How Republicans Lost The Same Sex Marriage Case

The Obergefell decision was perhaps the most fraudulent Supreme Court decision in US history. The logic was non-existent, the arguments were phony, and the decision itself was a totally political one that, as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “has no basis in the constitution or this court’s precedents.” And the ramifications of this decision are disturbing, with significant impact on children, on American culture, on the institution of marriage and on the First Amendment rights of Americans — in particular churches, Christian-owned business, and religious schools. Justice Samuel Alito warned that the decision will be used to oppress the faithful “by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

First, the issue of same-sex marriage should never have been before the Supreme Court. This is an issue our founding fathers would have insisted be decided by the democratic process. The Supreme Court can’t “interpret” something that is not addressed in the Constitution. Even more significantly, because marriage was NOT originated by human law, civil government has no right to redefine it.   

Second, for same sex marriage to be ruled “constitutional”, then, obviously, those who wrote the constitution would have to have been in favor of it and would have indicated so in the Constitution. Neither is true. And the views of our founding fathers on this issue are the opposite of what the five elite lawyers in black robes claimed they were.  

Indeed, homosexuality was looked upon by the founding generation as a deviant sexual behavior, which, by the way, continues to be documented by reams of social science research. The only time homosexuality is mentioned anywhere in the law by America’s founding generation is at the state and local levels; and then it was in defining the crime of “sodomy,” and always with steep penalties attached.     

Third, the idea that the Supreme Court trumps the other two branches of our government is a bizarre notion with little historical evidence to back it up. The founders gave it the power to offer interpretations in cases brought before it, but never gave it the power to create policy. Many of our founding fathers – Washington, Madison, Jefferson, etc – mocked this idea as one that would destroy the democratic nature of our government. It wasn’t until the Marbury v. Madison decision and some subsequent decisions that the Supreme Court essentially voted to give itself more power. But Congress never ceded them this power; and even today, there exists nothing in our founding documents that prevents the States from simply refusing to obey a Supreme Court ruling. Nullification, as it is called, by a state was common in the past and should once again be used by the states to counter an out-of-control Supreme Court.  

Fourth, Anthony Kennedy claimed in the majority opinion that homosexuality was something one is born with – “immutable” he said, a completely false notion. Genetic researchers have never discovered a “gay gene”; and the Human Genome Project, involving 150 of the world’s top geneticists, was not able to find a “gay gene.” None of the professional organizations like the American Psychological Association or even the pro-homosexual Kinsey Institute will claim that homosexuality is genetic. Kennedy made up this phony claim because if homosexuality is not genetic, and thus only a behavior, it is too flimsy of a foundation upon to redefine the ancient institution of marriage. What’s strange is that even the proponents of this case did not make the claim that homosexuals are born that way. Where is Kennedy getting this info?

Fifth, the majority wrote that “The 14th Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.” No it doesn’t. This is a bald-face lie. A first grader could read the history of the 14th amendment and deduce that it says nothing about homosexual marriages. It was ratified in 1868 and was about giving blacks first-class citizenship. No one in 1868 even knew what same sex marriage was. The justices lied again.

Sixth, the majority wrote that “they too may aspire to the transcendent purpose of marriage.” Huh? The transcendent purpose of marriage for thousands of years has been to perpetuate the human race by creating a stable and loving environment for children. There is little evidence that homosexual marriage has anything in common with heterosexual marriage. The average homosexual has a few hundred sex partners in their lifetime, and an astounding 43% of homosexuals report having more than 500 sexual partners. And research shows that most homosexual marriages are “open” marriages in which both partners agree to be free to have sex with others.  

Seventh, the majority argued that same-sex marriage “safeguards” children. What? Quite the contrary, the most recent large scale research on children raised in homosexual households is not pretty. It shows they fare much more poorly than do children raised in heterosexual households in many different categories:  education, drug use, criminality, etc. Homosexual “marriages” with multiple lovers are not a stable environment for children. Just read the horrifying stories of children raised by homosexuals – they’re all over the internet. The court majority lied again.

The homosexual former New Republic writer Andrew Sullivan wrote in a famous 1989 article that “Much of the gay leadership clings to notions of gay life as essentially outsider, anti-bourgeois, radical.  Marriage, for them, is co-optation into straight society.”  Sullivan then argues that legalizing homosexual marriage will somehow be good for the homosexual movement because it will encourage more of them to enter into committed and stable relationships. But that hasn’t happened in states with civil unions, either here or abroad; and research shows that homosexuals in legal partnerships continue to favor multiple partners and reckless behavior.  

