FamilyFoundationBlog.com

Nat Hentoff better watch it. The well known pro-life, but liberal, columnist (see here) now is after radical leftist campus enforcers of political correctness who are attempting to silence a 48-year distinguished history professor at Brandeis University — the college named after the U.S. Supreme Court justice known for his fierce defence of free speech. Hentoff recently chastised Democrats for their abortion on demand platform (see our comment here). Invites to swanky parties attended by liberal elites assuredly will evaporate from his mailbox. Hentoff, though, has consistently exposed such hypocritical fanatics.

Again, we’ve been prescient. After several posts on this topic, Hentoff’s nationally syndicated column today addresses an incident that truly defies credulity: Brandeis  History Professor Donald Hindley, who has taught there for 48 years with not a complaint on his record, was teaching class one day in his course on Latin American politics. At one point he made a historically accurate, albeit sad, fact that some Americans used to call Mexican immigrants “wetbacks.” Mind you, he wasn’t calling Mexicans that. He wasn’t apologizing for that fact. He simply stated an unfortunate truth in the context of teaching his class.

A student complained, the administration took offence and now Professor Hindley may be on the verge of losing his job. Instead of explaining to the student the facts of life and being an adult, the university provost is on a child-like rant himself. But, the scary thing is, he has real authority, complete with reprimands, demands and threats to Professor Hindley. It’s as if you cannot say, “Blacks once were slaves in America.” How can we educate young people, much less publicly discuss important issues as a nation, if we’re not even allowed to accurately teach history?! He made a simple statement of fact. But liberal extremism not only wants to stifle free speech, it wants to whitewash history, a history you’d think they want exposed so we don’t repeat terrible mistakes. Read today’s column by Hentoff here. Rather than rare, occurrences such as this are much more rampant on campuses than widely realized.

As terrible as this horrible twin scourge of whitewashing history and restriction of free speech, there is one thing sadder: The ruination of a man’s reputation. But that’s not of consequence for America’s Animal Farm gang — anything, anything at all, to advance their addled, lockstep ideology. 

State Police Superintendent W. Steven Flaherty’s decision, since endorsed by Governor Tim Kaine (contact here), to forbid Christian chaplains from praying “in Jesus name” during “public events” is causing quite a commotion in the capital city. Tomorrow, The Family Foundation and our pastor outreach arm, Pastors For Family Values, will participate in a press conference with several other groups urging a reversal of the policy. 

In addition, citizens are making their voice heard. Through The Family Foundation and Pastor For Family Values e-mail alerts, both Kaine and Flaherty have received dozens of e-mails in the past 24 hours from concerned citizens wanting the policy to be changed.

Regardless, this issue isn’t going away. We’re looking at both legal and legislative options, so if Kaine and Flaherty decide to ignore the voice of Virginians and hide behind their friends at the ACLU, we’ll take the battle to court or to the statehouse. 

Whether Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s experience is a real factor or not remains to be seen as she enters into the vice presidential debate Thursday night. Right now, the voters don’t seem to mind. In fact, the last budget she administered is about $7.6 billion; the last budget administered by then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton when he ran for president was about $3.6 billion. So, does she have twice the practical experience he had in 1992? Certainly, the issues of energy independence are more complicated than Arkansas pre-K education.

Former Virginia governor and current Richmond Mayor Doug Wilder has disparaged Governor Palin’s experience. But then-Governor Wilder, in 1992, with only one year as governor under his belt, ran for the Democrat presidential nomination. Double standard, your honor?

But perhaps the most fun (and hypocrisy exposing) fact of all is, that while her critics ridicule the size of her state, her opponent, Senator Joe Biden, comes from lil’ ol’ Delaware, population 853,476 — or less than the total population of metropolitan Richmond (Henrico, Chesterfield and Hanover Counties, and Doug’s domain) which has a combined population of about 888,399. So . . . Doug Wilder for president after all?

Many years ago, when the first musings of something called “political correctness” starting popping up on campuses and the culture at large — an attempt, ostensibly, to use words not to offend people and to paper over the truth about anything in an attempt at hyper politeness, but whose real aim was to suppress opinion contrary to liberalism — it was paid little notice. When it was talked about, it was in the vein of the little oddity that would run its course into fad history. Nothing to be taken seriously. Except that it got to full march, permeating more than the academy, spreading to entertainment, journalism and media, art, sports, the workplace, anything and anywhere you could think, including (and especially) government at all levels, even to the point of possibly permanently altering the practice and course of our mostly-capitalist-economy that has created the greatest standard of living ever know to man. This really is the chickens coming home to roost. 

