FamilyFoundationBlog.com

As with yesterday’s post about the NEA, where a high ranking official without shame articulated that group’s real objectives (money and power) in contradiction to its stated goals of improving education, today we bring you something similar, though thoroughly crude and disturbing, by Planned Parenthood. It’s a video, by our friends at Catholicvote.org, of a Planned Parenthood march and rally earlier this year. The video simply records pro-abortion radicals saying (often screaming) what they believe, while (to put it kindly) distorting what pro-lifers believe. Of course, the Mainstream Media won’t embarrass its own movement by covering such nonsense (but when there’s a Tea Party rally calling for commonsense spending restraint . . . you know what happens). Neither did the MSM cover this rally of “liberals” last year, where participants gladly called themselves socialists and communists. (But let a conservative call these radicals what they admit to being and the media contrives a firestorm.)

Still, it’s important to hear what the pro-abortion side truly believes (government funding and insurance coverage of abortion on demand), in their own (shrill) words. Nothing close to “safe, legal and rare.” Of course, liberals claim that conservatives distort their positions and it is conservatives who are out of touch. But it’s hard to claim Planned Parenthood is reasonable after watching this. As with the teachers union, what Planned Parenthood says (and how it acts) for public consumption and what it sincerely shrieks when it thinks no one is watching is vastly different.

“Government should fund Planned Parenthood.”

“I want Planned Parenthood to be like Starbucks. I want a Planned Parenthood on every corner.”

Maybe you’ve seen this before. If you haven’t, you need to. If you have, it bears repeating. If there is any doubt about the intentions, the motives and the goals of the teachers union — the NEA and its Virginia affiliate the VEA — please listen to now former NEA General Counsel Bob Chanin the union’s 2009 convention, where he explains his “most important point” — it’s not about the merit of their positions, it’s not about students, it’s not even about “a vision for a great public school for every child.”

What’s it about, then? Power and money, baby! He says so proudly. Power, money and politics. One might even say bullying. Education? “That’s simply too high a price to pay” (ironic since they extract a huge price from taxpayers for failing schools, but that’s another subject). For all the posturing, disingenuine care for improvement, faux concern for education, demagoguing the need for more tax dollars, and vilifying of those who dare to offer solutions which don’t fit their status quo template, they sing a more revealing tune tune behind closed doors.

It’s important to know with whom you deal in the public policy arena and to understand their true intentions, which they often obscure by reasonable sounding public rhetoric. Discerning their aims isn’t usually difficult — the first howl against education choice and reform or for more taxes and spending for a failing system (a VEA broken record) gives it away. But it’s nice to hear them arrogantly admit exactly what they’re in it for — money and power — especially when they think no one is listening. That makes it a tad bit sweeter, though they seem not to suffer any shame from it. More and more, however, people are waking up to the real motivation (as they themselves state it) behind the teachers union and its bosses.

“It is not because the merits of our positions. It is not because we care about children. … NEA is effective we because we have power !”

Yesterday, the Republican Caucus in the House of Delegates elected Delegate Kirk Cox (R-66, Colonial Heights) to majority leader and Delegate Bill Janis (R-56, Henrico) to majority whip. The election was necessary (see Washington Post Virginia Politics Blog) after current Majority Leader Morgan Griffith was elected to the House of Representatives from Virginia’s 9th congressional district, defeating 28-year incumbent Rick Boucher during last month’s Republican wave. Cox was the majority whip. Both were unchallenged (see Richmond Times-Dispatch).

Statements from the principles include this from Speaker Bill Howell (R-66, Fredericksburg) (see entire statement, here):

Both of these individuals are trusted allies and talented lawmakers with remarkable backgrounds that they’ve used to help House Republicans offer practical solutions and deliver real results.

Kirk is an outstanding member of the House who I rely on . . .  for thoughtful analysis and strategic insights on the important challenges and opportunities facing taxpayers, families, businesses and Virginia. Not only is he a widely acknowledged “go-to” person on the state budget, education, military and natural resource issues, but Kirk also has done a superb job as House Majority Whip counting votes and building support for our ideas.

