By Peter LaBarbera

As a social conservative, one of the most troubling aspects of this presidential campaign has been the media’s (and John McCain’s) failure to flesh out Barack Obama’s “audacious” doublespeak on the issue of same-sex “marriage.”

Here’s the question Obama was lucky enough to have never been asked in this campaign: What does it mean to say you support traditional marriage (one man, one woman) – when you do so much to advance the pro-“gay marriage” cause, including denouncing state marriage-protection amendments like Prop 8 in California as “discriminatory and divisive”?

Did you know that Obama has promised homosexual activists that he will work to fully repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act? DOMA was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996 and protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state “gay marriages.” It was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate, 85-14, with Sen. Biden joining 28 other Democrats in voting yes. How liberal is Obama’s anti-DOMA scheme? Hillary Clinton, a trusted gay ally, pledged to repeal only part of DOMA.

Neither McCain nor Gov. Palin has made an issue of Obama’s extreme anti-DOMA sop to the homosexual crowd even though they had a clear opening. (One 2007 Quinnipiac poll revealed that a homosexual group’s endorsement of a candidate would be a net electoral loser among voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.) The result is that Obama’s DOMA Destruction Plan never surfaced in the debates and barely in the major media.

The Democratic spin on marriage has fooled a lot of voters. If you watched the presidential debates, including the Saddleback Church event with Pastor Rick Warren, you might have concluded that Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, pretty much agree with McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin on same-sex “marriage.”

That is a precisely what the savvy strategists at the Obama/Biden campaign want you to think, as they strive to hide their candidates’ radical pro-gay agenda and portray themselves as reasonable moderates on this wedge issue. Truth is, the gulf between the tickets is the difference between saying you support marriage and actually doing something to protect it – and NOT favoring policies like repealing DOMA that are completely in line with the homosexual activists’ goal of radically redefining this sacred institution.

McCain is a strong DOMA supporter who will embrace a Federal Marriage Amendment if he sees activist judges forcing “gay marriage” on the states. Obama, on the other hand, went from supporting DOMA in 2004 to calling it “abhorrent” as part of his radical promise to homosexual groups to overturn it. Obama is setting the stage for nationalizing “same-sex “marriage” (perhaps under the guise of “civil unions”), while reporters dutifully provide him cover by repeating his alleged opposition to same.

If only one major media reporter would ask Sen. Obama: how can you say you support traditional marriage and yet “abhor” a popular law (DOMA) that helps states to preserve it? Alas, we mere mortals have to choose sides – and most politicians flip and then flop — but apparently Obama, The One, is allowed to embrace both sides of an issue simultaneously and get away with it.

Consider the following Obama policies and rhetoric and ask yourself if this sounds like a man who supports traditional marriage:

• Obama congratulated homosexual activists for “getting married” at a San Francisco Democratic gay event;
• Though Obama says he “personally” opposes “gay marriage,” he creates a distinction without a difference by supporting federal “civil unions.” Obama told the nation’s leading homoseuxal lobby group: “I believe civil unions should include the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license.” Interestingly, this stance has led Obama to support a bill to allow homosexual partners to immigrate to the United States just like married spouses;
• Obama promises gay activists that he will use the bully pulpit to advocate for homosexual adoption of children. Thus Americans may have to endure the absurd spectacle of a President Obama using the prestige of the White House to defend placing children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design;
• Obama said he “respects” the California supreme court’s 4-3 decision earlier this year forcing “gay marriage” on that state, even though it wiped out a previous statewide ballot vote by Californians to preserve marriage as between a man and a woman;
• Obama denounced the Federal Marriage Amendment as a mere “political ploy”;
• Obama dismisses a key passage in the New Testament Book of Romans and distorts Jesus Christ’s Sermon on the Mount to justify his pro-homosexuality agenda.

Considering the above, is it asking too much of the media to stop repeating the distortion that Obama and Biden support traditional marriage?

Appearing on the Ellen DeGeneres show, Sen. Biden eagerly told Ellen, a “gay-marriage” activist, that if he were a California voter he would vote “no” on Prop 8 in California. How strange, since Prop 8 does nothing but reinstate the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. (It does not affect same-sex “domestic partners,” who already receive the same benefits as married couples under California law.) Of course, earlier, in the vice-presidential debate, Biden claimed to oppose gay “marriage” — creating the false impression that he and Palin essentially agree on the same-sex-”marriage” question.

