Ryan is a good man, but does not redeem the abortionist/homosexualist statist Romney

You didn’t answer anything. This still isn’t a republican site, and I am not a republican, and in your head the Romney GOP is “conservative”, which shows where you are coming from, and that you have no loyalty to conservatism.

Bishop Mitt Romney is the most radically left wing nominee in history, for the GOP, and one of the most radically leftist of either parties, in American history.

Slavish devotion to a 20 year politician who is anti-conservative, is not a virtue.

You all do what you want and we will agree to disagree.

That was my original posting, in absolute sum:

In direct response, over the last three days, I've been blubbered at; sniveled at; mewled at; whinnied at; called "evil"; called "liberal"; called "traitor"; called "Obama-lover"...

...well. I can only type for so long before the keyboard finally begins to smoke, after all.

Oh, yeah. The original exemplars of "live and let live," Team Mittens. Boy howdy.

Hi, nina. Here is actually what happened in Massachusetts, contrary to what certain people will claim. The Massachusetts Supreme Court did it by giving a court order to the legislature.

. . . . .

Hey Doug, if you are going to post something about Romney, at least do the on-going debate the respect it deserves and post the WHOLE story about this issue and not just what you think makes your boy Romney look good.

The truth is, that Romney KNOWINGLY implemented Gay-Marriage UNCONSTITUTIONALLY.

He was warned by 44 conservatives, jurists, and activists about this issue in very stark and uncompromising terms.

The Massachusetts Constitution is very clear on this matter, all matters concerning marriage are to originate in the legislature. The Supreme Court of MA, like most, if not all Supreme Courts in this land are to ejudicate on matters that originate in the Legislature, not make laws on their own.

Romney knew this, he refused to do his duty because, just like now, he is carrying the water for the Gay Lobby.

1. Gay Marriage
2. Gay Adoption
3. Gays in the Boy Scouts

HARRISBURG, PA, January 19, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A letter addressed to Massachusetts’ ex-governor Mitt Romney has just been made public in which 44 conservative, pro-family leaders from across the nation requested that before stepping down from office, Romney would adhere to the Massachusetts Constitution and repeal his order directing public officials to perform ‘same-sex marriages’.

The letter was hand delivered to members of Romney’s staff on December 20th, 2006 at his office. Romney took no action to adhere to the letter’s requests before he left office at the beginning of the New Year.

The letter cited numerous, historical cases and the Massachusetts’ Constitution to assert that Romney’s actions in implementing ‘gay marriage’ were beyond the bounds of his authority as governor. The authors further asserted that his actions were unconstitutional as were the actions of the four initial judges who formulated the official opinion on the matter in the ‘Goodridge’ case, the case that originally brought the matter to national attention.

Commenting on the ‘Goodridge’ opinion, Judge Robert Bork said that it was “untethered to either the Massachusetts or United States Constitution.”

As quoted in the letter, the MA Constitution denies the judicial branch of its government any authority over the state’s marriage policies. So it was that three of the seven judges that heard the Goodrich case strongly dissented that the court did not have authority to formulate laws.

The letter also outlined how the MA Constitution forbids judges from establishing or altering law. According to the Constitution, such a task is to be left to the legislature. The judges’ opinion in the Goodrich case admitted that they were not altering the standing marriage statute in MA.

Instead, Governor Romney took it upon himself, despite legal counsel to do otherwise, to order officials across the state that they would have to perform ‘gay marriages’, even though, according to Massachusetts law, to do so is a crime. Officials who refused were advised to resign their position.

Bring up the topic of the Civil War and it will go 3,000 more.

Hi, nina. Here is actually what happened in Massachusetts, contrary to what certain people will claim. The Massachusetts Supreme Court did it by giving a court order to the legislature.

November 18, 2003: Supreme Court of Massachusetts orders the Legislature to open marriage to same-sex couples in the landmark Goodridge v. Department of Public Health ruling. The Court also rules that if the Legislature fails to do so in 180 days, same-sex couples will be able to marry without any impediment.