As “political correctness” morphed into a speech code that discredits anything opposite liberalism as “hate speech” or ignorance or hayseed stupidity, and arrogantly talks down to everyone else, its government proponents encoded it not just in employment practices or protections, but in regulations affecting how financial institutions conduct business by mandating loans to people (out of “fairness” no doubt) regardless of their means to make good on the payments. Even though the House of Representatives voted down the latest government takeover of an industry earlier today, one may still come. The price tag is in the range of $700 billion of our money, threatening our economic well being.

A more detailed look at this phenomena comes from Ann Coulter (click here). It is worth the read to understand the nexus of the culture war and how its political outcome affects everything else, including our economy’s capability to function. Coincidentally, a friend brought to my attention a YouTube video that is doubly worth the look (click here). Although a bit long, it documents, albeit in an entertaining way, the cold hard facts, with statements of those in Congress responsible and actual legislative language authored by said incompetents. Or, as this concise news report from Fox News Channel’s Brett Baier provides more background (click here), documents, one of the presidential candidates, at least figuratively, voted “present,” again.

But here is the best one of all . . . the politically correct (and powerful) crowd in House committee defending Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when they were being warned of their impending peril! This is a must see video, not long, and in their own words (click here). When will the left be held accountable for what they say and do?

Everyone has a fantasy job — a job for a day. This time of year, when certain politicians are talking tax increases — with too many, it’s year-round talk of tax increases — I want to ask them a simple question. I shouldn’t have to ask the simple question, because there are so many in the Mainstream Media it’s almost inconceivable that they don’t ask it themselves. (Wonder why?) It gets more infuriating when multi-millionaire politicians, who either have raised taxes on working families, or want to, or want to again — including a few high profile ones here in Virginia — start piously talking about how they themselves make so much money that they and others like them can afford to pay more taxes (not to mention how they demagogue the issue of “fairness” and “government needs”). To wit, my question to them simply is: 

If you think you are so under taxed, why don’t you stroke a check yourself, large enough foryour heart’s desire, right to the treasury and leave the rest of us alone?

The plain fact is, both state and federal treasuries willingly take contributions apart from tax collections. However, these super wealthy pols want to ”raise taxes on the rich” (who turn out to be hard-working families), while the truly rich — themselves and their huge financial supporters — easily slip through the loopholes and avoid the extra taxes, sticking the rest of us with their tax bill.

So, for those tax-increasers, as a public service, we present to you these two links:

To make a voluntary contribution to the federal treasury, click here.

To make a voluntary contribution to the Virginia treasury, click here.

Of course, the media never will ask that question. But if the tax-increasing pols practiced what they preached, there would be no need to ask that question. Which means, I’m going to fantasize about that job for a day for a long, long time.

The birthplace for religious freedom in America is quickly becoming its graveyard. 

News stories broke across Virginia yesterday concerning a case The Family Foundation became involved with last week (read Norfolk Virginian-Pilot article, here). The superintendent of the Virginia State Police, a political appointee of Governor Tim Kaine, recently ordered State Police chaplains to cease praying “in Christ’s name” (read Richmond Times-Dispatch article, here). Apparently the superintendent did this proactively, without any complaints from anyone “offended” that a chaplain actually had prayed to God. Six of the chaplains have had the courage to resign their positions over this order.

Last week we were informed of this new policy and were put in contact with one of the chaplains involved. We then connected him with Alliance Defense Fund, one of the leading religious liberty legal advocate groups in the nation. It currently is reviewing the facts of the case to determine the proper action. Wednesday,  House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith (R-8, Salem) and Delegate Bill Carrico (R-5, Independence) slammed Governor Kaine and the state police superintendent for this new policy in a press release, bringing this situation to light (read Washington Times article, here).

The superintendent says he is basing his policy change on a recent U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision involving prayer at government meetings, specifically a case where a pastor in the Fredericksburg area was ordered to stop praying “in Jesus name” at city council meetings. The court concluded that allowing someone to publicly pray according to his beliefs at a government meeting was an “establishment of religion” because the prayer was “government speech.”

Once again the religious liberty and free speech rights of Christians have been banished from the public square (read Roanoke Times article, here). Arguing that allowing someone to offer a sectarian prayer is an “endorsement of religion” is absurd. It turns the establishment clause of the First Amendment against the free exercise clause as if the two are incompatible. Just the idea that there is such a thing as “government speech” violates the fundamental idea of America. Our Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves.

This situation again highlights the importance of who will sit on the courts deciding these cases. Ultimately, it is likely that this will all be resolved by the United States Supreme Court. Because at least two justices on that court likely are to retire during the term of the next president, the judicial philosophy the candidates for president hold is a critical decision point as we determine who should receive our vote.

We will continue to work with the troopers involved in this case, the Alliance Defense Fund, and members of the General Assembly to seek an outcome where religious liberty once again stands as a pillar of strength in our commonwealth.

