FamilyFoundationBlog.com

Last week, President Barack Obama directed the U.S. Department of Justice to relinquish defending the Defense of Marriage Act, a law passed by Congress in 1996 defining marriage as between one man and one woman.  The positive I find in this announcement is that finally the Obama administration is being honest about its hostility toward DOMA — no more halfhearted statements. The negatives, however, are overwhelming. 
 
As I told the Richmond Times-Dispatch last week, the president is responsible for defending the laws duly enacted by Congress. It’s disappointing that President Obama would unilaterally make a decision to abdicate that duty. The job of the executive branch is to enforce and defend the nation’s laws, not to selectively pick and choose. Thirty-one states have marriage amendments on the books defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Clearly, voters believe that the content of DOMA is a reasonable measure. This administration has been clear on its position on homosexual rights, but they stand outside the majority of Americans.
 
President Obama’s directive could have far reaching consequences. This decision could potentially impact every yet-to-be-decided case related to marriage (including California’s Proposition 8 appeal). Essentially, the fully compensated defense attorney is failing to show up for his defendant’s court date, an action where the judge would sanction the attorney. In what other area of the law would this be tolerated? 
 
With the president ordering the Justice Department to abandon its duties, the only course of action to defend DOMA is for Congress to intervene. According to Politico, House Speaker John Boehner and the Republican majority on Friday will announce a course of legal action to defend DOMA, perhaps directing the House’s legal counsel to defend DOMA in court. (On a side note, this situation perfectly illustrates the importance of elections. Had Nancy Pelosi retained her position as House Speaker, it is highly unlikely that she would even consider defending DOMA in the Justice Department’s stead and the fate of marriage would be doomed.)
 
A breakdown of DOMA ties to a breakdown of American families. There is a litany of statistics showing that a one-man, one-woman marriage is the best institution in which to raise children and to lower the potential for poverty, illiteracy and crime. Even if the president refuses to order the defense of the laws of the land, we must continue to push for the defense of a law that is good for our families, our churches and our communities.

Although people realize Planned Parenthood is pro-abortion, many might not know what its motivation is and why it is so vehemently against abstinence education. For example, in 2007, despite abstinence-education funding from governors of both parties, then-Governor Tim Kaine, at Planned Parenthood’s urging, abruptly ended Virginia’s matching grant to the federal program for abstinence-centered education, thus disqualifying the commonwealth from federal funds. Why?

Simple. Although Planned Parenthood obstensibly asserts that abstinence education isn’t effective, its motivation likely lies closer to the fact that abstinence education costs it government grants because it teaches “comprehensive sex education” in many states. This form of ”education” encourages sexual activity by blurring the lines of responsible behavior and the lack of consequences of irresponsible behavior (because, you know, you can always use “protection”).

But the big motivation is that abstinence education works, and a decrease in crisis and teen pregnancies, which “comprehensive education” helps foster, means less abortion business for Planned Parenthood. Recent studies have shown that abstinence-centered education, particularly programs in Virginia, have been successful in preventing teen pregnancy and delaying sexual activity. Additionally, polling indicates that parents want their children to be taught abstinence.

So the deck is stacked against Planned Parenthood. That’s why it ferociously fights to protect and advance abortion, uses tactics subtle and loud, and why it is particularly disturbed by Governor Bob McDonnell’s decision this week to apply for federal abstinence education funding and to provide a state matching grant as well to school districts who decide to teach it.

Of course, the irony that Planned Parenthood won’t acknowledge is that the federal funds come from President Barack Obama’s budget and, most shocking, unlike former President George W. Bush’s administration, does not require a state matching grant to qualify for the federal funds. This, undoubtedly, has added to Planned Parenthood’$ frustration and vitriol this week. However, it ha$n’t added to it$ motivation. That’$ alway$ been there and will continue to be.

If you are interested in what former Governor Tim Kaine has been up to since he left office in January, below is a truncated version of a letter sent to DNC members recently. Let’s just say he’s taking a lot of “pride” in his work. The letter was sent for Mr. Kaine by Organizing for America, President Barack Obama’s nationwide community organizing group, which is an official ”project of the Democratic National Committee.” The president also declared June “Gay Pride Month” (see CBN News).

From: Tim Kaine

Subject: Share your voice this Pride Month

Friend -

LGBT Americans have helped build the Democratic Party into what it is today. And, as a leader of the party, I’m proud of our role in the struggle for equality.

