john mccain

Stand For Marriage In Virginia

If you keep up with the news, you no doubt heard last week that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a bill that would have resolved some ambiguities in Arizona's version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Or, more likely, you heard about a bill that would allow Christians to "discriminate" against homosexuals and "refuse service for any reason." This was the version the media chose to portray and what was repeated over and over from coast to coast. Arizona has a law patterned after the federal RFRA, an act which passed nearly unanimously by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in the early 1990s. Arizona's new bill simply clarified some ambiguities in the law about who was protected under the existing law and under what circumstances.

But because the homosexual lobby and its friends in the media, entertainment and business jumped in, the entire episode blew up into a media frenzy that went so far as to have the NFL threaten to pull a future Super Bowl out of the state. The saddest part of the whole affair is that not only did the Democrat politicians jump make more of it than it was, which was not a surprise, but Republican heavy-hitters — such as former presidential candidates Mitt Romney and John McCain — publicly sided with the homosexual rights lobby. One has to wonder if either had a clue what was in the bill.

It is clear from this incident that establishment Republicans, as well as Democrats, no longer support religious liberty. While this is a sad turn of events, it is all the more motivation for people like us to stand up and speak out on behalf of God's design for marriage. That is why we are asking you to be a Marriage Advocate for The Family Foundation. As a Marriage Advocate, you will do one or more of the following actions:

» Pray for God's design for marriage to prevail in our culture.

» Speak to your friends and family about the benefits of God's design for marriage.

» Write a letter to the editor in support of marriage.

» Attend a rally in support of marriage.

» Meet with your state legislators and express your support for natural marriage.

» Encourage your Pastor and/or Sunday School leader to teach on God's design for marriage.

If you are willing to be a Marriage Advocate and stand for marriage within your sphere of influence, please click here and let us know you will partner with us in this effort. Simply check the box under "Other Information" to sign up as a Marriage Advocate.

Why We Like U.S. Senator Ted Cruz

Many politicians claim to be "independent" and stick to principle. They may have a streak of independence that allows them to  work with one side of the aisle or the other, in the spirit of bipartisanship, just to "get something done," even when that something is counterproductive. It's an another thing entirely for a legislator to be bipartisan in his criticism of his colleagues because he cannot countenance not only the destructive policy of the opposition, but his side's acquiescence to it. That was the case earlier this year on the Senate floor, when U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), The Family Foundation's 2013 Gala keynote speaker, not only tried to derail Majority Leader Harry Reid's authoritarian power play on increasing the U.S. debt limit, but even took to task fellow Republican John McCain and his caucus' leadership for their ostensible and token opposition to it. He showed no fear of the majority nor of his party, which could very well disrupt his career.

That's courage. That's principle. That's why we like Senator Ted Cruz. We know you'll like him, too, and will want to see him in person at the Gala on Saturday, October 5, at the Greater Richmond Convention Center. For more information, click here. When principle and truth come first, one truly is free, and that gives one more strength than a thousand special interests lavishly telling you what you want to hear (about yourself). I hope you'll take some time to hear Senator Cruz for yourself on the video below as he took on everyone from Barack Obama to Harry Reid to John McCain.

You can't have independence without courage. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz has both.

Virginia News Stand: April 14, 2010

Annotations & Elucidations Headaches For The Regime

I don't know where to start. This certainly is one of our most gripping News Stands ever —all sorts of angles, topics and perspectives. We have sources and writers debuting today, such as BigGovernment.com, RealClearPolitics.com and NewsOK.com. We even have a link to a short ABC News report about Neil Armstrong slamming President Obama (on the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 13 flight) for completely cutting NASA's manned flight space program. Not easy to go up against a living legend and international hero, so the president is predictably looking to retreat. On top of that headache for the regime is this embarrassment: The White House press corps is getting sued by a media organization for doing the president's "bidding." If that's not funny enough, John McCain is disavowing the "maverick" moniker and the RINO U.S. Transportation Secretary, Ray Lahood, is moving us toward a bicycle society that has raised objections from even the sleepiest corners of the policy realm.  

Not that it's all sweetness and light out there. A GOP couple was beat up in New Orleans while attending the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. Jim Hoft of BigGovernment.com fingers the suspects. More: radical liberals are practicing what Saul Alinsky preached and are moving toward a confrontation with Tea Party activists. Brent Bozell and Michell Malkin both have a look.

In political news, Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics makes a compelling case for as many as a 100-seat GOP House gain in November, while the AP looks at the pending doctor shortage. Tony Blankley and James Antle both caution against GOP caution, in the elections and in opposing the next Supreme Court Justice nominee. The Wall Street Journal deconstructs liberals' arguments for extended unemployment insurance by quoting top Clinton and Obama economic advisor Larry Summers, while the great Walter Williams sets the record straight on the job-killing minimum wage. So: Get your taxes done, take a breather, and get to reading. Lots of informative and enlightening words today. Enjoy.

