Support Orphans in Need

Many criticize Americans who think they are supporting a cause or important movement simply by sharing something online.  This lead to the coining of the word slacktivism.  However, here is an opportunity to tangibly help orphans in need with one click of the mouse.  Reece's Rainbw helps families adopt orphans who have Down Syndrome or HIV.  It is one thing to advocate for pro-family policies, but another thing to tangibly help people in need.  Reece's Rainbow is competing against a number of other charities for a $50,000.00 grant, and are currently in second place. 

Please take a couple seconds and vote for this organization.  Vote every day for the next week if you can as well.  You can check out this blog for more information about Reece's Rainbow and the contest.

This organization is of particular importance to me right now because my parents recently decided to adopt two children through them.  As my siblings and I have gotten older and are almost all out of the house, their lifelong efforts to help others in need has lead them to adopt two new young children, Tim (age 13) and Ana (10) through Reece's Rainbow.  Be sure to check out their adoption blog for more information.  If you are lead to donate, even $10.00, that would be immensely appreciated.  You can also check out and spread the word about fundraisers like the following.    

VA Women, Don't Let Obama and Kaine Reduce you to Birth Control Voters

Throughout this election cycle, Barack Obama and his friend Tim Kaine have made it clear that women only care about birth control. Tim Kaine is running a series of ads entitled Virginia featuring different women upset that George Allen will reduce their access to birth control.



Barack Obama made headlines releasing an ad for women, reminiscent of one by Vladimir Putin, which compares voting for Obama to a woman losing her virginity.


Adding insult to injury, the President's campaign memorably encouraged women to "Vote like your ladyparts depend on it. Because they kinda do."



These are only the highlights of the ongoing Democrat effort this election cycle to define women purely by their ability and desire to have sex.  If you believe it is wrong to stereotype women as people whose primary desires are free birth control and unrestricted abortions, then you should speak out this election cycle. If issues like the economy, unemployment, and the national debt matter to you, then tell Barack Obama and Tim Kaine this election.  Don't let them distract you from their failed record on this issue.  If you are a woman who believes in the sanctity of life and that people who have religious objections to birth control shouldn't be forced to pay for it, Obama's stance on these issues gives you even more reason to make your voice heard this election.  Make sure Obama and Kaine realize that not all women are the same, and tell them to stop insulting women. Watch this entertaining TV ad.  Let's stand together for our future.

Mike Farris: The Importance of Voting

As we approach election day, we face an important decision: do we vote and who do we vote for?  Here is an important reminder from Mike Farris, head of HSLDA, and Chancellor of Patrick Henry College, on the importance of voting this election. If you have not yet read it, you should also read Mike Farris's reason for voting for Mitt Romney.

Paul Ryan Articulately Defends Homeschooling

Paul Ryan articulately defends homeschooling in this Florida event.  If you are a homeschooler, voting for someone who is willing to voice support for your right to educate as you choose should be  comforting.

When will Obama be Outraged by the Assasination of Ambassador Stevens?

Shortly after the attack on Benghazi, I wrote an article detailing the contrast in leadership the tragedy displayed.  Tragically the following month has shown us much more.  In the politicization, we have missed the biggest story in this strategy.  While the possible cover up is quite a story, it is not the biggest.  While the Libya debate controversy is a fun attempt at a gotcha moment, it is not the biggest story either.

  

The biggest story is that ambassador Stevens has been dead for over a month and the President has done nothing in response besides talk.  Over a month has gone by since the tragedy, and while the administration repeatedly says that "justice will be done" the inaction is deafening on this subject.  Historically, assassinating an ambassador has been known as an "act of war."  Combined with embassies being breached and our flag replaced, it should be easily recognized as such.  Instead of recognizing it as such, Obama has done nothing to respond.  Instead of making the terrorists infamous he has made a movie infamous.  In so doing he has seemingly done nothing to avenge Ambassador Chris Stephen's death.

