Issuu on Google+

The Truth about Mitt Romney The Romney Report As former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney runs for President of the United States, his powerful (and well-funded) campaign machine uses revised history and misleading statements to portray him as a solid social and fiscal conservative with a track record of successes as governor. Much of this is exacerbated by fawning (and lazy) conservative media. However, the truth is different. We present the following documentation of Romney's actual record in Massachusetts. We think that the facts will speak for themselves.

Subsidized care plan's cost to double The subsidized insurance program at the heart of the state's healthcare initiative is expected to roughly double in size and expense over the next three years - an unexpected level of growth that could cost state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars or force the state to scale back its ambitions.State projections obtained by the Globe show the program reaching 342,000 people and $1.35 billion in annual expenses by June 2011. Those figures would far outstrip the original plans for the Commonwealth Care program, largely because state officials underestimated the number of uninsured residents. The state has asked the federal government to shoulder roughly half of the program's cost from 2009 through 2011, but there is no guarantee of that funding. Commonwealth Care provides free or subsidized insurance for low- and moderate-income residents. "The state alone cannot support that kind of spending increase," said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-funded budget watchdog group. Even with federal backing, the state may not be able to afford the insurance initiative as designed, because the law did not make any attempt to trim wasteful health spending, said Alan Sager, a Boston University professor who specializes in healthcare costs. Currently, 169,000 people have enrolled in the program, which is expected to cost $618 million in the fiscal year ending June 30. When it authorized the program in 2006, the Legislature estimated that about 215,000 people would eventually be enrolled at a cost of $725 million. State officials in late 2006 reduced that estimate to between 140,000 and 160,000 - a number that was surpassed last year.


"We're paying the price of our own success," said Widmer. The administration of Governor Deval Patrick produced the new estimates to launch negotiations for federal funding, and has shared them with some state health leaders at closed-door meetings. Patrick is seeking about $1.5 billion over three years, half the cumulative cost for Commonwealth Care. The administration declined to discuss the numbers or the assumptions behind them, citing the ongoing negotiations. In a statement, however, the governor's spokesman, Joseph Landolfi, said, "It is clear that paying for healthcare reform will pose a much greater fiscal challenge than was anticipated by the previous administration. We are committed to making health reform a success by aggressively pursuing cost savings and efficiencies in the healthcare system, as well as working with legislative leaders to review options for additional state revenues so that we can continue to afford this important initiative." The expanding need for new state and federal money is in sharp contrast to the statements made by former governor Mitt Romney, when he proposed the initiative in 2004 and as he campaigns for president. He has repeatedly suggested that the state could insure low-income residents largely by reallocating money paid to hospitals and health centers that serve the uninsured.Page 2 of 3 -"The bill that I submitted to the Legislature didn't cost $1 more than what we were already spending," he said Wednesday night during a GOP debate. "However, the Legislature and now the new Democratic governor have added some bells and whistles."In fact, Romney signed the law in 2006 as modified by the Legislature, approving most of the changes, but vetoing a few provisions that were overridden. Lawmakers then estimated that the initiative would cost the state only a small amount of new money in the first few years. It is now apparent that both Romney and lawmakers underestimated the cost of insurance subsidies as well as other parts of the initiative, largely because they based their projections on low estimates of the number of uninsured and the rising price of insurance. When the law was passed, neither Romney nor the Legislature estimated the costs beyond next year because they believed the enrollment growth would be all but complete. From the beginning, many health policy specialists said the initiative would cost the state more than expected. Now, some say, the benefits of reaching near-universal insurance coverage may counterbalance the financial pain. "I wouldn't say there's an imminent danger that the whole thing is going to collapse," said Robert Seifert, senior associate at the Center for Health Law and Economics at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. "It's challenging, but if it's a priority for the administration, then I think it's doable. There are benefits that don't appear in the budget numbers," including healthier residents, who are less of a financial drain in the long run. Government-funded costs of another part of the insurance initiative - expansion of the state's Medicaid program, called MassHealth - are also projected to grow significantly. The state is also seeking federal reimbursement for half of those expenses.


MassHealth covers the poor and disabled who have minimal financial assets. Commonwealth Care provides free or subsidized insurance to those who don't qualify for MassHealth but have low to moderate incomes and no access to insurance through work. Overall, spending on the healthcare initiative will total about $1.95 billion this year. Slightly less than half of that will be funded by the federal government, with the rest coming from state taxpayers and other sources. If the state doesn't get all of the federal funds it is seeking, policy makers could face difficult choices: spend more state money or cut back the two programs by reducing enrollment, cutting subsidies, or eliminating benefits. "We need that [federal money] to be able to continue the effort to provide MassHealth and Commonwealth Care to everyone who is eligible," said Thomas Dehner, director of MassHealth. Dennis Smith, the federal official who will negotiate the details of the federal contribution, declined to comment about the state's request for more money.Page 3 of 3 -The federal government has supported that state's insurance experiment so far - contributing about $300 million for Commonwealth Care since it began in October 2006 and millions more for other parts of the initiative. But the Bush administration has also been trying to curb federal spending in the Medicaid program, which would be the source of the new money Massachusetts is requesting.Negotiations on the state's latest funding request are expected to wrap up by July 1. The financial pressures come as the state struggles to balance the budget for next year, and as the federal economy appears headed for a downturn. The budget proposed by Patrick on Jan. 23 included money for the first wave of the projected increase in Commonwealth Care - $869 million, a figure some observers suggest may itself be too low because of growing enrollment and healthcare costs. The budget counts on the federal government paying less than half of that total. There has been no discussion of a tax increase to pay for the healthcare plan. One architect of the initiative said the state should work to build public backing for the measure. "I hope that the citizens of Massachusetts are willing to provide the support to maintain our status as the only place in the nation that offers universal coverage," said Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist. Two sources of money that were part of the original financing plan have fallen short, contributing to the budget crunch. As more uninsured residents were covered, the state had expected to shift hundreds of millions of dollars from free care to insurance subsidies, but the drop has been slower than predicted. Lawmakers had also counted on collecting tens of millions of dollars from businesses that do not insure their workers. But the Romney administration reduced the number of businesses subject to


penalties, and the state expects to collect only about $5 million from them this year. Sager suggested that the state look to another source to make up the difference: multimillion-dollar payments to hospitals that were included in the law to win political support. "It would be tragic to renege on the law's promises to cover all citizens of the Commonwealth, especially if those promises can be redeemed by . . . repealing the ill-targeted, unnecessary, and unaffordable Medicaid rate increases to hospitals that are already enormously profitable," Sager said. Alice Dembner can be reached at dembner@globe.com. Romney made huge fortune while workers lost jobs, stockholders and creditors lost money. Here's just one example: In 1992, Mitt Romney was running Bain Capital, a private equity firm. Bain Capital bought American Pad & Paper Co. (Ampad) for $5 million. Over the next several years Romney's firm bled the company dry. Hundreds of workers lost their jobs. Stockholders were left with worthless shares. Creditors and vendors were paid less than 50 cents on the dollar. While they were exploiting the company, Romney's firm charged Ampad millions of dollars in "management fees." In all, Romney and his investors reaped more than $100 million dollars from the deal. Last summer the Boston Globe published this account of Mitt Romney's acquisition of Ampad while he was running Bain Capital: From "The Making of Mitt Romney," Boston Globe, June 26, 2007 In 1992, Bain Capital acquired American Pad & Paper, or Ampad, from Mead Corp., embarking on a ''roll-up strategy'' in which a firm buys up similar companies in the same industry in order to expand revenues and cut costs. Through Ampad, Bain bought several other office supply makers, borrowing heavily each time. By 1999, Ampad's debt reached nearly $400 million, up from $11 million in 1993, according to government filings. Sales grew, too - for a while. But by the late 1990s, foreign competition and increased buying power by superstores like Bain-funded Staples sliced Ampad's revenues. The result: Ampad couldn't pay its debts and plunged into bankruptcy. Workers lost jobs and stockholders were left with worthless shares. Bain Capital, however, made money - and lots of it. The firm put just $5 million into the deal, but realized big returns in short order. In 1995, several months after shuttering a plant in Indiana and


firing roughly 200 workers, Bain Capital borrowed more money to have Ampad buy yet another company, and pay Bain and its investors more than $60 million - in addition to fees for arranging the deal. Bain Capital took millions more out of Ampad by charging it $2 million a year in management fees, plus additional fees for each Ampad acquisition. In 1995 alone, Ampad paid Bain at least $7 million. The next year, when Ampad began selling shares on public stock exchanges, Bain Capital grabbed another $2 million fee for arranging the initial public offering - on top of the $45 million to $50 million Bain reaped by selling some of its shares. Bain Capital didn't escape Ampad's eventual bankruptcy unscathed. It held about one-third of Ampad's shares, which became worthless. But while as many as 185 workers near Buffalo lost jobs in a 1999 plant closing, Bain Capital and its investors ultimately made more than $100 million on the deal. Alongside the article, the Boston Globe also published a separate chart showing the timeline of the Ampad acquisition. Below is also text from the chart:

Text from Globe's accompanying chart (above)


Ampad: A controversial deal Bain Capital put $5 million into its purchase of American Pad & Paper and quickly began charging management and other fees. It also made payments to investors. In all, Bain and its investors reaped more than $100 million even though Ampad went into bankruptcy, workers lost jobs, and stockholders were left with worthless shares. [And creditors got less than 50 cents on the dollar.] A look at the deal: · 1992: Bain buys American Pad & Paper from Mead Corp. They invest $5 million. · 1993: After Bain takes control, Ampad pays advisory fees to Bain under a management agreement. · 1994: Bain acquires plant in Marion, Ind. Workers strike over layoffs and wage benefit cuts. The events become a campaign issue in Romney's challenge to Senator Edward M. Kennedy. · 1995: Bain shuts down the Marion, Ind., plant. Roughly 200 lose jobs. Bain gets at least $2 million in annual fees, plus additional fees for each acquisition Ampad makes. Ampad borrows more to acquire an envelope and stationery maker and uses some of the proceeds, about $60 million, to pay Bain investors. · 1996: Ampad completes an initial public offering. Bain sells about 3 million shares, reaping about $45 million to $50 million for investors and itself. It also takes $2 million in fees for arranging the IPO, plus other fees. · 1998: With Ampad struggling, Bain agrees to cut the annual fee $1.5 million a year. It also agrees to start forgoing payment until the company turns around. · 1999: Revenues continue to slide. Ampad closes a plant near Buffalo, with up to 185 losing jobs. · 2000: Creditors force Ampad into Chapter 11 bankruptcy to reorganize. · 2001: Judge puts Ampad into Chapter 7 to liquidate assets and pay creditors. Senior secured lenders get less than 50 cents on the dollar. STOCK PRICE July 2, 1996: $15.13 - IPO Price Jan. 27, 1997: $26.00 - Peak Sep 16, 1997: $13.13 - Stock loses 42% of its value Nov 1, 1999: 35 cents - Ampad looks to sell assets to reduce debt Jan 14, 2000: 15 cents - Ampad forced into bankruptcy


