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.

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.

Feda Morton: A Conservative Fighter Running for Congress

Tomorrow Virginians in the 5th Congressional District have the opportunity to capture the fighting spirit of the 9th District by nominating Feda Morton. Feda is a principled conservative who has been active in the party for years at all levels. She has been endorsed by conservative leaders including Morton Blackwell, Patrick McSweeney, Mike Farris, and Del. Brenda Pogge.

Below is the speech Feda gave at the 5th District Congressional Convention. (The nerve of someone filming a congressional district convention...) The speech is a passionate commitment to fight for our conservative principles. We need people with this kind of passion, and clear understanding of our conservative principles in congress. We need the 5th District to nominate Feda Morton to run for congress tomorrow.

The Controversial Sarah Palin Endorsement

Today, Sarah Palin released another endorsement via her Facebook page that is causing not-so-abnormal-controversy. Terry Branstad for Iowa Governor?

Her post:

Iowa, your great state’s motto is “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.” That motto will be well served by voting for Terry Branstad for governor next Tuesday!

Please join me in supporting Governor Branstad’s campaign. Visit his website here, and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

- Sarah Palin

Followed by almost 400 comments, the opinions seem to range from exited approval to vehement disapproval, however, disapproval makes up the overwhelming majority.

"Big mistake endorsing Branstad. He is part of the good ole boys club (RINO) who masquerades as a conservative. I think you forgot to do your homework on his one. The other 2 candidates running against him are true conservatives. We HAD Terry Branstad before; we don't need him again."

"It seems like you are aligning yourself with Mitt Romney and the GOP establishment more and more these days instead of with the Tea Partiers. I think I will stick with Mike Huckabe, Chuck Norris, Dr. James Dobson, Michael Farris and David Barton, the Des Moine and Dubuque Tea Partiers and vote for the true Conservative, Bob Vander Plaats."

She hasn't responded to the comments on her page yet, but will soon, I am certain. I'll pass it on as soon as it's up.

The reason, it seems, for conservatives lack of approval in this endorsement, is found in the fact that conservatives in Iowa are scared of what Branstad will do if he becomes Governor. Likewise, a lack of trust is starting to develope in the relationship between conservatives/tea party people and Palin. Her CA Senate endorsement, along with ID-1, is giving the impression that she may not be as strategic in her endorsements as we would like her to be. But it begs the question: who is advising her to make these endorsements?

The final consensus of one sums it up nicely: "She is a good person, but she, at bare minimum, is surrounded with incompetent advisors."

The primary this Tuesday should be a doozy. Stay tuned!

Cuccinelli Follows the Law, While McDonnell Follows the Polls

Last week it was revealed that Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli sent a directive to the state universtities informing them they were stepping outside the bounds of the law to have non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation. This created an immediate firestorm from both sides of the aisle. All the usual suspects yelled bigot, and turning back the clock, and sadly even Republicans came out against the Attorney General's call to obey the rule of law. A prominent College Republican leader (Cole Usry of Christopher Newport University) organized early protests against the Attorney General, and prominent Republican blogs have come out against the Attorney General. One blog even suggested he could kiss future political aspirations good buy as a result of this. Honestly the reaction to the Attorney General's decision has been heavily based on emotion. To my knowledge no one has made the case that Ken Cuccinelli is incorrect in his interpretation of the law. All this blowback resulted because Ken Cuccinelli made good on his campaign promise to "enforce the rule of law."

In response to this firestorm Governor Bob McDonnell is trying to placate the left by issuing "Executive Directive #1." First of all an executive directive is different from an executive order. This is a legally nonbinding statement reminding state agencies that “employment discrimination for any reason other than merit and ability has no place in state government”. The reaction to the Executive Directive has been generally positive, especially from the left. However the VA Family Foundation sent out an e-mail expressing their concern with the directive and noted as troubling the positive statements the ACLU made about it.

Probably the most stinging rebuke to the Governor came from a long time supporter, and social conservative leader, Dr. Mike Farris. Dr. Farris gave the Washington Post a very blunt statement on the issue.

"I think this action is incredibly disappointing, to the point of being shocking," said Michael P. Farris, the chancellor of Patrick Henry College, a private Christian college in Loudoun County. "The deeper message it sends is that people who think homosexuality is a sin are wrong. They are irrational."

