Friday, August 10, 2012

Romney - Faux Conservative

I was recently told by a good and devout Catholic recently that I must vote for Mitt Romney because to choose not to vote is the same as voting for Barack Obama, and to vote for any other candidate is throwing my vote away, which again amounts to voting for Barack Obama.  When I tried to point out that I really see no difference between the candidates, I was basically told I was crazy, that Romney is our only hope.

I have posted several times on this blog about my great disappointment in Mitt Romney, from his approval of homosexuals adopting children, to his support for the National Defense Authorization Act which allows the president to order the military to arrest any American citizen at any time with no charge and hold them indefinitely at an undisclosed location for an indefinite period of time with no trial, to the fact that Romney had a fundraiser at the house of the manufacturer of the morning after pill

Now the Catholic League is "astonished" that Romney will not take a position on the Chick-Fil-A controversy.  If Bill Donohue of the Catholic League had been the least aware of just how liberal Romney really is, he would not be in the least shocked at Romney's reaction, or lack of reaction, to the condemnation the owner of Chick-Fil-A received from the liberal establishment for stating he was  in favor of traditional marriage and against same sex marriage. 

Conservatives so badly want a candidate that they believe represents them that they are willing to accept anything that is thrown their way.  Back in the 2008 election, the liberal mantra was "anyone but Bush."  As a result, we got Barack Obama, who has led this country rapidly down the road to atheistic socialism.  Now in 2012 the conservative mantra is "anyone but Obama."  As a result, conservatives stand behind Mitt Romney, whose record is almost as liberal as that of Barack Obama. Until recent years, Romney was a strong supporter of abortion, his healthcare law in Massachusetts was the blueprint for Obama's pro-abortion, anti-Catholic healthcare law, and as I have shown, he is most definitely in favor of big government intruding into our lives, e.g., the National Defense Authorization Act.  Romney says he is not in favor of same sex marriage or "civil unions that are identical to marriage", as he says in this quote:
“Well when these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name. My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not.”

As Josh Marshall of states:  "What does that mean exactly? I’m not sure why Romney wouldn’t say, I’m against gay marriage. I’m against civil unions. But I could support visitation rights, some domestic partnership benefits etc. But he didn’t. He seems to be saying that some civil unions could be okay as long as they’re clearly inferior to ‘marriage’, rather than simply being a different name for the identical bundle of rights."

So why are we surprised when Mitt Romney refuses to take a position on conservative issues, such as the controversy of Chick-Fil-A?  People need to stop hearing and seeing only what they want to believe and face up to reality.  We do not have a choice in this presidential election.

Here is the article from Newmax:

Catholic League Chief ‘Astonished’ By Romney Chick-fil-A Stance

Monday, 06 Aug 2012 01:49 PM

By David A. Patten

The Romney campaign’s decision to duck the Chick-fil-A controversy over gay-marriage appears to have reopened old wounds with social conservatives, who were never fully sold that the former Massachusetts governor would represent their concerns in the marbled halls of Washington.

“This is the most disheartened that certainly I’ve felt looking at this entire race,” said Catholic League president Bill Donohue. He told Newsmax in an exclusive interview that social conservatives will now have to decide whether to sit out the race.  [Where have you been on all the other issues, Bill?  You wouldn't be surprised if you had been paying attention.]
On Friday, Romney told reporters he does not intend to address the controversy that was touched off when big city mayors threatened to punish the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain after its president, Dan Cathy, voiced support for the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

“Those are not things that are part of my campaign,” said Romney.  [Why aren't they part of his campaign?  We really need to ask ourselves that question.]
Romney’s aides have explained that while the presumptive GOP presidential nominee favors the traditional definition of marriage, he is trying to structure his remarks to keep the focus solely on the economy in order to have the best possible chance of defeating President Barack Obama in November.  [Romney doesn't want to talk about this issue.  Could it be that he is hiding his true agenda, which isn't all the different from Barack Obama?]
Longtime columnist and former GOP presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan waded in on the issue Friday, telling Politico that Republicans must push back against gay marriage or risk losing social conservatives for a generation.

