And yet Romney's record declares him NOT to be a lover of my America, but a lover of the America cherished by the left-wing.
Which in my book, makes him not much better than Obama:
Romney's record:
Posted on 06/13/2012 2:03:43 PM PDT by MindBender26
In Case You Don't Like Romney...
Columnist Andrew McCarthy gives us what probably is the most important question regarding the upcoming presidential election …
“If Romney wins the nomination, as seems very likely, I will enthusiastically support his candidacy. For my friends who may have hesitation on that score, I’d just ask you to keep four things in mind:
1.. Justice Scalia just turned 78
2.. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
3.. Justice Breyer will be 76 in August
4.. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago and has had cancer twice.
Whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court — in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.
If you don’t think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I think you’re smokin’ something funky….”
So for anybody who is thinking of not voting because your favorite didn’t get nominated, or writing in a candidate who can't win ... just imagine this possibility:
'SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ERIC HOLDER'
Did that get your attention!
Killing babies had God turn his prophets against their own nation. See Jeremiah. IOW, infanticide outranks nationalism.
People practiced/s their beliefs in Auschwitz, in East Germany, in Iran, Iraq - no one can stop you.
My brother started nine churches in East Germany. He has friends who have started churches in Iran.
There is no one on earth who can stop you.
Fear is not of God.
In date, and perhaps in your dreams and desires, but alas, for you, not in law.
I'll work with Romney's “cronies,” rather than Obama’s any day.
BTW, remember that Obama said that in college, he chose to hang out with the Marxist professors, and later, Bill Ayres, Van Jones, etc.
I don't see any convicted bombers, Marxists, admitted Communists in Romney's background, do you. Oh, that's right. He hung out with those anti-Christ Mormons. I forgot. Mormons, Communists, Bombers, all the same.... right?
These are all people INTENT on destroying America. Romney's friends may not see America as you see her, but they are not publicly calling for her Destruction.
I only quoted Norm’s words describing ‘ABO’ers. If Sarah Palin promotes voting for anyone but Obama (making her a strong ABO’er), and said any of the republican candidates running are better than Obama (including Romney) don’t Norm’s insults apply to her also?
Who was your candidate in the primary and who are they backing now?
One needs to go no further than your point #1 to find a deliberate lie, that Romeny created gay marriage in Massachusetts.
Here are the facts:
Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts began on May 17, 2004, as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry. Romney had nothing to do with that and fought it.
In fact, Romney launched the “superslate” campaign in 2004, based on the idea that the state Republican Party could use Conservative ideals and family values as a wedge issue and gain seats, spending millions of Romney's own dollars and personally campaigning for Republican candidates in traditionally Democratic seats. Despite his efforts, the Republican party lost three seats in the 2004 election. Since then, many legislators have changed their views to reflect growing support for same-sex marriage among their constituents.
Romney promoted a Constitutional amendment to prohibit same sex marriage, but the state legislators failed to back him up on it. One of the original sponsors of the amendment to ban same-sex marriage and legalize civil unions, Brian Lees, said, “Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry.
He spent millions of his own money fighting it. What did you do, except lie about it?
Gingrich supports Romney
Santorum supports Romney
Cain supports Romney
Bachmann supports Romney
But, of course, they’re all RINOs and you know better !
You took a generalized statement by Norm Lenhart concerning formerly principled conservatives who change when they start supporting lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberals like Mitt Romney
PS, Sarah Palin, you remember her, she endorsed Romeny too!
Of course, she’s just a RINO, right?
Supporting progressive Romney and supporting his elitist amoral social mentality and socialist ideology are two different things. So now you are a socialist in favor of Romneycare, abortion and rearranging marriage around the butts of homos, I suppose.
I strongly suggest you read #1114 before you make foolish statements like that.
And don’t your words and insults also apply to Newt Gingrich, the man you voted for? Sounds like you are one confused, conflicted man or woman.
"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.” (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 judges’ 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).
I’ll decide for myself what is foolish and what is not foolish, thank you.
Been around the bend and I know a back stabbing liberal elitist when I watch one operate for YEARS.
...and in virtually every debate, Newt made it very clear that everyone on stage (INCLUDING MITT ROMNEY) would be light years better than Obama. But you still voted for Newt??????
"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:
g[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.
"[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."