News

Virginia tax revenues increased in March (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

McDonnell: Critics are "uncivil and partisan" (The Daily Press)

McDonnell spokesman says voting rights letter sent to felons 'without approval' (Washington Post)

New Virginia law kills free online tax-filing program (The Daily Press)

Budget tweaks lift manufacturers, public workers (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)

Fimian calls for a ban on Earmarks (BearingDrift.com

Perriello pulls in $600,000 in donations this year (Lynchburg News & Advance)

Analysis

How Bad Could 2010 Really Get For Democrats? (Sean Trende/RealClearPolitics.com)

Doctor shortage? 28 states may expand nurses' role (AP/GOPUSA.com)

National News

Neil Armstrong Criticizes President's Space Plan (ABC News video :46/RealClearPolitics.com)

White House press corps sued for doing Obama's 'bidding' (WorldNetDaily.com)

Gay Day of Silence a Waste of Tax Dollars, Critics Say (FoxNews.com)

Agitated McCain: Don't call me a maverick (Politico.com)

Big Easy Beatdown . . .GOP Official and Boyfriend Savagely Beaten Leaving SRLC Dinner (Jim Hoft/BigGovernment.com)

Transportation's bicycle policy hits potholes (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Aide to Democrat ex-congressman files harassment complaint (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Huckabee likens gay marriage to incest, polygamy (AP/Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Commentary

Incentives Not to Work: Larry Summers v. Senate Democrats on jobless benefits (Editorial/Wall Street Journal)

Minimum Wage Cruelty (Walter E. Williams/GOPUSA.com)

Tea Parties vs. Hard-Left Protests (L. Brent Bozell, III/NewsOK.com)

John Paul Stevens Republicans (W. James Antle, III/The American Spectator)

Alinsky's Avenging Angels: Tea Party Saboteurs (Michelle Malkin/GOPUSA.com)

No More Profiles in Caution (Tony Blankley/GOPUSA.com)

Virginia News Stand: April 6, 2010

Annotations & Elucidations Obama's 17-Minute Non-Answer; George Orwell Proven Right?

We lead off the News today with our own Victoria Cobb interviewed about the McDonnell administration's prices of filling 900-plus positions on state boards and commissions. The Richmond Times-Dispatch was intrigued by conservative activists (namely us, see here) urging conservatives to get involved and apply. Otherwise, the state's political media remains obsessed with the attorney general.

Nationally, there is intrigue of another sort: Republican U.S. Senate primaries. Former U.S. Representative J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) is putting up a serious challenge to incumbent John McCain while former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani endorsed former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio in the hotly contested GOP nomination fight which also includes current Governor Charlie Crist. Speaking of the GOP, the fallout from the wacky fundraiser has one resigning and Chairman Michael Steele under fire.

Commentary is abuzz with The Answer — President Obama's 17 minute ramble to a simple question from a woman about taxes! Bobby Eberle, David Limbaugh and Debra Saunders share their thoughts. We gladly feature the great Thomas Sowell, again, and Harris Sherline expounds on something mentioned here from time to time: George Orwell is more right than even he had a right to expect.

News

*McDonnell urges online applications for boards, panels (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

GOP has dream activist in Cuccinelli (AP/Danville Register & Bee)

Cuccinelli casts a shadow (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)

State employee argues to Va. Supreme Court that he was fired for being gay (Washington Post Virginia Politics Blog)

Analysis

Supreme Court prospects are Kagan, Wood Garland (AP/GOPUSA.com)

National News

Hayworth defines Ariz. race as tea party vs. DC (AP/GOPUSA.com)

RNC official steps down, but Steele stands firm (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Gingrich tells GOP: Back off RNC's Michael Steele (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Giuliani endorses Rubio for Senate seat in Fla. (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Whitman chips in $20M more in Calif. gov. race (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Karl Rove ad urges residents to fill out census (AP/GOPUSA.com)

Commentary

Race and Politics (Thomas Sowell/GOPUSA.com)

Just think if Obama had to answer a hard question (BobbyEberle/GOPUSA.com)

Didn't Obama Get the Memo that His Bill Passed? (BobbyEberle/GOPUSA.com)

Read the Transcript and Freak (David Limbaugh/GOPUSA.com)

Obama's 17-Minute Non-Answer Answer (Debra Saunders/GOPUSA.com)

Congress Has Become an Institution of the Useless (Doug Patton/GOPUSA.com)

George Orwell's Predictions Come True (Harris R. Sherline/GOPUSA.com)

The Base

In his thumping of Creigh Deeds Tuesday night, Bob McDonnell nearly garnered as many votes as . . . Marriage.

Yup, that's right. McDonnell's 1,160,365 votes (as of this posting) fell just 168,172 short of the 2006 marriage amendment. That proposal received 1,328,537 supporters. Talk about a "bipartisan," "center," "mainstream" vote, marriage is the model. 

We also found some interesting tidbits from Tuesday's exit polling (yes, I know, exit polling . . . but it makes for good fodder).

According to exit polling from CNN, 34 percent of those voting identified themselves as "Evangelical/Born Again" and, of that block, a whopping 83 percent cast their vote for Mr. McDonnell. Now, if you run the numbers that equates to nearly half of all voters that cast their ballot for McDonnell were of the "Evangelical/Born Again" group. (To our liberal friends, breath, breath . . . there you go, breath. It'll be ok. Breath . . . .)

So, as all the pundits, experts, campaign consultants, etc. inform us that the campaign Mr. McDonnell ran is the "model" for future GOP candidates, lets all remember that the "model" only works if "the base" is motivated. Otherwise, well, see John McCain. And Jerry Kilgore. And . . . well, you get the idea.