“I don’t understand why Mitt Romney doesn’t just get his Secret Service detail and take his press corps down to a Chick-fil-A and show solidarity with these people,” Buchanan said, adding: " . . . Reagan would have walked right on down there naturally.”  [Wake up and smell the coffee, Pat.  Romney is folding on this issue, and he will be no different than Barack Obama if elected president.  That is why he won't "show solidarity with these people."]
Donohue, pointing out that constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz and the ACLU issued bold statements condemning the effort to punish Chick-fil-A, told Newsmax that Romney’s decision to be “agnostic on this issue” could prove to be “the defining moment” of the 2012 campaign.  [We've had tons of "defining moments" in this campaign.  This is only the latest.]

Social conservatives have to make up their mind whether they should just simply stay at home, or go out there and vote for Romney [my point exactly],” said Donohue. “I’m astonished that he couldn’t even come to grips with the question — leaving gays out of it — do we want the chief executives, the mayors of large cities trying to intimidate, using the power of government against private enterprises whose politics they disagree with? I think it’s a pretty simple issue.” [It is a simple issue, Bill, and Romney by his silence is telling you exactly where he stands on it.]

Donohue noted that many social conservatives were skeptical before Romney decided to sit out the controversy, which has only aggravated that uneasy relationship. He said the campaign’s response “does not bode well” for the role social conservatives and their issues will play in the upcoming convention, and beyond.
Donohue voiced his appreciation that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a favorite of evangelicals and other conservative voters, has been invited to address the convention. But he said that placate social conservatives.

“No one’s going to be allowed to speak at any great length on this issue,” he predicted in regard to the convention. “All we’re going to hear is that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s flatulent.”  [I can only repeat, there is no real difference between the Republicans and Democrats.]

More feedback to Romney’s no comment came from conservative direct marketing pioneer Richard Viguerie, who told Newsmax: "Governor Romney has once again disappointed the conservative base of the Republican Party by refusing to support Chick-fil-A when they were attacked by Democrat politicians and others who favor the radical homosexual agenda.
While President Obama united the base of the Democratic Party by appealing to those interests, Governor Romney's silence has merely served to unite the Fortune 500 and other establishment interests he already had behind his candidacy."

Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition counseled social conservatives not to overreact to Romney’s response, however.

“I would certainly recommend Mitt Romney or any other candidate stop by a Chick-fil-A while on the campaign trail,” Reed told Newsmax.

“But on the salient and defining issue of what constitutes marriage, Romney has with great moral clarity made it unambiguously clear that he believes that marriage should be defined between a man and a woman,” said Reed. “Voters of faith will remember that when they go to the polls in November.”  [Oh yea? See Romney's "great moral clarity" in the comment I posted above about his stance on same sex marriage.  From Romney:  "I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name. My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not.”]

And the hits keep coming.  There is now a story from cnsnews that Mitt Romney has no problems with homosexuals being boy scout leaders.  And this is nothing new.  He has always supported homosexuals being part of the Boy Scouts.  Read on.

Romney Says Boy Scouts Should Admit Homosexuals
By Patrick Burke
August 9, 2012
( – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has reiterated his view that the Boy Scouts of America should admit homosexuals as Scouts and Scout leaders. He also supports the right of the Scouts to decide their own policies.

Currently, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) do not admit homosexuals as Scouts or Scout leaders.

In 1994, when Romney was running for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts against Democrat Sen. Ted Kennedy, Romney said “all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”

Tovia Smith of WBUR radio in Boston asked Romney during an October 1994 senatorial debate, “Mr. Romney, you say you’re a moderate on social issues, one who will defend abortion rights, equal rights for women, for blacks and for gays -- in fact, you say you will do more to promote gay rights than Senator Kennedy.”
Smith continued, “You also sit on the national Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America, which has an exclusionary policy banning gay members. Do you support that policy and, if not, have you ever done anything as a board member to oppose it?”