Romney's economic record By Andrew Sum and Joseph McLaughlin | July 29, 2007 AS MITT ROMNEY pursues his bid for the presidency, his record as Massachusetts governor will come under scrutiny, including how the state's economy performed during his administration. Our analysis reveals a weak comparative economic performance of the state over the Romney years, one of the worst in the country. On all key labor market measures, the state not only lagged behind the country as a whole, but often ranked at or near the bottom of the state distribution. Formal payroll employment in the state in 2006 was still 16,000 or 0.5 percent below its average level in 2002, the year immediately prior to the start of the Romney administration. Massachusetts ranked third lowest on this key job generation measure and would have ranked second lowest if Hurricane Katrina had not devastated the Louisiana economy. Manufacturing payroll employment throughout the nation declined by nearly 1.1 million or 7 percent between 2002 and 2006, but in Massachusetts it declined by more than 14 percent, the third worst record in the country. While the number of employed people over age 16 in the United States rose by nearly 8 million, or close to 6 percent, between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed residents in the Commonwealth is estimated to have modestly declined by 8,500. Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents. The aggregate number of people 16 and older either working or looking for work in Massachusetts fell over the Romney years. We were one of only two states to have experienced no growth in its resident labor force. Again, without the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina on the dispersal of the Louisiana population, Massachusetts would have ranked last on this measure. The decline in the state's labor force, which was influenced in large part by high levels of out-migration of working-age adults, helped hold down the official unemployment rate of the state. Between July 2002 and July 2006, the US Census Bureau estimated that 222,000 more residents left Massachusetts for other states than came here to live. This high level of net domestic out-migration was equivalent to 3.5 percent of the state's population, the third highest rate of population loss in the country. Excluding the population displacement effects of Hurricane Katrina on Louisiana, Massachusetts would have ranked second highest on this measure. We were a national leader in exporting our population. From 2002 to 2006, the level of real output of goods and services did increase each year, rising by 9 percent over this four-year period. This modest rate of growth, however, fell well below the 13 percent rate of real output growth for the nation, and the state ranked 14th lowest on this measure. Labor productivity growth underlies all of the increase in the state's output, but little of this productivity improvement accrued to the typical worker or family in the Commonwealth in the form of higher wages or earnings. Between 2002 and 2006, the median real (inflation adjusted) weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers in Massachusetts is estimated to have fallen by $10 or nearly 2 percent. The real income of the average (median) family in Massachusetts in 2005 was 1 percent below its value at the time of the 2000 Census while median


household income was 3 percent below its 2000 value. Median household income fell even more sharply in the nation. Family incomes in both the United States and Massachusetts have become more unevenly distributed since 2000. There is one additional area in which Massachusetts was a national leader over the past five years, the rise in housing prices. Between 2000 and 2005, the median self-reported home price in Massachusetts increased by nearly 95 percent versus an increase of only 40 percent for the United States. The median home price ranked fourth highest among the 50 states, and the median value of homes relative to household income was the third highest in the country. The high affordability cost ratio encouraged the high levels of outmigration from the state of young families with children. Real world experience has shown that a governor is limited in his power to influence the course of economic development in a state. A full-time governor who is deeply committed to the economic well-being of a state's workers can, however, make some difference. The state unfortunately did not receive such leadership over most of the past four years. Jokes about Massachusetts may receive some half-hearted laughter on the national campaign trail, but few working men and women in Massachusetts should see anything funny about the state's lackluster economic performance during the Romney years. Andrew Sum is director and Joseph McLaughlin is research associate at the Center for Market Studies at Northeastern University.

Romney counter-terrorism expert a HUGE concern. Romney’s senior counter-terrorism advisor was relieved of his CIA position in 2002 for mistakes and failures leading up to the Sept 11 tragedy. NOTE: The article below, by syndicated columnest Deroy Murdock, was published in newspapers across the country (example: Boston Herald, Manchester Union Leader) in early January, 2007. Below is the complete version of the article, with liniks. Comment from the author: "J. Cofer Black is Mitt Romney's chief counterterrorism expert. He has Romney's ear, even though he carried some very heavy baggage: The 9-11 Commission, a Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11, and the CIA Inspector General all condemn him and his mismanagement of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center as contributing factors in the September 11 attacks. The fact that Romney has this man leading his efforts to stop Islamo-fascism should keep GOP voters wide awake at night." J. COFER BLACK SHOULD MAKE VOTERS SEE RED By Deroy Murdock NEW YORK - J. Cofer Black is GOP presidential candidate Willard Mitt Romney's chief weapon against Islamo-fascism. The former CIA official chairs Romney's Counter-Terrorism Policy


Advisory Group. He also is someone who the 9/11 Commission, the Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11, and the CIA's Inspector General all condemned for dropping the ball before the September 11 attacks. Black's ascent within Team Romney's brain trust raises grave doubts about the former Massachusetts governor's national-security judgment. Mitt Romney campaign website Mitt Romney press release announcing J. Cofer Black as Senior Adviser on counterterrorism and national security issues At CNN/YouTube's November 28 debate, Romney said that when pondering terrorist interrogation, "I get that advice from Cofer Black, who is a person who was responsible for counterterrorism in the CIA for some 35 years." Actually, this is false. Black served the CIA for 28 years and directed its Counterterrorist Center (CTC) for less than three - from June 1999 to May 2002. CNN transcript of Nov. 28, 2007 national debate Wikipedia entry for J. Cofer Black In January 2000, Black's CTC briefed officials on what was a 9/11 planning Hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid two left Malaysia, and then vanished in

top CIA, FBI, and White House summit in Kuala Lumpur. al-Mihdhar attended. Alas, these Bangkok.

But in early March 2000, the CIA United Airlines to Los Angeles that

learned that Hazmi had flown January 15, as did Mihdhar.

"No one outside of the Counterterrorist Center was told any of this," states page 181 of the 9/11 Commission Report. "The CIA did not try to register Mihdhar or Hazmi with the State Department's TIPOFF watchlist - either in January, when word arrived of Mihdhar's visa, or in March, when word came that Hazmi, too, had had a U.S. visa and a ticket to Los Angeles." The 911 Commission Report, Chapter 6 (pp 174-214) In January 2001, the CIA tied Mihdhar to "Khallad," an al-Qaeda agent who bombed the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen in October 2000, killing 17 and wounding 40. This made Mihdhar even more suspect. "Yet we found no effort by the CIA to renew the long-abandoned search for Mihdhar or his travel companions," the 9-11 Commission concluded (page 266). It added, "the CIA did not notify the FBI of this identification. DCI [CIA chief George] Tenet and Cofer Black testified before Congress's Joint Inquiry into 9/11 that the FBI had access to this identification from the beginning. But drawing on an extensive record, including documents that were not available to the CIA personnel who drafted the testimony, we conclude this was not the case." Wikipedia entry on USS Cole bombing


"Terrorist Rogues’ Gallery -A photo exhibit on the value of interrogation" by Deroy Murdock. National Review Online, Sept. 27, 2006 The 911 Commission Report, Chapter 8 (pp 254-277) Were Mihdhar "watchlisted," he could have been arrested when he returned from Mecca on July 4, 2001. Instead, he resumed his mass-murder plans, which included approximately monthly meetings with ringleader Mohamed Atta. These botched opportunities also prevented the FBI from activating a "uniquely well-positioned" California source who knew Hazmi and Mihdhar. "The informant's contacts with the hijackers, had they been capitalized upon, would have given the San Diego FBI field office perhaps the Intelligence Community's best chance to unravel the September 11 plot," the Congressional Joint Inquiry's declassified December 2002 report heartbreakingly observes. "Given the CIA's failure to disseminate, in a timely manner, intelligence information on the significance and location of al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi, that chance, unfortunately, never materialized." Report of The Joint Inquiry into the Terrorist Attacks Of September 11, 2001 – by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, December 2002 (PDF Format, 858 pages) They finally were watchlisted on August 23, 2001, 19 days before they plowed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 184 and injuring 106. "New details emerge on S.D.-based hijackers" By Toby Eckert, Copley News Service, Sept. 27, 2002 Critical Care Medicine report on deaths and injuries in Pentagon attack Sept. 11, 2001 As for flagging Hazmi and Mihdhar, "It should have been done," the former CTC chief told the Joint Inquiry. "It wasn't. It was a fact of life. And I think what contributed to that was [that] these same officers watching this operation were also doing a lot of other things. So, it's like balls in the air. There gets to a point where you don't treat each one with the attention it deserves." On August 25, 2005, the Associated Press' Katherine Shrader revealed that CIA Inspector John Helgerson's then-classified report "recommended disciplinary reviews" for the CIA's Tenet, former clandestine service head Jim Pavett, and Cofer Black. "The former officials are likely candidates for proceedings before an accountability board," Shrader wrote. Tenet's successor, Porter Goss, took no disciplinary action. "CIA panel says 9/11 failure warrants action: Officials named" By Katherine Shrader, Associated Press, Aug 25, 2005 Despite Helgerson's rebuke, last April 26, Romney named Black "Senior Adviser on counter-terrorism and national security issues." As Romney stated, "Our country faces a new


generation of challenges and Black's experience at the forefront of our nation's counterterrorism efforts will be a tremendous asset." Mitt Romney press release announcing J. Cofer Black as Senior Adviser on counterterrorism and national security issues The CIA declassified Helgerson's 2005 report last August 21, confirming that its Inspector General recommended at least six times that the former CTC chief and others face an accountability board. Helgerson catalogued CTC bungling and urged accountability boards to review: "OIG Report on CIA Accountability With Respect to the 9/11 Attacks", June 2005 *"…mismanagement of the Agency's counterterrorism financial resources, including specifically their redirection of funds from counterterrorism to other priorities." …as well as "the performance of the…" *"Chiefs of CTC during the period 1997 - 2001 regarding the manner in which they staffed the UBL component" - CTC's unit that tracked Osama bin Laden. *"Chief of CTC for failure to ensure that CTC units worked in a coordinated, effective manner against KSM" - 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. *"two Chiefs of CTC in the years between 1998 and 2001 concerning their leadership and management oversight of the watchlisting program." Helgerson added: "Basically, there was no coherent, functioning watchlisting program." *"two Chiefs of CTC during the years before 9/11 concerning their oversight of the Center's practices in management of the detailee program." FAA, FBI, NSA, and State Department "detailees" worked at CTC, but endured "fundamental ambiguities about the responsibilities… related to information sharing…" *"Chiefs of CTC for their failure to detail officers to NSA on a consistent, full-time basis to exploit…material in the years before 9/11." When NSA invited the CIA to examine transcripts of terrorist intercepts, "CTC sent one officer to NSA for a brief period of time in 2000, but failed to send others, citing resource constraints." These declassified details notwithstanding, Romney elevated Black to run his counter-terror advisory board. Despite deep, official dismay with Black's pre-September 11 tenure, it's been onward and upward for Black on Team Romney. Few heads rolled after 9/11, despite the incompetence that allowed al-Qaeda to massacre 2,978 human beings. Cofer Black kept his head, and now uses it to advise a White House contender who promoted him in September, and praised him on CNN in late November.


This news should keep Republican primary voters wide-awake at night.

