Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us

        February 24, 2012


Blind Midgets Pretending That They Can See

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Former United States Senator Richard John Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) gave an address on August 29, 200;8, at the conciliar stronghold known as Ave Maria University in Ave Maria, Florida. Santorum has gotten a great deal of attention from the secular media because he in that speech of three and one-half years ago that Satan was attacking a "good and decent" land, the United States of America:

This is not a political war at all. This is not a cultural war at all. This is a spiritual war. And the father of lies has his sights on what you would think the father of lies, Satan, would have his sights on. A good, decent, powerful, influential country -- the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age? There is no one else to go after, other than the United States. And that’s been the case for now almost 200 years, once America’s preeminence was sown by our great founding fathers.

He didn’t have much success in the early days. Our foundation was very strong, in fact is very strong. But over time that great, acidic quality of time corrodes away even the strongest foundations. And Satan has done so by attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality as the route to attack all of these strong plants that have so deeply rooted in American tradition. He was successful. He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions. (Santorum on Satan.)


This excerpt from former Senator Santorum's speech demonstrates what a blind, confused man he is.

Richard John Santorum is a man blinded by the myths of Americanism as he has no clue that this country was founded upon the diabolical ies of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry that have convinced Catholics and non-Catholics alike that it is possible for men of divergent beliefs to work "together' in the pursuit of the common temporal good without regard to the binding precepts contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. The men who founded this country, products of the overthrow of of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution and institutionalized by the rise of a thousand different and ever-mutating precepts in its wake, also believed that it was possible for men to pursue virtue without belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace. These are lies. Diabolical lies, Senator Santorum. Lies.

The men heralded by Richard John Santorum as "our great founding fathers" hated and mocked Our Lord:

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind. ( President John Adams: "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," 1787-1788)

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away {with} all this artificial scaffolding…" (11 April, 1823, John Adams letter to Thomas Jefferson, Adams-Jefferson Letters, ed. Lester J. Cappon, II, 594).

Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion? (John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821)

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! (John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, quoted in 200 Years of Disbelief, by James Hauck)

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."—James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr„ April I, 1774

". . . Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest."—James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratification of the Constitution, June 1778

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."—-James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, 1785

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December, 1813.)

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them. (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Roger Weigthman, June 24, 1826, ten days before Jefferson's death.)


 Still think that these men are "great," Senator Santorum, that Satan had not influenced them to have such hatred from Christ the King and His Holy Church?

Senator Santorum, you are a fool if you do not realize how blinded you have been by the lies of Modernity and Modernism.

Richard John Santorum was not alone on the Midget Naturalist Ship of Fools on the evening of Ash Wednesday, February 22, 2012, at the Mesa Arts Center in Mesa, Arizona. Mind you, Richard John Santorum certainly demonstrated how blinded he has been by "the American Way of Politics" by seeking to justify his votes in behalf of funding for Planned Parenthood and for the hideous initiative of his fellow "pro-life" statist, George Walker Bush.

First, to his comments about funding for Planned Parenthood:

SANTORUM: As Congressman Paul knows, I opposed Title X funding. I've always opposed Title X funding, but it's included in a large appropriation bill that includes a whole host of other things, including...


... the funding for the National Institutes of Health, the funding for Health and Human Services and a whole bunch of other departments. It's a multi-billion-dollar bill.

What I did, because Title X was always pushed through, I did something that no one else did. Congressman Paul didn't. I said, well, if you're going to have Title X funding, then we're going to create something called Title XX, which is going to provide funding for abstinence-based programs, so at least we'll have an opportunity to provide programs that actually work in -- in keeping children from being sexually active instead of facilitating children from being sexually active. And I pushed Title XX to -- to accomplish that goal.

So while, yes, I -- I admit I voted for large appropriation bills and there were things in there I didn't like, things in there I did, but when it came to this issue, I proactively stepped forward and said that we need to do something at least to counterbalance it, A; B, I would say that I've always been very public that, as president of the United States, I will defund Planned Parenthood; I will not sign any appropriation bill that funds Planned Parenthood.  (Full Transcript of CNN ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.)


Query, Senator Santorum, query. How can one "oppose" Title X funding when one votes for it?

To fund the the monstrous schemes of the National Institutes of Health and those of the United States Department of Health and Services?