Farris, a lawyer and constitutional scholar who ran for lieutenant governor in 1993, said he thinks McDonnell's policy statement will be used in courts to help challenge Virginia's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which McDonnell supported. "I don't think the people advising him were doing anything other than reading polls," Farris said.

I am proud of Ken Cuccinelli for standing up for the law no matter how politically incorrect it may be. I also have to side with Dr. Farris in expressing my disappointment in Governor McDonnell. If you can't stand up for traditional values when the law is on your side and the General Assembly is with you, when can you?

Let's hope the governor will follow through on his promise to defund Planned Parenthood. That is something he can do single handedly, and if he doesn't do that this year, can social conservatives ever hope he will fight for us?

UPDATE:: As always Tim Boyer, a good friend of this blog, is willing to call it like it is, and has some similar thoughts on this topic along with some thoughts on the possible political reasons for McDonnell's actions.

Congresswoman Feda Morton?

One of the numerous candidates running for the Republican nomination in the 5th district is long time activist Feda Morton. She has been endorsed by RNC Committeewoman Kath Terry, RNC Committeeman Morton Blackwell, former RPV chair Patrick McSweeney, and PHC Chancellor, HSLDA founder, and former Lieutenant Governor nominee Mike Farris.

In a race that has received a lot of interest because of the tax hike votes of presumed front runner Sen. Robert Hurt. Feda seems to be a committed unwavering Christian conservative.



For more information about Feda Morton check out her website.

The UN CRC will Almost Eliminate Gun Ownership

Earlier this week I explained how the Obama administration was beginning to push the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is a dangerous international treaty that will strike a devastating blow at American sovereignty.

Besides being used to undermine the ability to homeschool, the UN CRC will also undermine private gun ownership in America. Because the UN CRC is a self executing treaty, the UN interprets and applies it. People that advocate the UN CRC and its authors are clear that they believe gun ownership is dangerous for children.

And now we learn one more aspect of this charming treaty: guns.

Yes, guns. To put it bluntly, if you live in a community with children – and who doesn't? – you shouldn't have guns.

Allegedly the CRC's justification is to keep kids from becoming child soldiers in third-world countries. No argument from me. Afghanistan could use some lessons in raising kids.

But if the U.S. ratifies the CRC, then we must accept the UN's position to "believe, teach and promote the idea that all private gun ownership is dangerous for children, and children have the right to grow up in a community that is free from all guns" (emphasis added).

Those at the UN don't just believe in taking guns out of homes where childrens live, they believe they shouldn't be present in communities in which their are children. This is nothing short of an attempt to eliminate gun ownership. Dr. Michael Farris makes this very clear in his article "The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:The Impact on Private Gun-Ownership in America." In the article he analyzes statements by the UN on children and gunownership. These statements include,

• In communities enjoying relative peace, children witness and are traumatized by the use of small arms and light weapons in domestic violence and in disputes. Children also become accidental victims because adults fail to keep the weapons out of their reach.
• Efforts must be ongoing to overcome the destructive messages that small arms and light weapons are essential instruments for survival and protection in daily life.
• Regulations are needed to ensure that small arms and light weapons are not easy to acquire and are never accessible to children.
• Explore enacting bans on all handguns to civilians or certain cheap models that are attractive to youth

He points out that,

"Two crucial conclusions can be drawn from these assertions:

First, the UN intends to address far more than children in war; the object is to eliminate the “threat” posed by guns from the lives of all children whether their community is characterized as “in conflict,” “post-conflict,” “destabilized,” or “enjoying relative peace.” Guns are a threat “on the streets of cities worldwide.”

Second, the UN contends that the threat posed by guns violates the “human rights” of children."

and concludes that,

If the United States Senate ratifies the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child we will have become willing parties in a regime that obligates us to disarm our citizens, keep guns from children, and indoctrinate American children to believe in the utopia of world disarmament. This will cause our nation to surrender our own defenses and rest in the “security” of a world based on “individual and collective rights.”

