But even that claim has serious problems (see #5 below).

These positions certainly make Romney in the minority among the Republican presidential candidates, and would make him the most pro-homosexual Republican presidential nominee ever were he to get the nomination. And they should be a pretty clear window into what a Romney Administration would be like regarding this issue.

In particular, Romney discussed his positions on:

(1) Support for gays in the military

On Dec. 9, Mitt Romney met with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register, Iowa’s major newspaper. Here is what he said (see video) regarding this issue:

Reporter: How do you feel about gays serving openly in the military?

Romney: That’s already occurred. I’m not planning on reversing that at this stage.

Reporter: But you’re comfortable with it?

Romney: I was not comfortable with making the change during a period of conflict, by virtue of the complicating features of a new program in the middle of two wars going on. But those wars are winding down. And moving to that direction at this stage no longer presents that problem.

In December 2010, in a cowardly lame-duck session, the Democrat-controlled US House and Senate pushed through a repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” effectively homosexualizing the US military. The margin of victory was by liberal legislators who had already lost their re-elections the previous month. They knew it would never have passed after January 1, 2011 when the new Congress came in. It was greeted with universal outrage in the conservative movement.

Romney speaks to editorial board of the Des Moines Register.

So, Romney supports the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. His only issue was making the change during wartime.

He had been vague on this issue throughout the campaign four years ago. But in 1994 while running against Ted Kennedy for US Senate, he said in his infamous letter to the homosexual group Log Cabin Republicans that open service for homosexuals in the military was a goal he agreed with. (See link to letter below.)

Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry have all specifically said they would bring back the military ban.

(2) Romney’s strong support for “gay rights” in society

During the debate, Moderator Chris Wallace asked Romney about his 1994 pledge to the homosexual lobby that he would aggressively “seek full equality” for homosexuals. [See his letter to the Log Cabin Republicans here.]

“In 1994, when you were running for the Senate, you wrote a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans in which you said, “I am more convinced than ever before that, as we seek full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent,” who was Ted Kennedy. . . So you are still more of a champion of gay rights than Ted Kennedy was?”

Romney replied:

“Let me go back and say that. I do not believe in discriminating against people based upon their sexual orientation. There are some people that do . . . I believe as a Republican, I had the potential to fight for antidiscrimination in a way that would be even better than Senator Kennedy, as a Democrat, was expected to do so.”

Romney renewed his pledges to the Log Cabin Republicans in his campaign for Governor in 2002.

As we all painfully know, “full equality” and “anti-discrimination” when used with “sexual orientation” are code words for forcing everyone in society under penalty of law to accept homosexual (and transgender) behavior in society as normal, subverting their moral and religious beliefs.

During Romney’s term as Governor, this was particularly manifested in the public schools, where Romney’s “Governor’s Commission for Gay and Lesbian Youth” was well-funded, had access in the schools, and put on an annual “Youth Pride Parade” and “gay/transgender” prom in Boston. On two occasions (2003 and 2004) Romney signed proclamations for “Gay Youth Appreciation Day” to coincide with those events. 

While Romney was governor, most people weren’t aware that their tax dollars were supporting homosexual “Youth Pride” events. This 2005 parade was led by “transgender warrior” and communist Workers World editor, Leslie Feinberg (in dark jacket on left of banner). [Mass-Resistance photo]

Romney’s moral position on homosexuality: it’s not immoral

As Amy Contrada points out in her book Mitt Romney’s Deception, the best key to understanding Romney’s moral position on homosexuality may be his condemnation of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, General Peter Pace. In March 2007, Pace committed the politically incorrect sin of saying that homosexuality is immoral.

Romney said in response:

“I think General Pace has said that he regrets having said that, and I think he was wise to have issued an apology, or a withdrawal of that comment. I think that we, as a society, welcome people of all differences, whether there are differences in ethnicity, faith, or sexual preference, and I think he was wise to correct his comment and to suggest that was an inappropriate point to have made.”

In other words, it’s not a problem. It’s just a “sexual preference” that we need to learn to tolerate.

(3) Willing to appoint homosexual [activist] judges

Romney has strongly indicated that he does not believe that homosexuality is a moral issue and not a concern even when appointing judges.

During the debate Romney said:

“I do not believe in discriminating against people based upon their sexual orientation . . . I didn’t ask justices that I was looking to appoint . . . what their sexual orientation was.”

We saw that first hand in Massachusetts when Romney was Governor.

One of Romney’s known homosexual judge appointees was Stephen Abany (in May 2005) to district court. Abany was an activist for gay-rights causes. He was a board member of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association which heavily advocated for homosexual “marriage.” Abany also had testified at the State House in 1999 advocating repeal of the Massachusetts law criminalizing sodomy. Such activism and glaring opposition to Romney’s stated support for traditional marriage apparently did not keep him from making this appointment.