That’s why it’s important to me — and to the future of this party — that we hear from you.

Take a moment to share your thoughts with us this Pride Month.

At times the pace of progress has not been as fast as some — myself included — would like. And, while equality cannot be achieved overnight, the President and our Democratic leaders in Congress have made important strides over the past 16 months to address barriers that LGBT Americans face.

- Last year, we passed the Matthew Shepherd & James Byrd, Jr., Federal Hate Crimes Act — which expanded the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation and gender identity and became the first federal law to provide protections for transgender Americans.

- In April, the President issued a directive, making critical changes to federal regulations and allowing gay and lesbian Americans to make medical decisions on behalf of their partners.

- And now we are on the verge of living up to President Obama’s pledge to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The House just passed historic legislation to end this discriminatory policy, and the full Senate is getting ready to vote in the coming months.

But we are not satisfied. And we are not finished.

We must remain committed to making greater strides toward the fundamental American principle of equality.

Make your voice heard:

http://my.barackobama.com/PrideMonthVoices

Thanks, and happy Pride Month,

Governor Tim Kaine

Chairman

The video below is making the rounds, primarily because the man speaking in it, Donald Berwick, President Barack Obama’s choice to head the agency that runs Medicare and Medicaid, said to a crowd of true believers in Britain that socialized medicine is the way to go. People speak from the heart when with fellow ideologues, so there is no misunderstanding here, and when one is so infamously outspoken, it’s near impossible for the president not to know this man’s philosophy. So, what does that tell you? Exactly! (See David Limbaugh.)

But his adamant insistence that health care “by definition” means, “we must, must redistribute wealth!” has obfuscated his three other extraordinarily extremist statements — no easy feat in a sound bite a little more than two minutes long:

1. “tough choices and planning supply” (a government planning supply = rationing); 

2. “darkness of private enterprise” (a definitive condemnation of free markets and choice, and an embrace of government control over commerce); and

3. “single route of finance” (an unapologetic plea for “single payer” or government-run health care).

Combined with the president’s own words (“spread the wealth around” and “I do think at some point you’ve made enough money,” among an inexhaustibly list), it no longer is a question of the president’s philosophy, and not even of whether what to expect of him (he told us he wanted to “fundamentally transform America,” while giving lip service to centrism).

Rather, it’s a matter of himself and his government, admitting it clearly and plainly, and why he thinks government control of industry is preferable to the system of free commerce that created the highest standard of living and largest economy known to man. (Nancy Pelosi’s lame rationalization is a symptom, not a cause, so to speak, and doesn’t come close.) After all, the Soviet Union would be thriving still today if the government-run system was equal or superior to the “darkness of private enterprise” (a shameful remark that slaps at the core of American ingenuity that has given so much to the world).

Not that the president is alone in this. Even Republicans, with the rare exception of some such as Newt Gingrich, won’t call it what it is (see Bobby Eberle). But, in the meantime, here is Mr. Berwick, praising socialist Britain and slamming America for the evil that it is.

Donald Berwick at home in England while hammering America the awful.

No issue has galvanized Americans like the attempt by President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to take over the American health care system and put it under federal government control. Conservatives, liberals, moderates, Democrats, Republicans and independents alike have made their voices known — No nationalized health care! After a string of embarrassing election losses — including the historic conservative landslide sweep here in Virginia last November and the recent Republican win in the Massachusetts special Senate election — it looked like health care “reform” was dead.

Not so fast. President Obama and his liberal Congressional allies are resuscitating their plans with talk of forcing it through Congress in a process called “reconciliation” that bypasses the protection of a filibuster. So, what can we do about it?

In Virginia, plenty! This week’s news from Washington couldn’t have better timing because Monday afternoon the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee will hear Delegate Bob Marshall’s HB 10, the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, which would exempt Virginians from individual federal health care mandates. Although three Senate versions have passed the General Assembly already, and are on their way to Governor Bob McDonnell to become the first law of its type in the land, Delegate Marshall’s (R-13, Manassas) bill is slightly different and would provide additional protections. The Commerce and Labor Committee barely passed the other versions with 8-7 votes. Democrat Senators Charles Colgan (D-29, Manassas) and Phil Puckett (D-38, Tazewell) bravely bucked their party leadership to vote for true health care freedom. Please thank them, and encourage them and other members of the committee to vote for HB 10 to secure Virginia from federal intrusion into our personal health care decisions!