Santorum contradicted himself later in the debate, reverting back to his "personally opposed" to contraception argument that was dissected six days ago in Move Along, Nothing To See, Just Another Apostate as he tried to respond to an objection made by Willard Mitt Romney, whose own blindness and stupidity will be dissected in just a moment or two. Here is Santorum's reversion to the "personally opposed" argument that contradicted his claim that he "had" to vote for Title X funding in order to appropriate money for the National Institutes of Health and the United States Department of Health and Human Services:

SANTORUM: I think it's -- I think I was making it clear that, while I have a personal moral objection to it; even though I don't support it, that I voted for bills that included it. And I made it very clear in subsequent interviews that I don't -- I don't support that...


... I've never supported it, and -- and have -- and on an individual basis have voted against it. That's why I proposed Title XX to counterbalance it.

So I -- you know, Governor Romney, I can just say that -- that, you know, we were talking about this issue before of, you know, religious conscience and protections. But this is -- the whole reason this issue is alive is because of the bill that you drafted in Massachusetts, Romneycare, which was the model for Obamacare and the government takeover of health care. (Full Transcript of CNN ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.)


Contradiction after contradiction, Senator Santorum. You've never supported contraception or have boasted about funding it? Do you have Alzheimer's Disease or some other kind of dementia? This is what you said just a week ago now:

SANTORUM: Well, I mean, it's -- look, I'm not going to be responsible for everybody [Santorum supporter Foster Freiss] who's -- you know, anybody -- any supporter of mine and what they say. I mean, that's -- that's -- that's -- I'm not going to play that game.

I mean, the bottom line is my position is very clear. I've had a -- a consistent record on this of supporting women's right to have contraception. I've supported funding for it.

So -- I mean, this is a -- this is a -- in my opinion, this is an attack on someone's religious beliefs because I have a very strong belief, as does my family, in agreement with the Catholic church, somehow or another, that that's -- that's a -- that's something that people should be afraid of, shouldn't be afraid of it.

If you look at my record in the public, I've been clear about -- about that issue. I've had a consistent and long voting record on it. And I think this is the media trying to play -- you know, trying to play gotcha. It's -- it's absurd. (Santorum Defends Moral Versus Political Stance on Contraception.)

VAN SUSTEREN: In terms of your views on contraception and your religious beliefs -- and everyone comes to the office of the president with certain religious beliefs -- is it something that would in any way -- you know, be -- would it -- I mean, is there any way it would be imposed on the American people? Or is it something that's -- you know, how would we see it in policy, if at all?

SANTORUM: Well, good. I -- you know, just look at my record. I mean, I have been criticized by -- by -- I think it was Governor Romney or maybe it was Congressman Paul's campaign for voting for contraception, that I voted for funding for it, which is -- I think it's -- I think it's Title 10, which is -- which I have voted for in the past, that provides for free contraception through organizations, even like Planned Parenthood.

And so, you know, it's funny that on the conservative side, I'm getting ripped for having voted for this. And now all of a sudden, the left is trying to make me out that somehow I -- you know, I want to stop women, or men for that matter, from getting -- you know, doing things and taking things for contraception.

That -- look, I have my own views on these things. They're deeply held beliefs. But not everything that I think is -- that I disagree with morally should the government be involved in. Only when there is -- there are -- there are real consequences to society or to the -- or to the rights of individuals do I -- do I feel a need to speak out. And that's why I do on the issue of abortion because we have another -- we have another person involved in the decision.

But the issue of contraception, that's not the case. It's something that people have a right to do in this country. And it certainly will be safe to do so under the Santorum presidency. (Santorum Defends Moral Versus Political Stance on Contraception.)

Which is it, Senator Santorum? You voted to fund Planned Parenthood because you made a distinction between your "personal" beliefs and your public duty? Or did you vote to fund Planned Parenthood because you "had" to do so in order to vote for appropriations bills that "leadership" wanted you to support as a "team" member? Which is it?

Well, the actual truth is this: Richard John Santorum knew that he could vote for bills to fund the chemical assassination of innocent preborn children because his vote would not be "scored" by the National Not-So-Right-to-Life Committee and because he came from a "swing" state with a lot of "moderate" voters to whom he wanted to seem not as "dogmatic" on contraception as he is on abortion. In point of fact, however, Santorum was not so "pro-life" as a United States senator as he made the usual "exceptions" to the surgical killing babies as most other "pro life" politicians have done until he was voted out of office on November 7, 2006.