Likewise, Bill is an engaged and detail-oriented delegate who contributes so much to our Caucus and Commonwealth. His service on key House committees has provided Bill with a firm understanding of the issues and how they impact people of all walks of life. I’m confident that he will continue helping to identify policy goals and forge coalitions in support of sensible legislation that will improve the quality of life for all Virginians.

From Cox:

We have many challenging years ahead with tight budgets and a need to grow private sector jobs. I look forward to working hard with House Republicans and all of my legislative colleagues to address these challenges and the aspirations of the people of Virginia as the next House Majority Leader.

From Janis:

I relish the opportunity to serve as the new House Majority Whip. Together, we’re going to help put Virginians back to work by promoting legislation that fosters an environment conducive to more job growth, more economic opportunity and more prosperity for all Virginians.

Okay, the formalities are out of the way. Now, the question is, what will happen to some very valuable General Assembly Building real estate? Delegate Cox — now one of the most powerful delegates ever outside of a speaker as majority leader and vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee — already has a large and prestigious ninth floor GAB office per his role on Appropriations. But as majority leader, he also will have a large and prestigious suite on the sixth floor where the leaders of both parties and chambers have offices. Which will he choose? Or can he keep both? If he chooses the ninth floor, will Delegate Janis get the sixth floor office (whips don’t have offices there)? If he chooses the sixth floor, who gets the ninth floor office?

These are the intriguing questions that drive the General Assembly. We’ll keep you posted.

Sometimes we find things that our opposition says or does that are just too revealing not to expose to the public at large. For example, NARAL’s fascinating linguistic gymnastics. Now, an astounding admission from the NEA/VEA that confirms what we, and other education reformers, have said for years: That the VEA is about educators, not education.

Unlike how the VEA poses, it is not about anything resembling education, much less improving it. Quite simply, the VEA is a union. Not a think tank. Not a “for the children” organization. The VEA is a union and is about union membership. But don’t take our word for it. Here is an admission straight from the mouth of the NEA’s retiring chief counsel, in 2009:

And that brings me to my final, and most important point. Which is why, at least in my opinion, NEA and its affiliates are such effective advocates. Despite what some among us would like to believe, it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.

Pretty blatantly stated. But there it is: The NEA/VEA has one goal — the financial and professional betterment of its members, which in turn increases its power. If achievement of its goals requires advocacy for higher education standards or better classroom environments to achieve its union goal, it will pursue what it must. But don’t be fooled. Such advocacy is an inconvenient diversion to its accumulation of power and political goals.

To successfully dismantle the VEA’s power in Virginia politics, we must defund it and alternative teacher organizations hold the key. One such alternative is Virginia Professional Educators, a professional organization that offers better insurance policies and other benefits without supporting liberal causes and candidates (click here for more information). As long as teachers continue to send dues to the VEA, it will continue to hire its 30-plus lobbyists in Richmond every year where they then proceed to undermine school choice efforts, push for higher taxes and, incredibly, involve itself in issues that have nothing to do with public education, such as promoting abortion and homosexual marriage. (Improving education? What’s that?)

Self-assessments from our opposition are fascinating. Sometimes the honesty in their words is revealing. Take note of the deflated words delivered in an April 2010 speech by VEA President Kitty Boitnott:

This year, our [General Assembly] ‘wins’ are better measured by what we prevented from happening. … the VEA has lost members in significant numbers this year due to a whole host of reasons . . . along with the external challenges of having few friends in high places, we have also been suffering from an internal malaise of sorts in many of our very own local affiliates. … I do not believe that I overstate the case when I say that public education is under siege. It is being attacked at every corner, and there are those who would not only under fund public education . . . but they would dismantle public education in favor of alternative avenues. …

By its own admission, teachers are wising up and leaving the VEA and, in turn, the VEA is feeling the heat. No longer is it advancing its leftist agenda at the expense of hard working, well meaning teachers. Instead, it’s on the defensive. As we’ve said before, the VEA’s worst nightmare — education freedom — is coming to Virginia. It’s a matter of when, not if. The Family Foundation and our educational freedom allies are continuing to build a convincing case for school choice in Virginia. We will not relent until Virginia families are given the opportunity to freely choose the best educational option for their children.

