Conservative Leaders Call for Replacement of Human Events Editor

AIPNEWS.com ^ | January 27, 2009 | Gregg Jackson

[EternalVigilance]

Mitt Romney is a man I've warmed to as the campaign has unfolded. I began with great skepticism because of his major, far-too-recent flips on major issues. Certain aspects of his record -- even after his conversion -- cast doubt on his commitment to the unborn and traditional marriage. He also strikes me as a bit too coiffed, too robotic and too much of a politician. But I do see Romney as a very likeable man who is saying almost all of the right things, pun intended, and who, if he is the man he holds himself to be, will make a great president.

David Limbaugh, December 31, 2007

[antisocial]

“Yes, you wouldn’t want to risk thinking for yourself.”

I have no problem thinking for my self, However, someone with firsthand knowledge of the editors actions, like Ann Coulter, might have better information than I am privy to.

You might need an attitude adjustment.

[editor-surveyor]

I know that you know that statement is a reflection of the untenable situation that media manipulation put us in last election.

[Rameumptom]

>>>Anyone who believes this without a certified letter from the NRA is a fool.

Anyone who repeats the liberal Boston Globes lies about the matter is a fool.

The NRA-ILA did issue a press release pointing out lies that the Boston Globe put out about the bill Romney signed. Apparently you believe, and incessantly repeat here on FR, the Globes version instead of the NRA-ILA. BTW, the GOAL supported the bill as well as increasing gun rights. (I'm guessing from your misreprersentations on this matter you don't really know all that much about guns or the legislative and political action of groups like the GOAL)

Massachusetts - Firearms Reform Bill Sent to the Governor`s Desk and

Massachusetts Governor Signs Pro-Gun Legislation Into Law! NRA-ILA

Tuesday, June 29, 2004

On June 24, 2004 at approximately 11:20 AM , the Senate took the last legislative vote on S.2367 and sent it to Governor Romney`s desk for his consideration. Representing the greatest set of firearm law reforms since the passage of the Commonwealth`s worst in the nation gun laws, S.2367 is a breath of fresh air for law abiding gun owners. Governor Romney is expected to sign the bill into law later this week.

While not perfect by any means, this bill represents a step forward for gun owners in Massachusetts. The bill was passed in the Senate by a vote of 36 - 1 in favor and the House passed it with no amendments or debate on a "voice" vote. This represented by far the broadest support a reform bill has ever seen in the Massachusetts State House. Only one legislator in the entire building voiced opposition to the bill.

S.2367 does the following:

Instructs the Executive Director of the Criminal History Systems Board to make the Firearms Identification Card and the License To Carry a Firearm the same size as a driver`s license;

Changes the term of a Firearms Identification Card and a License to Carry to six years;

Creates a grace period of 90 days, if the Firearms Identification Card or License to Carry holder applies for renewal before the expiration date, and if the application for renewal is not denied;

Creates a Firearms Licensing Review Board. Applicants disqualified by a misdemeanor record, from obtaining a License To Carry or Firearms Identification Card, may file a petition for review of eligibility with the board, five years after conviction, adjudication, commitment, probation or parole; and in the case where an officer is confiscating the guns of a person with an expired license, requires the officer to provide a written inventory and receipt for all guns.

Despite the efforts of some (including The Boston Globe) to spin this bill as an extension of or creation of a new "Assault Weapons" ban, the bill makes no net changes to the Commonwealth`s laws regarding those types of firearms. The three sections referencing them merely dealt with re-affirming the definitions of what an "Assault Weapon" could be.

Here are just some of the points that the media (including The Boston Globe) got wrong.

Myth: Some headlines claimed that the legislature voted to expand the ban on the sale of the same 19 guns that the federal government has banned.

Fact: The guns are already banned in Massachusetts . The legislature only voted to clarify the definition of so-called "assault weapons," but made no changes to the number of guns included.

Myth: The gun ban was extended.

Fact: Our state`s gun ban was not due to disappear, nor will it become invalid if the federal ban sunsets in September.

Myth: The legislature somehow "won over" gun-rights supporters by including reforms.

Fact: NRA and Gun owners` Action League (GOAL) had made it very clear to the legislature that we would not give up any ground. NRA and GOAL supported this bill because it did not ban any guns, and because it made much-needed reforms.

Myth: Those legislators that wanted to expand the semi-auto gun ban claimed that they "spearheaded" S.2367.

Fact: Credit should be given to Senator Stephen Brewer (D- Barre) and Senator Richard T. Moore (D - Uxbridge) for the reform language.