This callous indifference is further reflected in the president's inability to show outrage when talking about the attack.  Earlier he described it as merely a "bump in the road."  Last night his indifference was even worse.  On Jon Stewart he said, "If four Americans get killed, it's not optimal."  Was it a comedy show? Yes.  But Mr. President, how can you answer a whole interview without expressing any outrage about the attack?  What else isn't optimal?  Is the unemployment rate just not optimal?  Are the rising gas prices not optimal? Is the growing debt not optimal?  Are all the great issues of the day simply inconveniences, or are they things that you will work hard to fix?  If the death of an ambassador does not create urgency and outrage in this president, tragically nothing will.  If he won't do anything to avenge the death of Chris Stevens, can we trust him to do anything about the other issues facing this country?

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Bill Clinton at least shot missiles at empty tents in respond to terror attacks.  Barack Obama should take a cue, and if he doesn't care about the death do something to show that America will respond. Mr. President to something to tell the world that American will not sit by while her ambassadors are assassinated.

Susan Stimpson for Lieutenant Governor: Experience Matters

When I first heard that Susan Stimpson was running for Lieutenant Governor, I was intrigued.  A young attractive conservative woman could be quite compelling on the Republican ticket in 2013.  Solid conservative activists I appreciate and trust support Stimpson. Chris Stearns invited me to watch her announcement video and released a video personally endorsing Susan Stimpson.  Steve Albertson is as good as they come and also strongly supports Susan.  Patrick McSweeney and Russ Moulton are rumored to be strong supporters and early proponents.  There are even substantial rumors that Cuccinelli encouraged Stimpson to run and is supporting her.

While many good friends that I trust support Susan Stimpson I am concerned by her lack of experience.  My concerns about Susan Stimpson's experience relate both to her electoral and governing experience.

I.  Electoral Experience

Susan Stimpson has one election in her life.  In 2009, she won a board of supervisors race for Falmouth District.  She won this race with 2,424 votes in a four precinct election.  In the high water year for Republicans in Virginia she won with 50.07%.

While she currently serves as Chairman of the Stafford County Board of Supervisors, she has not run in a county wide election.  Like many counties across the commonwealth, this position is elected by the supervisors as opposed to the voters of the county.  This is important for people from counties like Prince William and Loudoun to keep in mind since in these counties the Chairman is elected countywide.  Susan Stimpson was elected Chairman in early 2012 after Mark Dudenheffer, the previous Chairman, won his race for delegate.

From a political perspective, why should we have confidence Susan Stimpson can win statewide?  Barely eaking out a win when Republicans won historically statewide does not inspire confidence in her ability to win.  There is also a world of difference between winning a race in 4 precincts vs. statewide.  Is winning four precincts once in a year when Republicans won overwhelmingly really proof that someone has the campaign abilities to win statewide.  When have we ever believed someone is qualified for statewide office because they won 4 precincts under three years ago?

December will tell us how good Stimpson's abilities are in fundraising and building a campaign organization.  However, she seems to have the weakest track record in these categories of any candidate for VA statewide office in 2013 on the Republican side.  

II. Governing Experience

Closely related to the issue of electoral experience is the issue of governing experience.  Susan Stimpson has held elected office for a little over 2.5 years, and has been Chairman of Stafford for a little over 6 months before running for Lieutenant Governor.  This seems to be a very small amount of time to claim credit for the number of reforms she claims to be responsible for.

More importantly though, this comparatively short governing experience means she isn't as familiar with state issues as others.  Candidates like Steve Martin, Scott Lingamfelter, and Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis have much more experience at the state level than Stimpson has at the local level: 24 (6 as Delegate 18 as Senator), 10 (as Delegate), and 10 (4 as Senator, 6 as Delegate) years respectively.  Corey Stewart has served on the local level for 8 years.  While I don't believe you have to have years of elected experience to run statewide, this can impact knowledge of the subjects.  Candidates like Lingamfelter and Martin have an intimate knowledge with state issues because they have sponsored legislation and voted on many of the issues at stake.

Peoples I know who have talked with Stimpson say she is great on principles but sketchy on the details.  This is largely a reflection of her inexperience with the issues.  If she doesn't work hard to learn them soon she may look very weak and inexperienced when on a stage with the rest of the Lieutenant Governor candidates.

