Republicans For Family Values  — News Release
www.rffv.org

November 3, 2008; contact: Peter LaBarbera: rffv@comcast.net

CHICAGO – Peter LaBarbera, founder of Republicans For Family Values (RFFV), said Barack Obama’s ideological devotion to both the homosexual and abortion agendas should weigh more heavily than non-moral issues as committed Christians weigh their vote tomorrow.

RFFV has published an essay, “Obama is FOR Gay Marriage even as He’s Against it,” to illustrate the Democratic candidate’s double-speak on “same-sex marriage.” Obama has promised homosexual activists that he would work to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. This issue has been largely ignored by the media, and John McCain has given Obama a pass on it.

“The Obama spin machine has done a con job on evangelicals and Catholics,” LaBarbera said. “Obama courts Christians by saying he supports traditional marriage. Meanwhile, he does everything he can to support the homosexual ‘marriage’ agenda – including his promise to “gay” activists to repeal DOMA.

“Similarly, Obama courts people of faith by pledging to ‘reduce the number of abortions.’ Yet he opposed an Illinois bill to give human rights to babies ‘born alive’ through botched abortions. And he blasted a Supreme Court ruling upholding a law banning heinous partial-birth abortions (infanticide).

(more…)

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.

(more…)

A Special Report for Republicans For Family Values (www.rffv.org)

Note: RFFV has excerpted the text in question on pages 222-224 of Barack Obama’s book, The Adacity of Hope, here:  “Obama’s ‘Audacity of Hope’ Passage Downplays ‘Obscure Line in Romans’ Proscribing Homosexual Sex.” The “obscure line” in the New Testament Book of Romans to which Obama refers is evidently this (all links are to the New International Version of the Bible):

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:26-27)

________________________________

Barack Obama’s Disturbing Misreading of the Sermon on the Mount as Support for Homosexual Sex

by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
gagnon@pts.edu

October 23, 2008

Presidential candidate Barack Obama has written in The Audacity of Hope—a book that perhaps should have been entitled The Audacity of Portraying Myself Messianically as the Herald of Audacious Hope—that he is not “willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans [about homosexual practice] to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”[1]  He repeated this line in a campaign appearance in Ohio this past March. He stated that if people find controversial his views on granting the full benefits of marriage to homosexual unions, minus only the name, “then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.”[2]  These remarks by Obama represent a gross distortion of the witness of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

On Romans 1
First, they misrepresent the text in Romans 1:24-27 against all homosexual practice, a text that belongs to one of the two or three most important books in Scripture, a catalyst for frequent spiritual revivals for the past two millennia. Romans 1:24-27 depicts all homosexual practice as an “indecency” and moral “impurity” that does three things. First, it violates God’s male-female standard for valid sexual relations given in Genesis 1:27 (the text contains strong echoes to Genesis 1:26-27). Second, it violates the obvious evidence in the material structures of creation that male and female, not persons of the same sex, are each other’s sexual counterparts or complements (a particularly obvious example on the plane of human interrelationships of suppressing the truth about God and ourselves accessible in creation and nature). Third, it “dishonors” the sexual integrity of the participants who engage in such activity by imaging themselves as only half their own sex in their attempt to merge with an alleged complement of the same sex. The passage is no more “obscure” than Paul’s comments on idolatry in the preceding passage in Romans 1:19-23 or his comments regarding a case of adult-consensual man-stepmother incest at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 5—another instance of prohibited sexual intercourse between persons who are too much alike (here on a familial level, already of the same “flesh”).

On Scripture Generally
Second, Obama’s remarks misrepresent Scripture generally in that they suggest that Paul’s stance on homosexual practice is somehow an oddity within the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a person would be hard-pressed to come up with an example of consensual sexual relations that the witness of Scripture opposes more strongly, consistently, and absolutely. Paul’s remarks were certainly not isolated. Every law, narrative, proverb, poetry, metaphor, teaching, and exhortation in Scripture that has anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite. The creation texts in Genesis 1 and 2 both establish such a prerequisite. Genesis 1:27 integrates the creation of “male and female” as a sexual pair with being made in God’s image, suggesting that same-sex pairing would efface that part of the image of God stamped on the sexual self (as also would adultery and incest, the latter even of an adult-consensual sort). Genesis 2:21-24 portrays a male-female sexual bond as the re-merger of the two complementary sexual halves of an integrated sexual whole. In other words, the sexual “counterpart” or “complement” of a man is a woman (and vice versa), a being both “corresponding to him” and “opposite him” (as the Hebrew word kenegdo infers).