May 17, 2004: Same-sex marriage becomes legal in the US state of Massachusetts after the Legislature failed to approve it in the 180 days term given by the state’s Supreme Court.

Nina and Doug,

Here are all the details and historical facts that Doug left out of his post:

Joint Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders
(This letter was hand-delivered to the Governor’s staff on Dec. 20, 2006.)

December 20, 2006

The Honorable W. Mitt Romney Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts The State House Boston, MA 02133

Dear Governor Romney:

You have a few weeks left in your term to take action on the issue of marriage. Contrary to opinions offered up by liberal commentators, liberal legal authorities, and perhaps even your own staff, you have the authority as Governor to reverse the damage that has been done to the sacred institution of marriage. The signatories below urge you to declare immediately that homosexual “marriage” licenses issued in violation of the law are illegal and to issue an order to all state and local officials to cease violating the law.

As is increasingly well known, the Massachusetts Constitution denies the Judicial Branch any role in marriage policy:

"All causes of marriage...shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision." (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)

In hearing the Goodridge case and issuing an opinion, four of the seven judges violated the Supreme Law of Massachusetts. Massachusetts courts have admitted, on other occasions, that neither they nor legislators, nor the governor are authorized to violate the Constitution:

[The words of the Constitution] are mandatory and not simply directory. They are highly important. There must be compliance with them.h (Town of Mount Washington v. Cook 288 Mass. 67)

Nevertheless, after these judges issued an illegal opinion, you told the citizens of Massachusetts and all of America that you had no choice but to "execute the law." Oddly, you were not referring to a law, but to the judgesf opinion.

Your oath to uphold the Constitution requires treating an unconstitutional opinion as void (as President Thomas Jefferson did in Marbury v. Madison). You failed to do this. Nor did you treat it as an illegal ruling that affected only the specific plaintiffs (as Abraham Lincoln did, refusing to accept the Dred Scott ruling as law, pointing out that judges do not make law).

Instead, you asserted that the courtfs opinion was a glaw" and thus binding. Though the Legislature never revoked the actual law, you issued . with no legal authority -- the first ghomosexual marriageh licenses in American history.

The Massachusetts Constitution does not confirm either your statements or your actions:

"[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." (PART THE FIRST, Article X.)

The Constitution also disproves your assertion to the nation that the marriage statute (M.G.L. Chapter 207) was somehow suspended or nullified by the four judges:

"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.)

In light of both your actions and your explanations, it comes as a great surprise to many of us to learn that, under the Massachusetts Constitution, judges cannot suspend or alter statutes. This principle is clearly fundamental to Massachusetts' system of government and is restated in multiple ways.

"The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." (PART THE FIRST, Article XXX.)

We note that the Massachusetts Constitution so completely protects citizens from the rule of judges that even laws passed in the Colonial period before the Constitution itself was ratified cannot be suspended by judges:

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

We note, Governor, that in all of your justifications to the nation, there was no mention of these parts of the Constitution which you swore to defend. Why? Even this same court is forced to admit:

"The Constitution as framed is the only guide. To change its terms is within the power of the people alone." (Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 618)

We note Massachusetts Chief Justice Hutchison's words in 1767: "laws should be established, else Judges and Juries must go according to their Reason, that is, their Will" and "[T]he Judge should never be the Legislator: Because, then the Will of the Judge would be the Law: and this tends to a State of Slavery.' " As Judge Swift put it in 1795, courts "ought never to be allowed to depart from the well known boundaries of express law, into the wide fields of discretion."

As for your claims about the authority of Goodridge and its illegal 180-day instruction to the Legislature, the same court had admitted in 1992 that they cannot issue an order to the legislature or the governor:

"The courts [instructing] when and how to perform...constitutional duties" (mandamus) "is not available against the Legislature [or] against the Governor)."

"The...principles expressed in...the Massachusetts Constitution...call for the judiciary to refrain from intruding into the power and function of another branch of government." (LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 31 n.3, 35 (1992)

We also note this ruling in 1969: "an unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary is an act that is gnot only not warranted but, indeed, [is] precluded.h (Commonwealth v. Leis)

We note that even the Goodridge majority said they were not suspending the marriage statute:

gHere, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."