Please join us in making it clear to the senate and the Obama administration that we believe in gun rights, and the UN CRC should not be adopted.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child Endangers Homeschooling

Recently Obama launched a trial balloon on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I would like to take this opportunity to explore what the UN CRC will do if it is implemented. Probably the threat from the UN CRC that is nearest to my heart is the impact it will have on homeschooling. The whole thrust of the UN CRC is to in sure parents aren't forcing children to do things they don't want to do. Under this theory if a parent decides to homeschool their child, and the child is wholeheartedly for it, then the parents are in legal trouble.

The UN CRC is already being interpreted in this way against homeschoolers in Britain. Britain might see homeschooling abolished as a result of the UN CRC.

Last week the Children’s Secretary of Britain accepted a report in full by Graham Badman which argues for an end to homeschool freedom. “While it’s disgraceful that the British government would even entertain this report it’s particularly troubling for American parents because the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) was used as the justification for this action,” said Michael Farris, Chairman of HSLDA and President of ParentalRights.org.

The Badman report uses Articles 12 and 29 of the UNCRC to justify registering the estimated 80,000 homeschooling families in Britain, forcing them to provide annual reports regarding their homeschool, granting government officials the right to enter the home and interview the children alone as well as reserving the choice of curriculum to the state.
HSLDA has been warning that the UNCRC could bring an end to homeschool freedom in the U.S., if the treaty was ever ratified by the U.S. Senate because Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says that treaties become the supreme law of the land.

I hope you will join me in opposing the UN CRC. Please take a moment to tell Obama and your senator to oppose the UN CRC.

Urgent Action Plea From Mike Farris

Last night I posted how Obama was beginning to push the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Today Mike Farris encouraged everyone to contact Obama, Susan Rice, and their senators to express their opposition to the UN CRC.

Dear Friend of Parental Rights,

Monday in a Harlem middle school, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told a group of 120 students that administration officials are actively discussing “when and how it might be possible to join” (that is, ratify) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). As before, she also communicated what a disgrace it is that the U.S. would stand with only Somalia against such a widely-accepted treaty.

This is the first direct public statement by the Obama administration that it will seek ratification of the UN CRC.

In my 30 years of political involvement, I have learned to recognize this as what is called a “trial balloon.” Like in World War I trench warfare, our opponents have “sent up a balloon” to see if it will draw fire. If things remain quiet, they will proceed with their plans to push for ratification of the CRC in the U.S. Senate.

To discourage them from doing so, we need to make sure that our voices are heard with unmistakable clarity. We must let the Obama administration know that we oppose this anti-family, anti-American treaty.

Here’s what we need you all to do:

1. Call the White House comments line at 202-456-1111. Tell them you heard the administration wants to ratify the CRC, and you strongly oppose this giving away of U.S. sovereignty to the UN. Also keep in mind that this treaty gives the government jurisdiction to override any decision made by any parent if the government thinks that a better decision can be made—even if there is no proof of any harm.

2. Call Ambassador Susan Rice’s office at the United Nations. Tell her that you want her to represent the United States to the world rather than trying to get the United States to go along with international law initiated by the UN. Her office number is 212-415-4000.

3. Contact your Senators and urge them to oppose ratification of this treaty. (Find your Senators’ contact information by typing your zip code into the box here.) Ask them also to defeat it once and for all by cosponsoring SJRes 16 – the Parental Rights Amendment.

It is very important that we speak up right now. Please call before you close this email!

Sincerely,

Michael Farris

Later on in the day an update was sent out on the progress of the attempt to derail the UN CRC.

Dear HSLDA Members and Friends:

Congratulations!

The office of UN Ambassador Susan Rice has been inundated with calls!
The first phone line we sent out has been completely shut down, and
the voice mail system for all of their lines has been crashed.

This means you can't likely get through, so what do you do?

You no longer need to call the U.S. office at the UN. Instead, please
contact the White House comment line at 202-456-1111. It may be
busy--we have kept it busy all day--but keep trying. It is only open
from 9 to 5 EDT, so time is limited. However, you can also send them a
message online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/.

Also, contact your senators. Find their contact information by using
our Legislative Toolbox at http://www.hslda.org/toolbox .
Congressional offices also close at 5 (EDT), so try to get to them
quickly--or call tomorrow!