(more…)

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:26-27)

_________________________

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream

By Barack Obama; Crown Publishers: 2006

Obama writes on pages 222-224 (emphasis added):

[Following a passage on the lack of compromise on both sides of the abortion debate…]

For many practicing Christians, the same inability to compromise may apply to gay marriage. I find such a position troublesome, particularly in a society in which Christians men and women have been known to engage in adultery or other violations of their faith without civil penalty. All too often I have sat in a church and heard a pastor use gay bashing as a cheap parlor trick—‘It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!’ he will shout, usually when the sermon is not going so well. I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitations or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex—nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.

(more…)

Obama’s San Francisco Values?  Matt Barber argues that Barack Obama’s pro-homosexual positions — including his call for a full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, which Joe Biden voted for and which Bill Clinton signed into law) — have far more in common with the radical sexual ethos of the nation’s “queer” Mecca than with the Middle America Obama claims to represent. At left, “Sister Mary [F-cking] Poppins,” one of the male-homosexual-drag-queen mock “nuns” of the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” — a San Francisco-based “charity” group despised by many Catholics but adored by the city’s homosexuals — poses for a photo at the Folsom Street Fair. Folsom is a pornographic, nudity-filled, outdoor sadomasochistic celebration that draws hundreds of thousands of visitors annually to the Bay city. Click on photo to enlarge.

_________________________

By Matt Barber

If Bill Clinton was the first black president, Barack Obama, if elected, will be the first “gay” president. No, I don’t mean he’ll personally decorate the West Wing, open a bathhouse in the Rose Garden or take up with Barney Frank. I mean he’ll be the most radically pro-homosexual, anti-family president in history. He’s very quietly pledged as much to the homosexual “Human Rights Campaign” and other fawning members of his homofascist fan club.

In the wake of the current economic crisis, neither presidential candidate is talking much about social issues. But in the months and years preceding this election cycle, Obama did plenty of talking. Unfortunately, most people have no idea what he’s said. If the mainstream media would do its job, quit shilling for their ideological messiah and objectively report on Obama’s unwavering fidelity to extremist homosexual pressure groups, many of his unsuspecting supporters might kick him to the curb.

You may have heard the term “San Francisco values” bandied about from time to time. These values do not so much derive from a geographical locale as they do from a shared, deeply engrained “progressive” worldview – a worldview marbled throughout in murky tones of secular humanism and moral relativism. Central to San Francisco values is the notion that the only thing immoral is to believe there are things immoral.

(more…)

The following is the text of an edited letter sent by then-U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama to the Windy City Times, one of two homosexual newspapers in Chicago. Note that WCT editors shortened the letter, apparently for publication. According to a 2007 ABC News report, “Would Obama Position Spread Same-Sex Marriage?,” Obama shifted his position from one of supporting the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to opposing it on Feb. 4, 2004 — in other words, as announced by this letter. (The U.S. Senate passed DOMA by a vote of 84-14 on Sept. 10, 1996; Obama’s running-mate, Sen. Joe Biden, was among those who voted for bill.)

ABC News reported, “When he began his campaign for U.S. Senate, [Obama] told a group called Independent Voters of Illinois — Independent Precinct Organization that he supported D.O.M.A. He then switched to an anti-D.O.M.A. position on Feb. 11, 2004, as the March 2004 Illinois Democratic primary drew near. According to Obama’s staff, the Illinois Democrat changed positions mid-campaign because he heard from gay friends how hurtful D.O.M.A. was.”

(more…)

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.

