Posts

Conservative Misconceptions about Marriage, and Why It Matters

The pivotal importance of Fatherhood needs to become increasingly evident, not only for a better understanding of some serious social problems, but also for an adequate knowledge of the real purposes of marriage, which is under attack in West’s political and cultural spheres. This was one of the main statements of Dr. Stephen Baskerville  in a lecture delivered at the Ordo Iuris Conference on “Marriage, its Identity, and Legal Recognition” (Warsaw, 29-30 September 2016).

Dr. Stephen Baskerville, Senior Fellow in Political Science and Human Rights of The Inter-American Institute, is the author of Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family and The New Politics of Sex.

https://www.stephenbaskerville.com/

 

Bolsonaro and the presidential election in Brazil: an interview with Olavo de Carvalho

Olavo de Carvalho is one of the primary voices of Brazil’s conservative revival. He is a writer, teacher, and critic of the political left in Brazil.

(Editor’s note: Jair Bolsonaro was elected president of Brazil 4 days after the publication of this interview in The Epoch Times, with more than 55% of the valid votes.)

J.R. Nyquist: It is a pleasure to speak with you, Olavo. Maybe you could tell us what is happening in Brazil.

Olavo de Carvalho: You know, the communists and Marxists always condemned the bourgeoisie, saying they defined democracy only by legal and formal traits, without taking into account the substance of the relations of power. They always said this. But now in Brazil, the communists are using the formal system of power and legality. They hide behind formalism to turn invisible the relations of power.

All the opinion research shows that most of the Brazilian population—around 70 to 80 percent—are extremely conservative, especially on the moral and religious points of view. In a country where the majority of the population is conservative, there is no conservative party (until recently), there is no conservative newspaper, there is no conservative TV channel, there is no conservative university, there is no conservative anything! So, most people have no way to express their opinion. This is a real relation of power. But formally, legally, we are a democracy—so the communists adopted the “bourgeois scheme” of hiding behind formalities to make the real relations of power invisible.

Mr. Nyquist: Are you saying the Workers’ Party is a front for the communists?

Mr. Carvalho: No, they are the Communist Party. We cannot hide it anymore. Recently, I read a book by the present Workers’ Party candidate, Fernando Haddad, called “In Defense of Socialism.” In 1998, he wrote a kind of update of “The Communist Manifesto.” He used some stuff from the Frankfurt School, and he proposed a new strategy for the Workers’ Party. It is not new. It is the same strategy proposed decades before by Herbert Marcuse and others. But he says it is new, and all he says is that the real practice of the Workers’ Party is following “The Communist Manifesto.” It is Haddad himself who says this, not me.

Mr. Nyquist: So Brazil is struggling against a communist power that has gotten inside the government.

Mr. Carvalho: But they don’t control only the government. They control all the media, with one or two small exceptions. They control all the universities. They control all the cultural institutions. They control practically everything. The people have no channel to express their opinion. The reason so many people went to the streets to scream and to protest is because it’s their only recourse.

Mr. Nyquist: And now Jair Bolsonaro is the candidate of a new political party, which is conservative, and he is threatening to overturn the communist control of the executive branch of Brazil’s federal government. Is that right?

Mr. Carvalho: Yes, that’s right. Of course, the communists are reacting violently, accusing Bolsonaro of being a fascist, a Nazi, and so on. They are even creating some false Nazi crimes in order to accuse him. These accusations are ridiculous and childish.

Mr. Nyquist: Are these accusations fronted by the Brazilian media?

Mr. Carvalho: All the media gives space to them. It is not only Haddad who is saying this. It is all the big newspapers, the big TV channels, and so on. They say there have been more than 50 Nazi crimes in recent days. But nothing like this has happened.

Mr. Nyquist: It is a campaign of slander, then?

Mr. Carvalho: A campaign of slander, not only in Brazil, but they have support everywhere—in the United States and Europe. There is a global slander campaign underway. Someone posted on my Facebook a list of more than 200 media organizations that have slandered Bolsonaro from around the world. It is a very serious matter. On the other side, Bolsonaro suffered an attempt on his life and the investigation does not appear in any media. Total silence.