It is curious, though, that Santorum, who is indeed nothing other than a career politician steeped in the lies of Americanism and Modernism (I mean, the man has "preached" in Protestant assembly halls that are called "churches" by those who go to the devil's rites in such places), was attacked by both United States Representative Dr. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and the former Governor of Massachusetts, Willard Mitt Romney, both of whose own hands are quite dirty on these issues.

Dr. Paul, for instance, has boasted of his prescribing "the pill," which is evil in se as it is a violation of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage and is, of course, an abortifacient. Dr. Paul is steadfast in his false contention that such things as "the morning after pill" and the "birth control" pill itself are not abortifacients:

PAUL: ... have a quick follow-up?

(APPLAUSE) You know, we talk about the morning-after pill. Actually, the morning-after pill is nothing more than a birth control pill, so if birth control pills are on the market, the morning-after pill -- so if you're going to legalize birth control pills, you really -- you can't separate the two. They're all basically the same, hormonally.

But once again, the question is, if you voted for Planned Parenthood like the senator has, you voted for birth control pills. And you literally, because funds are fungible, you literally vote for abortions because Planned Parenthood gets the money -- "Oh, I'll buy birth control pills," but then they have the money left over to do the abortion.

So that's why you have to have a pretty strong resistance of voting for these bunches of bills put together. Planned Parenthood should get nothing, let alone designate how they spend. (Full Transcript of CNN ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.)


While Dr. Paul is indeed correct about that Federal funding for Planned Parenthood providing that baby-killing mill with the fungibility via surgical means, he is dead wrong about the "pill" not being an abortifacient. The "morning after pill" and the "birth control pill" do act the same hormonally, but to kill a baby, Dr. Paul (see How The Morning After Pill Works?). Dr. Paul, a Protestant and a libertarian, has offended God greatly by prescribing "the pill." He is responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of babies and for the destruction of the souls of women. A sincere intention does not redeem evil consequences that flow from refusing to follow the law of God, which binds the consciences of all people at all times in all circumstances.

Perhaps the most remarkable spectacle that occurred in the Circus of the Midget Naturalists was that put on by Willard Mitt Romney, the man who twice ran for office in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a "defender" of Roe v. Wade and whose own Romneycare funded Planned Parenthood, which Romney himself has funded out of his own pocket with a donation, who lambasted Santorum on his votes to provide Federal funding for Planned Parenthood, asking how he could have opposed something the he funded. Fair enough question--except when you consider the following statement made in 2005 by Romney's own political advisor, who spilled the beans on Romney's alleged "conversion" to being "pro-life:"

By 2005, with Mr. Romney eyeing a possible presidential bid, he began to distance himself from his abortion rights platform. “My political philosophy is pro-life,” he told National Review, a conservative magazine, in an article that June. That same article quoted his top strategist at the time, Mike Murphy, as saying Mr. Romney had been “a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly.” (Romney's Path to 'Pro-Life' Position on Abortion.)


Taking into consideration only the purely strategic considerations of partisan politics, it is nothing other than astounding that none of the other three midget naturalists gathered two nights ago in Mesa, Arizona, did not bring up this quote. Astounding. ( See the appendix below for a a little review of how Mitt Romney, who was allegedly "pro-life" all during the time he was Governor of Massachusetts, acted in behalf of the pro-death movement throughout his public career.)

The former Governor of Massachusetts, Willard Mitt Romney, also did not tell the truth when he said that he did not force once Catholic hospitals now under the control of the conciliar authorities to dispense the so-called "Plan B" emergency contraceptive, which is, as noted above, an abortifacient. This is what he said in the debate two nights ago, that is, on Ash Wednesday, February 22, 2012:

KING: It's an issue on which all of you have criticism on the Obama administration, it's an issue on which some of you have also criticized each other.

Governor Romney, both Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich have said during your tenure as governor, you required Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.

And Mr. Speaker, you compared the president to President Obama, saying he infringed on Catholics' rights.

Governor, did you do that?

ROMNEY: No, absolutely not. Of course not.

There was no requirement in Massachusetts for the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims. That was entirely voluntary on their report. There was no such requirement.