(more…)

Republicans For Family Values News Release, www.rffv.org

Barack Obama says he supports traditional marriage even as he actively supports the homosexual lobby’s campaign to spread “gay marriage” nationwide. Obama supports the full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — which running-mate Joe Biden supported and which was signed into law by fellow Democrat Bill Clinton in 1996. “Both Sides Barack” also opposes ALL statewide ballot measures to constitutionally preserve marriage as one-man, one-woman.

Contact: Peter LaBarbera, Republicans For Family Values: 630-457-0178; rffv@comcast.net

NAPERVILLE, Illinois, Oct. 7, 2008 — GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin missed a golden opportunity Thursday in her debate with Joe Biden to expose Barack Obama’s double-speak on “gay marriage,” Republicans For Family Values founder Peter LaBarbera said today.

Obama claims to support traditional marriage even as he promises to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – signed into law by Bill Clinton – which protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state homosexual “marriages.” Obama also opposes state Marriage Protection Amendments, and even promised gay activists that he would use the “bully pulpit” to promote same-sex adoptions.

After vice-presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill asked Biden, “Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?” the Delaware senator answered that “in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.”

Seemingly contradicting that sweeping statement, Biden then said that he (like Obama) does not “support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage.”

Responding to the same debate question, Palin strongly defended traditional marriage but failed to mention Obama’s extreme plan to overturn DOMA. Palin – who as Governor vetoed a bill denying benefits to homosexual state employees on the advice that it was unconstitutional — said granting same-sex benefits undermines marriage.

(more…)

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?

(more…)

Republicans For Family Values
www.rffv.org

September 2, 2008

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-457-0178; rffv@comcast.net

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion and pro-homosexual candidate ever to receive a major party’s nomination, Republicans For Family Values (www.rffv.org) founder Peter LaBarbera said today.

RFFV will be at the GOP convention to educate Republicans and the media on Obama’s extreme record on the two most important moral crises facing our nation: the killing of millions of innocent, unborn babies; and the campaign to use government to force Americans to support (and subsidize) homosexual behavior against their conscience.

“While pro-life advocates have done an outstanding job alerting the nation to Obama’s radical abortion record — he opposes banning heinous partial-birth abortions and opposed an Illinois bill recognizing human rights for babies “born alive” after botched abortions — Obama’s extreme pro-homosexual record remains largely hidden from the public.

The following are some examples of Obama’s pro-homosexual advocacy:

• Despite repeatedly professing his belief in traditional marriage, Obama’s stated public policies invariably promote the Homosexual Lobby’s “gay marriage” agenda. In other words, he claims to support marriage while simultaneously undermining it;
• For example, Obama promises to completely repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by fellow Democrat Bill Clinton. If DOMA were to be repealed, states could be forced to recognize out-of-state “same-sex marriages” against their will. (Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged to repeal only part of DOMA.);
• Obama opposes the California marriage protection amendment (Prop 8), which would simply reinstate marriage as solely between a man and a woman – the very thing that the Illinois Senator SAYS he supports;
• Obama congratulated San Francisco Democratic homosexual activists on “getting married” – again showing his hypocrisy on marriage, and his old-politics habit of trying to appeal to both sides of this and other controversial issues at the same time;
• Obama pledged to homosexual activists to use the White House bully pulpit to advocate for homosexual adoption of children – thus creating the potentially absurd spectacle of a U.S. President using the moral authority, power and prestige of the office to push for placing children in same-sex households that are motherless or fatherless by design;
• Obama distorts the Bible to justify his support of homosexuality and even used Jesus Christ’s Sermon on the Mount to support same-sex unions.

America’s liberal media do not see Barack Obama’s radical pro-homosexual advocacy as a big deal, but to many millions of Americans, it may help solidify him as too liberal to be president. But will most Americans find out how strongly pro-homosexual Obama is?

In the interview for the following story by AFA’s OneNewsNow, I indicated that Barack Obama becomes the first major party’s presumptive presidential nominee to support homosexual “marriage.” Other Democratic presidential primary candidates in 2004 and this year — e.g., Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) in 2008 and Rev. Al Sharpton in 2004 — went even further than Obama in supporting full “gay marriage” rights, but they never got close to the Democratic nomination. — Peter LaBarbera, Republicans For Family Values

OneNewsNow reports (click HERE to listen to it online):

Obama — the Pro-’Gay’ Candidate

Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow - 8/11/2008

According to at least one political analyst, Barack Obama has gone farther in supporting the homosexual agenda than any other presidential candidate [major party nominee] in history.