Over the last couple of weeks we’ve sounded the call about the opportunity to serve on the hundreds of boards and commissions that set policy for the Commonwealth. The McDonnell administration is looking to fill hundreds of positions subject to gubernatorial appointment for everything from college boards of visitors to commissions that deal on crime, sanctity of life, women’s issues, education and government reform, housing, medicine, transportation and just about any aspect of policy and government that affect life in Virginia (see list here).

The deadline to apply for (or nominate someone) to a board or commission originally was yesterday. However, in a letter from Director of Appointments Jennifer Aulgur yesterday afternoon, the administration announced that it is extending the application deadline one more week:  

A few weeks ago, we notified you of the new online system for applying to serve in the McDonnell administration on a board or commission.

Thank you for your cooperation, patience and positive comments as we launched this new site and process.

Today was the original deadline to apply for boards or commissions with openings between now and June 30. However, to allow time to ensure that the everyone’s application is complete in the new system and to provide grace to any folks who waited until the deadline to apply, we have extended the deadline to Thursday, April 22nd.

If you have questions about OASYS, the board and commission application process or if you need technical assistance in filling out your application or nomination please contact the Appointments staff, and we will gladly assist you. Additionally, anyone who does not have access to a computer or the Internet or who needs assistance filling out the online application because of a disability can contact us as well.

We renew our encouragement for pro-family Virginians from across the Commonwealth, who have an interest in moving Virginia in a positive, pro-traditional values, conservative, limited government direction, to get involved and apply to serve the Commonwealth and influence its public policy in a way that reflects our values and improves lives of all Virginians. For more information, click hereor e-mail Ms. Aulgur at Jennifer.Aulgur@governor.virginia.gov or her deputy, Courtney Groves, at Courtney.Groves@governor.virginia.gov. You may also call their office at 804-786-2441.

Delegate Jimmie Massie’s (R-72, Henrico) bill to provide a bit of educational choice to Virginia students, HB 599, and, therefore, better education opportunities, is in the Senate Finance Committee Wednesday. The bill would provide a tax credit for businesses and individuals that donate to scholarship funds for students in grades K-12. Qualifying families could use those scholarships to send their children to private schools. Despite fierce opposition from the Virginia School Board Association and the Virginia Education Association, the bill passed the House of Delegates 55-44.

The House amended HB 599 in such a way as to ensure that there will be no negative fiscal impact to the Commonwealth — something valuable in today’s economy and something that not many tax credits can boast. In fact, the bill will increase per pupil spending in school districts that lose students to private schools because they will have the same share of federal and local funds to educate less students. 

Similar scholarship programs in Pennsylvania and Arizona have been huge successes. Thousands of children have been given opportunities for a better education through scholarships created because funding is available. Despite cries of “taking money from children” in public schools, the scholarship programs in those two states have in no way negatively affected public schools.

Unfortunately, the Senate Finance committee has been very hostile to any legislation that provides education freedom to families. Already this session it voted 9-6 to defeat legislation (SB 133) introduced by Senator Mark Obenshain (R-26, Harrisonburg) that was very similar to Delegate Massie’s bill.

In two different polls conducted by, or on behalf of, The Family Foundation or other education freedom supporters over the past two years, large majorities of Virginians indicated their support for tax credits like the one created in HB 599. Wednesday, we will see if the Senate Finance Committee is listening to Virginia parents, who want all options for the best possible education for their children; or, to the special interests and education establishment, who have given us such mediocrity that these innovative options are demanded by the vast majority of parents.