Likewise, in Massachusetts health care bill, there's a provision in Massachusetts general laws that says people don't have to have coverage for contraceptives or other type of medical devices which are contrary to their religious teachings. Churches also don't have to provide that to entities which are either the church themselves or entities they control. So we have provisions that make sure that something of that nature does not occur.

That's why when I worked closely with the leaders of the Catholic Church, I met with the cardinal a number of times, and with his emissaries. We talked about the issues we were concerned about.

We battled, for instance, to help the Catholic Church stay in the adoption business. The amazing thing was that while the Catholic Church was responsible for half the adoptions in my state -- half the adoptions -- they had to get out of that business because the legislature wouldn't support me and give them an exemption from having to place children in homes where there was a mom and a dad on a preferential basis.

Absolutely extraordinary. We have to have individuals that will stand up for religious conscience, and I did and I will again as president. (Full Transcript of CNN ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.)


Governor Romney did not tell the truth. Then again, what do you expect from a moment who belongs to a cult that was founded by a Freemason and confidence man, Joseph Smith, that has taken many souls out of the true Church in Latin America and here in the United States of America. One who belongs to a false religion, which by definition is built on a fabric lies, must become a liar himself.

Replete with a link to the full story, here is a brief summary of the way in which Romney misrepresented facts two night ago:

The Bottom Line:

When Romney was asked in the debate if he had required Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims and had infringed on Catholics’ rights, he responded, “No, absolutely not. Of course not.” That was untrue.

When Romney said “for the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims…was entirely voluntary on their part”, that was also untrue.

For him to suggest to the citizens of the United States on national television that Cardinal O’Malley and the Catholic Church would “voluntarily” provide morning-after pills is an egregious misrepresentation of Catholic Church teachings and an egregious misrepresentation of what actually happened in this situation.

BCI hopes that the media and other candidates call him out on this. (Fact-Check: Did Romney Lie During the Debate?)


As I have noted in the past, watching these midget naturalists debates is the equivalent of watching Ray Charles drive to Steve Wonder's house to pick up Jose Feliciano to listen to a lecture bring given by Helen Keller. These men see and hear nothing, oblivious to the truths of the Catholic Faith and oblivious to the fact that it is impossible to pursue the common temporal good while promoting that which is harmful to souls. Impossible:


The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Again, as I have noted before, I hope--and it is only a hope--that perhaps some of you who think me daft for being a "party pooper" every two years when the mania of the farce of naturalism called elections causes otherwise sane, rational people to lose their minds might come to see that the cavalry is not coming to the rescue. This is because men must be lost in the midst of chaos, intellectually and socially, whenever they do not recognize the simple truth that civil law must be subordinated at all times to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted by Christ the King to His Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

May the Rosaries that we pray each day help us to so oriented to the things of Heaven that we come to despite the ways of naturalism and naturalists, becoming apostles only of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen remembering at all times these simple but profound words of Pope Saint Pius X:

. . . . For there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)


We must make sure, therefore, to cleave to true Catholic Faith without making any concessions to concilairism, whose apostate apologists such as the midget naturalists who are vying for the one to be defeated by the Uber Statist, Barack Hussein Obama, on November 6, 2012, are always seeking to improvise their own reconciliations with the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity just as much as the lords of conciliarism have done themselves.

"Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!"

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!


Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Matthias, pray for us..

See also: A Litany of Saints


Willard Mitt Romney's Anti-Life Record

Q. Mr. Romney, you personally oppose abortion and as a church leader have advised women not to have an abortion. Given that, how could you in good conscience support a law that enables women to have an abortion, and even lets the Government pay for it? If abortion is morally wrong, aren't you responsible for discouraging it?

ROMNEY One of the great things about our nation, Sally [ Sally Jacobs of The Boston Globe ] , is that we're each entitled to have strong personal beliefs, and we encourage other people to do the same. But as a nation we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want, and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country; I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate.

I believe that Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice. And my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign. Too much has been written about religion in this race. I'm proud of my religious heritage; I am proud of the values that it's taught me. But if you want to know my position on issues, ask me and I'll tell you. I think the low point of this race was when my opponent and their family decided to make religion an issue in this campaign -- brought it out, attacked me for it. I think that's a mistake. I think the time has passed for that. John Kennedy was the one who fought that battle; let that battle live for all of us of all faiths.