In fact, they admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal: gWe conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.h

Moreover, we note that nothing in the Goodridge ruling asked or pretended to authorize the governor to violate the statute in the event that the Legislature would not repeal it.

We also note that the statute remains in the Massachusetts General Laws, and has never been stricken, suspended or nullified. The court itself has previously clarified your obligation:

"But the statute, so long as it stands, imposes upon both branches [of the Legislature] uniformity of procedure so far as concerns this particular matter. One branch cannot ignore it without a repeal of the statute. A repeal can be accomplished only by affirmative vote of both branches and approval by the governor." (Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 519 (1916)

Nevertheless, with no legislation authorizing you to do so, you ordered the Department of Public Health to change the words on marriage licenses from "husband" and "wife," to "Partner A" and "Partner B." Stunningly, you later admitted that without enabling legislation you cannot change birth certificates in a similar way.

We note that, despite the court's admission that the statute prohibits ghomosexual marriage,h and the Constitution's statement that only the Legislature can suspend laws, you ordered officials to perform homosexual marriages and thus violate the statute (a crime under c. 207 ˜48), and the oath of office by. Those who refused, you ordered to resign.

This emboldened other local officials, including the mayor of Boston, to boast publicly that they would break the law by "marrying" out-of-state homosexual couples . also a crime under c. 207 ˜48.

In summary, while the four judges asserted that Chapter 207 is unconstitutional, they did not suspend the marriage statute and were powerless to do so. The legislature has not changed or repealed it. Therefore:

1. The marriage statute is still in effect.
2. The statute continues to prohibit same-sex marriages.

We note that you swore no oath to execute court opinions, but rather laws and the Constitution. The same Massachusetts high court itself said in 1986: [The Executive branch] must "be faithful to the words of the statute ... as written, and an event or contingency for which no provision has been made does not justify judicial [or Executive Branch] legislation." (Amherst v. Attorney General, 398 Mass. 793)

You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against assault from the other two branches. You swore on a Holy Bible, and said, "So help me, God." Your oath itself declares that it is violated on penalty of perjury, a felony.

Like much of America, many of us accepted as sincere your explanations of your role in this social and constitutional crisis that is fundamentally altering the moral fabric of our culture and eroding basic building block of human society. We are now forced to look at your role, as constitutional sentry and a gatekeeper of our form of government, in a different light.

We would be greatly disappointed if your principal contribution to history will be imposing homosexual marriage -- knowingly or unknowingly, willfully or negligently -- in violation of the state Constitution you swore to uphold.

. We urge you in the strongest possible way to fulfill the obligation imposed by the Constitution of Massachusetts upon the "Supreme Executive Magistrate" to uphold Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 207 the marriage statute, by declaring immediately in a formal, written executive order that the Goodridge court cannot overrule the Constitution and that homosexual marriage therefore remains against the law.

. We urge you also to issue immediately a public memorandum from the Office of the Governor declaring members of the Legislature to be engaged in a conspiracy against the Constitution, to which the oath of office attaches the penalties of perjury -- a felony.

. We urge you to immediately notify the legislators who openly conspired against the Constitution in denying the first marriage amendment petition a vote in 2002 that:

. they violated the oath of office, a constitutional felony, and

. as a citizensf constitutional petition, that initiative remains pending until brought to one of the five final actions the Constitution requires and

. therefore their crime against the Constitution is perpetual and without statute of limitations

. unless they vote, you will call them into session on that original marriage petition and

. will order the state police to arrest them and bring them to the chambers to vote (as the Governor of Texas ordered in May 2003 when Texas legislators refused to convene a quorum).

Under conditions of repeated and systematic constitutional abuse, these steps by a governor are the minimum required to defend constitutional democracy and our republican form of government.