John McCain blew it by not calling out his opponents on their “gay marriage” deception and their plans to do in DOMA. All he needed to say was that the Illinois Senator doesn’t have the guts to tell the truth — that Obama’s “personal” opposition to “gay marriage” is meaningless because his pro-gay pledges would greatly advance the spread of homosexual “marriage” across the land. With friends like Obama and Biden, McCain could have said, the beleaguered institution of marriage really doesn’t need enemies.
_________________________________

Peter LaBarbera is founder of Republicans For Family Values (www.rffv.org) and president of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality (for identification purposes only).

Where were the media when Obama and his cronies viciously, and most often falsely, attacked everyone from John McCain and Sarah Palin to an abortion survivor who only asked that Barack Obama consider her plight in his abortion position? Complicit, and AWOL.

How do the Republicans win the White House when nearly everything they say goes through the liberal filters in the media?

Bob Holmes
Michigan

News Release; October 13, 2008

CONTACT/INTERVIEWS: Print, Radio, Web: Lynne Campbell or Shauna Whitlock 630-848-0750
office@specialguests.com

Television: Todd Bauman 512-868-8395; todd@specialguests.com  OR
Jerry McGlothlin 212-699-2518; jerry@specialguests.com

Over 325,000 USA churches, synagogues get new publication, ‘The Judeo-Christian View’

Vista, CA (Monday, October 13) – Over 325,000 rabbis, priests and pastors in every Jewish and Christian congregation in America have received the inaugural issue of The Judeo-Christian View by U.S. mail, according to the publisher of the new periodical. The launch edition deals with the volatile issues of religion, presidential politics, same-sex unions and “child sacrifice.” Signed by dozens of clerics who concur that homosexuality and partial birth abortion – plus related policies of U.S. Senator Barack Obama – are at odds with the ancient Biblical faiths, the first edition also went online during Yom Kippur (www.thejudeo-christianview.com) and is heading to another 5 million U.S. clerics, theologians and religious laity via e-mail as part of an ambitious subscription strategy.

Signatories of the ecumenical epistle — rabbis, pastors and theologians themselves — urge congregational leaders to boldly pray, preach and teach “the Judeo-Christian view” on same-sex intercourse while conveying to their flocks where Senators Obama and John McCain stand on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law that shields states from forced legal recognition of gay unions from other states, such as Massachusetts and California. The “multimedia journal of opinion”– including a graphic DVD “video sermon” for congregations which cites both Jewish and Christian Bible translations — reports that Obama favors full repeal of DOMA and supports same-sex unions, while McCain takes the opposite stand.

The clerical signers come from Jewish, Roman Catholic, evangelical and “mainline” Protestant denominations, including the United Methodist, Anglican, African Methodist Episcopal, Brethren, Baptist and Congregational traditions. Among them: Rabbi Herzel Kranz from The Jewish Center of Silver Spring, Maryland; Rev. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr.; Father Frank Pavone, Roman Catholic head of Priests for Life; Rev. Rosemary Schindler, San Francisco Board of the Anti-Defamation League and member of the Oscar Schindler family (of Schindler’s List); Dr. James M. Hutchens, Brigadier General and Deputy Chief of US Army Chaplains (Ret.); Rev. Ben Kinchlow, former co-host of The 700 Club; Dr. Bruce Fong, president, Michigan Theological Seminary; Dr. Kenneth L. Hutcherson, Antioch Bible Church, Kirkland, Washington; Dr. Erwin Lutzer, senior pastor of Moody Memorial Church, Chicago; and Rabbi Yehuda Levin of the Rabbinical Alliance of America of Torah Loyal Jews and The Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the U.S. and Canada.

On the issue of “child sacrifice,” The Judeo-Christian View springboards from Jewish Scriptures (eg., Leviticus 18:21, Jeremiah 32:35) into graphic verbal and video descriptions of partial birth abortion — a late-term procedure that involves piercing the skull and vacuuming the brain of the fetus, something McCain would ban, but Obama would allow. The rabbis and pastors contend that Obama’s policy to liberalize the practice, “combined with his effort to kill a bill that would protect babies who survive abortions, tends to gut the USA’s moral standing to condemn jihadic use of Muslim children as suicide bombers; both are horrific cases of child sacrifice that support a Culture of Death and demonstrate utter contempt for the Judeo-Christian Culture of Life.”