Prophetic Article? A Must Read To Understand The Future

A Barack Obama presidency has me scared for a long time for a number of reasons. There's the pending economic socialism and the disregard for innocent human life, among many urgent issues. During the campaign the many to whom I expressed my concern would respond with the conventional wisdom that he'll mess it up and the country will swing back to conservatism in the mid-term elections, as in 1994. (That's a big "if," predicated on whether the so-called conservatives in Congress remain scared of their own shadows and remain addicted to "big-government conservatism.")  I would reply to those who responded that way, "Not so fast." Conventional wisdom and the old models don't apply anymore. With such large majorities in Congress and control of the White House, the extreme, Angry Left will ram through several initiatives to permanently seal its institutional advantages. For example, the liberal media, which crossed from only being biased to all out left wing advocacy this campaign, will be cemented by the passing of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, minimizing (if not completely eliminating) conservative talk radio. Advantage, Left Wing Media.

How about the so-called Freedom of Choice Act? Senator Obama said it's the first bill he would sign. It would eliminate all state restrictions on abortion. (No need for state legislatures, then, huh?) Gone would be all parental consent, notification and regulations against partial birth abortion. Advantage, the government grant and profit machine known as Planned Parenthood (see LifeSiteNews.com, here).

The union card check bill, if it becomes law (see The Las Vegas Sun, here), will end the secret ballot in union organizing campaigns. This will create countless new union shops. Aside from the economic peril of making American industry less competitive, this bill will add tens of thousands of new union members to union rolls — along with their compulsary dues, which go to union political action committees and used to elect leftist candidates. Advantage, corrupt Leftist union bosses.

The public education establishment, which largely dumbs down children K-12, and the college education establishment, which largely indoctrinates them because, by then, students have been conditioned to feel rather than think, will get new, large amounts of federal grants to run their politically correct campus societies, further preaching liberal doctrine under the guise of teaching, both in the classroom and in campus regulations such as speech codes. Advantage, Leftist educrats and teachers union leaders.

I could go on. But someone else has for me. Give me one more minute.

When I extolled this theory, some saw credence. Some thought the conventional wisdom would magically re-write history in two years. Many thought I was looking for the man on the grassy knoll. My response was that I would write a thesis on it. End of minute. I don't have to write the thesis. Quin Hillyer, of The American Spectator, has. I don't know whether to celebrate that my theory has been vindicated or mad that I didn't publish it and get compensated for the idea first. Regardless, Hillyer's "Saul Alinsky Takes the White House" (click here) is a must read to understand what Christian conservatives and those who believe in traditional family values and limited constitutional government will face starting January 20, 2009. It is something we need to be prepared for and ready to work against — work very hard against.

Here's an excerpt:

Watch what Michael Barone called the Obama "thugocracy" use the Justice Department to stifle dissent. Anybody who complains about vote fraud will be charged with "vote suppression." Anybody who complains about DoJ's actions will be charged with interfering with an investigation. Anybody who denies having interfered will be charged with perjury. Likewise, anybody who peacefully protests abortion clinics or the use of state-sponsored racial quotas will be charged with a civil rights violation. And the accused won't be able to look to the Supreme Court for help: Anthony Kennedy's "evolving standards" of justice will evolve to match the new zeitgeist, providing a 5-4 majority for the administration. Meanwhile, of course, Obama's other appointments will be filling up the rest of the judiciary at a rapid clip, with nobody able to stop them.

Other ways the Obama axis will tilt the playing field: "card check" legislation to eliminate secret ballots in unionizing and to force union victories in contract negotiations. Provision after provision giving favors to the trial bar so it can sue enemies into submission. Copious new regulations, especially environmental, to be used selectively to ensnare other conservative malcontents. Invasive IRS audits of conservative think tanks, other conservative 501 organizations, and PACs.

What Ohio officials did in rifling through so many of Joe Wurzelbacher's files will serve as ample precedent. (Just watch, by the way: Nobody ever will be effectively disciplined for the violation of Wurzelbacher's rights.)

And, only when the time is right and the ground (or air) has been well prepared, will come the grand-daddy of all fights, the re-enactment of the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine."

It's not just Joe the Plumber. Remember Barbara West, the Florida anchor who dared asked Joe Biden tough questions? Her station was blacklisted. Three newspapers who endorsed John McCain had their political reporters thrown off the Obama press plane (see The Washington Times, here). That's before he was elected! But surely there are bigger fish to fry — perhaps IRS and government intimidation of churches and pastors? By the way, what's with the 250,000 member security force Senator Obama promised? (See Blue Collar Muse, here.)

The coming socialist, one-party state only will be a crazy conspiracy theory if people fully understand what's at stake and decide to get engaged, stay vigilant, remain active and work hard. Work very hard — starting now.

Tomorrow, We Will Choose . . .

Tomorrow, the citizens of the freest nation in the world will once again choose their leader. This time, however, it seems certain that the choice is not just about a person or a party, but about the very essence of our nation.Tomorrow, we will choose between a candidate that has a quarter century record of voting to protect human life in its most vulnerable form, or a candidate that believes it is in the nation's best interest to allow newborn children who survive late-term abortions to simply die. Tomorrow, we will choose between a candidate that believes the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is worth defending, or a candidate that believes the definition of marriage is malleable.

Tomorrow, we will choose between a candidate that believes parents should have the option to send their children to whatever school they wish, public or private, or a candidate that believes teaching sex education to kindergartners is good for America.