Signed,
Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation
*Sandy Rios, Culture Campaign
*Gary Kreep, Esq., president, United States Justice Foundation ++
*Robert Knight, a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Ac
t Linda Harvey, Mission America
Rev. Ted Pike, National Prayer Network
Randy Thomasson, Campaign for Children and Families
Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth
Dr. Chuck Baldwin, radio host, columnist
Paul Likoudis, The Wanderer
Rev. Stephen Bennett, Stephen Bennett Ministries
Phil Lawler, Catholic World News
Rev. Scott Lively, Esq., Defend the Family
*Dr. William Greene, RightMarch.com
Michael Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine
David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute
Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan
Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Micah Clark, American Family Association of Indiana
Kevin McCoy, West Virginia Family Foundation
Stephen Cable, Vermont Center for American Cultural Renewal
Joe Glover, Family Policy Network (National)
Terry Moffitt, Family Policy Network of North Carolina
Marnie Deaton, Family Policy Network of Virginia
Danny Eason, Family Policy Network of Texas
Matt Chancey, Family Policy Network of Alabama
Ron Shank, Family Policy Network of Tennessee
*John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., leading expert on the medical risks of homosexuality
Sonja Dalton, Real Civil Rights Illinois
Allyson Smith, Americans for Truth/California
Brian Camenker, MassResistance
Bunny S. Galladora, Woman's Christian Temperance Union
Dr. Paul Cameron, Family Research Institute
James Hartline, The Hartline Report
Jan Markell, Olive Tree Ministries & Radio
Bill Cotter, Operation Rescue Boston
R. T. Neary, ProLife Massachusetts
Mike O'Neil, CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts
John F. Russo, Marriage & Family, Massachusetts
*Stacy Harp, Active Christian Media, host, The Right View
Rena Havens, Mothers Against Pedophilia
John Haskins, Parentsf Rights Coalition
Rev. Michael Carl, Constitution Party of Massachusetts
Carl Parnell, author, From Schoolhouse to Courthouse

Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not imply a formal endorsement or commitment by those organizations.

*Signed after December 20, 2006.
++Notes he has not had an opportunity to investigate punishable criminal consequences of violating the Massachusetts oath of office.

Massachusetts in-state contact: John Haskins, 781-890-6001

to prefer Obama to Romney is nothing but delusional.
***Which freepers prefer Obama to Romney? Straw argument.

Tread wears thin on your copypasta.

Romney fought gay marriage in his state to the end. Making lawyers pay the actual, un-subsidized cost of their bar exams isn't a 'tax.' The 'ruined' MASS GOP elected Scott Brown.

You speak of honesty but you don't know the meaning of the word. But it's cool - less and less people are listening, and I almost didn't bother to respond.

Like hell he did!

You are either totally ignorant of the utter and complete unconstitional behavior in this situation or you are lying yourself

Here are the facts you so conveniently left out of your synopsis:

Joint Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders
(This letter was hand-delivered to the Governor’s staff on Dec. 20, 2006.)

December 20, 2006

The Honorable W. Mitt Romney Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts The State House Boston, MA 02133

Dear Governor Romney:

You have a few weeks left in your term to take action on the issue of marriage. Contrary to opinions offered up by liberal commentators, liberal legal authorities, and perhaps even your own staff, you have the authority as Governor to reverse the damage that has been done to the sacred institution of marriage. The signatories below urge you to declare immediately that homosexual “marriage” licenses issued in violation of the law are illegal and to issue an order to all state and local officials to cease violating the law.

As is increasingly well known, the Massachusetts Constitution denies the Judicial Branch any role in marriage policy:

"All causes of marriage...shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision." (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)

In hearing the Goodridge case and issuing an opinion, four of the seven judges violated the Supreme Law of Massachusetts. Massachusetts courts have admitted, on other occasions, that neither they nor legislators, nor the governor are authorized to violate the Constitution:

[The words of the Constitution] are mandatory and not simply directory. They are highly important. There must be compliance with them.h (Town of Mount Washington v. Cook 288 Mass. 67)

Nevertheless, after these judges issued an illegal opinion, you told the citizens of Massachusetts and all of America that you had no choice but to "execute the law." Oddly, you were not referring to a law, but to the judgesf opinion.