This is the first in a series of five policy statements on issues that will come before the 2010 General Assembly. Each one covers one of The Family Foundation’s five areas of principle. The others will follow over the rest of the week.

There are days when I wonder if half the things we hear about in Washington, D.C., are real or if it’s all just a very bad nightmare. Some reports just seem so outrageous.

So when I saw a Fox News headline a few months ago that screamed “U.N. Report Advocates Teaching Masturbation to 5 year-olds,” I had that, Oh, this is going to be another exaggeration moment. Certainly, even the U.N., as wacky as it is, wouldn’t publicly endorse such a foolish concept.

Then I read the report for myself. Believe me, the whole teaching-5-year-olds-about- masturbation-thing is just the tip of the iceberg. There is stuff in here that should make every parent who cares at all about their children shudder, starting with the line “teachers remain the best qualified and the most trusted providers of information and support for most children and young people.”

Teachers? Really? So much for parents.

Until the November 2008 elections, things like the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (see our comment, here), something far scarier than the aforementioned U.N. report, were out there, but had little chance of being accepted by our Congress. The convention is such an assault on your right to parent I can’t really describe it. Essentially, the convention gives children “evolving” rights to choose religion, education, etc., regardless of what their parents say. Now, however, there is a serious effort in the United States Senate to force us to join the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, seriously threatening parental rights in our country, not to mention our sovereignty.

To combat this, parents across the nation are urging Congress to pass a parental rights amendment to the United States constitution. You can learn more about this cause at parentalrights.org.

To assist this effort, The Family Foundation is supporting a memorializing resolution in the 2010 General Assembly that would urge Congress to pass the parental rights amendment. Similar to legislation we supported in 2004 that urged Congress to pass a marriage amendment, a memorializing resolution sends a message to our federal representatives that we want them to protect the rights of parents to raise their children without government interference.

Although the resolution has yet to receive a bill number, it’s patron in the House is Delegate Brenda Pogge (R-96, Yorktown). We look forward to updating you on the progress of this legislation throughout the General Assembly and what you can do to help see it pass.

The Bible is an acceptable source for young people to look to for greater educational understanding? Yes!

Educating young people in sexual abstinence and securing their physical health as well as emotional and relational well being as a result. No!

These answers colorfully highlight the great juxtaposition of worldviews that currently are playing out in America today. However, don’t think for a moment, as many in the punditry class stress, that the “Yes” answer is a red state exclusive, while the “No” answer is a blue state domain. Both answers were given right here in The Old Dominion recently by people elected to guide the education of our children.

On Tuesday, November 10, the Chesterfield County School Board voted unanimously to allow county high schools, as one supporter said, “to teach the Bible as an elective from an academic perspective.”

On the other hand, on Tuesday, November 17, (as we wrote here), the Richmond Times- Dispatch reported this about a Henrico County high school:

The scheduling of an abstinence-only speaker today at Douglas Freeman High School has drawn protests from some teachers, an abortion-rights organization, and a gay and lesbian education network. (The speaker’s engagement was upheld by the principle and school district, thankfully.)

Simply put, this isn’t a red versus blue thing. These issues are the very seasonably unfashionable colors of black and white. Some in our commonwealth are working to stay the forces of secular progressivism and others are looking to promote it. Two questions face each of us:

Am I managing to see the actual worldview that the children in my public school district are being taught?

And

Am I encouraging those leaders who stand up for truth in spite of the criticism?

If your children attend public schools, please take some time to uncover what dominant worldview they are being taught. Find out what they are being told Yes! and No! to. From that color spectrum, the answers will quickly emerge from a hazy purple to a very poignant “Yes” or “No.”

Here are more telling details from the education choice polling data and study of which we were a party and released yesterday: Paul DiPerna, research director for The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, wrote in his study that the research indicates:

a major disconnect between Virginia’s schooling preferences and actual school enrollments. … As in other states where we have surveyed, the implication of these results is that Virginia does not have a sufficient school choice system in place to match parents’ schooling preferences. (See the entire report here.)