Please visit www.ParentalRights.org for more up-to-date information on
this campaign before calling our office.

Thank you so much, and keep up the great work!

Michael Farris
HSLDA Chairman

Please keep up the pressure and continue calling President Obama and your senators to express your support for parental rights and opposition for the UN CRC.

Obama Begins Pushing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Today the US amabassador to the UN, Susan Rice, announced that the Obama administration would begin work on passing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Obama administration is reviving efforts to have the United States sign onto a global children's rights treaty ratified by every U.N. member except the U.S. and Somalia, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said Monday.

Administration officials are actively discussing "when and how it might be possible to join," Rice, a Cabinet-level official, said while visiting a school in Harlem and fielding a teenager's specific question about the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This is something Barbara Boxer has been working hard to pass since the beginnign of the year. It is an international treaty that will undermine the ability of parents to direct the upbringing of their own children. Bob Lewis of the Dakota Voice summarized the threat well when he said...

This convention would undermine parental rights by providing a platform to emancipate children from the authority of their parents. Of course, parents will be expected to provide all the needs of their children…and all the wants of their children. If children want something, and the almighty state agrees they should have it, then the parents will have to dance. And if the parents feel the need to spank or otherwise strongly discipline an unruly child, the parent will quickly find that they are acriminal. They will quickly find that the child, and the child’s guardian (the state), are in charge in the home.

Please call the White House comment line (202-456-1111) and your U.S. Senators (202-224-3121) and tell them that you support parental rights and oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

To find a detailed analysis of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, please check out this article by Michael Farris.

Declaration of the Principles of Liberty

Are you afraid that this nation is quickly headed towards socialism? Do you believe this country needs to reaffirm the constitution and the founders vision for this nation? Has the bailout, GM buyout, and Department of Homeland Security report gotten you upset? If you answered yes to any or all of these questions, I hope you will join me in signing the Declaration of the Principles of Liberty.

The Declaration of Principles of Liberty was written by Dr. Michael Farris (chancellor of Patrick Henry College and chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association) and was released on World Net Daily on June 2nd.

Through WND, Farris is announcing an invitation to "the citizens of this country that believe in the Constitution, who believe in traditional morality and virtue, who believe in a free America and reject the concepts of socialism and the secularist moral view" to unite in signing a newly drafted Declaration of the Principles of Liberty."

Dr. Farris was inspired to write this document in the wake of the 2008 presidential elections.

Farris told WND he was inspired to become the "draftsman" of the declaration after hundreds of people asked him what could be done in light of the nation's direction. He was further convinced that a core set of "first principles" was needed after working with conservative leaders in an effort to discern the positions of the presidential candidates prior to the last election.

"What I found in the process – to my shock – was not where candidates stood, but that the arguments made by some social conservative leaders showed that we didn't believe the same things or know what we stood for," Farris told WND. "After the election, I attended meetings with leadership of the Republican Party, leadership in the House and other conservative leaders, and I continue to believe that if there's going to be revitalization for the conservative movement, we first and foremost have to know what we believe in."

To that end, the declaration affirms a list of 10 core principles – among them the right to life, freedom of religion and conscience, the right to bear arms, economic freedom, limited government and others – that Farris believes can define and build a conservative coalition.

Dr. Farris has given up hope that a reaffirmation of our core principles will come from the top and hopes that the conservative grassroots of this nation will join with him in affirming the key principles of conservativism.

Fellow liberty lovers, please take a moment and stand up and send a message to the nation that you value life, the family, and the free enterprise system by signing the Declaration of the Principles of Liberty.

Thoughts on the RPV State Convention

Most of my thoughts on the first day I already posted. However I would like to add a few more thoughts and then list off the highlights from Saturday.

1. I think it is ironic that a party that supposedly believes in transparency in government has so little in its actual operations. While Kay Cole James is an impressive person she was selected as the chairman of the convention. Why did McDonnell have to send out an e-mail urging people to vote for her, and why was her name written in the convention program as the temporary chair? What difference would it have made to have a regular vote on the issue? The disdain the party leadership has for people thinking and acting independently was driven home when a congressional district chairman came down and asked another party leader if he should consolidate a large unit so they could shout down any amendment to the rules, or effort to put in a different convention chairman. Who cares what the people think let's script and direct them as much as possible. Again I think Kay Cole James is amazing. This is simply a comment about the state of our party leadership that selects a party chairman and convention chairman for us.
   