Most homosexuals view traditional marriage as constraining their lifestyle and regard the whole idea of being homosexual as a way to rebel against heterosexual norms. Indeed, one can find anti-marriage sites operated by homosexuals all over the Internet:

Kennedy’s colleagues are leftist ideologues who would vote for homosexual marriage no matter what, but Kennedy should know better. He had research before him that details the lifestyle of homosexuals. His opinion was extremely naive, and he assumes that all homosexuals want to have committed monogamous marriages. But the reality is that very few homosexuals get married. In Sweden, it’s only 2%. In Vermont, its 22%. And of those who do get married, most are not in any way comparable to heterosexual marriages. Did Kennedy read anything submitted to him by our side? Apparently not.

Few homosexuals will ever marry; and of those who do get married, it will more often than not involve multiple sex partners. This is why homosexual relationships, on average, rarely last more than two years. The research is clear: homosexual marriage is NOT about commitment or monogamy. The goal of the homosexuals is to destroy the institution of marriage and redefine it to their liking.

Eighth, the Obergefell decision was unconstitutional since Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Elena Kagan, according to US 28 U.S. Code 455, “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” And they didn’t. Both women had actually officiated at same-sex marriages. Ginsburg even performed a second same-sex wedding three weeks AFTER oral arguments in the Obergefell case. Ginsberg also made statements in support of same sex marriage while the Obergefell case was before the court, a clear violation of Canon A (6) of the Code of Conduct. Some have suggested that the U.S. Codes governing judges don’t apply to the Supreme Court. Wrong. The Pilla v American Bar Association case makes it clear that the judicial codes governing conflicts of interest do apply to the SCOTUS.

This information regarding Ginsberg and Kagan’s violations of the codes was submitted to the court, but Chief Justice Roberts refused to make this an issue. He had the power to do so. As Chief Justice, he is the person responsible for ensuring the integrity of the court. Indeed, Roberts and his colleagues could have voted to refuse to hear the Obergefell case unless Kagan and Ginsberg agreed to recuse themselves; but instead, they allowed Justices Kagan and Ginsberg to ignore their constitutional obligations. If one looks at previous SCOTUS recusals, they involved conflicts far more indirect than the aggressive pro-homosexual marriage actions of Ginsberg and Kagan.

There was a 25 day window to file a petition to rehear a Supreme Court ruling, and it could be only done by the losing parties and typically is based on new information or erroneous actions by the court. It is clear a petition should have been filed, based on the U.S. Code violations by Kagan and Ginsberg. However, the losing parties didn’t have the stomach or the guts to pursue such an appeal, even though all of them received documented information about the illegal actions of Kagan and Ginsberg. For the record, the losing parties were Mike DeWine, the Republican Attorney General of Ohio; Herbert Slatery, the Republican Attorney General of Tennessee; Bill Schuette, the Republican Attorney General of Michigan; and the lone Democrat, Attorney General Jack Conway of Kentucky.

Nor does it help that the conservatives on the court have ignored the recusal issue, apparently preferring to not upset the collegiality of the court over preserving heterosexual marriage, and thereby subjecting generations of Americans to an era of homosexual assaults upon the First Amendment. And yes, they had to know about the actions of Kagan and Ginsberg since this info was contained in two different motions to recuse, which they had before them but chose to ignore.  

When I emailed Ginny Thomas – the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas  – about this issue, she was appalled at my message and responded to the effect that her husband is NOT responsible for ignoring this issue. He’s not? Ok, then who holds responsible those justices who violate the clear codes governing recusal? Santa Claus? It’s nice to know that the harmony on the court remains intact while Christians and those of other faiths are now targeted for fines and jail time by the homo-fascists and reduced to second class citizenship.

After all, it is possible that the conservative justices were somehow unaware of the code violations by Kagan and Ginsberg; and I was hoping Mrs. Thomas would bring it up with her husband. Her response was that “There are many people you can consult with. I am not in the ten zillionth position!” So apparently, Mrs. Thomas, an alleged social conservative leader, won’t even talk to her husband about the most important cultural case of the century.   