Tomorrow, we will choose between a candidate that believes hard working families should be free to keep more of their hard earned incomes, or a candidate that believes continuing to allow families that freedom is bad for America and that income should be redistributed as the government sees fit.

The differences between John McCain and Barack Obama are staggering. You can read more about these differences at The Family Foundation Action Web site (click here). (Also while there, review the Congressional voter guide that shows the vast differences between candidates for U.S. Senate, Jim Gilmore (click here) and Mark Warner (click here), and Congressional races.)

But in truth, this election is not simply about the issues listed above. It is about freedom.  It is about the freedom to make decisions about our families, our incomes and our faith that the government has no business being involved with. It is about whether or not the document that "holds these truths to be self evident" is still relevant in our society. 

We are not ready to give up on the Founding Fathers vision! We are not ready to turn our lives over to a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., to determine what my health care needs are, how we can or cannot live our faith in the public square, how our families' income should be spent, or how the very institutions on which society is based are defined.

This nation and its Judeo-Christian heritage are worth getting up early, standing in line, bringing a family friend or neighbor or fellow church member along with us, and casting our ballots for the candidates who believe in the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of marriage and the freedom to prosper. This nation is worth ignoring the prognosticators, the polls, and the media's overwhelming and blatant disregard for facts and truth — and the blatant and below the belt attacks this year on candidates of faith, who respect life, traditional marriage and traditional values.

In short, it is worth your vote. Please, tomorrow, vote. Vote for the God ordained values and truths that our society must protect in order to survive. 

Tomorrow, pray, vote, then go home and pray more.

You Know The MSM Is Unhinged When . . .

Even the local Mainstream Media is getting into the act. It can't stand the success of Governor Sarah Palin (who will campaign again in Richmond Saturday) and how she has created an immense amount of enthusiasm, not just among Republicans, but among women and men Democrats and independents of all socio-economic backgrounds to the McCain-Palin ticket (see the ticket's remaining Virginia campaign schedule here). But it's not even the typical MSM. It's the entertainment MSM. Who cares what they think? But they want in on the action, too, I suppose. After Governor Palin's last visit to Richmond, the Richmond Times-Dispatch pop music critic thought it necessary to ridicule the Hank Williams, Jr., song "McCain-Palin Tradition" that he sang as a warm up to the governor's speech (click here to hear). According to the critic, Hank Jr.'s original hit, "Family Tradition," on which the campaign song is based, has some lyrics not in tune with "family values" voters (see article here).She mentions some Democrat instances as well, but clearly aims for what she thinks is a double standard among conservatives. Apparently, we're not allowed to have a good time — or at least it has to be good as defined by an elitist standard. But guess what?Even the celebration of Christmas was based on a pagan holiday. Guess we ought to stop celebrating, then. She continues with a litany of liberal recording artists who have demanded of Republicans to stop using their songs. Hard hitting stuff.

What's funny is this critic's view of Christians, values voters and conservatives in general — a stereotypical view of the types of people she thinks conservative politicians appeal to. It's as if she is saying conservatives don't have fun and live completely cloistered lives. Maybe she's the one who needs to get out more . . . or at least to more diverse entertainment venues to learn about the folks — that there's more out there than smokey bars and concert halls — and stop generalizing.

She also needs to learn some history. She claimed Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign theme song was Bruce Springsteen's "Born In The U.S.A." Wrong. It was Lee Greenwood's "Proud To Be An American." Then again, he's just a values guy. No one relates to his music, right?

Bishop Biden Not Too Pastoral When Finally Asked Legit Questions By A Journalist

Finally. With only a little more than a week to go before America elects its next president and vice president, after two years of nonstop campaigning, one of the two on the Democrat ticket got some tough, but very fair, questions. Joe Biden, to whom the questions were asked, became unhinged, masqueraded the truth, attacked the messenger and changed the subject — as per the usual liberal attack M.O. (A good, short commentary on the incident, ironically, is the Canada Free Press, here, by American writer and "recovering liberal" Joe Lillpop.) If you haven't heard, the Internet, and even some of the Mainstream Media, is buzzing over a satellite television interview between Democrat vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and Orlando, Fla., WFTV news anchor Barbara West. It was conducted last week but only now is getting recognized outside that market. Ms. West asked, among other things, how can Barack Obama not be called a socialist when he wants "to spread the wealth around." Biden scoffed at the socialist suggestion and attacked Ms. West personally.

Ms. West, who once worked for the late ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings and had the typically normal credentials liberals love about the MSM. "Had" because not anymore. Not after she asked the hard, legitimate questions so many have for the most liberal national ticket ever assembled, but which have gone begging for months.

In fact, after the interview, the gruff Senator Biden, not at all acting as the compassionate and pastoral type as he did when he redefined the faith on Meet The Press several weeks ago, must have whined about his treatment to the "messiah" himself (not sure whether he whined that the "messiah" put him in such a untenable position with his policy pronouncements or whether he whined about getting beat up by someone seeking the truth) because the Obama-Biden campaign immediately cancelled all interviews with WFTV, including one already scheduled with Mrs. Biden.