Romney said, “I believe that the Boy Scouts of America does a wonderful service for this country. I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
Romney campaign spokesperson Andrea Saul confirmed to the Associated Press on Aug. 5 that Romney maintains the position he took back in 1994.  [At last, an issue on which Romney has not flip flopped.]

When asked for direct confirmation that Gov. Romney maintains the same position he held in 1994, the Romney campaign referred to several past quotations regarding Romney’s opposition to the ban, including that of the 1994 debate.

Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout and founder of Scouts for Equality, hailed Romney’s stance as “the right thing to do,” as well as the fact that President Obama apparently shares the same view on this issue.

“I think more generally, if you look at the fact that both President Obama and his opponent in the presidential election are on the record together in this incredibly polarized political climate, I think it really speaks to both the moral validity and also the critical importance of ending this policy,” Wahls told
“There aren't a whole lot of areas in the American political sphere where you see this kind of overlap, and I think it really does speak volumes about how important this is,” he said.

As reported by, the Boy Scouts of America came under scrutiny after a petition was released by ousted Cub Scout den leader and lesbian Jennifer Tyrell on, urging the Scouts to change the policy on openly gay members.

Although the petition has been signed by 320,000 people across the country, including Hollywood celebrities, the Scouts have not changed the policy.

“Contrary to media reports, the Boy Scouts of America has no plans to change its membership policy. The introduction of a resolution does not indicate the organization is ‘reviewing’ a policy or signal a change in direction,” according to an official statement from the Boy Scouts of America national office on June 7.

“The BSA is a voluntary, private organization that sets policies that are best for the organization,” reads the statement. “The BSA welcomes all who share its beliefs but does not criticize or condemn those who wish to follow a different path.”

Upon becoming a Boy Scout, each member takes the following oath:
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

In June of 2000, the Boy Scouts of America went to the Supreme Court to preserve their right not to admit homosexuals after the New Jersey Supreme Court had ruled that the Scouts policy was in violation of New Jersey’s anti-discrimination law.

The Boy Scouts in that state had been sued by a former Eagle Scout who came out as a homosexual after becoming a Scoutmaster, and was consequently removed from that post.

The brief filed by the gay advocacy organization Lambda Legal argued that the phrase “morally straight” does not necessarily apply to sexual orientation. 
“Likewise, members and sponsors can have widely divergent views on what it means to be ‘morally straight’—and whether that tenet relates to sexual orientation in any way again, so long as they are not known to be gay themselves,” reads the Lambda Legal brief.  [This is emblematic of what has happened in our world today.  Sin is no longer called sin, and if we don't accept it as normal, then we are the ones with the problem.  Mitt Romney being in favor of homosexual scout leaders only adds to this problem, and as president, he will enforce this sin.]

However, the Court ruled in the Scouts’ favor and, in the majority opinion, the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist rejected the argument that homosexuality could constitute “morally straight” behavior, by citing the Boy Scouts’ statements to the contrary.

“And the terms ‘morally straight’ and ‘clean’ are by no means self-defining. Different people would attribute to those terms very different meanings. For example, some people may believe that engaging in homosexual conduct is not at odds with being ‘morally straight’ and ‘clean,’” Rehnquist wrote. 
“And others may believe that engaging in homosexual conduct is contrary to being ‘morally straight’ and ‘clean.’ The Boy Scouts says it falls within the latter category,” wrote Rehnquist[Obviously, those "others" does not includes the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, who sees no problem with homosexuals leading the Boy Scouts.]

The current BSA policy on sexual orientation reads as follows:

“While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to members who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA."
And if Mitt Romney has his way, the Boy Scouts will accept homosexuals as leaders of their Scouts.  What, pray tell, is the difference between Obama and Romney?  Romney nuances his words while Obama says it right out.  But whether Obama is re-elected or Romney wins, our society will continue to devolve into moral depravity.  There is no politician who can or even wants to change that, and this includes Mitt Romney.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...