Myth: The Massachusetts House approved a new version of the ban that would decouple the state definitions from the federal ones.

Fact: The bill merely takes the existing state references to federal law, and fixes the language to a point in time in 1994. Because that is the federal language is currently in effect, the net effect on Massachusetts gun owners is zero. No new gun bans are banned. Keep in mind that the state language in effect before this bill was NEVER set to expire.

With that in mind, NRA members should be very pleased in knowing that their efforts to educate and work with their local representatives and senators resulted in a successful reform action.

Thanks to you and the Gun Owners` Action League, lawful gun owners can now take advantage of this first set of real reforms in over five years.

For more information concerning this legislation you can contact ILA Grassroots at 1-800-392-8683 or the Gun Owners` Action League at 508-393-5333.

______________________________

Here are some interesting quotes.

“You do know that I’m a member of the NRA, and my position on the right to bear arms is well known...But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady bill, and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay.” Ronald Reagan

“Listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of assault weapons.” Ronald Regan

“As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary. I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me insupporting this bill. It must be passed.” Letter to former Rep. Scott Klug (R-WI) Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan also signed the Mulford Act in California.

[Rameumptom]

>>>You can dress it up any way you want, and trot out any number of so-called "conservative" leaders

So-called?

You do know that I’m a member of the NRA, and my position on the right to bear arms is well known...But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady bill, and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay.” Ronald Reagan

“Listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of assault weapons.” Ronald Regan

“As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary. I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me insupporting this bill. It must be passed.” Letter to former Rep. Scott Klug (R-WI)

Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan also signed the Mulford Act in California.

[Rameumptom]

>>>His credentials in this regard are enough to fill James Carville with admiration.

Carville gave him 13 words of faint praise in an interview in 2005 then went on in the same interview to bash him. It's SOP, in the liberal media. Damn someone with faint praise then try to tear them down.

[Rameumptom]

>>>>Ann Coulter is bound to bear some blame for the moon eyes she made over Romney,

LOL. I thought it was just liberals that were upset that the good looking conservative women were for Romney.

Ann Coulter

Laura Ingraham

Michelle Bachmann

[EternalVigilance]

So, your only defense of Romney is to tear down Reagan, and trot out a few babes.

Weak.

[Rameumptom]

If it was "moon eyes" as you put it from good looking conservative women that made them endorse Romney how do you explain Bork's endorsement.

I'll trust Justice Bork on this one.

As a side note (since you admit you are a signatory to this vanity thread) why don't you share with us what qualifies you as a "conservative leader".

[Nephi]

Interesting counter to Romney’s pro-choice perception. I’d like to see your counter to Romney’s pro-gay perception.

I just wish Romney would read the constitution...once.

Nice work on your profile page. I especially enjoyed the Coulter quotes.

[Rameumptom]

Coulter explained Romney's position as well. Romney was one of the few candidates who has consistently supported a Federal Marraige Amendment.

COULTER: And of course, if you're working for a Republican candidate, you'll meet some nice heterosexual guys. By the way, before I let that slide, I do want to point out one thing that has been driving me crazy with the media, how they keep describing Mitt Romney's position as being "pro-gays, and that's going to upset right-wingers." Well, you know, screw you, I'm not anti-gay. We're against gay marriage. I don't want gays to be discriminated against. I mean, I think we have, in addition to blacks, I don't know why all gays aren't Republicans. I think we have the pro-gay position, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money, and they're victims of crime. I mean, the way -- no, they are. They should be with us. But the media portrays us. If they could get away with it, they would start saying, you know, "Mitt Romney, he's pro-civil rights, and that's going to upset conservatives." No. OK. Sorry, go ahead."

[Diogenesis]

Let’s get this straight. The Clerks refuse gay marriage.
The Constitution forbids the Clerks from acting without
the Legislature. But Romney (socialist) threatens them.

Then he claims to support the Fed Marriage Amendment.
BS. But for Mitt Romney there would be no gay marriage
or socialized medicine. Romney is nothing but a fascist.