KENNEDY I would agree with Mr. Romney that religion has no place in this campaign. And the best way to make sure that it doesn't is not to talk any further about it, and I don't intend to do so.

On the question of the choice issue, I have supported Roe v. Wade. I am pro-choice; my opponent is multiple choice.

I have not only introduced the freedom-of-choice legislation but I have fought -- wrote and saw successfully passed -- the clinic access bill that will permit women to be able to practice their constitutional rights in selection of abortion. And I have also led the fight against judges in the Supreme Court of the United States that refuse to permit a woman's right to choose. (THE 1994 CAMPAIGN; Excerpt From Debate By Kennedy And Romney; The Real Romney, a video clip of this exchange.)


Take a look also at comments Romney made eight years later when running for Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

How did this "man of principle" this " staunch defender of the inviolability of innocent human life under cover of the civil law," arrive at his pro-death position in 1994 and 2002? By pure political expediency, that's how:


In 1993, Mitt Romney was a successful businessman with an urge to enter public life and a plan to challenge Ted Kennedy for a Senate seat from Massachusetts.

Romney was also a high-ranking official in the Mormon church -- in charge of all church affairs in the Boston area -- with a dilemma over abortion. Romney was personally pro-life, and the church was pro-life, but a majority of the Massachusetts electorate was decidedly pro-choice.

How Romney handled that dilemma is described in a new book, "Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics," by Boston journalist Ronald Scott. A Mormon who admires Romney but has had his share of disagreements with him, Scott knew Romney from local church matters in the late 1980s.

Scott had worked for Time Inc., and in the fall of 1993, he says, Romney asked him for advice on how to handle various issues the media might pursue in a Senate campaign. Scott gave his advice in a couple of phone conversations and a memo. In the course of the conversations, Scott says, Romney outlined his views on the abortion problem.

According to Scott, Romney revealed that polling from Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan's former pollster whom Romney had hired for the '94 campaign, showed it would be impossible for a pro-life candidate to win statewide office in Massachusetts. In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life.

In November 1993, according to Scott, Romney said he and Wirthlin, a Mormon whose brother and father were high-ranking church officials, traveled to Salt Lake City to meet with church elders. Gathering in the Church Administration Building, Romney, in Scott's words, "laid out for church leaders ... what his public position would be on abortion -- personally opposed but willing to let others decide for themselves."

By Scott's account, Romney wasn't seeking approval or permission; he was telling the officials what he was going to do. Scott quotes a "senior church leader" saying Romney "didn't ask what his position should be, nor did he ask the brethren to endorse his position. He came to explain, and his explanation was consistent with church teachings and policies."

According to Scott, some of the leaders were unhappy with Romney's plan and let him know it. "I may not have burned bridges, but a few of them were singed and smoking," Romney told Scott in a phone conversation.

In Scott's account, Romney displayed plenty of independence from church influence. But why did he feel the need to brief church leaders in the first place? The Romney campaign declined to comment on that or any other aspect of Scott's book. A Mormon church spokesman said only, "I do not know of the meeting, but it is our policy not to comment on private meetings anyway."

Scott has his own view. "[Romney] was not obliged to brief them," Scott said in an interview. "He probably was obliged to let them know as a matter of courtesy before he would take some stands on various issues that would raise eyebrows, because he was a fairly important officer of the church."

In any event, the episode points to a brief period in Romney's life in which his role as a church official and as an emerging political figure overlapped. (Romney declared his candidacy for the Senate on Feb. 2, 1994, and stepped down as a Mormon leader on March 20.)

Romney went on to lose in a campaign that featured Kennedy attacking Romney's religion. Romney pointed out the irony of Kennedy -- whose brother John F. Kennedy faced attacks on his Catholicism in the 1960 presidential campaign -- launching religion-based attacks, but to no avail.

If Romney is the 2012 Republican nominee, he will surely face similar stuff. Much of it will undoubtedly be ugly and unjustified. But there will also be simple questions about Romney's role as a church official at the start of his political career. (Mitt Romney Used Polls to Determine Campaign Position on Abortion.)

