liberal politicians

Who's Patriotic?

Some liberal politicians love to get mileage out of sanctimonious claims and faux rage that their patriotism has been challenged on this issue or that, never mind that it's their judgement which gets questioned. Typical leftist tactic — make up the meaning of what your opponent said, no matter how far the stretch, and say it was unfair, low and nasty in order to paint them as ogres.  So here's an interesting take on both the patriotism claim and on the tactic of redefining what words truly mean: Remember the late campaign when then-candidate Joe Biden, who tried to redefine Catholic Church teaching on abortion (see here), tried to redefine patriotism into meaning you must pay higher taxes? (If you don't, see the video below.)

Well, now: Exactly what does Vice President Biden now say about Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner (see Wall Street Journal) and Health and Human Services Secretary nominee Kathleen Sebelius (see Political Punch by Jake Tapper of ABC News), among the several other administration officials (Washington Times),who have skipped out on paying taxes? By the Veep's own definition, they are unpatriotic scoundrels.

Ah, yes. As April 15 draws near, it's nice to be reminded of who's patriotic and who's not. By their own words. No whining now as to who's making the claims and what they mean.


Joe Biden and the new patriotism.

2009 Lobby Day Especially Crucial; Great Speaker Confirmed

We're busy counting down the days. But while we're all preparing for Christmas, we have a dual countdown — the start of the 2009 General Assembly. Believe it or not, it's less than three weeks until our lawmakers return to Richmond to deal with the in-deficit budget. That means also time to remind our legislators of the principles we expect them to protect and promote during this upcoming important election year, even with the budget as a convenient distraction.

You can do your part by joining us in Richmond for:

Family Foundation Day at the Capitol on January 19, 2009!

9:00 a.m. - Afternoon

Richmond Marriott

500 East Broad Street

At this free-of-charge event, you can meet with and encourage your legislators to, among other things:

» Support a proposal that adds a requirement to teach about the positive benefits of marriage in the Family Life Education curriculum.

» Address the Kaine administration's decision to forbid chaplains from praying in Jesus name;

» Make the state budget more transparent by placing it online and ensuring that it is easily searchable; and

» Encourage support of bills that update and improve Virginia's Informed Consent Law.

All you have to do is register, at no charge, by January 13. We'll arrange meetings with your delegate and/or senator. We take care of the details; you just need to be here on January 19. Especially now, when so many pundits and liberal politicians have pronounced conservatism and traditional values issues dead, we want to have hundreds of pro-family Virginians lining the halls of the General Assembly Building to show them and our lawmakers quite the opposite is true.

In addition, we've lined up great speakers, including legislators as well as Jordan Lorence, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, a nationally known expert on several issues that affect religious conservatives. He will specifically address religious liberty issues and the case of the Virginia State Police chaplains who resigned in protest when ordered to cease praying in Jesus' name.

As a preview of how good a speaker Jordan Lorence is, we've posted below a video of him speaking about one of our favorite subjects — lessons on the life of William Wilberforce.

So, we hope you make a special effort to get to Richmond on January 19. In order to register, contact Grassroots Coordinator John Smith at 804-343-0010 or e-mail him at

We look forward to seeing you make a difference in Richmond on Monday, January 19.

About Credibility (Or Lack Thereof)

I love scouring the newspaper. I never know when something completely off the wall will be reported to make my day or at least provide some fun topic of conversation. Other times I'll find an article that on the surface seems non-germane to anything I'm concerned about, but, in fact, proves to be Exhibit A in proving a point. Such was the case this morning in the venerable Richmond Times-Dispatch. Its business section reported a feature article on a new trend of people contracting to buy houses together for various reasons: Older, widowed women who don't want to rent, or recent college grads who want to invest in home ownership but can't get a mortgage on their own. (According to the article, Time dubbed young co-owners "communal homeowners" or "co-hos.")

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Major Adult Stem Cell Breakthrough

Headlines in today's Washington Post hailed yet another new discovery in the use of adult stem cells, again bringing into question the need to destroy human embryos to find cures for disease. Researchers at Harvard University successfully transformed one type of adult stem cell into another type — inside living mice. According to the article:

The feat, published online today by the journal Nature, raises the tantalizing prospect that patients suffering from not only diabetes but also heart disease, strokes and many other ailments could eventually have some of their cells reprogrammed to cure their afflictions without the need for drugs, transplants or other therapies.

Since stem cells were first discovered in the late 1990s, scientists have speculated that they could be used to produce cures for a multitude of diseases. Unfortunately, some in the scientific community continue to insist on destroying living human beings in embryonic form in this effort. That research, however, has yet to produce a single success. In fact, not only have no cures been found resulting from the destruction of human embryos, there haven't been any successes in any area of science using those stem cells.