The survey polled 1,203 likely voters and was conducted from October 1-4. The margin of error was plus or minus 2.8 percent points. (See today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch for coverage of yesterday’s study release news conference.) The results illustrate the vast support in Virginia for a program of income tax credits for donations to scholarship foundations that, in turn, provide funds to qualifying students to attend a school of their choice instead of an assigned public school.

Of course, common sense and public opinion never guarantee a thing, and this issue is living proof — for years the General Assembly has refused to pass legislation to enable such foundations to fully unleash their potential to provide more students better education options. But the results of this study will be a much needed resupply of ammunition that we and several partner organizations will use this coming session and beyond. For example:

» 65 percent of Virginians support tax-credit scholarships, while only 22 percent oppose.

» 57 percent of Virginians favor school vouchers, while only 35 percent oppose.

Even when broken down by party affiliation, Virginians strongly support tax-credit scholarships and vouchers:

» 64 percent of Democrats, 68 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of independents support tax-credit scholarships.

» 53 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of Republicans and 58 percent of independents support school vouchers.

» 81 percent of Democrats, 79 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of independents support special needs school vouchers.

Additionally, the favor-oppose margins are large among the parties:

» On tax-credit scholarships, it’s +43 among Democrats, +46 among Republicans and +44 among independents.

» On school vouchers, it’s +15 among Democrats, +39 among Republicans and +22 among independents.

» On special needs school vouchers, it’s +67 among Democrats, +64 among Republicans and +60 among independents.

Education reform will be an issue to watch this session. With school choice a major issue in the recent campaign and a new philosophy at the helm of state government, sound ideas, such as those Virginians overwhelmingly support in this study, may have their best chance in years to get a much needed foothold in Virginia’s education system.

You know things aren’t going well for a liberal candidate when his Mainstream Media allies call him out. How let down must Democrat gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds have felt when he saw this headline from Washington Post lib Robert McCartney?

Plain and Simple, Deeds Stumbles In N.Va. Debate

Ouch!

But true. See for yourself. We can’t add much more to what Mr. McCartney wrote. So, we let him speak for himself, with emphasis added to certain points and occasional parenthetical comments of mine because . . . because . . . I still don’t know the difference between tax increases and “raise new money”!

. . .  as governor Deeds would be more likely to actually fix the roads than his Republican opponent, former attorney general Robert F. McDonnell. That’s because Deeds is willing to raise taxes for transportation, while McDonnell isn’t, and some kind of tax increase is the only way to do the job. (Oh, really? The mind of a liberal, and they say conservatives see things only in black and white.)

But Deeds certainly didn’t explain that clearly Thursday. When asked directly by moderator David Gregory of NBC News whether he would raise taxes if necessary in the current economic climate, Deeds said: “No, I’m not going to raise taxes. But I am the only person on this dais who will sign a transportation plan that raises new money.” (Say, what!?!?!?)

Huh? When I and other reporters pressed him afterward to clarify, he said he meant only that he wouldn’t raise taxes for the state’s general fund, which pays for a broad range of services, including education and law enforcement. That clearly left open the possibility that he’d raise taxes for the transportation fund, which is separate.

Even then, though, Deeds tried to have it both ways. In one breath he told reporters, “I have no plans to raise taxes.” In another he said, “I intend to sign” a bill that “raises new money for transportation.” That sounds like a plan to me.

Deeds also got a bit testy with a reporter who pressed him about whether he’d be ready to increase the gasoline tax. He’s supported that before — to his great credit, in my view — but he wouldn’t say so Thursday.

“I think I made myself clear, young lady. I don’t know,” Deeds said. (“I don’t know” is clear?) The McDonnell campaign immediately began showing the clip to the press corps. Their message: You don’t like what our guy wrote in 1989 about working women? (But see what Deeds has said, done and voted for in his 40s and 50s.)