So let’s be clear what happened:

  1. Three Republican Attorneys General representing three states in the Obergefell case refused to mention the illegal actions by Kagan and Ginsberg in their written briefs, or even in their oral arguments. They had this information but did not use it. Even more significantly, none of them used ANY moral arguments in their written or oral arguments, despite the fact that NUMEROUS Supreme Court precedents have defined traditional marriage as a sacred arrangement granted to us by God.
  2. The Republican Justices on the Supreme Court refused to even broach the issue of recusal with their colleagues. They could have convinced Kennedy of the inappropriateness of Kagan and Ginsberg voting and perhaps even blocked the case from being heard unless these two agreed to recuse themselves.
  3. When an Amicus, The Foundation for Moral Law, submitted two motions detailing the code violations by Kagan and Ginsberg and arguing they must recuse themselves under the codes governing recusals, they were ignored. Moreover, the second motion was NOT even posted on the Supreme Court docket until three weeks after the Court received this motion; and even then, they incorrectly labeled it a “request” and not a “motion.” And the first motion was never even posted at all.
  4. Obviously, the court was playing games. A motion would have required Kagan and Ginsberg to address the recusal issue publicly prior to participating in oral arguments. However, a “request” allowed the court to ignore the recusal issue since the court does not have to rule on a “request.” When the court illegally changed a filing from a “motion” to a “request,” the Republican Justices should have stepped in at this point and forced the recusal issue–but they chose to be silent. It is hard to believe that the Republican Justices or their staff were unaware of this highly irregular action.  
  5. Despite the illegal actions by the Court ignoring the codes governing recusal and changing a “motion” to a “request,” the three Republican Attorneys General – now the losing party — refused to use this issue to file a petition for rehearing. Indeed, they refused to file ANY such petition whatsoever. Only one, AG Mike DeWine, would even meet with pro-traditional marriage leaders and constitutional scholars to discuss this issue before declaring he would NOT file a petition. The other two Republican officials would not even meet with pro-marriage legal experts to discuss a petition.  

If people want to know why Republicans are losing the culture wars, this is how. If the Supreme Court had followed its own rules regarding motions and followed the U.S. Codes governing recusals, the case would have been won by the pro-marriage side 4-3.

If most homosexuals don’t want to marry, and those who do are out to destroy its real meaning and purpose, what then is the real goal of the homosexual movement? Obviously, it’s to force the rest of society to recognize their deviant lifestyle. They want to rub our faces in it. They want to force churches, mosques, temples, religious schools, religious business people, and religious charities to accommodate their lifestyle. They want to destroy the meaning of marriage by watering down its purpose. They want to redefine the First Amendment so as to be meaningless. As Justice Alito says, “[religious people] will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employees and schools.”

Folks, if you haven’t figured it out by now, this is war. The homosexuals want people of faith to be second class citizens in a country founded by Christians. This is all about revenge for the refusal by the heterosexual world to accept homosexual behavior as normal. The only question is whether we will fight back. Indeed, if the millions of conservative evangelicals, fundamentalists, orthodox Jews, Mormons, Muslims and traditional Catholics unite in opposition to the homo-fascist movement, we can ultimately win.

I, for one, will never compromise my religious beliefs. I will not attend a church that marries homosexuals or refuses to teach what the Bible repeatedly and clearly teaches about this behavior. And I urge every Christian to question their church about this. If a church caves in to the cultural barbarians, then leave it. If they are willing to compromise on such a sacred Biblical principle, they should go out of business.    

If you can’t find a church that remains faithful to the scriptures, start your own home church and invite your friends.  We are all used to formal church buildings and organizational structures, but there is nothing in the Bible that says anything about a “church” being in some building somewhere. Indeed, archaeologists have discovered that many of the first century churches were, in fact, homes. Remember, the “fish” sign was a secret sign used by first century Christians to indicate worship services were held within a home. Throughout the history of Western Civilization, there have been many occasions when Christians have gone underground to preserve their faithfulness to the scripture.   

If your child attends a religious school that is being forced to teach that homosexuality is normal, urge the school to resist such laws; and if they won’t, leave the school. Already, schools are being told they have to now teach children how to engage in homosexual sex. Homeschooling is an option, but also consider forming a home-based school composed of a group of like-minded families and pool resources to make it work. This is already commonplace today. Parents can take turns teaching or even pool their resources to hire tutors to teach certain topics. No building is necessary as the group can take turns using different homes. There is nothing most states can do to prevent such schools.   