If Senator Biden thinks these questions were tough, there are several more we'd like to hear asked of him. For example, when he sarcastically asks Ms. West "Who is writing your questions?" in response to her "socialist" question, we would have replied to the caught and admitted plagiarizer, "Senator, who is writing your answers?" Look at this old NBC News report from Biden's first run for president in 1987. Oh yeah, one of the men mentioned in the report, then-British Labour Party Leader Neil Kinnock, whose speeched Biden plagerized . . . is a socialist!

When he completely contorted his remark from last week that Barack Obama is not ready to be Commander-In-Chief to somehow mean he was saying John McCain wasn't ready because, as Biden put it, Senator McCain had been wrong on some foreign policy issues, we would have asked him about how many times his views were disasterously wrong. Never mind that Senator Biden's charges are false, let's look at "wrong" by the man chosen by Senator Obama because of his so-called foreign policy expertise:

Wrong on the nuclear freeze.

Wrong on aiding freedom fighters in Central America.

Wrong on deploying missles to NATO countries.

Wrong on giving in to the demands of the Soviet Union.

Wrong on missile defense.

Wrong on the Gulf War.

Wrong on the troop surge in Iraq.

Wrong on partitioning Iraq.

Wrong on drilling offshore.

Wrong on the initial phase of Operation Enduring Freedom.

How much more wrong can one be and still run for vice president?

But that's just us. Ms. West more than held her own. Now, the Obama-Biden campaign, the epitome of tolerance, won't give any more interviews to this WFTV. That's the way to take your ball and go home!

Here's the interview in its entirety. It's about 4:30 minutes long.

Economics Even The Chinese Communists Understand

There is a lot of talk about the economy these days by candidates, commentators, journalists, financial professionals and anyone else with a camera, microphone or Web page. These issues are important for families who are stressed with providing for their children and even their older parents. One complaint people have is that many types of jobs once prevalent in America now are done overseas. This is true and it makes the corporations that move those jobs overseas easy targets for demagogues who do not understand economics or the purpose of a business enterprise, which is to make a profit (creating jobs is byproduct of profit, not the other way around). The big target lends to the easy caricature of certain companies as villains, and demagogues always look for villains to prey upon the fears of people who are uncertain about their futures. So, how to slay the villain? In a political/economic sense, it's to hit them with higher taxes — that'll teach'em. Besides, "paying taxes" is the new "patriotism," according to Joe Biden, and you better learn that now (See YouTube video here). Nothing could be more misguided and nothing could be a more serious threat to the economic well being of the country and American families looking to improve their lives. Understanding why it's misguided is something we all understand at heart, though it gets lost in the anxiety of troubled times and easy to strike out at undeserved blame and believe in false solutions.

Everyone knows (or should remember) that corporations don't pay taxes — they simply pass the costs they incur through taxes to the price of their goods and services — which we pay at the pump, the store, the restaurant (see this short list of prices affected by taxes). It's that simple. So companies look at taxes as an expense, just as they look at energy, machinery, maintenance, supplies, etc., as expenses. If it can lower expenses  by moving a factory near a supplier, companies do it. We see it all the time. So doesn't it make sense that if their tax expenses are greater here, than say in Ireland which has a low, flat tax, they will move where they can cut costs? Raise the corporate tax all you want to get even with those evil businesses and not only will you lose more jobs, you create more inflation by jacking up the prices they inevitably will charge. So we get hit from both sides.

How to solve the conundrum? Simply lower the corporate tax rate. You know the U.S. corporate tax rate must be high if it is more profitable for some companies to move operations overseas rather than have the convenience of domestic operations and transportation, etc. Exactly how high is the U.S. corporate tax rate? It is the second highest of the 30-member Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development at 39.3 percent (see list here). Only Japan is higher. Communist China, which is not an OECD member, has a 25 percent rate (see here). Furthermore, see how our individual states stack up against the OECD. It's none too pretty.

This is basic economics and it is a direct reflection on the travesty of public education that more people do not understand these simple, basic concepts, which leaves them open to persuasion by the play to emotional demagougery by liberal politicians. In 1972, George McGovern ran on a similar platform to Barack Obama's: Raise taxes on the rich and corporations and give everyone else a paltry redistributionist check of a few hundred dollars. He lost 49 states to Richard Nixon. Just losing to Richard Nixon was an accomplishment. To get comprehensively dismantled by Nixon shows how out of touch McGovern was (and there was an unpopular war, then, too, that people wanted over). That Obama's almost cloned economic plan has not made him a laughing stock is remarkable. Has America's economic IQ disintegrated that fast? (See short, but instructive blog post from the Cato Institute, here.)

Obama showed his utter lack of economic IQ in the second debate when he responded to John McCain's (see here) charge that his plan to tax people who make more than $250,000 would kill small businesses by saying, "there are only a few small businesses" that make that much. Really? Many small businesses are incorporated so that the owner's income is the business' gross income. That's why expensing deductions and low taxes are essential for this sector of the economy which produces 70 percent of American jobs. Obama's retort was one of a man who's never worked in the for-profit world. If a small business isn't grossing $250,000, it's not in business at all — at least, not in the hiring/job creation part of business (i.e., it's a self-employed, individual contractor or consultant). 