“We don’t advise political endorsements from pulpits, but we certainly do urge leaders to teach Jewish and Christian ethics while naming names of politicians who reject aspects of that foundation,” said Dr. O’Neal Dozier, General Publisher of the journal and pastor of the Worldwide Christian Center in Pompano Beach, Florida. “It is a simple matter of full disclosure and informed consent. Shepherds must lead their sheep.” Dozier, an African American and former NFL linebacker for the Chicago Bears and New York Jets, said the new publication is unrelated to the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal aid group that recently encouraged some pastors to make express political endorsements from their pulpits.

“We think our readers will appreciate the eloquence and courage of the interfaith signatories who say what so many others fear to say,” said Dozier. “Our model is predicated on free, opt-in online subscriptions and eventual advertising support. We hope to hook both the shepherds and their flocks on bold content that emphasizes the common values of Jews and Christians in the USA and globally. Threats to religious liberty and civil freedom here and around the world make it essential that we ‘People of the Book’ work closely together.” Dozier said the next issue will be The Judeo-Christian View on “The Free Exercise of Islamic Violence.”

Although juxtaposing Scripture with the two senators’ policies, the multiracial signers reject “any kind of hatred, mean-spiritedness or gay-bashing”, “bigotry against peaceful Muslims”, racism, or mistreatment of “young mothers pressured by boyfriends, parents or society to abort their pre-born infants.” Urging “love the sinner, hate the sin”, the signers encourage the same “attitude toward erring politicians as well.” The publication also reports that the two senators differ on integrating open gays into U.S. military barracks, and urges prayer for ballot measures in California, Florida and Arizona designed to uphold traditional monogamy.

The publication’s mission statement says it “is a multimedia journal of opinion for rabbis, priests pastors and religious lay leaders of Jewish, Christian or mixed heritage which seeks to research, report on and uphold the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Judeo-Christian foundations for Creator-endowed human rights, religious liberty, civil freedom and tolerance, respect for women, family structure, American exceptionalism and Western Civilization. We do not endorse, oppose, coordinate with or advocate on behalf of any politician or party; rather, we seek to uphold the Judeo-Christian View.”

LINKS: www.TheJudeo-ChristianView.com

By Peter LaBarbera

ST. PAUL, Minn.–Check out James Hartline’s piece on the “other side” of Michelle Obama — you know, the side that pleads with Democratic homosexual activists to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996 by Democrat Bill Clinton.

Hartline writes:

Her push to repeal both the Defense of Marriage Act and the ban on homosexuality and lesbianism in the military, indicate that Michelle Obama is suffering from some type of political schizophrenia. One night she’s talking about faith and motherhood and basketball. The next day she’s instructing gay extremists to dismantle the institution of marriage. One thing that Michelle Obama is consistently demonstrating by her melodramatic and distasteful flip-flopping on family values is the fact that she will not be settling down to play house anytime soon.

What’s up with the Dems? They’re more committed than ever to promoting the homosexual politicial/cultural agenda, and yet they know they have to hide that from public, especially during propagandistic soirees like the Democratic convention in Denver. Sure, Barack Obama mentioned homosexuals in his nomination acceptance speech, but did he preach it from the mountaintop (or was that the temple portico?) that he wants to REPEAL THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT?

No way. That would be a catastrophic departure from the Dems’ conservative-mimicking script in Denver. Can’t let those homophobic American rubes — especially the ones in Ohio and Pennsylvania — know about our true same-sex agenda now, can we? Nope, the double-game continues, and Democratic strategists are taking special care to keep their lavender clothes in the closet.

This tells me that the Cultural Elites have not yet succeeded in breaking down mainstream America’s moral norms. Much as the left-leaning media keep reminding us that “gay marriage” won’t be the make-or-break issue it was in 2004, they know deep down that it could be — so don’t look for the Fourth Estate to examine the Obamas’ ”DOMA Destruction” plans until, say, November 5th.

