Conservative leaders to publicly challenge NATIONAL REVIEW on Romney coverage

22 conservative leaders to release letter publicly challenging National Review to come clean re: Mitt Romney

WALTHAM, MA (July 9, 2007) -- Twenty-two conservative activist leaders will publicly release a letter later this week challenging the National Review to come clean about their "puff work" for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The implication is that the magazine-- now frantically distancing itself from an unpopular Republican elite on immigration policy -- has lost all relationship to the conservative grassroots and damaged its reputation for conservative, constitutionalist reporting and analysis. The National Review has even refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter, which cites facts about which they have misled their readers, most strikingly regarding Romney’s stance on:

Abortion : Romney's record after his "awakening" to the value of human life is still overwhelmingly pro-abortion.

Homosexual “marriage” : The Massachusetts Constitution says the people are bound only by laws ratified by the legislature; and only the legislature can suspend or alter laws. The state's high court freely admits it cannot create laws and has no authority over the legislature or governor. Yet Romney illegally ordered officials to act as if judges created a new law "legalizing"  homosexual “marriage”.

John Haskins of the Parents' Rights Coalition (Massachusetts) noted that the National Review's glaring refusal to face the implications of a devastating 2004 guest commentary in their own magazine by a respected legal scholar , illuminating why Romney's role has been covered up by fawning, pro-establishment attorneys Jay Sekulow, Hugh Hewitt, and David French:

"The deeper failure must go to the man who stood as governor, holding the levers of the executive. And if it is countdown for 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, until he finally talked himself into doing nothing, or nothing much. ... [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, AmherstCollege ( May 17, 2004, in the

Haskins also noted that conservative leader and attorney Phyllis Schlafly wrote in December 2003:

"Massachusetts public officials ... are groveling before the four judges... ...Romney is trying to walk a tight rope of compromise. [Romney] said: 'We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the 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."

"A magazine that conservatives grew up with has legitimized a flagrant demagogue who trashed a constitution. As an opponent of activist judges and defender of marriage and life, Romney is a fraud," said Haskins."Contrary to post-constitutionalists in the National Review orbit such as French, no legal training is needed to decode the obvious meaning of English words. This state constitution, like others, was not written for politicians and lawyers to keep hidden away from prying eyes. It was written for citizens as protection against the David French e s, Hugh Hewitts and the Mitt Romneys of the world."

The magazine also conspicuously failed to report that in the closing weeks of Romney's administration forty-four conservative leaders from around the country sent a letter to Romney ( ) debunking his claim that he merely "enforced the law" by imposing homosexual "marriage" after the judges asked the Legislature to legalize it (which legislators never did). That letter quoted the state constitution and court opinions and strongly urged Romney to reverse his illegal orders. Numerous law professors and constitutional attorneys have affirmed its conclusions.

The forty-four signers included Paul Weyrich, an architect of the Reagan revolution; the nationally respected Robert Knight, a draftsman of the Defense of Marriage Act; Sandy Rios of the Culture Campaign (and former president of Concerned Women for America); Phil Lawler, editor of Catholic World News ; Phil Likoudis, editor of The Wanderer ; constitutional attorney Gary Kreep, President of the United States Justice Foundation; and other attorneys.

In contrast to the National Review's refusal to report these two letters, Kathryn Jean Lopez, their dedicated Romney cheerleader, trumpeted as newsworthy a pro-Romney letter from six Massachusetts "conservatives" of widely varying reputations and conflicts of interest. It even included signers who have admitted privately that Romney misapplied the Goodridge decision.

William Cotter, who heads the Massachusetts pro-life group Operation Rescue Boston noted that those in the pro-life community who know the reality behind Romney's "conversion" are deeply troubled by this spinning of Romney as a "pro-life" politician.

"Romney's 'pro-life' pose is merely a states' rights-pro-abortion position, supposedly inspired by discussing test tubes with a Harvard scientist, but still opposing a constitutional amendment protecting babies in the womb," said R. T. Neary, Director of Pro-Life Massachusetts and a former president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life.

"Even Romney's strange, sudden conversion to states' rights on abortion is bogus. He still surrenders absolute constitutional supremacy to the federal judiciary," said attorney "Robert Paine" (penname of a prominent attorney who is the foremost expert in the country) on Goodridge and Romney's illegal use of it. ( ) "For Romney, Roe v. Wade is virtually a constitutional amendment. Why do National Review editors let him get away with a state's rights smokescreen on abortion while he claims to support a federal amendment on marriage? If protecting marriage is a federal issue,why isn't protecting human life? The answer is that Romney's entire scam fails on examination of the Massachusetts Constitution," Paine said. "On the run from his illegal orders creating homosexual marriage, he's far more desperate to portray himself as defending marriage than as pro-life."

For documentation or interviews contact: John Haskins, Parents Rights Coalition (Massachusetts), 781-890-6001,