In fact, according to Americans for Tax Reform, three out of every four businesses in the top 5 percent tax bracket is a small business. There are 26 million small businesses that employ 116 million Americans and hundreds of thousands of those businesses — sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-corporations and family farms — who pay taxes at the individual or joint-filing rates would get hammered under his "tax the richest  5 percent" plan. Forget their employees. The families of the family-owned businesses, who are paying for college, a car payment, a mortgage, etc., would face real devastation. (National Review adds more light to the conversation, here.)

We've all heard the expression we get the government we deserve. When it comes to the economy — and therefore opportunity and financial security for families — it comes down to this: When the Chinese communists undertand tax policy better than Americans, we deserve the economy we get.

A Huge Follow-Up Question For Tonight

Yesterday, we posed six questions we'd love to hear asked during tonight's final presidential debate between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. However, now that we have Democrat Congressman Steve Cohen teaching the Gospel from the House floor (whatever happened to the separation of church and state?) and calling Jesus a "community organizer" and Pontius Pilate a governor (see here), more than implying Obama is the "messiah" and Governor Sarah Palin (see video, slide show here) is a murderer; and now that America's most lovable and respected religious figure, Louis Farrakhan, has prophesied that Obama is the "messiah," (see here) this is what we hope to hear CBS News reporter, and tonight's moderator, Bob Schieffer, ask Senator Obama:

Is Representative Cohen right: Was Jesus a community organizer? If so, is Louis Farrakahn right — are you, in fact, the "messiah"?

After all, isn't time we hear from the man himself on this issue? A world anxiously waits to know if it is in the presence of the Second Coming.

God help us if Obama replies, "It is you who say I am."

Interview With U.S. Senator Sam Brownback, Part 1

Welcome to part one of our exclusive interview with United States Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS). In this first part, we get the senator's thoughts on how to win "red" states, the financial crisis, the Supreme Court and his thoughts on Republican presidential candidate John McCain. We hope you enjoy reading through this and leave us your comments. Part two will appear tomorrow. familyfoundation.org: Senator Brownback, thank you for taking our questions today. It is a real honor to have you appear on www.familyfoundation.org, as it were. We're not quite a year old, but already are one of the most read Virginia public policy and politics blogs, and we know thousands of voters are looking forward to reading this interview. You are the first federal office holder to do an interview with us and the first non-Virginia politician. Congratulations . . . a couple of career firsts you probably never expected. ; - )

Hope that doesn't add any pressure . . . are you ready for some questions?

Senator Brownback: I am ready for some questions, and I thank you for talking with me today. 

familyfoundation.org: What is at stake for pro-life, pro-family, pro-traditional values voters in this election?

Senator Brownback: Much is at stake for values voters in this election. For example, let's consider the courts. People need to look at each candidate and assess the type of judges he will appoint to the Supreme Court. John McCain will nominate conservative judges who will not legislate from the bench. I think values voters understand how important it is that the next president might nominate as many as 3-4 new justices to the Supreme Court. Who sits in the Oval Office may determine whether Roe v. Wade is finally overturned.    

familyfoundation.org: Are the stakes higher than normal given other significant issues, including the economy and the Wall Street financial crisis? Can you give us an outline as to how you think the final legislation will look when eventually passed? (Note: This was asked before the final votes in the House and Senate.

Senator Brownback: Negotiations over legislation to help ease the credit crunch are still on-going so I won't speculate on what the final package may look like. I will say that the stakes are always high when electing a new president. Each voter must be informed about the issues and truly understand the power of his or her vote. Our nation is facing financial hard times, and John McCain has proven over the years that he has the leadership experience to lead America through such difficult times. 

familyfoundation.org: Why do you think states such as Virginia, which normally are safe "red" states, are up for grabs this campaign?

Senator Brownback: I think we do ourselves a disservice when we think that any states are ‘safe.' Each election cycle, both parties need to actively demonstrate to the voters what they stand for and how they will help the county. I hope Virginians take a good look at the two candidates and recognize that John McCain really would best represent them, both in social policy and fiscal policy.    

familyfoundation.org: You are recognized as a prominent national leader in the pro-life movement. When you ended your own presidential campaign earlier this year, you soon endorsed John McCain. What is it about Senator McCain that makes you think he is the best man to be our 44th president?

Senator Brownback: John McCain has proven time and again that he is a great leader who always puts country first. He is a brave war hero, who even as a young man demonstrated a very strong sense of patriotism. And during his tenure in the United States Senate, John McCain has shown that he is a man willing to reach across the aisle and work with is colleagues on the other side. I've seen first hand John McCain's willingness to lead and stand up for what he thinks is right. All of these are very important qualities for the next president.     

familyfoundation.org: You are national co-chairman of Catholics For McCain. At one time, Senator McCain and some pro-life Christian leaders in Virginia didn't see eye-to-eye. Are pro-life Christians comfortable with Senator McCain now? Why should Catholics and other pro-traditional values voters vote for Senator McCain?

Senator Brownback: Pro-life voters should vote for John McCain because John McCain is pro-life. Unlike some who talk about promoting a culture of life, Senator McCain has the record to prove it. He has voted to confirm strong conservative judicial nominees like Justices Roberts and Alito.    

Live From Roanoke! Jim Gilmore And Mark Warner In Senate Debate Tonight

We had some comments earlier this week on the vice presidential debate, such as posing questions we'd like to hear asked. We only had two. Alas, neither were asked. In just a few hours, live at 7:00 from Roanoke's new Taubman Museum, former governors Jim Gilmore, the Republican nominee, and Mark Warner, the Democrat nominee, will have their only live televised statewide debate in their campaign for Virginia's open U.S. Senate seat. (George Allen and Jim Webb even debated on NBC's Meet The Press.) It will be worth watching. Record it if you must. In some areas it will be replayed later and C-SPAN is televising it and may repeat it as well. Others are Web streaming it.