"The courts [instructing] when and how to perform...constitutional duties" (mandamus) "is not available against the Legislature [or] against the Governor)."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)
"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)
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
"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.
. 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).
Not sure why I’m bothering since you have shown no ability to demonstrate perspective but here does:
I have been one of the most vocal proponents of a Palin presidency on FR. I have literally typed hundreds of pages rebutting PDSers with fact. I intended to vote for her if she would have run. I DID vote for her when she was on the ticket with JM.
Because I believed she was right. In most ways I still do. I am 100% behind her policywise. But she is 100% WRONG on Romney. I do not agree with it. She is making the very same mistake you are. The difference is that SP is not running around web forums calling people traitors, telling them that their non Romney vote is a vote for Zilch and other high school BS that we see here.
Had you done your research better, you’d have seen my multiple previous posts stating clearly that one cannot serve two masters. Whether it’s SP, Rush, Levin. Hannity, or any ‘normal’ person, you stick to your principles or you do not.
Over several hundred posts on this thread and half a dozen others that went over a thousand posts on this subject, I have repeatedly asked for ANYONE to explain how a person can vote Romney without abandoning their conservatism to do so.
Not a single person has had the ability to do so.
What does that tell you? They and you have danced around it, called me names, changed the subject and more. But they REFUSE to address, much less ANSWER the question.
Now, back to Palin...
I do in fact think less of her because she is in fact abandoning conservative principles to support Romney. That does not mean she is evil, just VERY wrong. And I will not support her on that. I will support many of the policy positions she forwards and many of her ideas as they are rock solid. But here she failed miserably. If at any point she were to behave in the manner that many of you ABO types do...running around calling principled people ‘traitors’ and such, then make room under the bus because you’ll be getting company. See the difference?
Do you see a flaw in this logic? Do you see any hypocrisy? Because if you do, I’d love the opportunity to correct myself. I may not be perfect, but I try to be consistent. And I try to do it without ‘implying’ people are prostitutes’ to get my point across.
Yes, her post stating such was posted verbatim on this thread along with others with some pretty negative stuff RE Jim and Freepers.
“You posted that “I’m so tired of this crap. So few people left have any integrity. And they just make excuse after excuse.”
Actually that was my quote ;)
“IMO, the people without integrity are those who spout ABO and then denigrate those unwilling to support a lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal, even out of fear of the worst possible President we have ever had in Obama.”
Absolutely true.
Having been through the PDS wars and the civil war of the primaries, these people really shouldn’t surprise me. But they do. I can only shake my head at what the ‘conservative’ movement has come to.
“I’m a conservative and I’m voting for a liberal to save the country”.
That’s what this mess boils down to. They can deny it, but here’s the facts.
1: they claim to be conservative.
2: Mitt Romney, regardless of his GOP affiliation, has a voting record that is unarguably liberal.
3: They are voting for him expecting him to reverse course on Obama policies and ‘save the country’ from them.
Ergo...
“I’m a conservative and I’m voting for a liberal to save the country”.
Is the bottom line. It’s a completely accurate summation of their ‘logic’. They cannot honestly deny that because the facts prove it. All they can do is justify themselves and attempt to ease their troubled conscience. And that justification comes in the form of railing those who refuse to abandon what they believe in. I will now ask another question that is sure to be ducked, dodged and spun.
“How does one ‘save their country’ by going against the very principles and ideas that founded the country?”
How does abandoning our stance on abortion save the country?
How does abandoning our stance on gay marriage and gays in the military save the country?
How does consistently giving up the things we believe make America, save America?
Those things alone show why the ABO stance is a recipe for disaster. Sure, Romney is going to win. But either way, America has lost. Not because of Romney, but because people have become a nation of people willing to elect a man with his ‘values’.
When a conservative looks to a liberal for solutions, wither conservatism has failed utterly or the ‘conservative’ has abandoned his beliefs. No other option.
Mitt himself invented gay marriage in Massachusetts. He seems to have a different sort of view of marriage than do other Americans.
So strange.
Wonder why.
I did not.
Followed closely on the Amazement Scale by:
"You're a conservative and you're voting for a conservative. Therefore, you're really voting for a Marxist."
Really?
To: reaganaut
If you are voting for Romney you are not a conservative, sign up date doesn’t mean much.
Here is another way altura is liberal. Below are direct quotes from her.