2. Some people jokingly referred to the convention building as the Temple of Bob McDonnell. This resulted from the fact that as an uncontested nominee he still won the sign war, and his staff were given special access to the convention hall that other campaign staff were not.
3. As a Cuccinelli volunteer I have to say it was a very impressive operation. Friday night with a number of our supporters attending gala's and dinners we put fliers on every seat in the convention hall in under an hour. While the blue and red shirted Cuccinelli volunteers weren't as distinct as the neon green Brownlee supporters, they were everywhere passing out stickers, brochures, flags, and keeping track of their delegations.
4. No matter how many things Republicans may disagree on or mess up, Republicans know how to be patriotic. Whether it was Lauren Giere, or the UVA acapella group singing the national anthem, reciting the pledge of allegiance with thousands of fellow Americans, the red white and blue everywhere, or Adnan Barqawi's speech Republicans know how to make one proud to be an American.
5. This was Cuccinelli's convention. He was the reason many of those delegates were their. If anyone doubted it before Saturday, the loud sustained applause that erupted when the nominations chair said his name reinforced the fact. Just like at the Dulles rally, he received louder applause than anyone else. Ken is bringing the excitement to this party right now.
   
6. Mike Farris's name recognition increased as a result of this convention. Bolling used Dr. Farris's endorsement repeatedly in the leadup to the convention and even mentioned him in his speech. (Bolling was also the only person to reference homeschooling in his speech. Thank you Bill for recognizing the importance of homeschooling.) Many people also mentioned how a certain energy has returned to the party that they hadn't seen since Dr. Farris ran in 1993. If Dr. Farris wants to run for office later this convention may of helped bring his name back into people's memories.
7. Convention speeches matter!! While the organization before and during a convention are critical so are the speeches given by the candidates. Bolling's speech reminded voters that he is a tried and true conservative who has accomplished many things for the party and has won elections. It was a very uplifting speech. Muldoon reinforced the fact that he was running a "slash and burn" campaign. His speech was vitriolic and one long hit piece on Bolling. He failed to ever bring up his own revord and accomplishments. It drew a number of boos and probably lost him votes. In the AG contest Brownlee gave a very solid speech. He didn't use notes or a podium which was very impressive. However he essentially gave his stump speech which many of the delegates had heard before. While Cuccinelli talked about the same issues he has discussed on the campaign trail, he went about it an entirely different way. Using the Don't Tread on Me flags was a stroke of genius. It played well to the audience and reminded the convention that Ken is the candidate who will fight to limit the size of government. Some suspect that the speech pushed Ken over the edge and gave him a first ballot win. The final speech to mention was Bill Stanley's speech. Few people knew Bill and he needed to wow the audience. While he gave a good speech, his poor clock management probably didn't help him.
8. I was very impressed with the RPV outreach to new media. They did a very good job with Blogger's Row, and the attention the candidates showed to the bloggers demonstrated that it wasn't just a show.
9. Overall it was an excellent convention that recharged and united the party as move forward to victory in November.
   

New Bolling Endorsements

A few days ago the Bolling campaign sent out an e-mail in which the Republican leaders in the 9th Congressional District came out in support of Bill Bolling. These are the people who know Patrick Muldoon best. They called on Patrick Muldoon to stop his "slash and burn" campaign tactics. By this they mean that Muldoon never lays out his record on the issues but simply attacks Bolling. Nomination contests are meant to be a clash of ideas not an opportunity to attack a party leader.

Today, exactly two weeks out from the convention, Bill Bolling announced a new set of endorsements. The e-mail included endorsements from Mike Farris, the NRA, Virginia Society for Human Life, and a quote by Victoria Cobb of the VA Family Foundation.