Mr. Nyquist: Media reports here in the United States did not offer much detail. They said Bolsonaro was stabbed. That was all we heard.

Mr. Carvalho: The guy who attempted the murder, Adelio Bispo de Oliveira, was a member of the PSOL, which is the Socialism and Freedom Party. It is a kind of communist party.

Mr. Nyquist: First the socialists slander Bolsonaro, then they try to murder him.

Mr. Carvalho: Yes, yes, yes.

Mr. Nyquist: What are they so afraid of?

Mr. Carvalho: They have committed so many crimes while holding power that they cannot permit another party to take power now—because they know they’ll be punished.

Mr. Nyquist: Is there a threat of civil war in Brazil?

Mr. Carvalho: No, because the people have no weapons. They will be sitting ducks. This is not a civil war.

Mr. Nyquist: The army won’t protect the people?

Mr. Carvalho: I really don’t believe they will follow orders to shoot the people. But neither will they mobilize to defend the people. All the generals of the army have been very inactive during these years. In the ’90s, I made several lectures in military institutions in Brazil. I explained everything that was happening and everything that would happen. All my warnings came true. The Workers’ Party did everything I predicted. It was useless. The military remained inactive because they were so criticized in the media that they became inhibited. They are timid now.

Mr. Nyquist: Given the situation you describe, Bolsonaro and those supporting him must be very brave.

Mr. Carvalho: Very, very brave. And another thing, they have no money! The other side has lots of money. They are financed by Brazilian banks, by international banks, and so on. There is no limit to the amount of money they can use. And Bolsonaro has no money at all! Most of his campaign was made via the internet—by blogs and by Facebook.

Mr. Nyquist: And he’s ahead in the polls?

Mr. Carvalho: Yes! He is ahead in the polls. And the first round of voting shows a larger turnout than expected.

Mr. Nyquist: Was there cheating in the first round of presidential voting?

Mr. Carvalho: There were 16,000 cases of irregularities in the voting. And all of these irregularities were against Bolsonaro. The voting machines have some prejudice against him.

Mr. Nyquist: Were those the voting machines from Venezuela?

Mr. Carvalho: Yes, yes, exactly—the Smartmatic machines. And the government has announced that whoever speaks of fraud will be punished. So you dare not speak of fraud. Election fraud itself is not a crime in Brazil. The crime is in exposing the fraud. So now they will have to arrest 16,000 people for reporting election fraud.

The Workers’ Party gives itself the right to commit fraud and remain unpunished. How can people believe we are in a democracy when the government threatens to send to jail anyone who discovers voting fraud?

Mr. Nyquist: Yet Brazil has witnessed the creation of a conservative political party when none existed, and the conservative candidate is leading in the polls. It seems, despite everything, that the Brazilian people have risen to the occasion.

Mr. Carvalho: For the first time, between 2013 and 2015, the people rose as if they were one man, against all these things. It was a very heroic moment. A very beautiful thing to see. And now Bolsonaro’s candidacy is a natural continuation of that movement—a second chapter of this movement. I call this the Brazilian Revolution.

Mr. Nyquist: How did the Brazilian elite come under Marxist control?

Mr. Carvalho: In the 1960s, the communists adopted Antonio Gramsci’s strategy: Occupy the [cultural] spaces. They worked bit by bit, very patiently, occupying all the [cultural] spaces and expelling all their enemies. It took them more than 50 years. For a long time, I was a lone voice. But not anymore. Many of my readers and students write books and blogs. Some of them are very good.

Mr. Nyquist: And the elite media will not recognize them.

Mr. Carvalho: Yes, because all the history of this leftist power in Brazil is also the history of the destruction of high culture in Brazil. They destroyed everything. In the ’60s, we had great thinkers and writers.

The Workers’ Party, when it was born, promised to destroy the elite—what they called “The Establishment.” They read a book by the great Brazilian sociologist Raymundo Faoro, “The Owners of Power.” He showed that Brazil is a country where the people have no chance. And the Workers’ Party appeared promising to destroy the elite.