And so, it’s up to Sen. John McCain, Gov. Sarah Palin and the Republicans to draw a stark contrast on “family values” between the GOP and the Democrats who insult Americans with their smarmy wholesome appeals while they (wink, wink) stoke the hopes of committed ”queer” militants by preaching the Gay Gospel off stage. Will the Republicans expose Obama’s cynical marriage and abortion hypocrisy? The answer to that question will help decide if the GOP is serious about electing a President McCain. 

If you want to know what’s in store for America under an Obama Administration, forget the ”soft” Michelle in Denver and listen to the her speech to the DNC’s Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council. The Democrats – with their schizophrenic “gay pride” — have handed the Republicans an issue on which, alone, they could practically capture the presidency. Will McCain, Palin & Co. take it?

McCain’s Human Rights Campaign 2006 Congressional Scorecard rating of 33 percent, though way too high from the perspective of most conservatives, is in stark contrast to Obama’s 89 out of 100 in the same HRC Scorecard. McCain voted against HRC on all but one key vote (he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment), while Obama voted with HRC on all but one vote (he did not support a pro-homosexual immigration bill).

Here is another way to compare the two senators’ records: Human Rights Campaign’s analysis of Obama’s co-sponsorship of pro-homosexual legislation backed by HRC, versus the same analysis for McCain.)

The fact that McCain’s spokesman reports (below) that the senator was “proud” to receive the endorsement of the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans — a group that crusades for homosexual “marriage” and routinely demonizes Christian conservatives just as all the other “gay” activist groups do– will stick in the craw of pro-family Republicans.

We eagerly wait to see if McCain smartly makes a serious play for pro-family, conservative voters in the wake of California’s homosexual “marriage” ruling, or opts instead to try to split the middle of the GOP’s “big tent” — perhaps even making bolder pro-homosexual overtures to court “moderates.” — Peter LaBarbera

The following is excerpted from a Washington Blade report June 6 (emphasis added):

HRC Blasts McCain

HRC [Human Rights Campaign] on Tuesday released a compilation of Sen. John McCain’s statements and stances on gay issues. The five-page report called McCain an “opponent of equality” and “out of touch with the GLBT community.”

Lisa Schwartz, HRC’s legal director, said McCain as president would “act against the civil rights” that gay Americans seek, including “basic fairness” guarantees in the workplace.

“John McCain opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” she said. “He opposes protections for GLBT people so that they can go to work and lead the productive lives that they can and deserve to.”

Schwartz said McCain also opposes hate crimes legislation that is supported by an “overwhelming bulk” of Americans, plus many chiefs of police and state attorneys general.

“John McCain has had three opportunities to vote for hate crimes legislation that would protect people on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability,” she said. “And all three times, he’s voted against this legislation.”

Schwartz said McCain exhibits a “backward looking way of thinking that doesn’t reflect what most Americans believe about” these issues.

The report does not assign McCain a score. He received 33 of 100 on HRC’s most recent congressional scorecard. Obama scored 89 of 100.

Brian Rogers, a McCain campaign spokesperson, said in a statement to the Blade that McCain would continue to seek support from all Americans.

“Sen. McCain is seeking support from all Americans this November, based on his vision for moving America forward and his long record of treating people with respect and dignity,” Rogers said. “He was proud to receive an endorsement from the Log Cabin Republicans in his 2004 re-election campaign, and we’re confident he’ll win strong support this fall.”

Log Cabin has not yet announced whether it will endorse McCain.

www.rffv.org

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; rffv@comcast.net

Peter LaBarbera, founder of the website Republicans For Family Values (http://www.rffv.org/), issued the following statement today:

We who know his real record celebrate the news that the media’s favorite fake “conservative,” Mitt Romney, has abandoned his GOP presidential bid.  Congratulations to Mass Resistance’s Brian Camenker and all those who worked so hard to expose the truth about this man who, frankly, deceived many. Camenker’s report, “The Mitt Romney Deception,” was the linchpin of our campaign to expose Romney’s incredible string of flip-flops, anti-family sellouts and conveniently-timed conversions to the pro-family cause.