Neither of my children are gay and both are very good people, but I can envision a scenario in which I would support gay marriage if one of my children were gay and wanted to marry.
I think support is the operative word. A lot of people don’t care but are okay with it. So, even though I am not fervently opposed to gay marriage, I really don’t care.
altura is a pro-Romney liberal if there ever was one.
948 posted on Friday, June 15, 2012 11:44:39 AM by South40
There are many reasons to vote for Romney over obama, and to not vote 3rd party which may result in the election of obama, but Im’m really tired of hearing the Supreme Court appointment argument, it only adds to my anxiety. Obama would probanly appoint a marxist, Romney would probably appoint a liberal, he has never appointed a Conservative to anything nor has he indicated he would appoint Conservatives to anything. A decision by a liberal or a Marxist on the Supreme Court will have the same effect, America, Conservatives, our Constitution and the Republic lose.
Now that I,ve said that this gives me an opportunity to re-post my Romney endorsement.
“Who thought a year ago when Conservatives were saying “ANYBODY BUT oBAMA” we would actually get the anybody? It’s time to “swallow the bitter pill”, “eat crow”, “gangrene has set in, time to cut off the foot”. I do not believe voting third party or not voting will result in obama being removed from office. I also believe that electing Romney will not begin to solve our problems but at least we will be able to look forward to elections in 2014 and 2016. If obama is re-elected I believe any future elections will be a complete sham. A bumper sticker that read “VOTE for the RINO, IT’S IMPORTANT” would be in order but may dampen enthusiasm for those that have it.
There, that does it Romney now has my official endorsement, my promise to vote for the Republican nominee will be honored, I’m also going to send a small check to the NRC, probably with a note attached, and a small check to the Romney campaign, with a note attached, and a check to Newt to help pay off his obligations and a note attached thanking him for what he has done for Conservatives, Republicans and the Nation and for stepping forward again in these troubled times and pointing us to the right path even though we chose to turn left.”
January 2, 2006 Boston Globe:
For 17 years, Massachusetts couples have asked friends, family and loved ones to solemnize their marriage under an obscure state law allowing the governor to grant one-day certificate to officiate a wedding. Since same-sex marriage became legal in May, 2004, Governor Mitt Romney has approve at least 189 requests from same-sex couples in 2005, along with about 1,040 applications for heterosexual couples. The one-day certificates, which cost $25, allow virtually anyone to legally solemnize a marriage anywhere in the commonwealth.
You really think Romney personally approved each application?
Wow.
I wonder which?
FUMR
No, the wow is on you. He had to approve, it was his roll as governor to approve or disapprove.
What is presented here is from the Boston Globe, I presented it to you without comment, and your deflection makes it about me.
What is most interesting is that for reasons known only to you, the evidence (over whelming) that Romney is a liberal, escapes you.
1994 Campaign vs. Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate: Romney pledged he “will provide more effective leadership” than Kennedy on homosexual rights; endorsed by Log Cabin Republicans.
2000-2002: As head of Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, Romney banned Boy Scouts from participating.
2001 Called first citizens’ petition to define marriage “too extreme” and “bigoted” because it banned civil unions.
2002 Campaign for Governor: Romney makes promises to GLBT community, according to leading Boston homosexual newspaper; endorsed by homosexual activist Log Cabin Republicans.
Nov. 18, 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) rules that same-sex marriage is protected in the Mass. Constitution, and gives the Legislature 180 days to act (“Goodridge” ruling)
Nov.-Dec. 2003 Romney reportedly working with Legislators promoting “civil unions”.
Jan. 2004 Romney silent on proposal to remove four SJC justices through Bill of Address (put forward by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance).
Feb. 4, 2004 SJC tells Legislature that civil unions for same-sex couples will not satisfy its interpretation of the Mass. Constitution; only full-fledged marriage will do.
Feb. 5, 2004 Romney publishes editorial in Wall Street Journal laying all blame on the SJC for problem in Massachusetts. Suggests other states strengthen marriage statutes and pass constitutional amendments. Says don’t “attack … gays, singles or non-traditional couples.”
Feb. 2004 Justices of the Peace are told by their professional association they will be able to claim “conscientious objector” status and refuse to perform same-sex marriages — though this was never agreed to by Romney administration.
Feb.-May 2004 Pro-family leaders and columnists urge Romney to defy court, and issue Executive Order to block same-sex marriage; no public comment from Romney.