But, at the same time, they adopted Gramsci’s strategy. This strategy consisted of the Party becoming the elite. They wanted to make Faoro’s revolution using Gramsci’s methods. This is impossible.

Mr. Nyquist: And what about communist Chinese influence in Brazil?

Mr. Carvalho: Yes, the Chinese are buying everything in Brazil. We cannot measure the extent of Chinese power in Brazil. It is something huge.

Mr. Nyquist: Are the Chinese supporting the Workers’ Party?

Mr. Carvalho: Sure, sure, and also the Iranians.

Mr. Nyquist: And if Bolsonaro wins the election, what changes will he bring?

Mr. Carvalho: First, he will have to repress the drug dealers. The drug dealers make a lot of money. They bribe everybody. They control a huge part of the country. This is the first problem. Brazil has 70,000 murders a year. This means three Iraqi wars in a year.

Mr. Nyquist: And that’s due to the [drug dealers]?

Mr. Carvalho: Yes, and the [drug dealers] are protected by the Workers’ Party and the government.

Mr. Nyquist: So the communists are using drug trafficking and organized crime?

Mr. Carvalho: Yes. Almost a monopoly on drug trafficking in Brazil belongs to the FARC, [which is] the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces. The Brazilian drug dealer Fernando Beira-Mar confessed that every year, he bought weapons for the FARC and exchanged them for 200 tons of cocaine to distribute in the Brazilian market. So you can conclude that the FARC has the monopoly of the drug market in Brazil.

Well, the FARC is a member of the São Paulo Forum, which is an organization of 200 parties that are all communist. It is the new Communist International in Latin America. It was founded and presided over by Lula da Silva, the Workers’ Party president. So they are all partners—the FARC, the Workers’ Party, and so on.

Mr. Nyquist: So their objective, as the new Communist International of Latin America, is to repeat what they did to Venezuela in Brazil, and in Colombia, and in Bolivia, and in Argentina …

Mr. Carvalho: In the whole of Latin America. And no other country, after Venezuela, is in so dangerous a position as Brazil.

Mr. Nyquist: If you could advise U.S. President Donald Trump, and tell him one thing about Brazil’s situation, what would you say?

Mr. Carvalho: I would tell him that you cannot permit the whole of Latin America to fall to the communists. This would be the death of the United States. It’s a very dangerous situation, even for Americans.


J.R. Nyquist has been a columnist for WorldNetDaily, SierraTimes, and Financial Sense Online. He is the author of the books “Origins of the Fourth World War” and “The Fool and His Enemy,” as well as co-author of “The New Tactics of Global War. He is a former fellow of  The Interamerican Institute.

Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute and Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities.

Originally published in The Epoch Times.

 

 

A Warning to the “Conservative Elites” about Mitt Romney

An open letter from leaders of the conservative grassroots

January 2, 2008

Through their silence, the elites are assisting a political cancer that has profound consequences for our children and grandchildren

We write the following because we must oppose the deception of the American people by powerful and influential conservatives. Many in the conservative grassroots no longer trust the “conservative” media, lawyers and leaders, whom they see as serving the GOP establishment regardless of the will of the conservative base, regardless of the truth.

Most of us are not allied with any presidential candidate. But we are troubled by the unethical and Orwellian cover-up of Mitt Romney’s role in catastrophic events in Massachusetts, once the cradle of American liberty. Actions he took as governor were beyond the pale. As Romney twice explained to the homosexual “Log Cabin” Republicans, it would take a Republican to enact their agenda. (See article in homosexual newspaper Bay Windows.)

Attorneys, journalists and pundits must be fearless and selfless watchdogs of politicians and guardians of democracy. This is a sacred trust that is being defiled. Silence about ugly truths, such as the points enumerated below, is a betrayal of the lofty status we claim in a constitutional republic. Pay the price of courage. Tell America the truth.

Phony Pro-Life “Conversion”

Issue # 1. Mitt Romney established abortion as a “healthcare benefit” in his own government-run healthcare plan at $50 per abortion — after his supposed “pro-life conversion.” He created a permanent, official government role for an unelected Planned Parenthood representative on the health care board.