Your oath to uphold the Constitution requires treating an unconstitutional opinion as void (as President Thomas Jefferson did in Marbury v. Madison). You failed to do this. Nor did you treat it as an illegal ruling that affected only the specific plaintiffs (as Abraham Lincoln did, refusing to accept the Dred Scott ruling as law, pointing out that judges do not make law).

Instead, you asserted that the courtfs opinion was a glaw" and thus binding. Though the Legislature never revoked the actual law, you issued . with no legal authority -- the first ghomosexual marriageh licenses in American history.

The Massachusetts Constitution does not confirm either your statements or your actions:

"[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." (PART THE FIRST, Article X.)

The Constitution also disproves your assertion to the nation that the marriage statute (M.G.L. Chapter 207) was somehow suspended or nullified by the four judges:

"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.)

In light of both your actions and your explanations, it comes as a great surprise to many of us to learn that, under the Massachusetts Constitution, judges cannot suspend or alter statutes. This principle is clearly fundamental to Massachusetts' system of government and is restated in multiple ways.

"The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." (PART THE FIRST, Article XXX.)

We note that the Massachusetts Constitution so completely protects citizens from the rule of judges that even laws passed in the Colonial period before the Constitution itself was ratified cannot be suspended by judges:

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

We note, Governor, that in all of your justifications to the nation, there was no mention of these parts of the Constitution which you swore to defend. Why? Even this same court is forced to admit:

"The Constitution as framed is the only guide. To change its terms is within the power of the people alone." (Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 618)

We note Massachusetts Chief Justice Hutchison's words in 1767: "laws should be established, else Judges and Juries must go according to their Reason, that is, their Will" and "[T]he Judge should never be the Legislator: Because, then the Will of the Judge would be the Law: and this tends to a State of Slavery.' " As Judge Swift put it in 1795, courts "ought never to be allowed to depart from the well known boundaries of express law, into the wide fields of discretion."

As for your claims about the authority of Goodridge and its illegal 180-day instruction to the Legislature, the same court had admitted in 1992 that they cannot issue an order to the legislature or the governor:

"The courts [instructing] when and how to perform...constitutional duties" (mandamus) "is not available against the Legislature [or] against the Governor)."

"The...principles expressed in...the Massachusetts Constitution...call for the judiciary to refrain from intruding into the power and function of another branch of government." (LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 31 n.3, 35 (1992)

We also note this ruling in 1969: "an unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary is an act that is gnot only not warranted but, indeed, [is] precluded.h (Commonwealth v. Leis)

We note that even the Goodridge majority said they were not suspending the marriage statute:

gHere, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."

In fact, they admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal: gWe conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.h

Moreover, we note that nothing in the Goodridge ruling asked or pretended to authorize the governor to violate the statute in the event that the Legislature would not repeal it.

We also note that the statute remains in the Massachusetts General Laws, and has never been stricken, suspended or nullified. The court itself has previously clarified your obligation:

"But the statute, so long as it stands, imposes upon both branches [of the Legislature] uniformity of procedure so far as concerns this particular matter. One branch cannot ignore it without a repeal of the statute. A repeal can be accomplished only by affirmative vote of both branches and approval by the governor." (Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 519 (1916)

Nevertheless, with no legislation authorizing you to do so, you ordered the Department of Public Health to change the words on marriage licenses from "husband" and "wife," to "Partner A" and "Partner B." Stunningly, you later admitted that without enabling legislation you cannot change birth certificates in a similar way.

We note that, despite the court's admission that the statute prohibits ghomosexual marriage,h and the Constitution's statement that only the Legislature can suspend laws, you ordered officials to perform homosexual marriages and thus violate the statute (a crime under c. 207 ˜48), and the oath of office by. Those who refused, you ordered to resign.

This emboldened other local officials, including the mayor of Boston, to boast publicly that they would break the law by "marrying" out-of-state homosexual couples . also a crime under c. 207 ˜48.