New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

A Stern Warning to the "Conservative Elites" about Mitt Romney January 2, 2008 An open letter from grassroots consevative leaders Through their silence, the elites are assisting a political cancer that has profound consequences for our children and grandchildren We write the following because we must oppose the deception of the American people by powerful and influential conservatives. Many in the conservative grassroots no longer trust the "conservative" media, lawyers and leaders, whom they see as serving the GOP establishment regardless of the will of the conservative base, regardless of the truth. Most of us are not allied with any presidential candidate. But we are troubled by the unethical and Orwellian cover-up of Mitt Romney's role in catastrophic events in Massachusetts, once the cradle of American liberty. Actions he took as governor were beyond the pale. As Romney twice explained to the homosexual "Log Cabin" Republicans, it would take a Republican to enact their agenda. (See article in homosexual newspaper Bay Windows.) Attorneys, journalists and pundits must be fearless and selfless watchdogs of politicians and guardians of democracy. This is a sacred trust that is being defiled. Silence about ugly truths, such as the points enumerated below, is a betrayal of the lofty status we claim in a constitutional republic. Pay the price of courage. Tell America the truth. Phony Pro-Life "Conversion" Issue # 1. Mitt Romney established abortion as a "healthcare benefit" in his own government-run healthcare plan at $50 per abortion -- after his supposed "pro-life conversion." ( www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf ) He created a permanent, official government role for an unelected Planned Parenthood representative on the health care board. Issue #2. Romney's well-timed "pro-life" conversion for the Republican primary pulled a "states' rights" committment out of nowhere to hedge his political bets. His claim that states' rights trump the unalienable right to life is inconsistent and unprincipled: he simultaneously opposes an amendment to protect human life, but claims to support one to preserve marriage! What happened to Romney's committment to "states' rights?"


Issue #3. Unforced by anyone, Romney overruled his own Commissioner of Public Health and lied about state law in order to compel Catholic hospitals to issue abortifacient pills -- in violation of their freedom of religion enshrined in the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions. Using exactly the crafty political theatre he employed to cover his actions on same-sex "marriage" and homosexual adoption, Romney posed as defender of the very thing he was destroying, gallantly "asking" the legislature to create a special "religious exemption" for Catholic institutions. Even Democrat former governor Mike Dukakis publicly agreed with Romney's commissioner of public health that state law already grants a "religious exemption." "Gay Marriage," Gay Adoption and Pro-Homosexuality Propaganda In Schools Issue #1. In another flagrant lie about the law, Romney told Catholic Charities' adoption and foster agency they had to give children to homosexuals even when normal mother-father families were lined up to give them a home. Again, he deployed his standard smokescreen, gallantly proposing a "special exemption," with a wink of his eye to the militantly pro-homosexuality legislature. Again, he got caught. Former governor Dukakis pointed out that the "state law" that Romney was citing as requiring gay adoption was non-existent. It was merely an executive regulation that a governor can rescind with a few strokes of his pen. Romney was apparently fulfilling secret 2002 campaign promises ( http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-romney-working-with-log-cabin.html ) to Republican homosexual power brokers whose endorsement he coveted and received. He had sought no backing from social conservatives. Issue #2. Romney says the Boy Scouts should accept homosexual scoutmasters and that homosexuals have "a legitimate interest" in adopting or producing and raising children. Issue #3. Though Romney pretends he opposed homosexual "marriage," he did the opposite. In 2002 he opposed a marriage amendment that would have prevented homosexual "marriage." 120,000 citizens, including his wife, son and daughter-in-law signed the amendment petition. Romney's militant pro-homosexuality Republican predecessor, Governor Jane Swift, and Democrat legislators openly violated the constitution to deny the citizens their right to vote on the amendment. Even the ultra-liberal Massachusetts court ruled that they were violating their oaths and the Constitution. Romney failed to oppose their subversion of the law or to defend the people's right to amend their own Constitution. (www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07051409.html ) Issue #4. Since the notorious Goodridge court opinion discovering a constitutional right to "gay marriage," Romney has methodically lied about the judges' legal authority and his own legal duty to enforce the Constitution. As professor of jurisprudence Hadley Arkes pointed out, under the state Constitution, the court has no jurisdiction over marriage law. An opinion issued without jurisdiction is legally void and cannot be "enforced." Romney also knew that the same judges had recently admitted they have no power over the legislature or governor. The Legislature never "obeyed" the judges by changing the marriage statute to legalize "gay marriage." Under the state constitution that was the end of the line. The court neither ordered nor even suggested any intervention by the governor. Many lawyers and law professors (including Hugh Hewitt:


http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/12/hugh-hewitt-told-romney-to-defy-mass.html ) told Romney to ignore the unconstitutional Goodridge opinion and embarrass the judges. Mysteriously, Romney rejected their advice. Why? The New York Times finally revealed four years later that, to win a coveted endorsement, Romney secretly promised the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans in 2002 that he would not defend the constitution against an illegal attempt by the judges to sneak same-sex "marriage" past the voters. (See New York Rimes article here). When the Legislature did not legalize homosexual "marriage," to fulfill his secret promise, Romney claimed that the judges had. This is a blatant lie plainly refuted by the state constitution Romney swore to uphold! He quickly found willing "conservative" lawyers, pundits and "pro-family leaders" to back him up. Rather than challenge the motives, integrity and "expertise" of their own friends and colleagues, most of the conservative establishment suddenly went silent. Ignoring his oath to faithfully enforce the statutes, Romney ordered officials to violate the marriage statutes and perform homosexual "marriages." His Department of Public Health illegally bypassed the legislature by changing the marriage certificates from "husband" and "wife" to "Party A" and "Party B." Romney gave orders that illegally usurped the exclusive constitutional authority of the Legislature, as proven in this devastating "Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders." (www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/dec_letter/letter.pdf). He violated multiple Articles of the Massachusetts Constitution, including one of the most vital principles of American government, which John Adams stated more forcefully than anywhere else in American law: "In the government of this commonwealth...the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, ...the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, ...to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men. - Article XXX, Part The First We deplore the glaring refusal of the "conservative" establishment to face the implications of a devastating article by a leading constitutional scholar, illuminating why pro-establishment attorneys have covered up Romney's unconstitutional actions: "The deeper failure must go to the man who stood as governor, holding the levers of the executive. And if it is countdown for marriage...it is countdown also for Mitt Romney, whose political demise may be measured along the scale of moves he could have taken and the record of his receding, step by step... [I]t became clear that even conservative lawyers had come to incorporate, and accept, the premises that gave to the courts a position of supremacy in our constitutional schemes." -- Hadley Arkes, Professor of Jurisprudence, Amherst College ( The Missing Governor, National Review Online May 17, 2004 ) We equally deplore the refusal to acknowledge the obvious truth in highly respected conservative attorney Phyllis Schlafly's assessment: "Massachusetts public officials ... are groveling before the four judges... (Romney) said: 'We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the [Court] and ‌ decide 'what kind of statute


we can fashion which is consistent with the law.' But what 'law'? There is no law that requires or even allows same-sex marriages." -- Phyllis Schlafly ( It's Time To Rebuke The Judicial Oligarchy (EagleForum.org, Dec. 3, 2003) ) Schlafly was right, as any honest and competent lawyer knows. The Massachusetts Constitution powerfully refutes Romney's entire story that the judges changed marriage law and forced him to give unconstitutional orders: "[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." Article X, Part the First of the Massachusetts Constitution "The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..." Article XX, Part the First of the Massachusetts Constitution Mitt Romney created homosexual "marriage." His "conservative" legal experts are aggressively covering up both his role and the plain language of the Supreme Law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Issue #5. Though Romney admitted the Goodridge opinion was not based on the Constitution and that the judges had exceeded their power, he opposed a citizen's drive to remove the four rogue judges who violated their oaths. ( http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/09/iowa-patriots-seek-to-remove-gay.html ) Issue #6. Though Romney says same-sex "marriage" will damage religious freedom and harm children, who need both a mother and a father, he personally issued more than 190 special one-day certificates to allow homosexual "marriages" to be performed by legally unqualified persons. He claims he was "just applying the marriage statutes evenly." But As Phyllis Schlafly reminded America, and as even the outlaw Goodridge judges admitted, the statutes do not allow homosexual "marriages," despite Romney's false claim that the court "legalized" homosexual "marriage. Moreover, a governor is not obliged to issue any special marriage certificates to anyone. Since Romney says same-sex "marriage" will harm children and erode religious freedom, why did he violate the marriage statutes and issue hundreds of special permits? ( www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/ ) Issue #7. As governor, to please Massachusetts' militant homosexual groups, Romney aggressively BOOSTED government funding for pro-homosexuality indoctrination, starting in kindergarten. He refused to defend schoolchildren and parents' rights against this indoctrination. He refused to order his education officials to obey the law guaranteeing that parents' can protect their children from sexual brainwashing. ( www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/ ) This is a continuation of his views since 1994 when he opposed congressional efforts to protect children by banning federal funding to public schools that encourage "homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative." His deference to militant homosexual groups' "right" to indictrinate other people's children was jaw-dropping:


"I think that's a dangerous precedent in general. I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there's an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it's wrong-headed..." ( See Boston.com article.) With their silence about the illegal actions and toxic legacy of Mitt Romney, the elites are assisting a political cancer that has profound consequences for our future. If anyone has convinced themselves that so-called "same sex marriage" is a fringe issue and not a grave threat to the rule of law and to children they should read Maggie Gallagher's stunning article "Banned in Boston." They should also investigate the pro-homosexuality indoctrination of Massachusetts children ("It's 1984 in Massachusetts - And Big Brother Is Gay" www.tysknews.com/Depts/society/1984_in_mass.htm ) which had been covert, but in the aftermath of Romney's illegal orders imposing homosexual marriage, is swallowing up parents' most fundamental right to protect their children and control their moral education. To remain silent about the re-engineering of the human family and child psychology, and the active and dishonest role Romney has played, is a dereliction of our highest duties. We are among those who believe that same-sex "marriage," homosexual adoption and pro-homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren hasten the decline of Western Civilization in its most crucial aspects, whether the elites face that and comprehend it or not. Yet many who have the greatest obligation are cowering in the shadows or even aiding the deception. Our silence is a fatal abdication of duty to our children and future generations, a breech of faith. It is a betrayal of the honor of young soldiers dying overseas for principles that we decided in our hearts long ago require no profound sacrifice from the elites. The truth is this: Mitt Romney's fictional defense of natural marriage, childhood innocence, life in the womb and constitutional governance is sustained only by our silence in the face of overwhelming propaganda. Edmund Burke famously said "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Dante went further: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." It is telling of today's "conservatism" -- an endless regression of sophist ironies and nuances, dissolving, in the end, into absolutely nothing at all -- that dire warnings from ancient voices seem like faint, distant echoes bouncing absurdly against rock walls far below our feet, beneath a precipice that we scaled long ago in the conceits of our modern conservative minds. To continue in silence or in support of the craftiness and ruthless ambition of Willard Mitt Romney betrays generations past, present and future, including our own children and grandchildren. Pay the price of courage, friends. Tell America the truth. Sincerely,


Massachusetts: Judge Ned Kirby (ret.), former Assistant Minority Leader, Massachusetts Senate Atty. Edgar Kelley, former Assistant United States Attorney, Massachusetts District Ray Neary, Director, Pro-Life Massachusetts (former President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life) John O'Gorman, Member of the Board of Directors, Massachusetts Citizens for Life John Haskins, The Parents' Rights Coalition Gregg Jackson, Co-host, "Pundit Review," author: "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies," contributor, TownHall.com, William Cotter, President, Operation Rescue: Boston* Brian Camenker, President, MassResistance Mark Charalambous, Spokesman, CPF-Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts Amy Contrada, MassResistance blog Across America: Dr. William Greene, President, RightMarch.com Dr. Ted Baehr, Chairman, Christian Film and Television Commission Linda Harvey, President, Mission America Gary Glenn, President, American Family Association of Michigan* Janet Folger, President, Faith2Action Michael Heath, Executive Director, Christian Civic League of Maine * Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans for Truth* Dianne Gramley, President, American Family Association of Pennsylvania Nedd Kareiva, President, Stop the ACLU Coalition Phillip Magnan, President, Biblical Family Advocates Rev. Earle Fox, D. Phil, (Oxford), President, Road to Emmaus, School of Judeo-Christian Apologetics Janet Folger, author, columnist, President, Faith2Action Michael W. Calsetta, Former President, Conservative Democratic Alliance Allyson Smith, Director, Americans for Truth - California Also: Atty. "Robert Paine," author: The Governor's New Clothes; How Mitt Romney Brought Same-Sex Marriage To America