[Rameumptom]

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Gov. Romney identified and enforced a little-known 1913 state law that forbids nonresidents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state. This prevented gay couples living outside Massachusetts from flocking to MA to be married and then returning to their home states to demand the marriages be recognized, thus opening the door for nationwide same-sex marriage. Implementation of the 1913 law was contested in court by same-sex couples from outside MA, but the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in March, 2006 to uphold the application of the law. (Jay Lindsay, "Mass. high court says nonresident gays cannot marry in state," The Associated Press, 3/30/2006)

Gov. Romney provided active support for a citizen petition drive in 2005 that collected 170,000 signatures for a state constitutional amendment protecting marriage, breaking a 20-year-old record for the most certified signatures ever gathered in support of a proposed ballot question. He rallied citizens to place pressure on the Legislature for failing, through repeated delays, to fulfill their constitutional obligation to vote on placing the marriage amendment on the ballot. Gov. Romney filed suit in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) asking the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote on the issue of the amendment, or place the amendment on the ballot if the Legislature failed to act. The SJC declared that legislators had a constitutional duty to vote on the petition in a ruling handed down on Dec. 27, 2006. The suit was successful in pressuring the Legislature to vote on the issue of the amendment. A vote was taken on January 2, 2007 and the measure passed. Through Governor Romney’s considerable efforts and leadership, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman passed a critical hurdle to get it placed on the 2008 ballot where voters in Massachusetts would have the power to restore traditional marriage in their state.

Governor Romney: "Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary." ("The Importance of Protecting Marriage", Letter from Gov. Romney to U.S. Senators, 6/02/2006)

[Diogenesis]

Bzzzzzt. Romney himself, alone, by his own choice, against the Mass Constitution instituted gay marriage.

The Massachusetts Constitution ... states: "The power of suspending the laws,
or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
but "Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace
that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested
or 'face personal liability' or be fired".

[Rameumptom]

The WND article you link relies on source material provided by Brian Camenker (aka I was a Democrat and protested with Rev. Phelps)

This article by David French tears apart the faulty legal reasoning behind Camenker's original (and WND's subsequent) claims.

__________________________

David French- David, a graduate of Harvard Law School and David Lipscomb University, is currently serving our nation in the Middle East as a Captain in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps of the United States Army. David is a reservist, so in his civilian life, he works for a non-profit legal organization. The former president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, he also taught at Cornell Law School and served as a partner in a large law firm. He is the author of four books, including A Season for Justice: Defending the Rights of the Christian Home, Church, and School, and numerous op-eds. Regularly interviewed by both print and broadcast media, David has appeared on ABC World News Tonight, The Fox Report with Shepard Smith, Special Report with Brit Hume, and Your World with Neil Cavuto, among others. He has also been profiled in the Christian magazines Charisma and Prism and appears regularly on dozens of Christian radio programs. He is married to Nancy French.

_______________________________

MITT ROMNEY "CHOSE" GAY MARRIAGE?

Did Mitt Romney choose gay marriage for Massachusetts? That's the thrust of a bizarre and amateurish legal argument that is circulating through the internet and conservative media. A group calling itself "MassResistance" has been peddling for many months the argument that the Massachusetts Supreme Court did not actually mandate same-sex marriage in Massachusetts but instead merely requested that the legislature change the laws to permit same-sex marriage. Since the law was not changed (and since the Court didn't have the authority to order the legislature to write new laws)--so the argument goes--Governor Romney therefore never had to recognize same-sex marriage and was in fact the "father" of same-sex marriage when he permitted state and local officials to perform and recognize such marriages. For the latest example of this specious argument, see the quotes from MassResistance member John Haskins in this story.

If such silly legal arguments didn't cause so much harm, I would read them and laugh. Instead, some serious people seem to be taking these arguments seriously, so let me take a moment for a little bit of constitutional law 101. As with most bad arguments, MassResistance starts with a grain of truth: Judges have very little authority to order legislators to do anything, and depending on the state constitution may have no power at all to issue orders to the legislature. The proper, constitutional, role of the judiciary is to interpret the law, not make new law.

MassResistance argues that the Massachusetts Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and ordered the legislature to change state laws to permit same-sex marriage. Because the laws have not yet been changed (and because the court can't issue such an order in the first place), same-sex marriage is not yet legal in Massachusetts, and Governor Romney's decision to recognize same-sex marriages since the court's decision was entirely optional and discretionary.

Sounds compelling, right? Sounds almost scholarly, doesn't it? Well, there's a problem. Even if you accept every premise of MassResistance's argument regarding the proper role of the courts and the legislature, their argument falls apart based on the language of the same-sex marriage case itself.

You can read the entire opinion at the Massachusetts court website, but for those who lack the time--or stomach--to read the whole thing, please pay attention to this paragraph:

We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage.