Peter LaBarbera, founder of Republicans for Family Values, says a recent letter from the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to a homosexual activist group confirms the extremism of his positions.

“He advocates the full repeal of DOMA, which goes farther than Hillary Clinton, who only recommended repealing part of the Defense of Marriage Act,” note LaBarbera. “He’s talking about opening up the military to homosexuality in a time of war. He’s talking about ‘gay’ adoption — putting children in homes that are intentionally fatherless or intentionally motherless, and using the White House bully pulpit to do that.”

On August 1, Obama responded to an inquiry from the pro-homosexual Family Equality Council, pledging in a letter [click HERE for PDF] his support for “LGBT families” — lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender. He also congratulated homosexual couples that have recently “married” in California and Massachusetts.

(more…)

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):

(more…)

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.

“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.”

Scarborough is supporting Mike Huckabee for president.

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”?

 Abortion is listed as a $50 or $100 co-pay under “Benefit” in the “Commonwealth Care” plan touted by Gov. Romney. Click HERE for the Commonwealth Health Insurance Program benefit cost sheet PDF from which this is taken. (Emphasis added above.)

Hmmm. Abortion as a covered “benefit” under Gov. Romney’s vaunted health care insurance plan (the Commonwealth Health Insurance Program).  How did “CEO Romney,” a pro-life convert, let this get through?

The co-pay charge for this “benefit” is $50 for premium members or $100 for regular members. See the upper left side of page 2 of the PDF link. I wonder if Ann Coulter saw this before endorsing Romney…. – Peter LaBarbera

See page 2 of this:
 
http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/binary/com.epicentric.contentmanagement.servlet.ContentDeliveryServlet/About%2520Us/Connector%2520Programs/Additional%2520Resources/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf

What:  Two Press Conferences - Saturday & Sunday

When:  Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 1:30 p.m.
Where:  Westin Detroit Airport Hotel, 2501 Worldgateway Place, Detroit, MI
 
Also:
 
When:  Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 1:30 p.m.
Where:  Amway Grand Plaza Hotel, 187 Monroe NW, Grand Rapids, MI

DETROIT, Mich. –  Mass Resistance  (www.massresistance.org) and Republicans for Family Values (www.RFFV.org) will be holding two major press conferences today and tomorrow in Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s home state of Michigan to warn voters about the “real Mitt Romney,” whose liberal, pro-homosexual record is a far cry from his pro-family campaign image.
 
Massachusetts pro-family leaders Brian Camenker and Amy Contrada, who co-authored the online report, “The Mitt Romney Deception”, will speak at the news conferences, joined by former homosexual Stephen Bennett and pro-natural-family advocate and RFFV founder Peter LaBarbera.*
 
LaBarbera notes that Romney recently endorsed homosexual special rights (”sexual orientation”) laws for other states — even though the array of “sexual orientation” laws in his own state of Massachusetts led to the imposition of homosexual “marriage” and “gay adoption.”  
 
“Mitt Romney’s recent endorsement of pro-homosexual state laws on ‘Meet the Press’ shows that he still doesn’t have his pro-family conversion story straight,” LaBarbera said, “Of course, it disqualifies him as a pro-family leader.”  
 
One of the spokesmen for RFFV will be Stephen Bennett — a FORMER homosexual man — now married to his wife of 15 years and the father of the couple’s two children.
 
Bennett is a former resident and taxpayer of Massachusetts. He now resides in Connecticut.
 
“As a conservative, and foremost a Christian man, I am going to Michigan with one purpose: to tell the truth about Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. Do not be deceived — Mitt Romney is the furthest thing from being a conservative, pro-family advocate. He in no way represents my pro-family, conservative views,” said Bennett.
 
“Romney’s record proves he doesn’t deserve the office of President of the United States of America. However, there is one title I’ll grant Mitt Romney: the ‘Father of Gay Marriage.’”
 