* For identification purposes only. All persons are signing as concerned private citizens. This information is solely for educational purposes and not in support of any candidate. The irrefutable proof that Romney's "conservative" lawyers are lying to America: "Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders." www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/dec_letter/letter.pdf "Governor's New Clothes; How Mitt Romney Brought Same-Sex Marriage To America," by Robert Paine, Esq.


http://robertpaine.blogspot.com/2006/06/governors-new-clothes-how-mitt-romney_17.html The most thorough documentation of Mitt Romney's record anywhere is at: http://massresistance.org/romney/ Contact: John Haskins Jhaskins@ParentsRightsCoalition.org 508-480-0705 Romney name-calls Gregg Jackson (WRKO host) on air, evades question on same-sex marriage. On the Howie Carr show (major drive-time Boston talk show), on Friday, Dec. 21, 2007: WRKO talk show host and conservative writer Gregg Jackson called in and asked Romney some hard questions. Romney insulted him and refused to give a straight answer, changing the subject. Is this the man you want running your country?Transcript: Howie Carr: Thanks for the call . . . Put on Gregg Jackson. He's from Pundit Review Radio, which can be heard Sunday night on WRKO. And he's also the author of "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies". Go ahead, Gregg. You have a question for Mitt Romney? Gregg Jackson: Thanks, Howie. Mr. Romney, I'm just wondering, why is it that you have claimed that you were just following the MSJC's Goodridge opinion by ordering the Department of Public Health to change the marriage certificates from "Husband and Wife" to "Partner A and Partner B" and also forcing the Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or resign when there was no specific order from the court for you to do so? I mean, I guess the question is, why did you violate your oath of office that you swore and, was it to fulfill a campaign promise to the Log Cabin Republicans not to oppose same-sex marriage? Howie Carr: Boy, they don't like, the Log Cabin Republicans have been running ads on our radio station, Gregg, against Mitt. Go ahead, Mitt. Mitt Romney: Gregg, I'm afraid, is slightly delusional. And let's go through this one by one. First of all, we received a request to change our birth certificates to "Parent A and Parent B" and we refused to do so. So we insisted that they not change the birth certificates. So he's got that wrong, number one. Number two, we did instruct our Justices of the Peace that they needed to understand that given the Supreme Court's decision requiring them to marry people of the same people of the same gender if so requested that they had no choice but to do so or, alternatively, they would be wise not to stay as a Justice of the Peace because they might get sued by somebody. So we were giving them the information they needed to avoid a legal condition. And finally, number three, the idea that I'm not an opponent of same-sex marriage is frankly laughable. Howie Carr: Right. Mitt Romney: Everybody in the entire nation knows that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made same-sex marriage legal and that I fought it in every single way I could. I even went to Washington and testified in favor of an amendment to the federal Constitution. I helped collect


signatures. I took cases to the court. I did everything in my power. And I continue to fight same-sex marriage. So it's a little silly. By the way, I'm probably the most frequently protested person by many gay groups because of my opposition to gay marriage. So to have the folks on the right wing think that somehow I was trying to promote gay marriage is actually the heighth of silliness. Howie Carr: [Goes on to the next caller.] OK. We have time for one more question. Can we take one more question . . . Analysis: Gregg Jackson brings up the following issues for Mitt Romney to respond to: (1) Romney changed the Massachusetts marriage certificates from "Husband and Wife" to "Party A and Party B" in order to facilitate same-sex "marriage". Here is the new Massachusetts marriage certificate that Romney had changed. (2) Romney threatened to fire any Justice of the Peace who refuses to perform same-sex "marriages", according to an April 25, 2004 Associated Press news article. (3) Romney held "training sessions" for Town Clerks, telling them that the law had changed and that they must perform same-sex marriages. Here are the slides from those sessions. (3) The Goodridge decision by the Supreme Judicial Court did not "order" the Governor to do anything. But Romney acted anyway. (The ruling did NOT change any laws. The Court had decided that not allowing same-sex marriage was "unconstitutional" but also acknowledged that only the Legislature could change the marriage laws. However, the Legislature did nothing.) (4) As the New York Times recently reported, Romney met with the homosexual group "Log Cabin Republicans" while campaigning for Governor in 2002. When the subject of same-sex marriage was brought up, says the Times, "according to several people present, he promised to obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue." (“'I’ll keep my head low,' he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer, one participant recalled.") Thus, Romney received an endorsement from the group. Here is how Romney responded: (1) He said that Gregg is "slightly delusional". An interesting way for a presidential candidate to respond to a media figure (or anyone). (2) Instead of responding to the question about marriage certificates, he discussed what he did regarding birth certificates -- as if that's what Gregg had asked about. (3) Romney said he was just giving the Justices of the Peace "information." But according to the Associated Press report, he ordered them to resign if they refused to comply. He gave them no


choice. (4) Romney claims that the SJC did "require" Justices of the Peace to perform same-sex marriages, and that the Goodridge decision made same-sex marriage "legal". In fact, the Court only rendered an opinion and suggested that the Legislature act on it. The Massachusetts Constitution does not allow the Court to either (1) make law or (2) order another branch to do anything. See legal discussion. (Furthermore, the Legislature never did change the Mass. marriage statute, which only authorizes "husband/wife" marriage.) (5) Probably the reason that homosexual groups protest Romney so much (and not the other Republicans) is that they believe he double-crossed them (see NY Times article above). (6) Romney refers to Gregg as "the folks on the right wing." Actually, that's how he's always felt about conservatives. At least he's being honest here. (If Romney is running as a conservative, isn't that the same thing as "right wing"?)

A Report on the Pro-life Views of Governor Mitt Romney Due to an unusual amount of confusion over the pro-life position of Governor Mitt Romney, MassResistance has issued this report. Much of this confusion is caused not only by the Governor's ever changing positions, but also by the endorsement of Romney by a few pro-family leaders who have apparently failed to do their due diligence before endorsing him. Moreover, this confusion is further compounded by some conservative publications that for reasons unbeknownst to us have refused to report the full and complete story on Romney's pro-life views. Such obfuscation by conservative leaders and publications does a disservice to the conservative movement and to the pro-life movement in particular. We hope that this report will shed some light on where Governor Romney stands on this culture-defining issue. THE TOP SIX PROBLEMS: Since Romney's famous pro-life "conversion" in November 2004, note the following 1. Romney said that he does not favor a federal constitutional amendment banning abortion, but instead favors each state deciding for itself whether to allow abortion or not. (Suppose Lincoln had taken that approach on the slavery issue. ) 2. Gov. Romney signed into law a universal health insurance plan that (a) includes increased state-funded abortions, and (b) names Planned Parenthood in the law as an overseer. Romney never challenged any of that. 3. Romney said he would disagree with governmental intervention in the Terri Schiavo forced starvation case, adding "I think it's probably best to leave these kinds of matters in the hands of the courts." 4. Gov. Romney forced Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts to dispense the "morning after" pill.


5. Romney said he does not object to stem cell research using left over human embryos. 6. Although Romney vetoed pro-abortion legislation after his "conversion", it always appeared to be for political effect. The Legislature always overrode the vetoes. We never saw Romney exert any substantial effort to get his vetoes sustained. Romney's Pro-Abortion History Mitt Romney hails from a liberal Mormon tradition that supports abortion rights. While this is not a large faction within the LDS Church, it does exist and there have been LDS leaders who have supported Roe vs. Wade ever since its inception. In the 1960's, George Romney, Mitt's father, was considered one of the key leaders of the liberal wing of the GOP, and along with Nelson Rockefeller and others, worked incessantly to move the Republican Party to a more liberal position on both social and fiscal issues. Romney's mother, Lenore Romney, was one of the early Republican Party proponents of abortion. During her candidacy for the US Senate in Michigan she announced: I support and recognize the need for more liberal abortion rights while reaffirming the legal and medical measures needed to protect the unborn and pregnant women. This was in 1970, three years before the Roe vs. Wade decision. At the time, performing an abortion was a felony. Mitt Romney has a long history of supporting pro-abortion candidates and causes, and aggressively sought the support and endorsement of groups such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Indeed, Romney is still listed today as a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership, a group supported by Billionaire leftist George Soros dedicated to shifting the GOP leftward on social issues such as abortion rights and stem cell research. Romney also has a history of assisting the careers of other prominent pro-abortion politicians. In the 1992 presidential race, Romney endorsed and voted for pro-abortion liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas in the Democrat primary and just three years ago endorsed and made a television ad for Democrat Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson, a former Planned Parenthood attorney. As Governor, he issued state proclamations honoring "Right to Privacy Day" which until 2005, specifically referenced the Roe vs. Wade case. Romney repeatedly took extreme stances on abortion throughout his career and consistently made statements such as this one: I believe that Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it‌. There simply is no doubt that Romney was one of the most pro-abortion Republican office


holders in the country. In his current campaign, Romney has sought to play down his prior support for abortion, giving the impression that he never really strongly supported abortion, but new revelations reported by the Los Angeles Times demonstrate otherwise. Notes taken by key leaders of the nation's most radical pro-abortion group, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), reveal that at a 2002 meeting, Romney assured them he would work to soften the GOP stance on abortion and said that the GOP's pro-life position was "killing them." He also promised to fight efforts by conservatives to require abstinence-only sex education in the schools. These are not the comments of someone who took this issue lightly, but rather the words of a person deeply committed to the pro-abortion issue. Romney's Conversion. Was it Authentic? Romney says he became "pro-choice" two years before Roe vs. Wade became law as a result of a death of relative due to an illegal abortion. But then, in November of 2004, at age 57 years old, he claimed to have had a second conversion about the issue while meeting with a stem cell researcher from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. Romney claimed the researcher told him, Look, you don't have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue, because we kill the embryos after 14 days. However, the media located the scientist, Dr. Douglas Melton, and he stated he never said such a thing: Governor Romney has mischaracterized my position; we didn't discuss killing or anything related to it‌.I explained my work to him, told him about my deeply held respect for life, and explained that my work focuses on improving the lives of those suffering from debilitating diseases. It's a troubling conversion story. If Romney was disturbed by the destruction of a 14 day old embryo created in a test tube, then how did he not realized after all his years in politics that millions of unborn babies - some as old as six months -- were being destroyed? How can he walk away appalled that stem cell research kills life but then turn around and continue to support the killing of embryos for stem cell research? (see below) And then there's the question of his wife Ann. A long time member of the moderate Republican Party establishment in Massachusetts, one of her jobs while her husband was governor appears to be to reassure liberal voters that her husband can be trusted to support abortion rights. Indeed, a 2002 video has now surfaced on YouTube with Mrs. Romney doing just that:


I think they [referring to pro-abortion women] may be more nervous about him on social issues. They shouldn't be, because he's gonna be just fine. Romney himself chimes in, "So when asked, will I preseve and protect a women's right to choose, I make an unequivocal answer: Yes." You can watch this at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKwVNUz52vo Incredibly, Ann is now being assigned by the Romney campaign to speak to pro-life groups about her husband's pro-life credentials. Are we being asked to believe that she also had an epiphany on this issue at the same time her husband did? We do believe that some people sincerely change their views, but we believe Romney's pro-life conversion to be suspect for many reasons. He doesn't appear to have converted on all issues related to life, the conversion story itself is suspect, and he doesn't appear to understand the moral aspects of this issue. Moreover, his conversion occurred around the same time period when he started to consider running for higher office. Romney's current view on abortion 1. Romney's current view on abortion appears to be based more on a procedural stance than a moral view and is not necessarily a pro-life view. Instead of focusing on the moral case against abortion, Romney has repeatedly stated he wants the people to vote on this issue, which, in of in itself is not a pro-life position unless you also agree to use your position to pass pro-life legislation. But when pressed on whether he would support a constitutional amendment banning abortion, he refuses to answer this question. The National Journal (February 10, 2007) pressed him on this point: Question: You would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Is that correct? Romney: What I've indicated is that I am pro-life, and that my hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decision with regard to their abortion law. Question: If a state wanted unlimited abortion? Romney: The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn't be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more


restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation -- a one-size-fits-all approach -- but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.

