Conservative Leaders Call for Replacement of Human Events Editor

MEDIA ADVISORY, Jan. 27 /Christian Newswire/ -- Radio host and bestselling author Gregg Jackson and a growing list of other conservative leaders, lawyers and activists are calling on Eagle Publishing to dismiss editor Jed Babbin and take immediate and decisive steps to restore the credibility of Human Events. Among the names widely known in social conservative and pro-life circles are Dr. Ted Baehr, President of Movieguide; Ambassador Alan Keyes, former Reagan appointee and presidential candidate; Dr. William Greene of RightMarch.com; Coach Dave Daubenmire, talk show host and author; and Brian Rohrbough, President of American Right to Life.

The editor of what was Ronald Reagan's favorite conservative weekly, Human Events, Babbin only recently admitted in an explosive radio interview that Mitt Romney illegally instituted same-sex "marriage" and $50 government-funded abortions. He now claims that Human Events faithfully reported these facts to their readers, but when asked to support that erroneous claim by citing specific articles in the four years since Romney's illegal orders went into effect, Babbin angrily professed not to remember and abruptly hung up, ending the interview.

On numerous occasions, Jackson and others had gone to great lengths to share Romney's far left wing record with Babbin and other writers at Human Events such as Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh and John Gizzi, but they all chose to suppress Romney's radical record in Massachusetts and in doing so deceived countless conservative readers.

* that the unalienable right to life is no more important or fundamental than the freedom of speech or the right to vote--a statement that is not merely illogical, but is an accidental admission that he is not pro-life in any meaningful sense

* that America's founding national charter, the Declaration of Independence, is not part of the Organic Law of the United States of America--despite the fact that the U.S. Code (section XXXVII - LXVII, "Organic Laws of the United States of America" ) says explicitly that it is, and despite the fact that the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that it is (astonishingly, Babbin is a lawyer)

* that the candidate whom Human Events endorsed for President, Fred Thompson, whom Babbin claims is "solidly pro-life," had "no choice" as a lawyer other than to represent the nation's largest abortion provider: Planned Parenthood

* that 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"

"For years conservatives trusted Human Events as a source of truth about what is happening in American politics," Jackson said. "Babbin's embarrassing and revealing statements in this very revealing interview are only the most recent indication of an ongoing purge of real conservatives and their replacement by social liberals posing as the heirs of the Reagan revolution," Jackson continued.

"As people listen to this interview, we expect awareness of the sad state of Human Events to spread through the grassroots just as the facts about Mitt Romney did, despite a concerted effort by Human Events and many supposed 'conservatives' to suppress it," said John Haskins of www.UndergroundJournal.net. "Eagle Publishing may well be too scornful of the intelligence of their own readers and too stubborn to dismiss Jed Babbin as the counterfeit conservative he revealed himself to be. But they face a continued loss of credibility which can only lead, ultimately, to the death of the publication."

The still growing list of conservative leaders, attorneys, radio talk show hosts and pundits calling for Human Events to dismiss Jed Babbin and chart an authentic conservative course for the future includes the following:

Dr. Ted Baehr, President, Movieguide.org
Dr. Alan Keyes, former Reagan ambassador and presidential candidate - AlanKeyes.com
Bob Enyart, radio host KLTT-AM, kgov.com author, former national TV host
Brian Rohrbough, President of American Right to Life
Rev. Earle Fox, Ph.D (Oxford), author, philosopher, president, Road to Emmaus School of Judeo-Christian Apologetics (theRoadToEmmaus.org)
Dr. William Greene, President, RightMarch.com
"Coach" Dave Daubenmire, founder, Pass The Salt Ministries, talk show host and author
Steve Deace, radio talk show host and author
Tom Hoefling, Chairman, America's Independent Party, AIPNEWS.com
Dr. Scott Lively, President, Abiding Truth Ministries
Dr. Paul Cameron, Chairman, Family Research Institute
Ray Neary, Director, Pro-Life Massachusetts (former President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life)
John O'Gorman, Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Member, Board of Directors 2002-2008
Atty. 'Robert Paine,' author: The Governor's New Clothes: How Mitt Romney Brought Same-Sex Marriage to America
Tricia Erickson, President Angel Pictures, LLC
Dewey L. Crepeau, Esq, Executive Director, A Gift of Hope Adoptions
Bob Denny, Founder, Guardians of the Inheritance
Gregg Jackson, radio talk show host and author of Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies
David Jeffers, author of Understanding Evangelicals: A Guide to Jesusland
Kenny Bolton, pastor and radio talk show host of "The Black Conservative"
Joseph L. Langlois, Attorney at Law
Tom Blumer, owner, BizzyBlog.com and Monetary Matters
Kerry Lee Morgan, Esq., ReviveTheRepublic.com
John Haskins, editor, UndergroundJournal.net
Patrick Flynn, Chairman, America's Independent Party of Michigan
Steve Schulin, founder, Maryland Independent Party
Richard Selfridge, Chairman, Constitution Party of Massachusetts
Rev. Michael Carl, Publisher/Editor-in-Chief, CentrePoint News
Ryan Sorba, author, "The Born Gay Hoax" (upcoming)
Dr. Gregory Thompson, Founder, Asleep kNOw More Ministry www.asleepknowmore.com
Michael Walsh, Chairman, America's Independent Party of Iowa
Judy Zabik, Treasurer, Alan Keyes for President/America's Independent Party

>>>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.

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)

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.

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...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.