Bennett continued, “As Governor of the State of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney illegally imposed so-called homosexual “marriage” licenses on the citizens of the Bay State  — after refusing to support a marriage-protection amendment years earlier (when he was courting the Log Cabin Republican homosexuals). In doing so, he opened a tragic Pandora’s Box. What the courage-less Romney did in Massachusetts will affect our entire nation for years to come.” 
 
In Boston, following the imposition of “same-sex marriage,” Catholic Charities’ adoption services was forced to closed its doors after refusing to place children in homosexual-led homes.  Due to pro-gay laws and policies in the Bay State, parents who believe homosexuality is morally wrong are chastised and one, David Parker, was even thrown in jail because he protested his six-year-old child’s public elementary school ’s refusal to commit to inform parents about in-class lessons promoting homosexuality. 
 
In then-Gov. Romney’s Massachusetts, state employees were threatened with firings if they refused to accept Romney’s unnecessary and illegal order to distribute ‘gay marriage’  licenses. 
 
“And yet Romney has the audacity to now recommend these same oppressive pro-homosexual laws to other states?” Camenker said. “Mitt Romney is running for President as a pro-life, pro-family conservative, but we in Massachusetts know the REAL Romney — and the liberal social record he tries to keep hidden from the public makes him a threat to American families and our nation’s children if he is elected President.”
 
Camenker and Contrada wrote the “Mitt Romney Deception,” (http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/), a devastating report documenting Romney’s liberal record and flip flops on homosexuality, abortion and other issues.  Many conservatives are unaware of Romney’s long pro-abortion and pro-homosexual record — the latter which continues today with his recent endorsement on NBC’s “Meet the Press” of state “gay rights” laws (see “Mitt Romney’s Christmas Present to the Gay Lobby,” at www.rffv.org).
 
###
 
*For identification purposes only, LaBarbera is also president of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wed., Jan. 9, 2007
CONTACT:   Gary Glenn:  989-430-0652
 
Shock poll: Huckabee leads in Michigan
 
“According to the latest Rossman Group/MIRS/Denno-Noor survey, the GOP contest in Michigan is now shaping up as a battle between Mike Huckabee (at 23 percent), Mitt Romney (at 22 percent) and John McCain (at 18 percent).” http://www.rossmangroup.com/press_releases/article_read.cfm
 
“I think the big stor(y) shaping up in Michigan (is) Huckabee’s leap to the top of the GOP field…,” said John T. Reurink, president of Michigan Information & Research Service Inc. (MIRS) newsletter.
 
The poll was conducted Jan. 6-7, after Romney had spent at least $1 million in television advertising in Michigan, as reported Jan. 2nd by the Detroit News, while Huckabee had had no paid advertising in the state. http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/POLITICS01/801020375
 
Gary Glenn, Midland, a volunteer spokesman for grassroots supporters of Huckabee in Michigan, said the new poll results “will put the motivation level of Gov. Huckabee’s volunteer army here in Michigan through the roof in the final push to next Tuesday.”
 
“Gov. Huckabee doesn’t have to win Michigan to show well, but the fact that he’s in a position to even threaten Mitt Romney in Romney’s native state is a testimony to how strongly Gov. Huckabee’s message appeals to voters in Michigan and nationwide.”
 
“Just to stay even, Mitt Romney has had to spend a million dollars on TV ads to buy the support he has,” Glenn said, “but it’s Gov. Huckabee’s heart for the values and concerns of the average American family that is obviously winning the hearts of Michigan voters.”
 
Glenn said he expected that the socially conservative voters who dominate Republican presidential primaries will continue to move to Huckabee the more they learn about the issues.
 
“Gov. Huckabee has been a life-long defender of prenatal life and traditional family values, while until running for president, Mitt Romney had a long record of promoting abortion on demand, the homosexual agenda, and gun control.,” Glenn said.
 
For example, he said, Huckabee helped lead the campaign for a Marriage Protection Amendment to the Arkansas state constitution, while Romney as a candidate for governor in 2002 opposed a marriage amendment to the Massachusetts constitution and Sen. John McCain was one of only a handful of Republican lawmakers who voted against a federal marriage amendment.
 
# # #