On February 28, 2005 - also after his conversion - Romney said: I am personally pro-life. However, as governor I would not change the laws of the commonwealth relating to abortion. When the reporter asked if he favors making abortion illegal, Romney stopped the interview by stating: But that's the furthest I'm going to take you right now. These statements make it clear he does not favor using his political authority to advance the pro-life position. If he's not willing to do this, then we question his pro-life commitment. His position on abortion appears to be more about democratic voting rights and not about the moral evil of abortion. He never says specifically how he would use his power to protect the sanctity of life nor has been able to clarify the moral reasons why he is opposed to the procedure itself. 2. Romney's 2006 health care plan vastly increases state-funded abortions. While there are court decisions requiring state health care plans that receive Medicaid funding to fund all "medically necessary" abortions, the Romney plan funds all abortions with no restrictions. Moreover, the creation of a state-wide government entity that widely promotes abortion services will of course increase the number of state-funded abortions. Furthermore, the Romney administration wrote the health care plan with the requirement that everyone must have health insurance and creates a subsidy for those who cannot afford it. Therefore it subsidizes the insurance of low income women and creates a new category of state-subsidized abortions. Nor, to anyone's knowledge, did Romney make any attempt to exclude or even minimize abortions in the health care plan. Thus, it is a fact that Romney is responsible for the expansion of state funded abortion. With Planned Parenthood serving on the plan's advisory board (as written into the law itself), should we be surprised by any of this? To understand how a whole new class of people will have abortions paid for by the state, Massachusetts has an uninsured population of 460,000 people which means there are anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 women not previously eligible who are now eligible for state-funded abortions. In response to revelations in the media about this, the Romney campaign released a statement claiming that "decisions [about the health care plan] were made separate of the Romney


Administration." But this is deceitful. When Romney gave a speech about his health care plan at the Heritage Foundation, he made clear, as the Heritage Foundation's web site does, that the plan was his idea and his design. He was the main architect of the plan; he lobbied for its passage; he signed it into law, and he boasted about it on the campaign trail for many months. Only after it was revealed that the plan dramatically increases state funded abortions has Romney left it out of his campaign speeches. 3. Romney's current position on the stem cell research issue is NOT the accepted pro-life position Much has been made of Romney's alleged conversion after meeting with a stem cell researcher, but a total conversion apparently never occurred. The only aspect of this issue he changed his mind on was the creation of human embryos for research purposes (cloning). However, he continues to this day to support research on stem cells: Stem cell research does not require the cloning of human embryos. Some stem cells today are obtained from surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization. I support that research, provided that those embryos are obtains after a rigorous parental consent process that includes adoption as an alternative. In other words, Romney is opposed to cloning but not embryonic stem cell research, but there is no moral distinction between the two. As Carol Tobias of the National Right to Life Committee recently stated, "He's still in favor of killing the new lives that are in existence right now." Even the pro-Romney National Review magazine states that, "Romney has decided to support experimentation on surplus frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures." This position should not surprise anyone since Romney stated in 2006 that his views on stem cell research are NOT grounded in religious or moral beliefs: I'm not talking about from a religious standpoint. I'm talking about from the medical and scientific standpoint‌. 4. Romney forced Catholic hospitals in 2005 to dispense the "morning after" pill When the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law requiring all hospitals to provide women with the morning after abortion pill, Romney's Department of Public Health determined that private religious hospitals were exempt from the statute due to both current law and the religious freedom protections in the Massachusetts Constitution. As Daniel Avila, Associate Director of Public Policy for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference stated, The new bill does not expressly nullify the older statute, the conscience protection already on the books still remains in force.


The Boston Globe interviewed State Health Commissioner Paul Cote Jr. and reported that Cote said that "his department felt strongly that the new emergency contraception law did not compel all hospitals to provide the morning-after pill." However, there was a huge outcry from the pro-abortion lobby and within days, Romney bowed to this pressure and overruled his own Health Department by interpreting the statute to illegally apply to private hospitals. He then shocked everyone by publicly agreeing with the decision: I think, in my personal view, it's the right thing for Hospitals [referring to private hospitals] to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape. This displays an astounding ignorance of religious freedom. Even if there were some disagreement over whether the new statute applied to private religious hospitals, Romney should have stood firm in favor of religious hospitals. Yes, there may have been litigation, but he had the state constitution, the Bill of Rights, previous statute, and his own Department of Health on his side. Instead, he allowed the liberal attorneys who surround him to advise him to allow an unprecedented attack on religious freedom. This occurred AFTER his conversion. 5. Romney appointed pro-abortion judges Governor Romney appointed 36 judges but a check of their political affiliation confirms that only 9 of them are Republicans. Two are radical gay activists and 14 are registered Democrats. The remainder are unenrolled. Since Massachusetts Democrats are among the most pro-abortion Democrats in America, we have to assume that the majority of Romney's judicial appointments are NOT pro-life. Take for example, Steve Abany, a hard left Democrat and a prominent gay activist involved with the effort to legalized homosexual marriage in Massachusetts. Romney appointed him to the bench in May of 2005, which was, again, well after his pro-life "conversion." Any bets that he's pro-life? Nor can we find any evidence that the Governor tried to recruit judges who respect life. Romney's defenders claim he had no choice because a entity called the Governor's Council controls the process and is composed of Democrats, but we've found that this council serves mostly as a rubber stamp and is set up purely to ensure judicial nominees are qualified, not to oppose them on ideological grounds. Indeed, there is no evidence that the Governor's Council has ever blocked any judicial nominees on ideological grounds. Many of these judicial appointments were made in the last three years, SINCE Romney's alleged conversion. The Romney campaign also claims that his judicial selections as governor had nothing to do with abortion and was more about the nominee's stance on local issues such as crime. However, the Los Angeles Times has revealed that notes taken at a 2002 NARAL endorsement meeting


attended by Romney, reveal that he assured its leaders his judicial picks would be more likely to protect abortion rights than those of a Democrat governor! These notes demonstrate that he did indeed use the abortion issue to inform his judicial selections, but not in the way we would have wanted. Once again, the Romney campaign is not being truthful. With the next president appointing 1-2 justices to the U.S. Supreme Court and a slew of Federal judges, Romney's judicial selections should alarm those who care about family values and the sanctity of life. The fact that only five years ago he assured NARAL's leaders that he would appoint pro-abortion judges should cause every pro-lifer in the country to doubt his sincerity on this issue. It is also notable that Romney is still listed as a prominent member of the Republican Main Street Partnership which publicly praised Senator John Chafee for his vote against the confirmation of Judge Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. This may be the biggest pro-life achievement of the Bush Administration, but Romney's group was not happy about it. There is no evidence that Romney opposed this action. It really doesn't matter how often Romney announces he will appoint "strict constructionists" to the bench; if he can't be truthful about the criteria he used to select judges while Governor and didn't even bother to fill all the judicial vacancies in his own state, how can he be trusted to appoint solid judges while president? 6. Romney' opinion on the Terry Schiavo case: Let the courts force euthanasia. On March 10th, Romney was questioned on television about the Terri Schiavo case in which heroic efforts were made by the State and by Congress to save her life. Without his professional handlers by his side to tell him what to say, here what the press reported him as saying: He's campaigning hard for support from Republican socialconservatives, but presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Saturday he disagreed with the government's intervention in the Terri Schiavo case. 'I think it's probably best to leave these kinds of matters in the hands of the courts.' However, this view is consistent with his abortion stance. Forget about the life involved, let the people decide or let the courts decide. Once again, Romney doesn't seem to understand the moral implications involved here. Conclusion The Republican Party establishment has a history of promoting candidates to the pro-life movement who often are not pro-life. The pro-life movement needs to be wary of such efforts and needs to remain focused on supporting candidates who share our values and not be misled by candidates whose views are constantly "evolving." We believe that Romney's recent pro-life statements and public stands are driven by political ambition and the cold calculations about Republican primary voters, not the result of any genuine


"conversion." Governor Romney's failure to fight for the rights of private religious hospitals, his inattention to the types of judges he appointed, his involvement with a health care plan that vastly increases state funded abortions, his inconsistency on the embryonic stem cell issue, his ignorance of the evil of euthanasia and his failure to enunciate the moral objections to abortion have convinced us that he does not fundamentally understand life issues nor is it an important part of his worldview. In order to justify Romney's extreme flip-flops on the abortion issue, the Romney campaign has issued statements comparing Romney to Ronald Reagan since Reagan signed a pro-abortion bill into law as California governor before becoming pro-life. This is an inaccurate comparison. When Reagan signed the abortion bill in 1970, very little was known about the procedure as this was before ultra sound and before research showing that a baby's heart and nervous system is developed in utero far earlier than was previously known. Reagan later called that decision the worst one in his career and authored a book, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, that went into great detail about the moral consequences of abortion. In contrast, Romney has had access to the latest research on abortion, has never apologized for his previous stances and cannot seem to carry on a discussion about the moral implications. Moreover, Romney continues to support abortion related issues such as stem cell research and euthanasia and refuses to state if he would use his political position to support actual pro-life legislation. This is a far cry from Ronald Reagan. Based on our research, we therefore do not believe Governor Mitt Romney will represent the views of the pro-life community if elected President of the United States. Top

Gov. Romney's universal health care program for Massachusetts includes taxpayer-funded abortions Legislation names Planned Parenthood as member of advisory board The cornerstone of Gov. Mitt Romney's new universal health care law for Massachusetts is a program titled "Commonwealth Care", a plan for thousands of low-income people who could not afford regular health insurance, funded by the taxpayers. One of the stated benefits covered in Commonwealth Care is "abortions." And Planned Parenthood is written into the law, as part of the "payment policy advisory board." What is Commonwealth Care? Commonwealth Care is a health insurance program for low and moderate-income Massachusetts residents who don't have health insurance. Commonwealth Care members get free or low cost health services through managed care health plans. There are several health plans to choose from.