Said Camenker: “It’s quite astonishing that a rag-tag army of truth-tellers was able to take down the most well-funded and best organized political campaign in modern times — which was also in collusion with the “mainstream” conservative movement.”

Sadly, Brian is correct: the facts about Romney’s record that should have been reported by major “conservative” and pro-family leaders – such as his continued embrace of homosexual “special rights” laws and the $50 co-pay for abortion as a “benefit” resulting from his state health insurance plan — were left untold. Curiously, major conservative opinion-leaders like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Hugh Hewitt – who readily bashed Mike Huckabee and John McCain for being too liberal — couldn’t bring themselves to expose the Real Romney.

Worse yet, some major Christian pro-family leaders failed in their role to inform the public about Romney’s social liberalism. Curiously, some embraced Romney even though his (post-pro-life-conversion) record on abortion paled in comparison to Mike Huckabee’s 100% pro-life record — and despite the fact that Romney’s (current) pro-homosexual-special-rights advocacy broke with decades of pro-family tradition. We know that some of these groups accepted large donations from Romney.

Right up to Super Tuesday, millions of Christians and conservatives – relying on talk radio and not hearing the truth from some major Christian organizations – were ignorant of Romney’s pro-homosexual, liberal record, demonstrating the lack of fair play of key conservative and pro-family leaders who — at the very least – should have exposed equally the warts of all the GOP contenders.

Politics is a tough business, but is it wrong to expect conservatives – and especially Christian leaders – to conduct it with more integrity?

This was a David vs. Goliath battle, and shows that truth is more powerful than fiction.  Now we must be vigilant as many of the same opinion-leaders will try to perpetuate their own myth by selling Romney as the “conservative” standard bearer waiting in the wings.

Republicans For Family Values
www.rffv.org

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; rffv@comcast.net

Super Tuesday Exposes Folly of Pundits Proclaiming Pro-Gay Romney as ‘Conservative’

Peter LaBarbera of the Republicans For Family Values website (www.rffv.org) offered the following lessons and observations from Super Tuesday’s surprising Huckabee performance:

• Perhaps Mitt Romney should pull out of the race: he cost the more conservative Huckabee a victory in both Missouri and Oklahoma; says Texas pro-family leader Kelly Shackelford: “You’re not a conservative if you can’t win the south.  The south has spoken clearly- Huckabee is the conservative. … Losing in third place across the south, Romney needs to leave the race so true conservatives can coalesce around Gov. Huckabee.” 
• Factoring the anti-Huckabee bias of both the liberal media and pro-Romney conservative pundits like Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh (which should be worth at least 10 percentage points) – plus Romney’s huge personal spending advantage — and it is clear that the real “two-man race” in the GOP is between McCain and Huckabee;
• The voters rejected the pundits’ and broadcast reporters’ promotion of Romney as “the conservative” candidate – since on social issues, which matter most to the GOP’s loyal grassroots base of religious, pro-life voters, Huckabee is the true conservative (e.g., he opposes “gay rights” laws, in contrast to Romney, who said state gay rights laws “make sense”);
• Evidence of conservative pundit bias: Ann Coulter’s trashed Mike Huckabee’s alleged past liberalism while she ignored Mitt Romney’s longtime pro-abortion-on-demand, pro-gay record and his current liberalism – including Romney’s public support for state homosexual “special rights” laws and his creation of a state health insurance plan in Massachusetts that ended up including a $50 co-pay for abortion as “benefit.”  Later, after McCain moved ahead in the race, Coulter made a fool of herself by asserting that she would vote for Hillary Clinton — who is competing with Barack Obama over which Democrat is more pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality — rather than John McCain;
• FOX News’ Sean Hannity and other conservatives should stop blatantly promoting Mitt Romney and belittling Mike Huckabee as a candidate; Hannity reached a new low when he led his viewers to believe (erroneously) that Huckabee had quit the race in Florida;
• Evidence of the liberal media bias: the reporting on Huckabee’s speech urging a Human Life Amendment and Marriage Protection Amendment – making the Constitution more in line with “God’s standards.” News media like MSNBC (Joe Scarborough; see broadcast HERE) bristled at Huckabee’s religious reference while NOT reporting that the former Arkansas governor was merely offering rhetorical support for two planks that enjoy deep support among the GOP’s social conservative grassroots;
• How much of the above bias and distortions surrounding anti-Huckabee/pro-Romney coverage result from standard anti-evangelical-Christian bigotry?
• If Romney had been “Huckabee’d” by the conservative pundits – i.e., had they fully exposed the former Massachusetts governor’s extremely liberal past social record, unprecedented flip-flops, and current liberal positions – Romney likely never would have emerged as the purported “conservative” alternative to McCain; 
• Some social conservative leaders are clearly putting politics over principle by opting for a candidate – Mitt Romney – who fails in two critically important areas for religious conservative voters: opposing all aspects of the homosexual activist agenda and being consistently pro-life (we applaud Romney’s pro-life conversion, but since that conversion he has supported or enabled some anti-life policies such as subsidizing abortions as a health insurance “benefit“). We understand why the Club for Growth chose Romney (although Romney is not a genuine economic conservative), but for key evangelical leaders to downplay Romney’s liberal policies – especially his current and novel pro-homosexual positioning as a Republican FAVORING passage of state homosexual “special rights” laws  – has damaged these leaders’ credibility;
• There appears to be strong bias among conservatives in general that economic issues are more important than social issues (which is not to imply that Romney has a true conservative economic record); pro-life and pro-family voters should reject this.
• Many pro-lifer and pro-family Republicans remain ignorant of Romney’s pro-homosexual-agenda record and his dubious pro-life record, including his support for stem cell research using excess embryos created during fertility treatments. Conservative media and some pro-life/pro-family leaders are complicit in not reporting or even covering up these crucial facts exposing Romney’s liberalism.