What does this mean? It means that the court interpreted (that's another word for "construed") Massachusetts law to mean that two people of the same sex could marry--and that any interpretation contrary to the court's would violate the rights of homosexuals. In other words, the court did not order the legislature to do anything. Instead, it did what the constitution allows it to do--it interpreted the law. It did so in an improper, activist way that abandoned the obvious original intent of the Massachusetts constitution and the Massachusetts marriage laws, but it interpreted the law nonetheless.

Now, take a look at the next paragraph:

In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion.

Read it again. And again. Do you see any order directed against the legislature? No? Well, that's for a good reason. The court did not order the legislature to do anything--it merely stayed its judgement for 180 days for the legislature to take action that it deemed "appropriate." However, since the marriage laws had already been interpreted (construed) to include same-sex marriage, the legislature did not have to take any action at all for same-sex marriage to become legal. It was already legal because of the court's decision.

Frankly, it is sad that so many could be misled by something so simple--and simply wrong. When the Governor confronted the Massachusetts Supreme Court, he had two choices: (1) He could fight the decision using legal means; or (2) he could risk contempt citations and impeachment in an ineffectual, grandstanding attempt to block same-sex marriages. Rather than becoming the what the media would undoubtedly call the "George Wallace of gay marriage" and hand homosexual activists a propaganda victory to go along with their court victory, Governor Romney fought using the law and using his enormous gifts of persuasion. As a result, the same-sex marriage movement has lost public momentum, has lost court cases, and has lost at the ballot box. And we have Governor Romney and his principled, courageous, and compassionate defense of traditional marriage to thank for much of that success.

Mitt Romney did not "choose" gay marriage. At a critical moment in our nation's history, Mitt Romney did make a choice, and he chose to defend marriage in a way that can and should make all conservatives proud.

[Diogenesis]

BS. At the critical moment, Romney installed
gay marriage overriding the Clerks.

[rabscuttle385]

...despite John McCain's support for taxpayer funding for both embryonic stem cell research and Planned Parenthood; despite his belief that babies in the womb do not possess a God-given unalienable right to life that no state may violate; and despite his opposition to a Human Life Amendment--the core plank of the Republican Party--McCain too is "solidly pro-life"...

McLame ping!

The Juan McCain Truth File. "I have great respect for Al Gore." —John McCain, October 2, 2008 FR Keywords: mccaintruthfile, mcqueeg, mcbama Please tag all relevant threads with the aforementioned keywords. This can be a very high-volume ping list at times. To join the ping list: FReepmail rabscuttle385 with the subject line add  mccaintruthfile. (Stop getting pings by sending the subject line drop mccaintruthfile.) Republican Commissar’s Warning: By joining this ping list, you may be subjected to the delusional rants and ramblings of McCainiacs, of "moderate" Republicans, of pragmatic conservatives resigned to voting for the lesser of two Democrats, and of countless GOP shills who simply want to meet a new overlord.

[roamer_1]

From reading this thread, the term “prophet in the wilderness” comes to mind... “a stubborn and stiff-necked people” does too..

It is no surprise that I agree with, and endorse your position, I suppose. The “conservative media” was so in-the-bag for the RNC picks that it was absolutely appalling- Though that Romney was able to buy his way was less disgusting to me personally than the sickening fawning over Giuliani that caused me to forever remove Hannity from my radio-listening day, and FauxNews from my TV’s clicker programming.

Even Limbaugh, in his reticence, in not pounding home the need for Conservatism, and at least identifying the true Conservatives in the field (I know he will not specificaly endorse), allowed the pretenders (McCain, Romney, and Thompson among them) to run off with the Conservative banner.

That any would stand here on FR to defend the likes of these as Conservatives would have been hilarious but a few years past. That they are now openly defended as “conservatives”, along with the new generation in Steele, Palin, and Jindal, shows just how effective the assault through “conservative media” has been. Freepers holding hands with PUMAs... Voting for moderates at best. How far we have fallen...

What I find particularly amusing however, is the accusations thrown at you- Most of which, unknown to your accusers, are the greatest of compliments to Conservatives.

First it was “no third parties till after the primaries”, then it was “no third parties till after the election, then we’ll clean up our house”... Now it’s “Gee, we really can’t afford to rock the boat now, we need all the help we can get”

What a bunch of bedwetters! These be Freepers? This is principle?

Live free or... not... maybe.. It’s Friday after all... There’s ice cream on Fridays... /sarc

Peace, brother... It’s a loooong row to hoe.

@rabs=thx for the ping...

[EternalVigilance]

Thanks roamer_1. I really appreciate your post.

[lentulusgracchus]

If so, you're off the hook.

I've got a white-hot flash for you, Flash. I'm not on anybody's "hook".