The plans are offered by private health insurance companies. Commonwealth Care is run by the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority and funded by the state. The Connector Authority was created as part of the Health Care Reform Act of 2006 to connect Massachusetts residents and businesses to approved affordable health insurance products. What benefits will I get? Commonwealth Care members get health services through managed care health plans. There are several plans to choose from. Each health plan provides comprehensive health coverage. See MassHealth HMO Managed Care Health Plans for information about the plans. Commonwealth Care health plans include: * outpatient medical care (doctor's visits, surgery, radiology and lab, abortion, community health center visits) * inpatient medical care (hospitalization) * mental health and substance abuse services (outpatient and inpatient) * prescription drugs (pharmacy and mail service) * rehabilitation services (cardiac rehabilitation, home health aide, therapies, inpatient services up to 100 days per year) * vision care (exam and glasses every 24 months) * dental care (only 100% FPG and under) * emergency care including ambulance and out-of-state coverage * wellness care (family planning, nutrition, prenatal and nurse midwife) The health plan you choose may also offer other benefits.Here's the text of the enabling legislation which provides the funding. You'll see Planned Parenthood listed. Note that Gov. Romney apparently did veto some parts of it, but not the part that involves Planned Parenthood. http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2006/Chapter58

Step forward on health October 3, 2006 THE BIPARTISAN campaign to expand health coverage in Massachusetts passed a milestone yesterday when the first person applied for comprehensive insurance under the health reform law. This law is less than six months old, and changes will be necessary as experience dictates. But so far, progress in implementing it has been impressive. The goal is to substantially reduce the number of uninsured people in the state, which the Romney administration estimates at 372,000. One of them is Madeline Rhenisch of Brighton, who with


Governor Mitt Romney at her side filed her application for a new Commonwealth Care insurance policy at the Neponset Health Center in Dorchester. These policies are first being offered to people who earn less than the federal poverty level -$9,800 a year for a single person -- but do not qualify for MassHealth, the usual insurance for poor people. They are a bargain, with premiums defrayed by the state. Romney hopes to enroll 50,000 people. A tougher challenge begins Jan. 1, when the state will offer subsidized policies to those earning up to 300 percent of the poverty limit, who will pay part of the premium on a sliding scale. There are gaps in the law, as the Globe reported yesterday. Children from families that earn up to 300 percent of the poverty level are covered in another program , and need to be enrolled separately. Romney, a staunch advocate, will be leaving office. Deval Patrick, the Democratic candidate for governor, is committed to the new law. GOP nominee Kerry Healey has not yet come out vigorously in support. Leadership from the next governor will be essential, as will continued support from the Legislature. The new Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector has done a skillful job of rolling out the policies. Three board members were chatting amiably at the Neponset center yesterday. If people as politically diverse as union activist Celia Wcislo, Romney budget chief Thomas Trimarco, and Dukakis administration veteran Dolores Mitchell can stay united on the same goal -- covering the uninsured -- this law has good prospects for success.

Just Say "No" Calling Governor Romney and the elected representatives of Massachusetts. "JOHN MARSHALL has made his decision," Andrew Jackson is said to have remarked in the aftermath of a Supreme Court decision he disliked, "now let him enforce it." Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney would be well advised to ponder that line long and hard over the Thanksgiving holidays. It is an interesting time for the Massachusetts Supreme Court to have seized control of the elected branches in its state, given the connection between Thanksgiving and the Bay State. Unlike its neighbor to the north, the Look-at-Me State of Vermont, Massachusetts actually has a place in the collective national consciousness and Americans of all regions are interested in its history. Now, in the aftermath of Tuesday's radical diktat from four justices to Massachusetts' elected representatives, Americans are interested in the state's future as well. Romney should seriously consider indifference. The governor noted that the ruling declaring same-sex marriage a mandate of the Massachusetts constitution is contrary to the sweep of recorded history, but it is more than that. The ruling is also absurd in its reasoning and breathtaking in its arrogance.


The state that was birthed in the Mayflower Compact, sparked a revolution against unrepresentative government, embraced abolitionism out of religious zeal, and championed learning and debate has been presented with a lengthy bit of cultural posturing dressed up as a court decision. Like Captain Picard at the controls of the Entreprise, the four justices have waved their collective hand and declared "Make it so."The legislators and the governor have been given 180 days to change 387 years of Massachusetts history. That history begins around the time of the Compact, with its signatories' promise of "all due submission and obedience" to the "just & equall Lawes, ordinances, Acts, constitutions, & offices," flowing from a "Civill body politick." Of course the nature of that "body politick" has evolved in the four centuries since its launch, but nowhere along the way did it embrace the concept of four philosopher kings delivering commands. The decision is illegitimate, and the appropriate response will be to ignore it. Some law professors will shudder (though two well know in the blogosphere, Eugene Volokh and Glenn Reynolds did not when the subject was kicked around on my program Tuesday; Volokh in fact thinks such inter-branch confrontations are useful in the life of constitutional republics). Editorial writers will shout. Senator Kennedy may even brand Romney a Neanderthal, as he did Justices Brown, Owen, and Judge Kuhl earlier this month. But the storm will pass and the people of Massachusetts will applaud. They didn't sign up for a banana republic run by pretenders in robes, and no one in the state's illustrious history ever sacrificed life or limb--from Boston Harbor to Concord, Antietam or the battlefields of Europe and Asia--for the proposition that four judges get to change everything when they decide to conjure up a reason for doing so. Romney and the legislature ought to stand back and say no. In fact, if the court threatens with penalties, they ought to threaten back. An outrageous overreach is only as strong as the passivity with which it is greeted. This isn't primarily about gay marriage, and it isn't primarily about Massachusetts. It is primarily about self-government and limiting courts to their constitutional duties. And Massachusetts, again, has a central role to play. Hugh Hewitt is the host of The Hugh Hewitt Show, a nationally syndicated radio talkshow, and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard. His new book, In, But Not Of, has just been published by Thomas Nelson.

20-Question Mitt Romney multiple-choice exam Republican Presidential Primary voters: Test your knowledge of Mitt Romney’s principled stands on issues important to you. (Answers below) 1. Amending the Massachusetts Constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman A. When running for Governor, Romney denounced the marriage amendment as “extreme� and refused to support it. B. When running for President, Romney supported the marriage amendment with great enthusiasm.


C. Both A and B. 2. Homosexual Civil Unions A. Romney stated that he has never supported homosexual civil unions. B. Romney lobbied for a state constitutional amendment that would create homosexual civil unions. C. Both A and B. 3. No new taxes pledge When asked to sign a “No New Taxes” pledge, A. Romney signed it and bragged about it in speeches. B. Romney refused to sign it, calling it a “gimmick”. C. Both A and B. 4. Gun control A. Romney said "I don't line up with the NRA. We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won't chip away at them." B. Romney said "I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms. C. Both A and B. 5. Balancing the Massachusetts state budget without raising personal income taxes A. Romney balanced the budget by raising corporate taxes by $210 million. B. Romney balanced the budget by raising fees by $500 million. C. Both A and B. 6. Abortion While campaigning for public office: A. Romney told voters that he is reliably prochoice. B. Romney told voters that he is reliably pro-life. C. Both A and B. 7. Roe v Wade A. Romney told voters that Roe v Wade is the law of the land and he supports it. B. Romney told voters that Roe v Wade should be overturned, and he opposes it. C. Both A and B. 8. Homosexual scout masters in the Boy Scouts A. Romney said he supports the Boy Scouts' right to ban homosexual members and leaders. B. Romney said he believes the Boy Scouts should not ban homosexual members or leaders. C. Both A and B. 9. President Bush’s tax cuts A. Romney said he would not support President Bush’s tax cuts. B. Romney said President Bush’s tax cuts are “absolutely critical”. C. Both A and B. 10. State funding for homosexual programs in Massachusetts public schools A. When pressured by homosexual activists,


Romney allocated money in his state budget for homosexual programs in the public schools. B. When pressured by parents, Romney vetoed money in the state budget for homosexual programs in the public schools. C. Both A and B. 11. Gay Youth Pride Day Proclamation in Massachusetts When asked by the homosexual lobby to sign a yearly governor’s proclamation declaring an official “Gay Youth Pride Day” in Massachusetts: A. Romney appeased the homosexual lobby and signed it. B. Romney appeased parents who complained and didn’t sign it. C. Both A and B. 12. Research on human embryos A. Romney said he opposes research using “cloned” human embryos. B. Romney said he supports research using “surplus” human embryos. C. Both A and B.

Continued on following page 13. Gays in the military – “Don’t ask, don’t tell” A. Romney said that Congress should end the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, and require the military to accept open homosexuals in its ranks. B. Romney said that the military should be able to decide for itself whether to accept open homosexuals in its ranks, and Congress should stay out of it. C. Both A and B. 14. ENDA The “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA), being considered by Congress, would force businesses to hire open homosexuals despite moral objections. A. Romney said he supports ENDA and would be a leading force in getting it passed. B. Romney said that ENDA is not necessary and he would oppose it. C. Both A and B. 15. Ronald Reagan A. Romney distanced himself from Ronald Reagan, saying “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush”. B. Romney compared himself to Ronald Reagan, said that Reagan is one of his political heroes, and that he respects Reagan’s vision and leadership. C. Both A and B. 16. Expanding access to emergency contraception. A. Romney vetoed a bill expanding access to


emergency contraception. B. Romney told Planned Parenthood he supports expanding access to emergency contraception. C. Both A and B. 17. Republican Party Leadership – Romney’s pledge to build the Massachusetts Republican Party A. While Romney was governor, the number of registered Democrats rose by 30,000 and the Democrats gained seats in the Legislature. B. While Romney was governor, the number of registered Republicans fell by 31,000 and the Republicans lost seats in the Legislature. C. Both A and B. 18. Homosexual adoption A. Romney said that every child has a right to have a mother and a father. B. Romney said that same-sex couples have a “legitimate interest” in being able to adopt children. C. Both A and B. 19. Abstinence-only education A. Romney used federal funding to implement abstinence-only education in public schools. B. Romney told an abortion group that he would oppose abstinence-only education in public schools. C. Both A and B. 20. Being a conservative A. Romney said he hopes that “it will be the moderates of both parties who control the Senate, not the Jesse Helmses.” B. Romney said that he considers himself a solid social conservative. C. Both A and B. ANSWERS: 1-C, 2-C, 3-C, 4-C, 5-C, 6-C, 7-C, 8-C, 9-C, 10-C, 11-C, 12-C, 13-C, 14-C, 15-C, 16-C, 17-C, 18-C, 19-C, 20-C

SCORING: 19-20 – Informed conservative 14-18 – National Review subscriber 8-13 – RINO 0-7 – Pro-Romney blogger Test compiled by www.MassResistance.org from numerous newspaper and magazine accounts, speeches, and extensive first-hand observation. For more information, see our website. 2/15/07

Romney Popular with Know-Nothing Conservatives Wednesday, September 27, 2006 John Fund's article on Gov. Romney in today's Opinion Journal (Wall Street Journal online) is an ill-informed disgrace: "Romney Rides High: A Mormon from Massachusetts wows social conservatives." Well, Romney doesn't wow us. Mr. Fund should do a bit more research with the


Massachusetts conservatives before posting with such confidence. He doesn't understand Romney's role in creating homosexual "marriage" -- well documented by Robert Paine, Esq., John Haskins, and yours truly. Homosexual “marriage” is still NOT legal here, and was NOT created by the Goodridge ruling. Even the homosexual lobby in our legislature knows this to be true, or they would not have filed their Bill #H977 to legalize homosexual "marriage" -- which they still have not had the confidence to bring to the floor for a vote! In fact, it was Governor Mitt Romney who was ultimately responsible for homosexual “marriages” taking place. The Supreme Judicial Court only ordered the Legislature to act (which it never did). But Romney created these “marriages” through an unconstitutional and illegal directive to his Department of Public Health (to print new “marriage” licenses), and threats to fire any Town Clerk or Justice of the Peace who failed to implement the (non-existent) “new law.” Mr. Fund also speaks of the Heritage Foundation's admiration for Romney and his mandatory health insurance bill. What he doesn't mention is that Romney gave Heritage a generous gift of $25,000, and that they worked together on the plan. No wonder Fund can get a good quote out of a Heritage guy. From "Romney aided conservative groups," Boston Globe, 8-16-06: Analysts with the Heritage Foundation worked closely with Romney in the past year to develop his healthcare initiative, which would require all Bay State residents to obtain medical insurance, a collaboration he often cites during his travels. Romney spoke at Heritage Foundation events at least three times since 2004. The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 as a research and education institute dedicated to promoting "conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense," according to the group's website.