March 12, 2004 As Legislature postures on constitutional amendments, Romney continues to say amendment to Mass. Constitution is solution.
March 26, 2004 Word leaks out that Romney’s Dept. of Public Health (DPH) and attorneys are planning training sessions for Town Clerks and preparing same-sex marriage licenses.
March 29, 2004 Romney tells Republicans in Mass. legislature to vote for Travaglini-Lees “compromise amendment” which would ban same-sex marriage but establish civil unions (and would not go to voters before Nov. 2006). Republican legislators had earlier opposed this amendment because of the civil unions clause, and it passed only due to their changed votes.
April 16, 2004 Romney announces his administration is scheduling training sessions for May 5-12 with licenses changed from “husband/wife” to “Party A/Party B”.
April 26, 2004 Romney’s chief Legal Counsel, Daniel Winslow, issues directive to Justices of the Peace to resign (or be fired, fined, or sued) if they are unwilling to perform same-sex marriages (exact date not given on document).
May 5-12, 2004 Town clerk training sessions held. [GLAD – Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders — is only source on content of sessions; perhaps they were responsible for content?]
May 15, 2004 Romney issues proclamation: May 15 is “Gay/Straight Youth Pride Day”. Romney’s “Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth” events include parade, GLBT activism (with prominent transsexual radical activists), and a GLBT prom – two days before same-sex marriages are to begin.
June 16, 2005 Romney joins VoteOnMarriage (VOM) amendment effort, which would recognize same-sex marriages prior to amendment taking effect, and not ban civil unions. (Romney says VOM is superior to the Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment.) Romney also announces support of VOM’s proposed bill promoting partnership benefits for any couple wanting them (see “Benefits Fairness Act” filed Jan. 2006). Romney says he’s opposed to removing the four SJC judges. Calls for a “high degree of respect and tolerance for people whose lifestyle and choices and orientation is as they may choose.”
March 10-14, 2006 Romney says laws require Catholic Charities not to discriminate against same-sex parents in its adoption placements [but there’s only an administrative regulation]. He says same-sex couples have “a legitimate interest” in adopting children.
Wow on you.
Keep changing the argument when prior posts are shown to be lies.....
Sounds just like the man you are helping elect. Obama!
You and Pubie are right!
Sarah Palin is wrong on Romney
Newt is wrong on Romney
Michelle Bachmann is wrong on Romney
Rick Santorum is wrong on Romney
Tim Paw is wrong on Romney
The Hermanator is wrong on Romney
.... but you and Pubie are right.
END OF ARGUMENT... You win, since everyone else is wrong and you are right.
We note that, despite the court's admission that the statute prohibits ghomosexual marriage, 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."
There is simply no question that Mitt Romney simply ignored the Massachusetts Constitution, statute law, ancient traditions, social covenants, and his very oath of office, when he forced the adoption and recognition of gay 'marriage' in that state.
That is the very definition of a criminal act, in my observation. And this is but one of many of his heinous transgressions against the trust that was vested in him by the people of Massachusetts.
That he would conspire with radical leftists, using the power of his office to forward their destructive agenda, then have the gall to stand before the American people and ask to be their president, is the very height of hubris.
That Americans who believe in our Constitution, the rule of law, our ancient Judeo-Christian traditions and social covenants, would actually support this enabler of evil for president, is the height of lunacy.
Pshaw, there you go with all that "Constitution" stuff again. Don't you know that people like Mitt Romney don't need to follow the Constitution? The Constitution is just for little people.
I did not.
altura is lying again.
Below is what she wrote verbatim on her favorite hate-FR website.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither of my children are gay and both are very good people, but I can envision a scenario in which I would support gay marriage if one of my children were gay and wanted to marry. I think support is the operative word. A lot of people don't care but are okay with it. So, even though I am not fervently opposed to gay marriage, I really don't care.
One way you can be sure of being zotted is to show any support whatever for gays. I didn't want to be zotted so I said nothing on the gay threads.
I just wanted to say that I am not a homophobe, which seems to be a requirement on Free Republic.
Jim just posted a long screed about fighting on against homosexuals, liberals, and I don't know what all.
What he posted was a long, crazy sounding screed about manning the barricades against homosexuals and various other enemies. I really think the man has lost it and it is kinda sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.