Issue #2. Romney’s well-timed “pro-life” conversion for the Republican primary pulled a “states’ rights” committment out of nowhere to hedge his political bets. His claim that states’ rights trump the unalienable right to life is inconsistent and unprincipled: he simultaneously opposes an amendment to protect human life, but claims to support one to preserve marriage! What happened to Romney’s committment to “states’ rights?”

Issue #3. Unforced by anyone, Romney overruled his own Commissioner of Public Health and lied about state law in order to compel Catholic hospitals to issue abortifacient pills — in violation of their freedom of religion enshrined in the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions. Using exactly the crafty political theatre he employed to cover his actions on same-sex “marriage” and homosexual adoption, Romney posed as defender of the very thing he was destroying, gallantly “asking” the legislature to create a special “religious exemption” for Catholic institutions. Even Democrat former governor Mike Dukakis publicly agreed with Romney’s commissioner of public health that state law already grants a “religious exemption.”

“Gay Marriage,” Gay Adoption and Pro-Homosexuality Propaganda In Schools

Issue #1. In another flagrant lie about the law, Romney told Catholic Charities’ adoption and foster agency they had to give children to homosexuals even when normal mother-father families were lined up to give them a home. Again, he deployed his standard smokescreen, gallantly proposing a “special exemption,” with a wink of his eye to the militantly pro-homosexuality legislature. Again, he got caught. Former governor Dukakis pointed out that the “state law” that Romney was citing as requiring gay adoption was non-existent. It was merely an executive regulation that a governor can rescind with a few strokes of his pen. Romney was apparently fulfilling secret 2002 campaign promises to Republican homosexual power brokers whose endorsement he coveted and received. He had sought no backing from social conservatives.

Issue #2. Romney says the Boy Scouts should accept homosexual scoutmasters and that homosexuals have “a legitimate interest” in adopting or producing and raising children.

Issue #3. Though Romney pretends he opposed homosexual “marriage,” he did the opposite. In 2002 he opposed a marriage amendment that would have prevented homosexual “marriage.” 120,000 citizens, including his wife, son and daughter-in-law signed the amendment petition. Romney’s militant pro-homosexuality Republican predecessor, Governor Jane Swift, and Democrat legislators openly violated the constitution to deny the citizens their right to vote on the amendment. Even the ultra-liberal Massachusetts court ruled that they were violating their oaths and the Constitution. Romney failed to oppose their subversion of the law or to defend the people’s right to amend their own Constitution.

Issue #4. Since the notorious Goodridge court opinion discovering a constitutional right to “gay marriage,” Romney has methodically lied about the judges’ legal authority and his own legal duty to enforce the Constitution. As professor of jurisprudence Hadley Arkes pointed out, under the state Constitution, the court has no jurisdiction over marriage law. An opinion issued without jurisdiction is legally void and cannot be “enforced.” Romney also knew that the same judges had recently admitted they have no power over the legislature or governor.

The Legislature never “obeyed” the judges by changing the marriage statute to legalize “gay marriage.” Under the state constitution that was the end of the line. The court neither ordered nor even suggested any intervention by the governor. Many lawyers and law professors (including Hugh Hewitt: http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/12/hugh-hewitt-told-romney-to-defy-mass.html ) told Romney to ignore the unconstitutional Goodridge opinion and embarrass the judges. Mysteriously, Romney rejected their advice. Why? The New York Times finally revealed four years later that, to win a coveted endorsement, Romney secretly promised the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans in 2002 that he would not defend the constitution against an illegal attempt by the judges to sneak same-sex “marriage” past the voters. (See New York Rimes article here).

When the Legislature did not legalize homosexual “marriage,” to fulfill his secret promise, Romney claimed that the judges had. This is a blatant lie plainly refuted by the state constitution Romney swore to uphold! He quickly found willing “conservative” lawyers, pundits and “pro-family leaders” to back him up. Rather than challenge the motives, integrity and “expertise” of their own friends and colleagues, most of the conservative establishment suddenly went silent. Ignoring his oath to faithfully enforce the statutes, Romney ordered officials to violate the marriage statutes and perform homosexual “marriages.” His Department of Public Health illegally bypassed the legislature by changing the marriage certificates from “husband” and “wife” to “Party A” and “Party B.”