"I am pleased to endorse Bill Bolling's re-election as Lieutenant Governor of Virginia. Bill has been a clear and consistent voice for the conservative values we believe in. Bill knows that we need to improve the quality of the educational opportunities we provide to our children, and he has been a strong supporter of educational choice and the rights of parents to home school their children. I am pleased to give Bill my support, and I encourage you to do the same." Mike Farris, Homeschool Lawyer

“On behalf of the over 100,000 members of the National Rifle Association in Virginia, I am pleased to announce your NRA-PVF endorsement for the 2009 Virginia Republican Convention. Your exemplary record of past service in the Virginia Senate and as Lieutenant Governor clearly illustrates your commitment to protecting the rights of law-abiding firearm owners and sportsmen. Based upon your proven record and firm pledge to continue to serve as an advocate for Virginia’s law-abiding gun owners, you have earned an “A+” rating from the NRA-PVF.” Andrew Jennison, NRA-ILA Virginia State Liaison (May 11, 2009 Letter to Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling)

“The Virginia Society for Human Life Political Action Committee (VSHL PAC) is pleased to endorse you for reelection to the office of Lieutenant Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
During your term as Lieutenant Governor, you have advanced and defended pro-life principles. We particularly appreciate the deciding vote you cast on the amendment to the 2008 Virginia budget that would have banned taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, which operates the largest chain of abortion facilities in the United States.” Holly Smith, Chairman, Virginia Society for Human Life PAC (May 14, 2009 Letter to Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling)

“I can honestly say that no elected official in Virginia did more to encourage the passage of the [Marriage] Amendment than you. Your willingness to participate in va4marriage.org events and fundraisers was critical to our success, as was your personal contribution of radio ads across Virginia. Your passionate advocacy for traditional marriage clearly contributed to our victory.” Victoria Cobb, Executive Director, Family Foundation of Virginia (Nov 10, 2006 Letter to Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling. The Family Foundation does not endorse candidates for elected office.)

It is great to see these conservative groups and leaders coming out in strong support for Bill Bolling. I hope you will join the conservatives from across this state in supporting Bill Bolling for Lieutenant Governor at the convention, and throughout the long campaign season afterwards.

Patrick Henry College Dominates Moot Court Nationals

After two years of not winning the Moot Court National Tournament, the Patrick Henry College Moot Court team won it again, and dominated Moot Court all year long.  

In the American Collegiate Moot Court Association, schools are not allowed to send any more than 8 teams to the national tournament.  This was a difficulty for Patrick Henry College since in the four regional tournaments, PHC won 1st place speaker in all of them, won first place team in three of the tournaments, and ended up qualifying 14 teams to nationals.  No other school in this league qualified more than 8 teams for the national tournament this year.

Coaches Dr. Farris, and Dr. Guliuzza had the difficult task of choosing who would represent PHC at the national tournament.  

Guliuzza and Dr. Michael Farris (PHC Chancellor), made their final pick based on students’ comparative performances at the qualifying tournaments. In no particular order, the final, eight-team roster selected to attend the national tournament are: Rachel Heflin, Aidan Grano, James Mieding, Robert Kelly, Brianna Edelblut, Joseph Alm, Aaron Kamakawiwoole, Joshua Kamakawiwoole, Evan Mantel, John Miller, Jenna Lorence, Paul Sellers, Rachel Blum, Noah Oberlander, Carmen Pettus, and Ben Sayre. 

After dominating the regional tournaments Patrick Henry College did the same at the national tournament.  Seven of our eight teams broke into elimination rounds.  Four of the eight teams in the quarter final rounds were from PHC, the semifinal round included three PHC teams, and the final round was comprised of two PHC teams.  In a rematch of the Fitchburg tournament Aidan Grano and Rachel Heflin defeated Joey Alm and Brianna Edelblut to becoME the new national moot court champions.  Robert Kelly and James Mieding placed third as PHC took 1st 2nd and 3rd at the tournament.

Patrick Henry College also won in other awards categories.  PHC took five of the top ten speakers including Aidan Grano winning 1st place speaker.  Rachel Blum and Noah Oberlander's brief won 3rd place petitioner brief, and Aaron and Joshua Kamakawiwoole won 1st place respondent brief as PHC took first, second, and third in that category.

Congratulations to the PHC Moot Court Team, and to Dr. Farris an Dr. Guliuzza.  With much of the team returning next year, and a lot of good people potentially joining next year, maybe we can repeat this success next year.