In summary, while the four judges asserted that Chapter 207 is unconstitutional, they did not suspend the marriage statute and were powerless to do so. The legislature has not changed or repealed it. Therefore:

1. The marriage statute is still in effect.
2. The statute continues to prohibit same-sex marriages.

We note that you swore no oath to execute court opinions, but rather laws and the Constitution. The same Massachusetts high court itself said in 1986: [The Executive branch] must "be faithful to the words of the statute ... as written, and an event or contingency for which no provision has been made does not justify judicial [or Executive Branch] legislation." (Amherst v. Attorney General, 398 Mass. 793)

You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against assault from the other two branches. You swore on a Holy Bible, and said, "So help me, God." Your oath itself declares that it is violated on penalty of perjury, a felony.

Like much of America, many of us accepted as sincere your explanations of your role in this social and constitutional crisis that is fundamentally altering the moral fabric of our culture and eroding basic building block of human society. We are now forced to look at your role, as constitutional sentry and a gatekeeper of our form of government, in a different light.

We would be greatly disappointed if your principal contribution to history will be imposing homosexual marriage -- knowingly or unknowingly, willfully or negligently -- in violation of the state Constitution you swore to uphold.

. We urge you in the strongest possible way to fulfill the obligation imposed by the Constitution of Massachusetts upon the "Supreme Executive Magistrate" to uphold Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 207 the marriage statute, by declaring immediately in a formal, written executive order that the Goodridge court cannot overrule the Constitution and that homosexual marriage therefore remains against the law.

. We urge you also to issue immediately a public memorandum from the Office of the Governor declaring members of the Legislature to be engaged in a conspiracy against the Constitution, to which the oath of office attaches the penalties of perjury -- a felony.

. We urge you to immediately notify the legislators who openly conspired against the Constitution in denying the first marriage amendment petition a vote in 2002 that:

. they violated the oath of office, a constitutional felony, and

. as a citizensf constitutional petition, that initiative remains pending until brought to one of the five final actions the Constitution requires and

. therefore their crime against the Constitution is perpetual and without statute of limitations

. unless they vote, you will call them into session on that original marriage petition and

. will order the state police to arrest them and bring them to the chambers to vote (as the Governor of Texas ordered in May 2003 when Texas legislators refused to convene a quorum).

Under conditions of repeated and systematic constitutional abuse, these steps by a governor are the minimum required to defend constitutional democracy and our republican form of government.

Signed,
Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation
*Sandy Rios, Culture Campaign
*Gary Kreep, Esq., president, United States Justice Foundation ++
*Robert Knight, a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Ac
t Linda Harvey, Mission America
Rev. Ted Pike, National Prayer Network
Randy Thomasson, Campaign for Children and Families
Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth
Dr. Chuck Baldwin, radio host, columnist
Paul Likoudis, The Wanderer
Rev. Stephen Bennett, Stephen Bennett Ministries
Phil Lawler, Catholic World News
Rev. Scott Lively, Esq., Defend the Family
*Dr. William Greene, RightMarch.com
Michael Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine
David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute
Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan
Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Micah Clark, American Family Association of Indiana
Kevin McCoy, West Virginia Family Foundation
Stephen Cable, Vermont Center for American Cultural Renewal
Joe Glover, Family Policy Network (National)
Terry Moffitt, Family Policy Network of North Carolina
Marnie Deaton, Family Policy Network of Virginia
Danny Eason, Family Policy Network of Texas
Matt Chancey, Family Policy Network of Alabama
Ron Shank, Family Policy Network of Tennessee
*John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., leading expert on the medical risks of homosexuality
Sonja Dalton, Real Civil Rights Illinois
Allyson Smith, Americans for Truth/California
Brian Camenker, MassResistance
Bunny S. Galladora, Woman's Christian Temperance Union
Dr. Paul Cameron, Family Research Institute
James Hartline, The Hartline Report
Jan Markell, Olive Tree Ministries & Radio
Bill Cotter, Operation Rescue Boston
R. T. Neary, ProLife Massachusetts
Mike O'Neil, CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts
John F. Russo, Marriage & Family, Massachusetts
*Stacy Harp, Active Christian Media, host, The Right View
Rena Havens, Mothers Against Pedophilia
John Haskins, Parentsf Rights Coalition
Rev. Michael Carl, Constitution Party of Massachusetts
Carl Parnell, author, From Schoolhouse to Courthouse

Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not imply a formal endorsement or commitment by those organizations.