Straw poll and the straw man Posted: March 14, 2007 1:00 am Eastern By Janet L. Folger Read more: Straw poll and the straw man http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54681#ixzz1Z7pQIU8A Before announcing the results of our straw poll (built from "brick values"), let me set the stage. The pro-life movement has been toiling in the trenches and delivering the vote. We have come to


the place where, absent yet another in a series of betrayals, we are ONE seat away from a Supreme Court that will allow us to end the practice of infant execution. Is now really the time to sell-out our pro-life principles? With the presidential primary still nine months away, so-called "conservatives" are already planning to abort our chances of a live, pro-life (pro-family) candidate by pledging their support to people like Giuliani and Romney. Giuliani, of course, is openly in favor of tax-funded, legal abortion for all nine months for any reason whatsoever. Romney too – for 35 years – was stridently, zealously and fervently pro-abortion. NARAL and Planned Parenthood raved about him in every single race of his political career. (Column continues below) When running for governor in 2002, Romney ran from the Massachusetts Citizens for Life (watch it on YouTube). They didn't care much for him, either. From the Boston Globe, March 25, 2005: "Marie Sturgis, legislative director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said she hasn't detected any change in Romney's stance. The group considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, as do national anti-abortion groups such as the Family Research Council." But, as announced in Sunday's New York Times, to help make a case for his supposed pro-life conversion, Romney gave Massachusetts Citizens for Life a $15,000 Christmas present in December. Then, in a Jan. 10 National Review Online article, the pro-life group's Marie Sturgis had this to say: Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts. His actions concerning life issues have been consistent and he has been helpful down the line for us in the Bay State. Look, Marie. I was a state Right to Life legislative director, too. And I'm sure you never had a single friend in the Massachusetts governor's office. I'm sure you appreciate that Romney, in his mid-2005 flip, threw you a bone on embryonic stem cell research. But to say that he has been "consistent" in life issues isn't even consistent with your previous quote. Maybe it was a misquote. I just called her. It was. She meant that "he's been consistent on the embryonic stem cell issue since (mid) 2005." Oh. Yippie. But for Massachusetts Citizens for Life to sign on to support Romney? Are you kidding me? For 35 years and 40 million children, Romney used his power and influence to promote legalized child killing. But now, instead of exposing his life-long pro-abortion record, they point to his alleged stem cell "conversion" a year and a half ago. Whoop-dee-do. Would you bet your life on him? Would you bet 20 MILLION lives on him? I wouldn't. Oh, and Romney sided with the activist judges who ordered disabled Terri Schindler-Schiavo be starved to death. Sure, he's pro-life.


As I mentioned last week, even after his so-called "conversion" (which coincidentally coincided with his 180-degree turn on "marriage" and "gun control"), Romney still supported killing children as a "health benefit." Some of you wrote me looking for the citation: Here it is, directly from Romney's 2006 Massachusetts "Commonwealth Care:" Commonwealth Care health plans include: outpatient medical care (doctor's visits, surgery, radiology and lab, abortion, community health center visits …) [See MassResistance.org for much more information.] They didn't even try and hide it under "reproductive rights" or some other such euphemism. Remember this was after the "conversion." Also after the"conversion," Romney required Catholic hospitals (who oppose ALL contraception) to hand out "emergency contraception" (inducing chemical warfare in the event a child's life has begun). So much for the so-called "freedom of choice." So much for "getting the government out of the abortion business." So much for this "pro-life conversion." That must be how Catholic Charities felt when they were forced to place vulnerable children in homosexual homes, or else. Gov. Romney could have prevented it by executive order, says Michael Dukakis: "The state's anti-discrimination statutes do not preclude an exemption for the Catholic organization," he said. (See "Mitt Happens" by Don Feder.) But, nah. The largest and most respected adoption agency in Boston was forced out of business while Romney was busy declaring "Youth Gay Pride Day," and his Department of Health was developing the vulgar "The Little Black Book … Queer in the 21st Century," indoctrinating children to perform "safe gay sex" – an oxymoron. Romney opposed the Massachusetts Marriage Amendment in 2002 as "too extreme." He then created "marriage licenses" for homosexual couples – threatening to fire all civil employees who refused to perform homosexual "marriages." He was lobbied by the Catholic Action League for a conscience clause, but, like with Catholic Charities and the Catholic hospitals, he said "no." He claimed he'd be more effective at promoting the pro-homosexual agenda than Ted Kennedy (watch it online) – that's the same venue where he said he wanted homosexual activists to be allowed to go on camping trips with the Boy Scouts … in so many words. Romney worked for civil unions before giving lip service (and ten grand) to the Massachusetts Family Institute, a pro-marriage group that no longer criticizes him. Look, they're a nice group. I've had them on my show several times. And if a governor in Massachusetts gives you the time of day, I understand you feel like doing cartwheels. But, keep in mind Romney still supports domestic partnerships (all the benefits of marriage without the name). That's like saying I'm against "slavery" but I favor "indentured servitude." Same thing. Different name. He also still believes that vulnerable orphans should be placed in homes of homosexual activists – thus guaranteeing that these children will never have the love of a mother AND a father. So what kind of judges might a Romney administration appoint? Don Feder:


Romney had "passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents – including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights." A "Souter" would be the best we could hope for…more likely we'd see a "Ginsberg" from this guy. Let me tell you how to lose what may be perhaps our last chance to restore legal protection to children in the womb: Giuliani or Romney. You might get people to hold their nose on Election Day long enough to pull down a lever. But what you won't get is what we most need – an energized base who will work like millions of lives depend upon it. But it doesn't have to be that way. Here's an idea – how about we back someone who has supported life for more than, say, 15 minutes? Of about 400 who voted this week, the top ten candidates were: 1. Tancredo – 96 votes, 24.4 percent 2. Paul – 95 votes, 24.2 percent (not bad for someone who wasn't even listed) 3. Brownback – 70 votes, 17.8 percent 4. Hunter – 52 votes, 13.2 percent 5. Huckabee – 41 votes, 10.4 percent 6. Gingrich – 17 votes, 4.3 percent 7. Keyes – 5 votes, 1.3 percent 8. Thompson – 3 votes, 0.8 percent 9. Romney – 3 votes, 0.8 percent (see above) 10. Santorum – 2 votes, 0.5 percent And to find the best? We fast and pray for a week. Before you stop reading, my proposition has nothing to do with lunch. Let's fast from political pundits who tell us over and over again who has the "highest name recognition." Let's use that time to get saturated in the Word, praying for God's pick. Last night I read what Daniel said: "… there is a God in heaven who reveals secrets." (Daniel 2:28) I say we ask Him. "No king is saved by the great size and power of his army; a mighty man is not delivered by [his] much strength." (Psalm 33:16) Pro-life conservatives need a candidate with a solid foundation – with the bedrock values that will stand against any storm. Our house must remain a refuge where our children, our families and our values will be kept safe. We don't need a straw man. We don't need a yellow brick road. Our destination's not Oz … it's America. Note: You can hear online my interviews with Rep. Tom Tancredo and Rep. Duncan Hunter. The


others are being scheduled – check Faith2Action for listings. Janet L. Folger is president of Faith2Action: turning people of faith into people of action to WIN the cultural war TOGETHER for life, liberty and the family. Author of "The Criminalization of Christianity," she hosts a daily radio program from 2-3 p.m. Eastern and a daily radio commentary heard in 100 markets and at www.f2a.org. Read more: Straw poll and the straw man http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54681#ixzz1Z7pXK89E

Romney buys support from conservative movement * $10,000 to National Review - which later endorsed him for president * $15,000 to Mass Citizens for Life - which later gave him an award * $10,000 to Massachusetts Family Institute - which now praises him across the country. * $25,000 to the Heritage Foundation - which praises his health plan * $35,000 to the Federalist Society - full of influencial conservatives Not to mention literally hundreds of conservative activists, Republican activists, bloggers, columnists and others. Like no other candidate in history, Romney has used his vast wealth to literally buy the conservative movement. In Romney’s Bid, His Wallet Opens to the Right By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK New York Times Sunday, March 11, 2007 (Page 1) [Link to article on NY Times website ] WASHINGTON, March 10 — In the months before announcing his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts contributed tens of thousands of dollars of his personal fortune to several conservative groups in a position to influence his image on the right. Last December, a foundation controlled by Mr. Romney made contributions of $10,000 to $15,000 to each of three Massachusetts organizations associated with major national conservative groups: the antiabortion Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Massachusetts Citizens for Limited Taxation and the Christian conservative Massachusetts Family Institute. Mr. Romney and a group of his supporters also contributed a total of about $10,000 to a nonprofit group affiliated with National Review. Over the past two years, he contributed $35,000 to the Federalist Society, an influential network of conservative lawyers. And in December 2005, he contributed $25,000 to the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative research organization. The recipients of Mr. Romney’s donations said the money had no influence on them. But some of


the groups, notably Citizens for Life and the Family Institute, have turned supportive of Mr. Romney after criticizing him in the past. Coming on the eve of his presidential campaign, Mr. Romney’s contributions could create the appearance of a conflict of interest for groups often asked to evaluate him. All the groups said he had never contributed before, and his foundation’s public tax filings show no previous gifts to similar groups. Its 2006 contributions will become public with its tax filings later this year. The support of such leading conservative organizations in Mr. Romney’s home state has become an important element of Mr. Romney’s primary campaign because he faces doubts from some conservatives over his past support for abortion rights, embryonic stem cell research, gun control and gay rights. Mr. Romney has said he had a change of heart on all four issues by the time he left the governor’s office. His contributions are also an early sign of the outsize role that Mr. Romney’s vast wealth, mainly accumulated as founder of the buyout firm Bain Capital, could play in the 2008 election. The race is shaping up to be the first since Watergate waged without public campaign financing or any spending limits. Mr. Romney has never disclosed his net worth, but analysts who track buyout firm compensation said it was likely to exceed $500 million. In 2002, he ran the most expensive race for governor in Massachusetts history, spending about $6 million of his own money over eight months on a campaign that cost a total of $9.4 million. Conservative critics of Mr. Romney have already seized on a $15,000 donation to Massachusetts Citizens for Life — which was first reported in January on a little-noticed anti-Romney blog by Carol M. McKinley, an antiabortion activist in the state — to argue that he is trying to buy the group’s support, or at least silence its criticism. Mr. Romney’s wife, Ann, is also helping to raise money from others for the group. Massachusetts Citizens for Life was critical of Mr. Romney, who was then a supporter of abortion rights, during most of his tenure as governor. But over the past few months, its officials have issued favorable statements about his record on abortion issues that have become an integral element of his appeal to social conservatives. At a conference of conservative activists in Washington last week, Mr. Romney’s campaign passed out a statement from the group praising him as one of Massachusetts’ “strongest assets.” The conservative Web site Mass Resistance accused the group of selling out. “Outrageous,” the site declared. Mass Resistance has published a dossier on Mr. Romney’s former liberal views and has become a hub of conservative opposition to his nomination. Marie Sturgis, executive director of Citizens for Life, said his donation had no influence on her group, which has an annual budget of about $600,000.