At 2010 Massachusetts Lesbian & Gay Bar Association fundraiser. From right: Judge Stephen Abany, gay activist lawyer Gary Buseck, dinner co-chairman Richard Moore.

Another Romney district court appointee was Marianne C. Hinkle. Hinkle is a Democrat who worked as an aide to Governor Michael S. Dukakis in the late 1970s and prosecuted John C. Salvi III in the 1994 Brookline abortion clinic shootings. Hinkle, in her application for the bench, describes herself as a longtime active member of Dignity/USA, a group that advocates for expanded gay rights in the Catholic Church and in society.

While in office, Romney created a Judicial Nominating Commission to help find people for him to nominate as judges. The state lesbian and gay bar association was given a seat on that committee, and its members encouraged to apply for judgeships. (See Amy Contrada’s new article on “Romney’s Judicial & Legal Appointments.”)

In our experience every judge (and every politician) who publically “outs” himself as a homosexual is also an emotional, active advocate for the homosexual movement’s political goals. This includes “gay marriage” and support for homosexual-transgender programs in the schools. We’ve seen this over and over again. That’s why the homosexual lobby goes to such lengths to get homosexuals appointed as judges and elected as public officials.

Romney apparently doesn’t get it. In this regard he could be particularly dangerous for the pro-family movement.

Romney’s “Governor’s Council” excuse. At one point during the debate, Romney said that as Governor he only “nominated” judges, and the Democrat-dominated elected Governor’s Council actually approved them, so he needed to nominate judges who would pass muster with the Governor’s Council. In theory that’s true. But in fact the Governor’s Council always acts as a rubber stamp and very rarely rejects a judge’s nomination for any reason whatsoever. It’s a disingenuous argument.

(4) Touting pro-homosexual/transgender daycare center as “success story”

Twice during the debate Romney mentioned Bright Horizons Children’s Centers as one of his businesses successes. Sounds good, until you dig deeper (as MassResistance researcher Amy Contrada recently did).

To social conservatives, Bright Horizons, a national day-care provider, is a huge red flag. Like Bain Capital, Romney’s old company, Bright Horizons has earned a 100% rating with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a national homosexual advocacy organization.

What does a 100% HRC rating mean?

• Company must give full transgender benefits, including hormone treatments, cosmetic, and even surgical procedures.
• Company must have domestic partner benefits and full “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” equal opportunity policies.
• Company cannot donate any money to, or have any financial relationship with, pro-family groups, or in the case of law firms, give them legal advice.
• And MUCH more.

Bright Horizons describes its commitment to diversity to include, among other things, celebrating the value of all “sexual orientations, family structures and genders.”

It’s troubling, to say the least, that Romney would have no problem with all this. Is he not even bothered by the obvious possibility of transgender teachers at day care centers? What does that say about how a President Romney would run the federal government?

(5) Romney on “gay marriage”: yes and no.

During the debate, Romney said emphatically: “I oppose same-sex marriage. That’s been my position from the beginning.” But Romney’s definition only extends to the word “marriage.” He supports state-sanctioned same-sex marriage-like relationships, even involving children.

Refused to support strong marriage amendment: In 2001-2002 — before the Goodridge ”same-sex marriage” decision (Nov. 2003) — a strong petition referendum for a pro-marriage constitutional amendment was put forth by Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage (MCM).

The 2001 MCM constitutional amendment read:

Only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent, nor shall it receive the benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage from the Commonwealth, its agencies, departments, authorities, commissions, offices, officials and political subdivisions. Nothing herein shall be construed to effect an impairment of a contract in existence as of the effective date of this amendment.

A candidate for Governor at the time, Mitt Romney refused to sign it. As the Boston Globe reported, Romney said it was “too extreme.” This was despite the fact that his wife, son, and daughter-in-law had signed it.

As the Globe reported in the article (3/22/2002):

Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney campaign spokesman, said Romney opposes gay marriage but also opposes the amendment, since he sees no reason to change the current laws, which allow for domestic-partner benefits to public employees. Currently, state employees’ partners get limited benefits, but no health benefits.

Romney’s family members signed the petition to put it on the ballot “without reading the fine print,” Fehrnstrom said, but he has no reason to believe they do not support it.

“Mitt did not know they signed it, and Mitt does not support it,” he said. “As far as Mitt is concerned, it goes farther than current law, and therefore it’s unnecessary.”

In refusing to sign it, Romney was out of step with the overwhelming conservative movement in Massachusetts. The amendment required 56,100 certified signatures to go to the Legislature. Over 100,000 people signed it, and 76,000 of those were certified. Unfortunately, when it got to the Legislature, Senate President Tom Birmingham refused to allow a vote on it. The Supreme Judicial Court later ruled that Birmingham had acted illegally, but said that they couldn’t force him to follow the Constitution and hold a vote.