Once the attacks on Christians begin to escalate, and Christians are being hauled into court, Christians need to get on juries whenever possible. If someone is being charged with violating a phony “hate crime” law, or a pastor is being charged with a crime for refusing to marry a homosexual couple, or a baker is headed to jail for refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, Christian jury members have the power to prevent them from being convicted. All it takes is one “No” vote as a jury member. This is called “Jury Nullification,” and it is a concept that dates back to our founding days.   

Most Americans have been propagandized by the judicial establishment to follow the judge’s orders and convict someone if there’s evidence to do so, but that’s not really the historic role of a jury member. Juries are also supposed to decide whether or not the law in question is constitutional. If you believe the law in question violates your faith or the Constitution, then don’t vote to convict the person. This was commonly done in America’s early days because our founding fathers actually encouraged jury members to be the final “check” on out-of-control government.   

While the legal community opposes jury nullification – it threatens its power to control the outcome of cases – historically, jury members have long had the right to judge both the violation of the law and the constitutionality of the law itself. Here what’s founding father and first Chief Justice of the United States John Jay says about jury nullification: “…you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Adams, America’s second president, said that: “It is not only his right, but his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

It is also time for people of faith to withhold our votes from any and all politicians unless they pledge to support, in writing, laws that protect us from this onslaught of legal attacks coming our way. If they are not willing to protect our First Amendment rights, don’t vote for them.     

Homosexual quotas in employment at Christian churches, schools and non-profits may not be far behind. To protect our First Amendment rights, Christians may need to start perfecting networking amongst ourselves to find employees, rather than publicly advertising for employees.  

Christians need to become more discerning in regards to their charitable contributions. Many of America’s largest charities quietly support or fund the homosexual agenda, including the Red Cross, Boy Scouts, United Way, UNICEF, etc. Funding those who persecute us needs to stop. The best charities to support are small local charities operated by people one knows personally.    

Boycott those businesses that support the gay movement. And they are legion: Staples, CVS, Progressive Insurance, etc., etc. Just Google the name of the business along with the term “gay rights,” and it’s easy to find out who they are. It’s time for the millions of American Christians to make their economic clout known in the marketplace and to quit enriching those who persecute us. Christians need to learn how to network with one another to find out what businesses can be trusted.  

We need to also boycott the mainstream media. For generations, the media has misled Americans about the nature of the homosexual agenda and are now cheerleading the attacks on Christians. Many liberal newspapers are teetering on collapse. A 5% reduction in readership will kill off most of the nation’s remaining newspapers. They lie. Who needs them? Get your news from the Internet.  

Finally, let’s quit being nice guys about the homosexual movement. We know that homosexuals are 6-10 times more likely to molest children than are heterosexuals. We know that as many as a third of all homosexuals have indicated in surveys that they have had sex with minors. We know that troubled youth group homes, the Boy Scouts, and even church youth groups all have huge problems with adult homosexuals targeting the children. We know that ever since homosexuals were allowed to openly serve in the armed forces, homosexual rapes have rapidly escalated, thereby destroying the morale of our armed forces.  

We know that there are large scale studies by the Centers for Disease Control and other agencies that show homosexuals are far more likely to have mental breakdowns, abuse drugs, engage in criminal activity and so on  – all indicators of an abnormal lifestyle. We know that the best research reveals that children raised in homosexual homes are, on average, experiencing far more problems than those raised in heterosexual families.

But most Americans know little of these studies and developments because the media refuses to report on them. The dark side of homosexuality has become a state secret; and as a result, many Americans have warm and fuzzy feelings about the homosexual community because all they see is the funny gay guy on some television sitcom. It is left to the Christian community to get the truth out, and we should.  

We should not allow the media’s phony “Ozzie and Harriet” portrayal of homosexuals to remain unchallenged. If Christians have writing, research, website or blogging skills, they need to use these skills to disseminate this information. If a Christian finds out a local child molester is also a homosexual but the media leaves this detail out, he should write about it. If a Christian learns that children at a local group home are being molested, but no one is doing anything about it, he needs to blog about it and make a stink until the authorities are forced to act. If a friend reports he was sexually assaulted by homosexuals while serving in the military, encourage him to write about it and send it all over the Internet.    