Recently, Stanford University researchers published results that verify once again that embryonic stem cells are rapidly rejected by the immune system, a problem that has plagued the use of human embryo research since its inception.

On the other hand, scientists have had spectacular results using adult stem cells — readily available with no destruction of human life. Dozens of treatments for disease already are in use on human patients, and with new discoveries like the one announced yesterday, the promise of adult stem cell research continues to grow.

So, you may ask, why do politicians continue to insist on using taxpayer dollars to fund failed research while other research is finding grand success? Unfortunately, the political debate over stem cell research is not based on science or fact — it has been hijacked by abortion radicals and liberal politicians as a wedge issue, placing the health and well-being of millions of citizens in jeopardy to win a political debate.

It is simply time to stop funding failed research with taxpayer dollars. The Family Foundation will, once again in 2009, come to the General Assembly with budget amendments eliminating the use of your tax money for failed research. Our hope is that real scientific breakthroughs like the once announced yesterday will actually be heeded by those in office.

For a more an in-depth look on the subject of recent research into the promise and results of adult stem cells versus the myth of embryonic stem cells, click here to read an earlier post. It details a discovery that re-programs adult stem cells to function as embryonic stem cells, making the harvesting of the latter needless, whether they can do what backers say they can do or not. The post includes links to several excellent detailed and informative articles on the truth of the issue.

California Values

Yesterday, homosexual activists and ultra liberal politicians in California finally got what they could never get through California's legislature or even its generous initiative and referendum system: the legalization of homosexual marriage.  How did they get it? In a state of 37 million people, four people made law for everyone else when the California Supreme Court ruled by a 4-3 vote that the state's Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The law passed overwhelmingly by the voters in a 2000 referendum (Proposition 22 got 61 percent of the vote). Now four people have undone that. The dissenting justices wrote that to strike down the law was out of the court's jurisdiction and/or a violation of the separation of powers. No matter. Take what you want anyway you can get it. Who cares if the people and their elected representatives have no say?

The majority opinion, which reads more like an Equality Virginia press release than a legal document, argued that there is a fundamental right to "form a family relationship" regardless of one's "sexual orientation." In fact, they do not appear to put any parameters on what exactly a "family relationship" is, perhaps leaving that open to any of an assortment of behaviors. Although 26 states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, the majority opinion said there is no "compelling state interest" that justifies preventing same-sex couples from marrying. So 26 states are wrong and these four judges are right. Sure.

The court argued that there is no difference between the "domestic partnerships" that the California legislature created, which grant all the rights and benefits of marriage, and marriage itself. The California Court actually has it right here. This is exactly what we argued in 2006 during Virginia's Marriage Amendment campaign — that so-called "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" had to be covered by the Marriage Amendment because they are the same thing! (See The Richmond Times-Dispatch article about our reaction here.)

The California Supreme Court proved our point on this as well as on activist judges striking down statutes — the precise reason the Virginia M.A. was needed — to sustain our statutory laws. (See this interesting blog post from the Houston Chronicle.) One wonders where the homosexual activists in Virginia will find any legs for their arguments now (not that they had any to begin with).

Ultimately, the court conjured that it is unconstitutional for the state to deny the use of the word "marriage" to same-sex couples since they already enjoy all the rights and benefits of marriage through so-called "domestic partnerships." Such discrimination, the court said, could encourage same-sex couples to be treated as "second-class citizens" and deny them the "dignity" of the more "familiar and highly favored designation of marriage." The ruling now lays the foundation for same-sex marriage advocates to redefine marriage state-by-state, while pro-marriage and pro-family Californians haven't given up (click here). 

This decision to deny the right of children to have both a mother and a father is appalling.  It is not surprising, however, that the court found no difference between so-called "domestic partnerships" allowed by California and marriage itself. Regardless of what they are called — domestic partnerships, civil unions, or some other arrangement — any union that is given the rights and benefits of marriage is marriage, and undermines that institution. By determining that there is no difference between a so-called "domestic partnership" and marriage, the California Supreme Court validated what supporters of Virginia's marriage amendment said all along — we must have a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage and protects Virginia from another state's version of marriage — whatever they decide to call it.

In 2006, Virginians voted overwhelmingly to protect the definition of marriage, anticipating days such as this. Like California, our laws protecting marriage were at the mercy of the courts until Virginians were given the opportunity to amend the state Constitution to define marriage. Because of that vote, a handful of activist judges cannot toss aside thousands of years of human history and the evidence of social science that marriage between one man and one woman is best for society, families and children.

Regardless of the insanity caused by only four California judges, the law in Virginia is perfectly clear — we recognize that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that children deserve both a mom and a dad. Because of that, our children can rest easier.