As conservatives, nominating the right person is crucial.  Are we sure that making a person with very little experience our standard bearer the right way to go?  Am I missing something?  Does she have experience I am missing?  I am curious to hear responses from those supporting Susan Stimpson. 

Can Mitt Romney Win California?

Bill Clinton once said, "It's about the economy stupid."  If that is true Barack Obama may want to think about California again.  On October 7 Drudge posted the following images and headlines.



Anotherc day, another record in CA...

Gas stations across state run out, shut down...

'What are they doing to us?'

Obama fundraiser with Katy Perry to snarl traffic...

Paying close to $6.00 a gallon for gas will hurt anyone.  Some things demand a change. On October 10, when Obama was losing ground dramatically a poll showed Obama dropping by 8% in California.  I'm not predicting Romney will win California, but politics leads to crazy things.  Obama is slipping in practically every state.  This has to be concerning.  With the economy fundamentally weak a large wave could materialize before election day.  What do you think?  Am I too optimistic? What states will surprise us on election night?

Why Movement Conservatives Must Vote for Mitt Romney

With well under a month to go, it is time for those continuing to consider voting to consider voting third party to take a long look in the mirror.  On November 7, Mitt Romney or Barack Obama will be the President-Elect.  No one else no matter how much you may wish will have that title on that date.  No matter how much someone else may better represent your views, that man will not be elected.  While Neither Romney or Obama will completely agree with your positions, there are differences.  One person is openly hostile to our views and has done more to damage this country through Obamacare and the regulations produced by the bureaucracy.  Gas prices have doubled, and the unemployment levels seen throughout his presidency can not be allowed to be the new normal.  As bad as some Republican Supreme Court picks have been, no Democrat Supreme court pick has turned out well.  We have a choice between someone who is openly hostile, and someone who at worst is willing to try to say the right things to get elected.  If he actually makes real spending cuts as promised that will be a massive improvement.  One of these men will be president, and if you sit on the sidelines and enable someone to remain in office who is openly hostile to your views, you only have yourself to blame.  At the end of the day gaining a little bit because is much better than losing a lot because you could not achieve all of your goal.  Conservatives have always needed to remember the incremental approach to politics.  Since it is football season, as much as we may want the 30 yard touchdown pass, let's take the 5 yard rush instead of letting ourselves get sacked and end up needing to score 20 yards on our 3rd down.

If you have not read it, you need to read Mike Farris's article entitled Voting 2012: A Personal Essay.  It is a very well written from someone who has worked very hard to move the country to the right culturally.  Reading his reasoning is more important than his decision.

Matt Jacobson, a conservative activist in Oregon had a very blunt but similar approach to the election.

To Vote or Not to Vote

...some friends tell me they're not voting this time around.

As our brain-damaged daughter lay fighting for life in the hospital, the neurosurgeon carefully suggested we might stop feeding her and, what did I think of that? As I spoke with my eyes, he said, "I understand, we just need to ask."

This year, she's 12 and would give you a big hug if you stopped by.

You see, this pro-life thing, it's personal.

Romney has just declared if elected, he would reinstate the Mexico City Policy. This is the policy President Ronald Reagan instituted banning all federal funding for abortion. Finding time amidst a busy schedule of philandering, President Bill Clinton abolished the Mexico City Policy. President Bush (far from perfect pres B.) reinstated it. President Obama abolished it and now . . .

In a world of imperfect politicians and imperfect policies (Ron Paul's principled constitutionalism would guarantee the right of states to continue the current policy of infanticide) another imperfect politician has come on the scene who will reinstate the Mexico City Policy.

Should we be "one issue" voters? For my part, no, but when there is an opportunity to protect life AND buy time for emerging, constitutionally committed politicians to rise to prominence, such as Rand Paul, Marco Rubio . . . more imperfect guys like me, I vote for more time, I'm voting for Romney.

And what would my daughter have said if she could have defended herself to me (with all the other soon-to-be born children) against the suggestion of the surgeon?

ARE WE NOT YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS?

Please vote this November.