It is time to stop being nice guys to those who want to take away our First Amendment rights. This may sound harsh, but we are commanded to fight evil; and while I think it’s important that Churches and Christians continue to reach out to and pray for homosexuals, we cannot ignore the fact that the homosexual movement has declared war on us–and exposing what they do is a perfectly acceptable strategy. It is time to turn the spotlight on these people who seek to destroy our cherished religious freedoms.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Why Are Media Conservatives Buying The Homosexual Propaganda?

Over the last few years, we have witnessed a headlong rush by many conservatives in the media in support of various aspects of the homosexual agenda. Some were socially liberal all along, and some appear to be pushed into such a position due to pressure upon them by their colleagues or the media corporations they work for. Regardless, it is disturbing to witness their willingness to go along with this trend without even questioning the cultural impact such issues will have. Frankly, it is embarrassing how ignorant many of “our” conservative media stars are when it comes to the homosexual agenda.

Indeed, even Fox News has ignored huge stories that reflect negatively on the homosexual movement; and the few times they do cover such stories, it is oftentimes inaccurate or incomplete. I wince as I watch Bill O’Reilly, Tucker Carlson, Dana Perino, Bernie Goldberg, Mary Catherine Hamm, Megyn Kelly, Shepard Smith, Margaret Hoover, and others use the same arguments used by the homosexual community, even to the point of using the exact same phrases and buzz words. They should know better.

For example, many media conservatives happily use the term “gay” or “gay rights” and the phrase that he or she “has come out of the closet.” However, such wording assumes people are born homosexual, a myth that not even the pro-homosexual American Psychiatrist Association will support anymore. After years of research, dozens of pro-homosexual scientists have failed to find the homosexual gene; and the few who did claim to find it were later discredited for engaging in fraudulent or sloppy methodology. Moreover, Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, enlisted over 150 of the world’s top geneticists to decode the human genome; and they could not find a “gay” gene. It simply does not exist.

Let’s be clear here so that the Fox News crew understands. No one is “gay” or born “gay.” Instead, people engage in homosexual behavior, period. No one “comes out of the closet.” Rather, they are simply choosing to publicize their homosexual behavior. Further evidence that homosexuality is NOT genetic is the fluidness of homosexual behavior. As many as a third of homosexuals revert back to heterosexuality as Kinsey, Masters & Johnson, and numerous other liberal sex researchers have all reported.

Moreover, the very existence of thousands of ex-homosexuals in America demonstrate how tentative homosexuality really is. And yes, due to the addictive nature of homosexual behavior, some ex-homosexuals do relapse just as some drug addicts, alcoholics, and others enslaved to addictive behaviors do. No big surprise here.

However, if homosexuality is not genetic and not permanent, it is therefore caused by environmental and behavioral issues that are clearly not comparable to inborn traits like race or gender. So why are we creating a plethora of new laws based upon a sexual behavior? Let’s be clear about homosexual “rights” laws. Most of them are illegal in the sense that they have created legal scenarios that are increasingly violating the real constitutional rights of Americans.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

How To Start A Conservative Third Party

Third Party SC How To Start A Conservative Third Party

With the news coming out of DC that many “conservatives” in Congress are no longer willing to fight to repeal ObamaCare and the recent compromise on the “fiscal cliff,” I have just about given up on the GOP.  The Republican Party controls the purse that funds the Federal government, but one would never know that from watching their actions.  Moreover, after watching over 30 tea party-supported freshmen sell out on the debt limit and other fiscal issues, I am just not sure we can ever reform the GOP.  It may be time to create a conservative third party.

Efforts to create a conservative third party have never been successful; the biggest obstacle to such an effort is the fear conservatives have that by going third party, it will weaken the GOP and thus allow more Democrats to win.  And that’s a legitimate fear.  And that is why all the third parties that exist today end up with a few percentage points every election and have zero impact.  However, here’s an idea that addresses this issue.

For a third party to be effective, millions of voters need to join it, become active, recruit others, and support its candidates. Moreover, millions of dollars need to be raised to market the party and fight for ballot access.  I propose that a website be set up that collects pledges.  By that, I mean a person would log on, register himself, and then electronically sign a  “pledge” that he will vote for a 3rd party when the party officially launches.

The when part is the key to this effort. When the number of pledges reaches, say, thirty million voters, only then does the party launch and actually field candidates.  The same kind of tactic could be used to raise money for the party.  When contribution pledges reaches say, $40 million dollars, the party launches.  No more feeble third parties that get 1% of the vote. The party only launches when it has enough voters and money to be a serious electoral player.