Since Jim Gilmore has repeatedly asked for several live debates, as is the Virginia tradition, and since Mark Warner bailed out of one and only agreed to this one late in the game, we'd like to hear any one of these questions to Mr. Warner:

1. Mr. Warner, you claimed at the time, and still do, that your record setting tax increase was necessary because you had cut state government spending as far you could and needed the state revenue to keep the budget in balance. If so, why does the State Department of Planning and Budget Web site (click here) show that state spending under your administration went from $12.1 billion in Fiscal Year '03 general fund spending to $12.4 billion in FY '04 and then to $13.8 billion in FY '05. What exactly did you cut before you burdened Virginia's families with higher taxes?

2. If you tax increases left Virginia in such great fiscal shape, why has Governor Tim Kaine felt it necessary to try to raise taxes still more every year since?

3. Mr. Warner, when you were governor, you vetoed a bill to allow off shore drilling in Virginia. Now you say you are for it. Why should we believe you are for meaningful off shore drilling that will create thousands of jobs and bring in millions in revenue for Virginia?

4. Mr. Warner, you say you are a "moderate" who is willing to reach out and be bi-partisan. Yet you have not shown one area of disagreement with Barack Obama, who was listed as the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate by the non-partisan National Journal (more liberal, even, than the avowed socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont). Please list some major policies where you disagree with Barack Obama and agree with John McCain.

5. To both: What year was Franklin Roosevelt elected president and when did he first go on television?

We're not expecting any of the questions to be asked, but the candidates are welcome to come here and respond.

Stations Showing The Debate Live Tonight Charlottesville: WVIR 29 NBC Johnson City, Tenn.: WJHL 11 CBS Harrisonburg: WHSV 3 ABC Norfolk: WVBT 43 Fox Norfolk: WHRO 15 PBS Richmond: WWBT 12 NBC

Richmond: WTVR Digital 6.2 CBS (Comcast Channel 206) Roanoke: WBRA PBS Roanoke: WSLS 10 NBC  National: C-SPAN Streaming live online at News8.net Streaming live online at NBC4.com

 Streaming live online at WTVR.com

Streaming live online at WJLA.com

Stations Re-Broadcasting The Debate Washington, D.C.: News Channel 8 at 11:00 p.m. Friday Washington, D.C.: WRC 4 NBC at 7:00 a.m. Sunday

Has The Culture War's Decisive Battle Begun?

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.

Campbell Brown, Baby, Exposes Herself

We're sure most of you do not believe there's a left-wing media bias in Mainstream Media. Uh-huh, right! Did anyone catch former Richmonder Campbell Brown on CNN last night? (See transcript and video here.) She grilled John McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds over Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's foreign policy credentials and asked him to name one instance in which she commanded the Alaska National Guard. It turned out to be quite the donnybrook. It wasn't Bush 41 vs. Dan Rather all over again, but it was pretty intense. Bad enough, in the McCain camp's view, that the senator cancelled a live, previously scheduled interview for last night with Larry King. To be fair, it didn't help that Mr. Bounds was not all that competent.

But for those who do not think the mainstream media is biased, please explain this quote from Ms. Brown to Mr. Bounds as she ended the interview:

I appreciate you coming on and taking the time to have this debate (emphasis added). I think it's important. ... We're not beating you up here. We're not trying to.

Debate? Debate? Since when is a journalist supposed to debate a guest? Journalists are supposed to get information, not advance an opposing view. While it was clear Mr. Bounds did not have the answer to her question, he should have said he would research it and get back to her. In lieu of that, she should have prompted that from him and moved on to the next question. (Eventually, a slate.com writer confirmed Governor Palin's command experience and Brown announced it later during a panel discussion.) Instead, Ms. Brown was intent — repeating the question, in one form or another, six times with increasing agitation in her voice and body language — on nothing more than making political points as if she was the opposing camp's PR hack. 

If she wasn't trying to "beat him up" she certainly was trying to belittle him with this quote, sarcastic facial expressions and body language included:

All right. Tucker, I'm just going to give it to you, baby. We'll end it there. (Emphasis not added.)

"Baby"? Are you kidding me? "Baby"? Imagine if Bill O'Reilly called a Democrat spokeswoman that — there would be shrieks for his head by leftist feminists, sort of like when Barack Obama called a reporter "sweetie." Actually, that's not a good comparison since the hypocrites said nothing about it.

Speaking of Senator Obama and Ms. Brown: Does anyone credibly think she would press him, or one of his aides, with the same intensity in asking him to name just one significant accomplishment? The double standard is pretty clear. He's been running for president for two years and he can't name one and the media isn't interested. (By the way, speaking of Senator Obama and Fox News: How is Barack Obama going to negotiate with Iranian and Russian despots when he won't even talk to Fox News, despite his promise to O'Reilly?)

Some commentators are saying this is the year journalism ended. Some of us have considered it long gone. But if there was any doubt, last night at least one in the mainstream media — Campbell baby — exposed her true colors.