This is an historic opportunity for Virginia to protect itself from federal government intrusion! Please contact members of the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee (here) now and ask them to pass HB 10.

Four years ago, only a few weeks after taking office and proposing (against his campaign promise) the largest tax increase in Virginia history, Congressional Democrats chose then-Governor Tim Kaine to deliver their party’s response to then-President George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address. Yesterday, it was reported (see Washington Post), that Congressional Republicans have chosen newly sworn-in Governor Bob McDonnell to give the GOP response to President Barack Obama’s January 27 State of the Union.

How about that for asymmetrical karma? But there’s more.

Yesterday, House Republicans brought to the floor Delegate Bob Brink’s (D-48, Arlington) HB 1155, legislation that would enact former Governor Tim Kaine’s proposed income tax increase (see Richmond Times-Dispatch). The bill was referred to the House Rules Committee, which alone has the authority to report bills to the floor without recommendation. Thus it did with HB 1155 in order to put Democrats on the spot — vote against their friend and national party chairman or be on record for higher taxes in a recession. Delegate Brink requested that the bill be pulled, normally a pro forma request that’s granted at the will of the patron. Not yesterday!

Instead, it was put to a vote while Democrats vehemently protested. As if they couldn’t have anticipated it. Remember, last year Republicans did the same thing on a bill that would have repealed Virginia’s Right To Work Law (see post here and video here). They forced a vote by bringing that equally controversial bill through a no recommendation vote on the Rules Committee. The Democrats reacted by abstaining, but through a parliamentary procedure that says if a member is in his seat but not voting, and another member points that out, the vote must be recorded in the negative. Thus, Majority Leader Morgan Griffith (R-8, Salem) forcibly recorded no votes against the bill which put Democrats at odds with their Big Labor allies.

With this as background, certainly they knew something was coming with a monstrous tax increase bill, and they knew they couldn’t abstain. On the first day of session, when the rules package is adopted, Minority Leader Ward Armstrong (D-10, Martinsville) said as much when he objected to the Rules Committee exception. As it turned out, it was a unanimous blowout, with the House voting 97-0 (with Delegate Brink abstaining) to reject one last Tim Kaine tax increase, sending it down with all his others, this one posthumously, in the political sense.

So, the question is, why file the tax increase bill to begin with? Only Delegate Brink knows for sure, but we suspect some members of the General Assembly like to give a peek of their colors to satisfy certain constituencies, but seek to conceal them altogether from the greater electorate. Increasingly, however, these lawmakers get found out.

We’re not in the habit of promoting certain television programs, but it is worth noting one airing tonight on ABC at 8:00 Eastern. It’s the A Charlie Brown Christmas special (see it online, here). 

Last week, you may recall, President Barack Obama unceremoniously bumped the show from its original air date with the pomp of his West Point Afghanistan speech. ABC imediately re-scheduled.

The lackluster speech and indecisive policy added only slightly less to the public’s displeasure of him than did the canceling of the special. That’s because, despite what the media portrays and tried to convey, Americans still love traditional values and cultural institutions that portray and communicate them. It may be campy to some, who see it as a relic of a simpleton time, but countless millions, no matter how many times it has aired, sit down, many with their own children, and watch this most meaningful of shows. Especially in this era when even the innocence of cartoons has been debased and corrupted, not to mention that the word ”Christmas” practically is shunned, A Charlie Brown Christmas  means a lot to most (see Ralph Couey’s tribute in the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat).

In other words, people instinctively don’t need modern culture’s twist on what they inherently know is right, just and good. No amount of modernism (or “post-modern” culture), however sophisticated it positions itself in an attempt to make the public feel inadequate for not “progressing,” can substitute for everlasting truth, or redefine what is wholesome. It is as ever present as the life sprung forth in Charlie Brown’s Christmas Tree. For the Truth is out there. In this case, it’s in this memorable scene:

Enduring values and the true meaning of Christmas continue to resonate in the truth that comes from innocence in this memorable television moment. In its simplicity, its message is more powerful than the one conveyed by modern culture.

Educrats and assorted opponents of school choice and competition love to point to statistics that show student achievement in charter schools is no greater than in government-run schools. Therefore, they demand that we stop ”taking away resources” from public schools.

(First, can we stop using the euphemism “resources”? It’s taxpayer money, for Pete’s sake! It doesn’t come from the ground or trees or the river, where real, actual, put-to-use resources come from.)