It has, according Herbert E. Meyer, who recently wrote a column entitled, “The Culture War’s Decisive Battle has Begun,” for The American Thinker (read it here). Meyer, who served President Ronald Reagan as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council, and who is the host and producer of the video The Siege of Western Civilization and author of How to Analyze Information, writes the nomination of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for vice president was the battle’s shot across the bow.

Meyer writes with clarity in defining the two sides in the culture war — ”traditionalists” and “Left-Wing Liberals.” He writes that the differences are so irreconcilable that we are experiencing a second Civil War and that in every war there is a decisive battle. That battle won’t end the war, but it becomes the tide that changes the course of the war and decides its fate. For example, Gettysburg, he writes, during the Civil War, or Midway  during WWII (although, he must mean the Pacific theater; certainly D-Day was the turning point in Europe and perhaps for the entire war).

He then defines the two types of wars: Military ones, which are relatively short; and ideological wars, which can last decades, such as the Cold War. Such is America’s culture war. He writes:

And there are long ideological wars, such as the Cold War, in which short bursts of fighting are separated by long periods of political maneuvering.  In these long ideological wars, the outcome isn’t determined by firepower but by will. That’s because the aggressor’s objective isn’t to kill the defenders, but to wear them down until they no longer have the courage and stamina to keep resisting.

The defenders win only when they stop merely resisting — in other words, trying just to not lose — and start playing offense. For example, by the late 1970s the Free World’s will to resist the Soviet Union’s endless challenges had nearly evaporated. Détente was just a palatable word for surrender. And then — unexpectedly and virtually at the same moment — three individuals most people had never before heard of exploded onto the scene and into power.  They were Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John-Paul II — none of whom, by the way, had any foreign policy experience before taking office. Their objective wasn’t to “not lose” the Cold War, but rather to end it with victory for the Free World.  Together they threw the switch from playing defense to playing offense, stunning the Kremlin’s over-confident leaders who believed that history was on their side. Within a decade, the Cold War was over and the Soviet Union had ceased to exist.

More than interesting, it is a profound observation. As much as John McCain is not perceived as a culture warrior by some Christian conservatives, maybe it took a Cold Warrior to understand what it takes to win an ideological war. McCain is one of the last still-in-office politicians to have been at the political forefront during the Cold War — certainly at its height. Two minor disagreements here: Ronald Reagan certainly was well known, for a variety of reasons, including a 1976 run for president and two terms as California governor, and who had met plenty of world leaders. John Paul II had plenty of “foreign policy experience” as it were: He had been fighting, ideologically, the Nazis and then Soviet communists inside the Iron Curtain his entire life. But as for his larger point, of leaders with a clear, unwavering vision of right and wrong, and the importance of defeating wrong, we agree.

He continues:

By choosing Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate — and by staking his own claim to the presidency on “Country First” more than on any specific policy initiative — John McCain has thrown the switch and put us Traditionalists onto the offense. By doing so he has unleashed the energy and the will to victory among Traditionalists that have been dormant for so long the Left-Wing Liberals mistakenly assumed we’d lost. And by taking the over-confident Left-Wing Liberals so completely by surprise, McCain has stunned them into revealing themselves for the vicious phonies that they are.

As a result, what started out as a typical campaign between Republicans and Democrats — each party trying to hold its base while attracting enough independent voters to win — has exploded into the Culture War’s decisive battle.  

Commanding the Traditionalist armies is a war hero whose personal courage and patriotism have overwhelmed any disagreements within the coalition about specific policies and issues. His second-in-command is a pro-life hockey mom with genuine executive talent, star quality, and the most valuable asset of all in politics: a common touch. Commanding the Left-Wing Liberal armies is an elegant, eloquent cosmopolitan whose most striking talent is his ability to push past everyone else to the front of the line. His second-in-command is the U.S. Senate’s leading plagiarist, whose only undeniable talent is his ability to use Senate confirmation hearings as a platform from which to trash honorable Republican appointees such as Bill Clark, Robert Bork, and Clarence Thomas.

Meyer’s column certainly is clearly thought and crafted, with precise analysis. It’s also, if not a call to arms to those long-since armed, it’s a rallying cry not to lose, for a resurgency, to see through to victory that ultimate, war changing battle, and drive on to final victory. We encourage you to read it, then take action. It’s not too late to engage the opponent.

I love scouring the newspaper. I never know when something completely off the wall will be reported to make my day or at least provide some fun topic of conversation. Other times I’ll find an article that on the surface seems non-germane to anything I’m concerned about, but, in fact, proves to be Exhibit A in proving a point.

Such was the case this morning in the venerable Richmond Times-Dispatch. Its business section reported a feature article on a new trend of people contracting to buy houses together for various reasons: Older, widowed women who don’t want to rent, or recent college grads who want to invest in home ownership but can’t get a mortgage on their own. (According to the article, Time dubbed young co-owners ”communal homeowners” or “co-hos.”)