Poll: Rate Sarah Palin

Now that the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), has picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to run with him as the GOP's vice presidential candidate, and there's been a full 24 hour news cycle to digest it all, what do you think? Give us your impressions by voting in the poll below. We'd love to have your comments as well — let us know the reasons for your vote. Please post them in the blog's thread (not at polldaddy). The poll closes Friday, September 5, at noon (to give you a chance to size her up at the Republican National Convention. You can only vote once.

Reputable Publications

Let me see if I understand this correctly: The paper that all the mainstream media takes its cues from, the one that prints everything that's fit to print, the alma mater of Jason Blair, prints salacious allegations without proof and quotes "unnamed sources" as its proof that a Republican presidential candidate once carried on an extra-marital affair, all of which was roundly debunked. The other one is sold at supermarket checkout lines with sensational headlines about celebrities. It prints — accurately as it turned out — a story with facts, real quotes, photographs and eyewitness accounts of a Democrat presidential candidate holed up in a hotel restroom, caught practically red-handed cheating on his cancer-battling wife. Yet no one picks up on it for months until the man in question finally comes clean.

Exactly which publication is the more reputable?

American Idol President

If you've been paying attention to the presidential campaigns, you've no doubt heard much of the pundit analysis of the candidates. It goes something like this: Obama is "energizing" people and speaking about "change" and is bringing "excitement" to the campaign; Hillary is "mean" and having a hard time reaching "new voters" and isn't "inspiring"; McCain is about as "exciting" as tooth decay and doesn't "move" people. And on and on it goes. Of course, the missing ingredient in most analysis is obvious: what are the important issues and how are each of the candidates actually going to address them. Specifics in this race are about as hard to find as a NOVA Republican.

Truth be told, we shouldn't expect much else in our celebrity culture, where Americans seem far more interested in the latest "American Idol" than they are in Iraq. We could spend days talking about why, but syndicated columnist Robert Samuelson has an interesting take. He theorizes that we don't demand honest answers from our candidates, not because we're more interested in their latest David Letterman appearance, but because we simply can't handle the truth about the current state of affairs in America. The truth, as they say, hurts.

I think there is a lot of truth to his argument. Facing the realities of $4.00 a gallon gas, a nanny state that is on the verge of complete economic collapse (i.e., Has anyone seen my social security check?), and borders that are simply lines on paper isn't nearly as entertaining, or diversionary, as Jay Leno.

I guess the question is, how much longer can we bury ourselves in celebrity before we are forced to deal with a crumbling culture?

Bread and circuses anyone?

Interview With RPV Chairman John Hager, Part 2

Yesterday, familyfoundation.org posted the first of a two-part interview with Republican Party of Virginia Chairman John Hager. You can read it here. We conclude today with the last four of eight questions submitted. Previously, we interviewed Delegate Jeff Frederick (R-52, Woodbridge), who is challenging Mr. Hager for the chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia. You can read that interview here. Tomorrow, we will post an interview with the Democrats' state chairman, former Delegate Dickie Cranwell. familyfoundation.org: What do you think the Republican Party of Virginia should stand for and why do you think it best represents the interests of Virginians?

Chairman John Hager: Virginia's history and tradition are rooted in freedom and liberty. The Republican Creed is a very strong statement that should guide our Party and shape our policies as we work to expand these twin ideals. 

I enthusiastically believe that the majority of Virginians share our conservative values, believe in strong families, and understand the importance of individual responsibility and opportunity. 

The Republican Party can and must stand firm on those principles as it works to bring like-minded Virginians into the fold. By standing by our principles we will attract new voters and our party will grow. 

familyfoundation.org: Should the state party take sides in primaries? We've seen the national party intervene for certain candidates for Senate and House races.

Chairman Hager: The state Party should not take sides in primaries once they are set with duly qualified candidates. We are here to support elected Republicans and be strong representatives of the people. When there is a party contest, the paid party employees are to remain neutral during working hours. We have an intelligent and active Republican Party staff. They will naturally have their own opinions about candidates, but on the party clock, they are to stay out of contested primaries and remain true the goal of electing Republicans.

familyfoundation.org: How do you see the direction of the party right now, especially given the 2005, 2006 and 2007 elections? Is the party not winning because it's afraid to fully embrace conservative issues and reforms? Or is it more about technical things, such as campaign management?

Chairman Hager: The Party has its challenges to overcome and they are not insignificant. We must know what we stand for and clearly articulate a conservative message. We must organize, inspire, motivate, and mobilize the base to support Republican candidates and elected officials. We must reach out to who share our principles and believe in our values. We must unite behind a conservative cause to win elections. Campaign management is an important element, but will never replace an effective grassroots and energized party membership.

The next two years are pivotal to Republicans in Virginia. We must be strong in 2008 to deliver Virginia to John McCain, hold our Congressional seats, and defeat Mark Warner. 2009 will give us an opportunity to expand our majority in the House of Delegates and reclaim the Governor's Mansion. This will only happen if we all work together to articulate our ideas and convey them to the voters.

familyfoundation.org: Are you and your family getting more excited about your son's wedding as it gets closer? Has it hit you yet that your extended family soon will include the President of the United States and a former president? What are both gentlemen like? 

Chairman Hager: We are very excited about the wedding. These are two accomplished young people coming together; our families get along and are very supportive.