Supported civil unions. After the Goodridge same-sex “marriage” court decision, Romney supported a constitutional amendment written by the Legislature, the “Travaglini-Lees Amendment,” which would have created marriage-like civil unions in the Constitution with complete legal equivalence to marriage. (That amendment eventually died.)

Supported domestic partnerships. Later, in 2005, when another marriage amendment which was not as restrictive had emerged as a referendum initiative, Romney told a State House press conference that if the amendment were to pass, he would support domestic partnership legislation for homosexuals.

As Romney said at the press conference:

“There will be children born to same-sex couples, and adopted by same-sex couples, and I believe that there should be rights and privileges associated with those unions and with the children that are part of those unions.”

(6) Romney re-intreprets the Massachusetts Constitution on marriage

During the debate, Rick Santorum challenged Romney about how he fatally mishandled the “gay marriage” ruling in 2003 and began issuing same-sex marriage licenses the following year — and ordering justices of the peace to perform them if asked — without any legal authority or directive from a court or the Legislature.

Santorum said:

“Governor Romney — the court then gave the legislature a certain amount of time to change the law. They did not. So Governor Romney was faced with a choice: Go along with the court, or go along with the constitution and the statute. He chose the court and ordered people to issue gay marriage licenses, and went beyond that. He personally as governor issued gay marriage licenses. I don’t think that is an accurate representation of his position of saying tolerance versus substantively changes in the laws.”

Romney answered:

“That is a very novel understanding of what our Supreme Court of Massachusetts did. I think everybody in Massachusetts and the legal profession in Massachusetts and my legal counsel indicated that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts determined that under our constitution, same-sex marriage was required. And the idea that somehow that was up to me to make a choice as to whether we had it or not is a little unusual. We got together with our legislature and I fought leading an effort to put in place a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts to overturn the court’s decision to make marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.”

Actually, there were widespread calls from the conservative legal community across the country for Romney to ignore the judges’ ruling, since Constitutionally it could only possibly apply to that particular case, and only the Governor and Legislature can deal with marriage issues. The Constitution also states that only the Legislature can make or suspend laws, and the Massachusetts marriage law then (and now) clearly states marriage is between a man and a woman. (Even the Court acknowledged it couldn’t change the law.)

An excellent analysis of this and the exchange between Romney and Santorum can be found on Steve Deace’s blog in Iowa. Steve Deace is a longtime political commentator in Iowa as well as a major radio talk show host. Deace reports that after the debate Romney issued a challenge that Santorum wouldn’t be able to find any respected legal authorities that would agree with his characterization of Romney’s culpability. Deace went right to work on that! (Besides, Amy Contrada’s book, Mitt Romney’s Deception, already included well- documented expert legal analysis.) 

Moreover, Romney’s legal counsel at the time of the ruling, Daniel Winslow, was a pro-gay advocate who supported “gay marriage”. As a reward for work persuading Romney to move forward on that issue, Winslow was subsequently enthusiastically endorsed by the homosexual lobby when he ran for the State Legislature in 2010.

As we said, all of this gives a view of what a Romney Administration would be like from a traditional values perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEC087120FC7B1DA3&feature=plcp

 Front page of Boston homosexual newspaper “Bay Windows” on August 31, 1994, when Mitt Romney was running for US Senate against Ted Kennedy. Romney had told the homosexual activists, “I’ll be better than Ted Kennedy on gay rights.”

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/02/15/mitt-romney-took-advantage-of-government-subsidies-at-bain/#ixzz1mYYxEApy
]]> http://kipper1969.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/mitt-romney-took-advantage-of-government-subsidies-at-bain/feed/ 0 kipper1969 http://kipper1969.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/santorum-to-plant-flag-in-romneys-native-state/ http://kipper1969.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/santorum-to-plant-flag-in-romneys-native-state/#comments Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:52:58 +0000 CLINTON MA TEA PARTY http://kipper1969.wordpress.com/?p=1497 ]]>

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Republican presidential contender Rick Santorum isn’t predicting victory, but he says he’s going to plant a flag in the state where Mitt Romney was born.

Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, began running television ads in Michigan this week. He’ll campaign there on Thursday.

Romney grew up in Michigan and his father was governor there. The state holds a presidential primary on Feb. 28.

Asked about his expectations for Michigan after a campaign stop Tuesday night, Santorum said Michigan was a lot like Pennsylvania, where he’s had political success.

Santorum said he will “hopefully finish a good strong second” to Romney. “We think we can plant our flag there and do well,” he said.

After winning three contests last week, Santorum is running even with Romney in national polls.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SANTORUM_MICHIGAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-02-15-00-37-19