“Granted, when he began his role as governor he certainly was not with us,” Ms. Sturgis said. “But toward the end, if you look at the record, especially in the stem cell debate, he certainly took the pro-life position consistently.” Mr. Romney has said that talking to researchers about embryonic stem cell research convinced him to oppose its public financing and changed his views on abortion rights, and Ms. Sturgis said his check arrived with a brief note commending the group for its work. A spokesman for Mr. Romney said his donations demonstrated his convictions. “He has donated his time and his effort and whatever resources he can to help advance their causes,” the spokesman, Kevin Madden, said. Mr. Madden declined to comment on Mr. Romney’s net worth or what role it might play in the race. The public financial disclosure forms completed by presidential candidates do not reveal net worth, and Mr. Madden said the campaign had not yet decided whether to release Mr. Romney’s tax returns. “What is important is not the amount of money that the governor has personally, but instead the message and the vision that he has,” he said. The son of a former chairman of the American Motor Company who became governor of Michigan, Mitt Romney was never poor. He had a successful career as a well-paid consultant at the blue-chip firm Bain & Company, including a stint as its chief executive. But his best-known source of wealth is as founder of the company’s private equity firm, Bain Capital. One of its funds was an early investor in the Staples stores. Others later bought out a host of well known companies including Domino’s Pizza. Mr. Romney started Bain Capital in 1984 with an initial fund of about $40 million. During the fourteen years he ran it, Bain Capital’s investments reportedly earned an annual rate of return of over 100 percent. By then, Bain controlled assets worth billions. Mr. Romney is not the first rich politician whose philanthropy dovetails with his politics. When Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey, a Democrat who was previously co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, ran for the Senate in 2000, for example, opponents criticized him for giving more than $100,000 to nonprofit organizations, including African-American churches, whose leaders had endorsed him. The first of Mr. Romney’s recent wave of donations to conservative groups was $25,000 to the Heritage Foundation at the end of 2005. The foundation analysts worked with him on a health care plan and later praised it, as did some other conservative groups. John Von Kannon, vice president of development for the Heritage Foundation, said the donation had no influence.


Mr. Romney followed a $25,000 contribution to the Federalist Society in 2005 with an additional $10,000 last year, the group’s officials said. Although the Federalist Society does not endorse candidates or policies, some of its top officials are highly influential voices among conservatives on the subject of judicial nominations. Eugene B. Meyer, president of the society, said a supporter of the organization had sought a donation from Mr. Romney as part of a general Boston fund-raising drive. The group’s annual budget is over $7 million. Mr. Romney gave $5,000 to help sponsor the anniversary dinner celebrating National Review’s Web site last October at a Washington steakhouse. Another group called Evangelicals for Mitt also gave $5,000. (David French, founder of Evangelicals for Mitt, said the dual donations were a coincidence.) Both sponsorships were acknowledged at the time, and the money went to the nonprofit National Review Institute, not the magazine or Web site. The magazine and its Web site have written favorably of Mr. Romney. But Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, pointed to the magazine’s recent cover story praising a Romney rival for the Republican nomination, Senator John McCain of Arizona. “Obviously it’s had no influence on our coverage,” Mr. Lowry said of the donations. Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said in an interview that his organization received a $10,000 check from Mr. Romney late last year with an appreciative note. The group previously criticized Mr. Romney as taking liberal stands during his first years as governor, but Mr. Mineau recently sought to enlist other Massachusetts social conservatives in signing an open letter supporting the governor. (Some balked because of his record, The Boston Globe reported.) Mr. Mineau, though, said he arrived at the organization only three years ago and since then had collaborated with Mr. Romney on efforts to ban same-sex marriage, oppose embryonic stem cell research and promote sexual abstinence. The Family Institute is part of a network for Christian conservative groups affiliated with the national Family Research Council in Washington and Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs. Mr. Romney has also acknowledged that he made a small contribution last August, in the form of a personal membership fee, to the National Rifle Association, a major force in the Republican primary. He had previously campaigned as an advocate of stricter gun control laws. In an interview, Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.’s top executive, said the organization appreciated every membership but was staying out of the primary for now. Barbara Anderson, executive director of Massachusetts Citizens for Limited Taxation, a group affiliated with Americans for Tax Reform in Washington, said in an interview that she was surprised Mr. Romney had sent her group a check for $10,000. Other departing Republican governors had sent appreciative notes but none had sent a check as well, Ms. Anderson said.


It was hardly necessary, she said. Unlike the other conservative groups, her organization has gotten along well with Mr. Romney from the start. “Give us four years and that is all we can ask for,” she said.

Romney Wallet Opens to Buy Prolifers Front Page New York Times story on Romney's vote buying strategies. Wallet opens to the right Coming on the eve of his presidential campaign, Mr. Romney’s contributions could create the appearance of a conflict of interest for groups often asked to evaluate him. All the groups said he had never contributed before, and his foundation’s public tax filings show no previous gifts to similar groups. Its 2006 contributions will become public with its tax filings later this year. Doesn't influence? Then how would one explain this: In January, K-Lo posted the quote from Marie Sturgis after Romney gave them fifteen thousand dollars - - It’s a view echoed by Marie Sturgis, executive director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, who says, “Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts. His actions concerning life issues have been consistent and he has been helpful down the line for us in the Bay State.” - - - Subsequently, Marie and MCFL quotes about Romney prior to the fifteen thousand dollar contribution circulated the Internet, including the following: From the Globe July of 2005 Similarly, a leading antiabortion group is puzzled: ''We honestly don't know where he stands on this issue," said Marie Sturgis, executive director and legislative director for Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Sturgis, of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said Romney does not have regular contacts with her group. ''If we could, we would," Sturgis said. When he ran for governor in 2002, she said, her group considered him an abortion rights supporter; Romney declined to complete the Citizens for Life questionnaire A quote from 2002:


The Executive Director for MCFL Marie Sturgis said that her group had never offered an endorsement to Romney. Romney is “not pro-life and does not meet their requirements,� Sturgis said. From March of 2005 Marie Sturgis, legislative director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life said that she has not seen any change in Romney's position on abortion and considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, according to the Globe.

What happened in the 18 months since March of 2005 that suddenly made Marie Sturgis and MCFL retroactively feel Romney has been a huge pro-life supporter during his entire term? Among other things, Romney forced emergency contraception on Catholic hospitals in late 2005 with no conscience exemption, even though his own Public Health Department said the previous statute provided an exemption. Romney also came out in favor of embryonic stem cell research. Fifteen thousand dollars went into MCFL's coffers. After Marie's pre-contribution quotes circulated the internet - The Romney people, afraid it would look like they bought MCFL, asked Sturgis to remove her name from this endorsement. I had knowledge that Sturgis had signed the endorsement - and the rumor circulated that Romney asked that Sturgis' name be removed. When the endorsement came out without Sturgis' name, I called and asked her to confirm the chain of events. Her response? "I don't want to open up that can of worms". Sturgis claims in the NYT piece today - that Romney's embryonic stem cell position is "prolife"

Yet, in the New York Times in February of 2005, Mr. Romney said in an interview this week and again on Thursday that he supported allowing scientists to use embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization at fertility clinics, a position that goes beyond what President Bush supports. Fertility clinic embryos are likely "going to be destroyed or discarded" anyway, the governor said, so using them for research "does make sense." But the governor, whose wife, Ann, has multiple sclerosis, a disease that might be helped by stem cell research, said he opposed creating embryos specifically to be used in research, a process known as therapeutic cloning.

From Huffington Post: Orwell's interest was the language of government, how it's used to manipulate, distort, and


mislead - for instance, like Mitt Romney did with this announcement.

Romney's ban is nothing but political posturing. The current debate is not even about the CREATION of stem cells; it is about the use of EXISTING stem cells, of which there is an abundance. Bush has banned the use of all but a few of these existing stem cells, claiming he wouldn't "promote science which destroys life in order to save life." But every year, in fact, thousands and thousands of embryos are destroyed in fertility clinics. They are created in petri dishes as part of fertility treatments like IVF; then they are discarded. Nobody thought much about these discarded embryos until scientists recognized the promise they offered for research. Instead of throwing them out, it was asked, why not find a practical application for them that could perhaps aid human progress? Again, nobody in the established scientific community is talking about creating embryos right now. Mr. Romney is the only one bringing the issue up. In making his announcement, Mr. Romney muddies the waters of the current debate, clouding the issue and slowing progress - all for his own political gain. It's crass and it's lame. Instead of fearing an Orwellian future, Mr. Romney should feel right at home in our Orwellian present, after all, his party has led in the creation of this eerily familiar dystopia; an era of unending war, eroding civil liberties, and an authoritarian leadership that holds onto power through the endless promotion of fear. Our government's guiding principles in 2006 seem little different than "1984's: "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength." From a Boston Globe Article in 2005 Romney has described himself as a supporter of embryonic stem-cell research since he ran for governor in 2002, and, as recently as last month, he said he would support the Legislature's efforts to promote such research in Massachusetts. But in a letter he sent to Senate President Robert E. Travaglini on Thursday, Romney said that, "respect for human life is a fundamental element of civilized society" and that "lofty goals do not justify the creation of life for experimentation and destruction." Most human embryonic stem cells used today were created from embryos left over from fertility treatments. Romney said although he supports the use of embryos left over from in vitro fertilization, which might be discarded anyway, If Romney was attempting to impress social conservatives, his effort fell flat. Massachusetts Citizens for Life and the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, which have lobbied heavily against the Legislature's previous efforts to approve stem-cell bills, said they oppose the governor's stance because they believe a human embryo is a human being that should not be destroyed, even if it is left over from in vitro fertilization. The National Right to Life Committee, a prominent


Washington-based group, agreed. "I'm not sure there is a lot of difference. If you are taking the stem cell from the embryo for research, you have to destroy the embryo. He's still in favor of killing the new lives that are in existence right now," said Carol Tobias, the group's political director. "If that embryo, that human life, is being destroyed for the research, that is not proper. That is not ethical." MCFL is lying for Romney - which is a phenomenon that follows a fifteen thousand dollar contribution. If the lies and the money are not connected, why would the Romney people ask her to remove her name from the slim-picking Massachusetts endorsement? Digging deeper, the prolife community has a lot of questions about puzzling endorsements of national leaders. For instance, inquiring minds want to know if any money was given to Jim Bopp's interests. Bopp's wongful characterizations of Romney's embryonic stem cell position - along with Bopp's wrongful assertion that Romney has had a love affair with MCFL since 1994 - makes us all curious to know if Bopp's mischaracterizations are accompanied by a donation to The National Right to Life. After all, Bopp's been given the right information and he continues to mischaracterize Romney's positions. In fairness, Bopp did say that he's not sure how much interest Romney will have in abortion after he gets elected - - which certainly sums up Romney's modus operandi perfectly. In the recently released video of Sucklow, Comstock, Coulter and Romney, all giddy at the CPAC Conference behind the stage, Romney tells Coulter that Dobson is considering backing him. While I doubt that is true, one wonders whether Romney opened his wallet during his visit with Dobson and on the way out the door asked Dobson to consider endorsing him. Still holding the check in his hand, perhaps Dobson said......."Ummm.... we'll just see about that!". SOURCE: http://massresistance.org/romney/

=


The Truth about Mitt Romney: The Romney Report