Romney gave orders that illegally usurped the exclusive constitutional authority of the Legislature, as proven in this devastating “Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders.” (www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/dec_letter/letter.pdf). He violated multiple Articles of the Massachusetts Constitution, including one of the most vital principles of American government, which John Adams stated more forcefully than anywhere else in American law:

“In the government of this commonwealth…the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, …the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, …to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men. – Article XXX, Part The First

We deplore the glaring refusal of the “conservative” establishment to face the implications of a devastating article by a leading constitutional scholar, illuminating why pro-establishment attorneys have covered up Romney’s unconstitutional actions:

“The deeper failure must go to the man who stood as governor, holding the levers of the executive. And if it is countdown for marriage…it is countdown also for Mitt Romney, whose political demise may be measured along the scale of moves he could have taken and the record of his receding, step by step… [I]t became clear that even conservative lawyers had come to incorporate, and accept, the premises that gave to the courts a position of supremacy in our constitutional schemes.” — Hadley Arkes, Professor of Jurisprudence, Amherst College ( The Missing Governor, National Review Online May 17, 2004 )

We equally deplore the refusal to acknowledge the obvious truth in highly respected conservative attorney Phyllis Schlafly’s assessment:

“Massachusetts public officials … are groveling before the four judges… (Romney) said: ‘We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the [Court] and … decide ‘what kind of statute we can fashion which is consistent with the law.’

But what ‘law’? There is no law that requires or even allows same-sex marriages.” — Phyllis Schlafly ( It’s Time To Rebuke The Judicial Oligarchy (EagleForum.org, Dec. 3, 2003) )

Schlafly was right, as any honest and competent lawyer knows. The Massachusetts Constitution powerfully refutes Romney’s entire story that the judges changed marriage law and forced him to give unconstitutional orders:

“[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.” Article X, Part the First of the Massachusetts Constitution

“The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature…” Article XX, Part the First of the Massachusetts Constitution

Mitt Romney created homosexual “marriage.” His “conservative” legal experts are aggressively covering up both his role and the plain language of the Supreme Law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Issue #5. Though Romney admitted the Goodridge opinion was not based on the Constitution and that the judges had exceeded their power, he opposed a citizen’s drive to remove the four rogue judges who violated their oaths. ( http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-romney-working-with-log-cabin.htm )

Issue #6. Though Romney says same-sex “marriage” will damage religious freedom and harm children, who need both a mother and a father, he personally issued more than 190 special one-day certificates to allow homosexual “marriages” to be performed by legally unqualified persons. He claims he was “just applying the marriage statutes evenly.” But As Phyllis Schlafly reminded America, and as even the outlaw Goodridge judges admitted, the statutes do not allow homosexual “marriages,” despite Romney’s false claim that the court “legalized” homosexual “marriage. Moreover, a governor is not obliged to issue any special marriage certificates to anyone. Since Romney says same-sex “marriage” will harm children and erode religious freedom, why did he violate the marriage statutes and issue hundreds of special permits? ( www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/ )

Issue #7. As governor, to please Massachusetts’ militant homosexual groups, Romney aggressively BOOSTED government funding for pro-homosexuality indoctrination, starting in kindergarten. He refused to defend schoolchildren and parents’ rights against this indoctrination. He refused to order his education officials to obey the law guaranteeing that parents’ can protect their children from sexual brainwashing. ( www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/ ) This is a continuation of his views since 1994 when he opposed congressional efforts to protect children by banning federal funding to public schools that encourage “homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative.” His deference to militant homosexual groups’ “right” to indoctrinate other people’s children was jaw-dropping:

“I think that’s a dangerous precedent in general. I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there’s an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it’s wrong-headed…” ( See Boston.com article.)