So when the appropriate number of pledged voters and pledged donations is reached, the third party swings into action.  This guarantees that the party will be a viable force from the first day it launches. 

Once it launches and other voters see that it is a viable party, many more voters will pile on, and the new party will do to the GOP what the GOP did to the Whig Party 150 years ago. Such an effort may take years to get to the viable stage, but even the effort to build a viable third party may be beneficial to the conservative movement.  It will send a strong message to the Republican Party that if they continue its liberal drift, it will be replaced. Perhaps such an effort will even save the GOP.

There is also the possibility that such an effort could first be accomplished on a state level just to see if such a model would actually work. If it works, then go national.

However, it will not be enough to create a third party and hope that millions of constitutionalists will automatically join it.  Some thinking will need to go into creating a party platform.  Voters will not break from the GOP unless the new third party has a compelling platform that will unite conservatives, libertarians, the Christian Right, and the Tea Party movement.  These groups all have their differences but they all agree on dozens of principles such as fidelity to the Constitution, 2nd amendment rights, elimination of abortion funding, States rights, free enterprise, low taxes, etc. And the founding platform of the new party should focus on these uniting principles.

The internet has been used to unite millions of people for all kinds of causes.  Why can’t it be used to build the infrastructure of a new third party?

Photo credit: Occupy* Posters (Creative Commons)

Why Is Romney Being Supported By The Global Warming Crowd?

Mitt Romney speech SC 300x280 Why is Romney being supported by the Global Warming Crowd?

How depressing. Conservatives remain divided this election cycle while the most liberal candidate for the GOP nomination in decades continues to pile up delegates. Meanwhile, the evidence continues to mount that Romney will govern to the left of George Bush – either one. Romney’s effort to portray himself as a conservative has had great success, primarily due to a black out on Romney’s record not only by the mainstream press but also by much of the conservative media. Moreover, much of America’s conservative “leadership” has decided to give Romney a pass.

I posted a piece here a few weeks ago about Romney’s aggressive effort to promote global warming in Massachusetts, policies that have largely been ignored in this campaign. Since that piece was posted, more evidence has surfaced that Romney will govern as a global warming zealot. It turns out that one of Romney’s largest donors is Julian Robertson Jr., who has given $1.3 million to the pro-Romney Super Pac, Restore our Future. Robertson serves on the board of the Environmental Defense Fund and was a big cheerleader for Obama’s 2009 Cap-and-Trade bill. When Robertson’s office was questioned about Romney’s views on global warming, a spokesperson responded that, “he [Robertson] has confidence that Romney, once he’s in there, will do the right thing.” Can you spell SELL-OUT?

But that’s not all. A number of other global warming zealots are backing Romney including billionaire Trammel Crow and Rob Sisson, who heads up a group called Republicans for Environmental Protection. And one of Romney’s economic advisors is Greg Mankiw, who has spent much of his career pushing for a carbon tax to finance all the wacky global warming programs of the type Mitt pushed in Massachusetts. Also advising Romney on environmental issues are James Connaughton, a cap-and-trader who headed up Bush’s Council of Environmental Quality, and Jeff Holmstead, a Bush EPA official known for his extreme global warming views. But this isn’t surprising given the fact Romney hired hard-left environmentalist John Holdren – now Obama’s science advisor – to be a key advisor while Governor of Massachusetts.

Robertson, Crow, Sisson, etc. must know something we don’t. That’s right, we’re being set up folks. We’re being screwed by the RINO wing of the GOP. Yet conservatives by the thousands continue to vote for Romney like lemmings crawling to water.

Part of the reason why this is happening is that many of America’s leading conservatives have remained silent or neutral in this race. Many leaders are tied to groups that took money from one of Romney’s six PACS over the last six years and so they either cheerlead for Romney or stay silent. And then there are many conservatives supporting Romney in hopes of receiving a position in his administration. You know, the “career first, America last” types.


Related posts:

  1. Clear Information On Romney’s Views On Global Warming Recently, various media outlets have reported on Romney’s statement in…
  2. Obama Issues Global Warming Rules – Then Exempts GE-Powered Plant Timothy Carney with The Washington Examiner reported yesterday that the…

“Tea Party” Pols Sell Out The Tea Party

Mitt Romney95483 300x197 Tea Party Pols Sell Out The Tea Party

In March of 2011, former Rep. John Leboutiller predicted in a News Max article that, “the tea party will select the 2012 GOP nominee.”