This "staunch defender" of the inviolability of innocent human life under cover of the civil law has boasted that he vetoed a bill passed by the Massachusetts General Court, the state legislature, that would have permitted the sale of the so-called Plan B emergency abortifacient to minor girls. That is not the whole story, nor does it say anything about his RomneyCare prototype of ObamaCare specifically included a provision for the appointment of a representative from Planned Parenthood on the state panel overseeing implementation of Romney's version of socialized medicine that has skyrocketed medical and insurance costs in the Bay State:

You should be quite familiar by now with the fact that Mitt Romney gave $150.00 to Planned Parenthood in 1994 when claiming he had always been pro-abortion.

You should also know that in 2004, Mitt Romney says he personally converted to the pro-life position. In fact, according to ABC News on June 14, 2007, “Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has long cited a November 2004 meeting with a Harvard stem-cell researcher as the moment that changed his long-held stance of supporting abortion rights to his current ‘pro-life’ position opposing legal abortion. But several actions Romney took mere months after that meeting call into question how deep-seated his conversion truly was.”

What was one of those actions?

Two months after his pro-life conversion, Mitt Romney appointed Matthew Nestor to the bench in Massachusetts. Romney seeming bowed to political pressure making Nestor a judge even after Nestor, according to the Boston Globe as far back as 1994, had campaigned for political office championing his pro-abortion views.

One year after his pro-life conversion, in July of 2005, Mitt Romney vetoed legislation that would expand the use of the morning after pill arguing that it would contribute to abortions. But just three months later Mitt Romney slid back and signed a bill that expanded state subsidized access to the morning after pill.

Writing in the Boston Globe on October 15, 2005, Stephanie Ebbert noted:


Governor Mitt Romney has signed a bill that could expand the number of people who get family-planning services, including the morning-after pill, confusing some abortion and contraception foes who had been heartened by his earlier veto of an emergency contraception bill. … The services include the distribution of condoms, abortion counseling, and the distribution of emergency contraception, or morning after pills, by prescription …

But that’s nothing. Two whole years after the pro-life view had settled into Mitt Romney’s conscience and a year after Mitt Romney had vetoed legislation expanding access to the morning after pill, he expanded access to abortion and gave Planned Parenthood new rights under state law. Yes, that Planned Parenthood.

Mitt Romney is really proud of Romneycare. He champions it as a great healthcare reform for Massachusetts. At one point he claimed it could be a model for the nation, though he now denies that.

According to States News Service on October 2, 2006,


“The following information was released by the Massachusetts Office of the Governor: Governor Mitt Romney today officially launched Commonwealth Care, an innovative health insurance product that will allow thousands of uninsured Massachusetts residents to purchase private health insurance products at affordable rates. Commonwealth Care is a key component of the state’s landmark healthcare reform law approved by the Governor in April. ‘We are now on the road to getting everyone health insurance in Massachusetts,’ said Governor Romney. … ‘Today, we celebrate a great beginning.’

Romney loves to take credit for it.

The law, in addition to providing healthcare coverage for the uninsured and forcing everyone to have insurance, expanded abortion services in the State of Massachusetts. It also required that one member of the MassHealth Payment Policy Board be appointed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts.

From Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006:

SECTION 3. Chapter 6A of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 16I the following 6 sections: . . . Section 16M. (a) There shall be a MassHealth payment policy advisory board. The board shall consist of the secretary of health and human services or his designee, who shall serve as chair, the commissioner of health care financing and policy, and 12 other members: … 1 member appointed by Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts … (Massachusetts General Court Website, www.mass.gov, Accessed 2/5/07)


In 2007, Mitt Romney was still denying his healthcare plan did this.


QUESTION: “I noticed some of the conservative groups back in Massachusetts, they complain about there’s a Planned Parenthood rep mandate to be on the planning board for the health care plan. Is that something you just had to deal with in negotiating with the legislature?”

ROMNEY: “It’s certainly not something that was in my bill.”

(Eric Krol, “Full Text Of Romney Interview,” [Arlington Heights, IL] Daily Herald, 6/17/07)

Except it was. Apparently, like with Obamacare, you had to pass the bill to find out what was in it, but once passed, Romney never read it. (Mitt Romney Not Only Gave Money to Planned Parenthood, He Gave It Power; for a very comprehensive review of Willard Mitt Romney's supposed "conversion" on the issue on abortion, please see How Pro-Life Is Mitt Romney?)


© Copyright 2012, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.