Right, right . . . I know this isn’t a real estate blog . . . getting to the point. Let’s go back to 2006 and the Marriage Amendment campaign. What was the biggest — of the endless —scare tactics used by the homosexual lobby and liberal politicians, and brainlessly repeated by the lofties at numerous editorial pages and Mainstream Media types?  

Unintended consequences. That’s right. If the marriage amendment passed all sorts of evil unimagined things would happen: unrelated people would not be able to enter into contracts, go into business, or buy real estate together, to name but a few of the here-to-Alaska list.

The article (read it here) is about two Richmond-area women who have been best friends for 30 years. One is a widow, one is divorced and both are empty-nesters for the most part. They rented homes but spent so much time on the phone talking to each other, it made great sense to buy a house together. More than that, according to the article:

Grady and McAbee consulted an attorney and had a contract prepared that addresses such issues as what happens when one of them dies — each has a lifetime right to the house as long as they can afford it — and who inherits the proceeds from the eventual sale of the property.

So much for not being able to enter into contracts with non-spouses. They got a lawyer and everything! They got all legaled up with inheritance rights and all of that stuff even though the best and brightest lefties said it couldn’t happen. Hysteria, indeed. But let’s see the left prove their point. Let them file suit to make people who’ve bought houses together dissolve their contracts and sell off their assets. (Here’s another story we reported on in June which also proves our point.)

If this isn’t an example of the misdirection and untruth that constantly comes from the hysterical left, we don’t know what it is. In fact, it should serve as a warning to any fair minded person to take with an entire Morton’s Salt container anything that comes from their mouths.

We’re waiting for the homosexual lobby and their liberal politician allies to apologize for spending millions of dollars misrepresenting the truth to Virginians — and even their donors — who expect much better. We also wait for the dozens of know-it-all editorial page editors and Mainstream Media types to admit they were wrong. Of course, all the above mentioned could prove us wrong. Let them file a law suit against those who have bought homes together.

Right. Sure they will. There is an important lesson here, for all great issues that affect us: Policy discourse is about who you can believe. It’s about the truth. It’s about who has credibility — and who has a lack of it. 

The Clintons are looking to expand their political empire into Virginia. While most thought the 2009 Democrat nomination for governor would be between two established Virginia pols, Delegate Brian Moran (D-46, Alexandria) and Senator Creigh Deeds (D-25, Bath), it looks like a complete outsider to Old Dominion politics, Terry McAuliffe, the very top Clinton lieutenant — he was handpicked by Bill to run the DNC and was Hillary’s presidential campaign chairman — wants to usurp the nomination from both Moran and Deeds. McAuliffe, a native New Yorker, while never active in Virginia politics, doubtless is familiar to many, showing up on any and all political television shows, even on Fox News (to the chagrin of The Angry Left).

While he’s floated the idea for some time, he pretty much gave away his intentions last night to a Richmond Times-Dispatch reporter:

McAuliffe, 51, who lives in McLean, is considering seeking the Democratic nomination for governor in 2009. He said he will make a decision after the Nov. 4 election, but he indicated he likely would run.

So, the Clintons want to creep into Virginia? Arkansas and New York aren’t enough. There is a method to the madness here: Hillary lost the Virginia primary, huge. But suppose the Democrat presidential nomination is open again in 2012? Having a friendly governor here to swing Virginia’s Democrat delegates her way would be significant. All of a sudden, Delegate Moran and Senator Deeds have a lot more to be concerned about than only each other.

McAuliffe has his baggage, though. He’s never been fully vetted by the Mainstream Media for a get-rich-quick scheme in the Global Crossing bankruptcy scandal; and the media, for all his thousands of appearances on their networks, have never questioned him about the widely known Teamsters money laundering scheme he hatched; nor have authorities fully investigated him for it, even though several Teamster bosses went down for their participation. (Maybe because it was during Bill’s presidency?) Other McAuliffe money scandals, where he enriched himself, are well documented here, at Counter Punch. He’s escaped scrutiny thus far. Charmed? Or just well protected?

But does he want to risk all of it coming out in a gubernatorial campaign to a state he has little connection? For Clinton creep, apparently yes.

No, not that one. Not at all. Actually, something interesting, realistic and possibly good. Norman Leahy yesterday wrote at Tertium Quids (click here) that an unintended consequence of Governor Tim Kaine’s $3 billion budget deficit is that real cuts in state spending might be made — not just reductions in increases that pols like to brag about at campaign time as big-time spending reductions (see Times-Dispatch article, here). If such cuts are made, speculates Leahy, then maybe cost-conscious state government may turn to school choice to reduce taxpayer funded public education costs. (Click here to listen to his interview about this possibility with school choice expert Adam Schaeffer of The Cato Institute.) While we’re not holding our breath, maybe the pols will eliminate the unnecessary and budget busting new Pre-K program as well.