Second, we know what they say about statistics. Third, and most important, if charter schools are so bad or indifferent, why do so many parents and students want in? In New York alone, there is a waiting list of 40,000 students trying to escape the government-run monopoly!

Unfortunately, New York, as does Virginia, has a cap on the amount of charter schools. Different formula, same result — restricting competition and choice as well as the variety of teaching methods and environments. The only thing it does produce is more student failure and teacher inadequacy. But there is hope for New York. Its Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch told Maura Walz of the blog Gotham Schools that she favors raising the charter school cap. There is hope in Virginia as well, since Governor-elect Bob McDonnell, his running mates Lt. Governor Bill Bolling and Attorney General-elect Ken Cuccinelli, and the increased GOP majority in the House of Delegates favor more school competition. With McDonnell’s giant mandate, there are rumors of some big idea education reform legislation that may be proposed during the upcoming session of the General Assembly. After all, even President Barack Obama is in the odd position of being on McDonnell’s side on this issue. 

For a good briefing on the actual value of charter schools, here’s part one of an interview with Caroline Hoxby, Ph.D., the Scott and Donya Bommer Professor of Economics at Stanford University, conducted by the Show-Me Institute in May (for the other three parts, click on this YouTube link and the the “more info” link on the right):

If charter schools are so bad, why are is there a waiting list of 40,000 students in New York?

I had the privilege of hearing Dr. Bob Holsworth (Virginia Tomorrow) speak Monday night about the recent elections. He is the best political analyst in Virginia in my opinion and his insights on campaigns and strategies never fail to enlighten.

He said that one of the many aspects where the Creigh Deeds campaign (as well as the Wagner and Shannon campaigns) fell short was in its inability to respond to the federal issues — card check, cap-and-trade, nationalized health care — Republican Bob McDonnell repeatedly raised as not only an intrusion into Virginians’ sovereignty, but as harmful to Virginians themselves —their prosperity, opportunity, way of life, health. In other words, upholding the 10th Amendment, which leaves to the states all powers not specifically delineated to the federal government.

Senator Deeds couldn’t dis President Barack Obama, who historically carried Virginia last year, and turn off the liberal Democrat base and its newly energized voters, by opposing those signature liberal issues. So the best he could do was assert they had nothing to do with running the commonwealth. Dr. Holsworth said Deeds’ inability to satisfactorily deal with this dynamic pleased no one — crucial independents, who broke overwhelmingly to the GOP, nor the base.

Who am I to disagree with Dr. Bob? But I want to add that it was more than that. Defending one’s state against the onslaught of the federal leviathan is a constitutional charge. So it is a legitimate issue. But Senator Deeds, reflective of today’s ingrained liberalism, at the very least couldn’t respond to the issues because he doesn’t understand the 10th Amendment. Doubtful. So that leaves the worst, but more likely, case — a total disregard for it. When state politicians become too comfortable accepting mandates and force-fed programs from Washington, which stunt states from their roles as democratic laboratories and distinctly different places to live, they deserve to lose. Indeed, federal issues always have and always will be integral to state issues because the constitutional relationship of states to the national government demands it.  

Probably not too many of you have heard the name of Erroll Southers, but he is President Barack Obama’s nominee to head up the Transporation Safety Administration (see Federal Times). As it turns out, once upon a time, Southers used his access to government records to spy on his ex-wife’s boyfriend (see Washington Post). Unfortunately, that makes him a natural fit for the Obama administration. Not only does he have the Obama requisites of cheating and government Big Brother control, but he’s not committing to rule out unionization at the TSA. So he has the radical ideological pedigree, too. That issue alone flipped the U.S. Senate to Republican control in the unprecedented 2002 mid-term election.

It’s not surprising that in an era when the treasury secretary cheated on his taxes (and a sycophant Senate cowed) and the president hired an avowed communist for his White House staff (Van Jones), among the many Maoists (Anita Dunn) and other controversial appointments, that this incident from Southers’ past practically fails to register. After all, the only thing at stake is national security and individual liberty. Maybe if the administration cared more about real security threats than about appointing people with dubious backgrounds, President Obama’s government would be less dysfunctional.

We’re accustomed to liberal attempts to redefine the natural order of life. However, in the Age of Obama, those attempts no longer come through persuasion, but through power accumulated from corruption and incompetence purported to be the “best and brightest.”