With their silence about the illegal actions and toxic legacy of Mitt Romney, the elites are assisting a political cancer that has profound consequences for our future. If anyone has convinced themselves that so-called “same sex marriage” is a fringe issue and not a grave threat to the rule of law and to children they should read Maggie Gallagher’s stunning article “Banned in Boston.” They should also investigate the pro-homosexuality indoctrination of Massachusetts children (“It’s 1984 in Massachusetts – And Big Brother Is Gay” http://inter-american.org/commentary/157-its-1984-in-massachusetts-and-big-brother-is-gay.html ) which had been covert, but in the aftermath of Romney’s illegal orders imposing homosexual marriage, is swallowing up parents’ most fundamental right to protect their children and control their moral education. To remain silent about the re-engineering of the human family and child psychology, and the active and dishonest role Romney has played, is a dereliction of our highest duties.

We are among those who believe that same-sex “marriage,” homosexual adoption and pro-homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren hasten the decline of Western Civilization in its most crucial aspects, whether the elites face that and comprehend it or not. Yet many who have the greatest obligation are cowering in the shadows or even aiding the deception. Our silence is a fatal abdication of duty to our children and future generations, a breech of faith. It is a betrayal of the honor of young soldiers dying overseas for principles that we decided in our hearts long ago require no profound sacrifice from the elites.

The truth is this: Mitt Romney’s fictional defense of natural marriage, childhood innocence, life in the womb and constitutional governance is sustained only by our silence in the face of overwhelming propaganda. Edmund Burke famously said “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

Dante went further: “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality.”

It is telling of today’s “conservatism” — an endless regression of sophist ironies and nuances, dissolving, in the end, into absolutely nothing at all — that dire warnings from ancient voices seem like faint, distant echoes bouncing absurdly against rock walls far below our feet, beneath a precipice that we scaled long ago in the conceits of our modern conservative minds.

To continue in silence or in support of the craftiness and ruthless ambition of Willard Mitt Romney betrays generations past, present and future, including our own children and grandchildren.

Pay the price of courage, friends. Tell America the truth.

Sincerely,

Massachusetts:

Judge Ned Kirby (ret.), former Assistant Minority Leader, Massachusetts Senate
Atty. Edgar Kelley, former Assistant United States Attorney, Massachusetts District
Ray Neary, Director, Pro-Life Massachusetts (former President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life)
John O’Gorman, Member of the Board of Directors, Massachusetts Citizens for Life
John Haskins, The Parents’ Rights Coalition
Gregg Jackson, Co-host, “Pundit Review,” author: “Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies,” contributor, TownHall.com,
William Cotter, President, Operation Rescue: Boston*
Brian Camenker, President, MassResistance
Mark Charalambous, Spokesman, CPF-Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts
Amy Contrada, MassResistance blog

Across America:

Dr. William Greene, President, RightMarch.com
Dr. Ted Baehr, Chairman, Christian Film and Television Commission
Linda Harvey, President, Mission America
Gary Glenn, President, American Family Association of Michigan*
Janet Folger, President, Faith2Action
Michael Heath, Executive Director, Christian Civic League of Maine *
Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans for Truth*
Dianne Gramley, President, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Nedd Kareiva, President, Stop the ACLU Coalition
Phillip Magnan, President, Biblical Family Advocates
Rev. Earle Fox, D. Phil, (Oxford), President, Road to Emmaus, School of Judeo-Christian Apologetics
Janet Folger, author, columnist, President, Faith2Action
Michael W. Calsetta, Former President, Conservative Democratic Alliance
Allyson Smith, Director, Americans for Truth – California

Also:
Atty. “Robert Paine,” author: The Governor’s New Clothes; How Mitt Romney Brought Same-Sex Marriage To America

* For identification purposes only. All persons are signing as concerned private citizens. This information is solely for educational purposes and not in support of any candidate.

The irrefutable proof that Romney’s “conservative” lawyers are lying to America:
“Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders.”
www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/dec_letter/letter.pdf
“Governor’s New Clothes; How Mitt Romney Brought Same-Sex Marriage To America,” by Robert Paine, Esq. http://robertpaine.blogspot.com/2006/06/governors-new-clothes-how-mitt-romney_17.html
The most thorough documentation of Mitt Romney’s record anywhere is at:http://massresistance.org/romney/

18John Haskins is IAI’s Senior Fellow for the Public Understanding of Law, Propaganda and Cultural Revolution

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.