At the time, it was a safe prediction given the strength of the tea-party movement in the 2010 elections and the influence it was expected to have on the GOP presidential primaries just over a year later. But something went terribly wrong in the meantime. Many politicians heavily supported by the tea-party movement seem to have switched sides, pursuing their own agenda at the expense of the conservative movement and the tea party.

Take Christine O’Donnell, for example. O’Donnell lost her bid for the U.S. Senate in Delaware but continues to have a following among tea-party activists. Inexplicably, she recently endorsed Romney, stating she is doing so because she thinks “infrastructure and executive experience are important.” She also claimed, “He’s been consistent since he changed his mind.”

One wonders if the $5,000 O’Donnell received in 2010 from Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC had any influence on her decision.

Similarly, the tea-party movement was heavily involved in the election of South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, but she endorsed Romney last month, claiming in her endorsement remarks, “He knows how to create jobs and turn the economy.” Haley also received some big bucks from Romney; to be precise, she took $36,000 from Romney’s various PACs over the last few years, more than any other gubernatorial candidate.

Then there’s Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a long-time favorite of tea-party activists. Chaffetz is actually a member of the Romney “Truth Squad” that goes around harassing Newt Gingrich everywhere he speaks. Chaffetz claims Romney is a fiscal conservative and that due to his budget cuts in Massachusetts, tea partiers “love” him. But Chaffetz also loves Romney’s money since he received almost $7,000 from Romney’s PAC since 2008.

Lastly, Romney seems to have even compromised the tea-party hero of Florida, Sen. Marco Rubio. Like others, Rubio professes neutrality in the GOP primary but finds frequent opportunities to proclaim, “Romney is a conservative.” And, by the way, Rubio has accepted over $7,000 from Romney’s PAC.

What’s astonishing about these tea party-supported politicians is the level of apparent ignorance they all exhibit regarding Romney’s record. Clues evidencing Romney’s RINO ways abound; just take a look at his consultants, advisers and donors. He’s Bob Dole and John McCain all over again. Moreover, Romney doesn’t seem to have any core convictions. Indeed, contrary to O’Donnell’s remarks, Romney hasn’t been consistent about anything other than promoting himself. At last count, he’s flipped-flopped on over 30 major issues.

With respect to his economic record, Chaffetz and Haley seem clueless as to the real facts: Romney’s was one of the worst in the country. He certainly didn’t govern as a fiscal conservative. Indeed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Romney’s job-creation record was 49th in the country. Why? Tax hikes on corporations and other private sector burdens resulting from his cap-and-trade and Romneycare policies.

As for abortion, some tea-party backers appear to be parroting Romney press releases. Do they not know that Romney – since his alleged pro-life “conversion” in 2004 – has engaged in numerous pro-abortion actions? For example, the Romney administration gave millions of tax dollars to Planned Parenthood for the construction of an abortion clinic and dramatically expanded state funding of abortion by ensuring that it was covered by his Romneycare plan.

Indeed, Romney led the nation in advancing three of the left’s primary policy goals: gay marriage, cap-and-trade and government control of heath care. And now he may be the GOP nominee? This is pathetic. These politicians had the power and influence to unite conservatives all over the country behind a conservative candidate, but instead they took part in misleading voters about the real Romney record.

The tea-party movement should be outraged and should hold these politicians accountable for this betrayal. Romney typifies everything that’s wrong with the GOP and possesses the same type of RINO worldview that led to the rise of the tea-party movement. To these politicians, power and influence are more important than the future of America. If the Republican Party nominates Mitt Romney, who then loses to Obama, it will be due partly to a total lack of leadership by many of the same “conservative” politicians the tea-party movement helped elect.

Steve Baldwin is a former member of the California Legislature and former executive director of the Council for National Policy. He is the author of “From Crayons to Condoms,” published by WND Books.


Related posts:

  1. Video: Occupy Wall Street Vs. The Tea Party – You Be The Judge by Helen Sabin This video shows exactly what Occupy Wall…
  2. The Tea Party Must Defeat The One-Party Ruling Class In 2012 by Joe Miller If you’re like me, you’re terribly concerned…