*Signed after December 20, 2006.
++Notes he has not had an opportunity to investigate punishable criminal consequences of violating the Massachusetts oath of office.

Massachusetts in-state contact: John Haskins, 781-890-6001

Yes I do think this election is the precursor for CW2...

.

Is that good for 3000 more? I doubt it... ;-)

Yes I do think this election is the precursor for CW2...

.

Is that good for 3000 more? I doubt it... ;-)

I was there. That your little link refers to him as 'Bishop' tells me all I need to know about you. I really feel sorry for you. I can't imagine what people must have done to you to turn you into a small-minded bitter liar. I will keep you in my prayers.

Nina, you're the one that deserves pity.

The truth is posted to you concerning that lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal, and you STILL keep your head in the sand.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

My dear, you are the one who is in sad need of prayer.

mewled at; ***You did that just so we'd have to look it up, didn't you? mewl [myool] Show IPA verb (used without object) to cry, as a baby, young child, or the like; whimper. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Origin: 1590–1600; imitative Related forms mewl·er, noun

You’re fulla bowlsheet. Why don’t you ‘explain’ it to JimRob? He sees it the same way. But does he “want to reelect what seems to be his favorite candidate to continue destroying America? Does he “refuse to listen, having become an Axelrod conservative”? Are you saying, “God help us if we get another four years of Hugo Chavez Kardashian Jr. because of the likes of JimRob”? No, you’re not, because JR has authority, he holds the lightning bolt and regular freepers do not. Even though JR sees it exactly in the same way. That makes you a bootlicker, saying such things about another freeper rather than straight to the boss.

Come on Lakeshark, back up your online bravado and bloviating, take it to the man himself.

Why no response, you chicken?

If the men who fought WWII had given up this easily, my grandmother would have never been liberated from Auschwitz and I wouldn’t even be a zygote.

Politics aside, I am absolutely appalled at the comments of Rep. Cohen. While he may be Jewish, I can assure you he does not share a history like so many of us. Though she was proud to be a survivor, she could not speak of the horrors she lived through as a young girl. We only know the stories as she was able to write what was too painful to speak. Had ANYONE that Rep. Cohen loved or even knew lived through such horror, he would never be stupid enough to make such an asinine comparison. Best I can tell, the Republicans who oppose Obamacare are not planning on exterminating an entire race.

Unless genocide is being planned, as a REAL Jew, it is reprehensible to use ANY comparison of the Holocaust to any political banter.

This thread is the first time that you mentioned that your father was in the camps, although you have described your grandmother as a camp internee in multiple posts.

English major, Vanderbilt University (back when a diploma from said institution still actually meant something). I throw myself on the mercy of the court. ;)

Now, now. Be fair. As already demonstrated: the poor fifty-going-on-eight-year-old ages thirty years or so, between postings. ;)

Haven’t seen any such post and don’t see anything in the recent abuse reports from CWSNTEXAS. Please post a link or an abuse report on the post in question and I’ll take a look.

Also, please post a list of the posters you think were banned for criticizing my comments (other than obvious trolls or retreads or posters who opus’d out).

You’re a far cry better than the other english major I’ve encountered on this thread.

Also, please post a list of the posters you think were banned for criticizing my comments
***Well, there’s Jiminy Cricket, Cricket2000, Crickets, Cricket Maximus, Cricketamus; Cricket Match, Cricketeer, and all kinds of other crickets you’ll be hearing from soon.

Obama has put us on a rapid boil. Now is the time to escape. Romney may turn the temperature down a degree, but that in the long run is more dangerous. It’s time to jump.

***Jump where?

Well, given that we've already been (*snort*) "blessed" by the twin presences of one poster who evidently can't even keep track of their own chronological age from one posting to the next, and another one who hucksters dramatic screen shot revelations which ultimately prove no more forthcoming or real than the Cottingley Fairies: the additional prospect of a (potentially) fake English major wouldn't exactly rock me to the very core of my being. ;)