Says Rick Scarborough, founder and president of Vision America and a national leader among pro-life and pro-marriage advocates:

“I cannot support Mitt Romney.  His conversion to the pro-life position is suspect and his ongoing support of homosexual rights is not. His position on the deity of Christ does not align with orthodox Christianity and his positions on abortion and Gay rights does not align with orthodox Mormonism. He flip flops on the core values which drive Christian conservatives.”

www.rffv.org

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; rffv@comcast.net

Peter LaBarbera, founder of Republicans For Family Values (www.rffv.org), today criticized GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney for his “novel pro-homosexual positioning in the GOP.” On Dec. 16, Romney (the alleged “conservative” in the race) told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “it makes sense at the state level” to enact pro-homosexual “sexual orientation” laws.  Last week, CNN’s Roland Martin reported that Romney told him that he opposes “gay marriage,” but supports “gay rights.”

LaBarbera issued the following statement:

Mitt Romney just doesn’t get it on the homosexual agenda, and if he doesn’t get at after serving as governor of liberal Massachusetts — where “gay marriage,” homosexual adoption and pro-homosexuality indoctrination in schools ALL were advanced by the sort of pro-gay “sexual orientation” laws he’s now espousing — then he’s not going to get it at the federal level.

Romney is already using his bully pulpit as a candidate to affirm “gay rights”– even AFTER he’s earned the backing of pro-family leaders who seemingly would have much to teach him about the danger and misuse of pro-homosexual laws. (Note that Romney uses gay-affirming “discrimination” rhetoric even with regard to the Boy Scouts’ ban on homosexuals.) 

I don’t know any serious pro-lifers who are pro-homosexuality. We all have compassion for homosexual strugglers, but we draw the line at laws that would distort “civil rights” to include sinful and changeable homosexual behavior — because these laws will be used to compel individuals, business and even ministries to violate their beliefs and support homosexual relationships (see the Weekly Standard article, “Banned in Boston,” about Boston Catholic Charities electing to close down its historic adoption agency rather than place kids in homosexual households.

Romney is trying to shift the GOP’s pro-family paradigm on homosexuality, and it’s an unwise shift — much like retreating from a principled position on pro-life (e.g., “I’m pro-choice but not pro-partial-birth abortion”). Due to Romney’s potential for being the “Nixon-goes-to-China” president who advances pro-homosexuality agendas in the GOP — I cannot support him.

Why do the same conservative pundits who have assailed Mick Huckabee and John McCain as too liberal, promote the fiction that Mitt Romney – who strongly defended abortion-on-demand and who remains in favor of anti-Christian homosexual special rights laws as a Mormon – is a “conservative”?