Warner is Leaving the Senate

On January 3rd, John Warner will retire from the U.S. Senate after thirty years in office. He will be the second longest serving Virginian senator. In light of this fact, the Richmond Times Dispatch published two articles about John Warner's service as a senator. One of the great commonalities between the two articles was John Warner's "independence," i.e. willingness to break with his own party.

One of the articles had a classic Larry Sabato quote.

Warner says he has no regrets about stands that put him at odds with the state Republican Party, such as his opposition to the 1987 Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork and to Oliver North's Senate candidacy in 1994.

University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato, who has followed Warner's career, said Warner's model of the Republican Party is the only one that can win long term.

"He's been vindicated by history. He's been more successful for longer than any Republican in Virginia history."

I know that Larry Sabato enjoys bashing conservatives, but please... Warner has been vindicated by history? The Republican party has definately fallen on hard times since 2005. However has John Warner won an election since then? How do we know he could have been elected in a state that seems to be unfriendly to Republicans? Also it was not Warner's brand of Republicanism that brought about the resurgence of the Republican Party in Virginia which began in 1993. It was the leadership of George Allen which lead to this parties gubernatorial victories in the nineties and its success in the state legislature as well.

A major part of John Warner's legacy is as someone who undermined the Republican Party at every turn. He successfully worked to block the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, opposed Michael Farris for Lieutenant Governor (1993) and Oliver North for Senate (1994) even after they were the Republican nominees. More recently he was part of the "Gang of 14," opposed the Bush administration when it attempted to be conservative, and has been invisible when Republican candidates in Virginia could use his support. In all honesty Warner did make token appearances in the final weeks of the campaigns these past couple years.

Imagine if Robert Bork had been on the Supreme Court instead of Anthony Kennedy. Imagine if Mike Farris and Oliver North had been elected. Imagine if the nuclear option had been exercised. Imagine what this could have done for the causes of limited government, preserving the constitution, and building the Republican Party in Virginia. Imagine all these things, and then realize that John Warner stopped those dreams from becoming a reality. This is John Warner's legacy. It is not one of being a voice of moderation within the Republican Party, but of undermining the party. This is why I am happy John Warner will no longer be my senator.

________________________________

Links to the two Richmond Times Dispatch articles.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/JWAR21S_20081220-191415/158995/

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/JWAR21_20081220-211318/159097/

Weyrich on Mike Huckabee

On April 5th, World Magazine published an article about the disunity the religious right displayed during the Republican presidential primary.

Paul Weyrich—a founder of the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the Council for National Policy (CNP)—raised his hand to speak. Weyrich is a man whose mortality is plain to see... Weyrich, a Romney supporter... steered his wheelchair to the front of the room and slowly turned to face his compatriots. In a voice barely above a whisper, he said, "Friends, before all of you and before almighty God, I want to say I was wrong."

In a quiet, brief, but passionate speech, Weyrich essentially confessed that he and the other leaders should have backed Huckabee, a candidate who shared their values more fully than any other candidate in a generation. He agreed with Farris that many conservative leaders had blown it. By chasing other candidates with greater visibility, they failed to see what many of their supporters in the trenches saw clearly: Huckabee was their guy.

On Sunday Paul Weyrich was buried. I pray that the clarity he displayed was passed on to the "leaders" of the "religious right." We need leaders who will value principle over pragmatism, and access to power. Paul Weyrich was one of the few religious leaders who clearly understood the political situation last spring. We will miss him.

Movie Review

Movie review of "Amazing Grace" by Michael P. Farris:

The life of William Wilberforce is a constant inspiration to those who believe that a person committed to a living relationship with Jesus
Christ can make a difference in our culture.  The soon-to-be-released motion picture "Amazing Grace" faithfully tells this gripping story in
a manner that will inspire thousands of men, women, and children to follow his example of sacrificial Christian service.

Make no mistake, this is a first-class motion picture in every respect.  The acting and cinematography are superb.  But it is the
story that carries the day.  It is a story of the triumph of good over evil.  It is a story that shows how a godly wife can inspire a godly
man who is struggling to carry on the fight against all odds.  And much more.

You will want to know that there are a handful of mild swear words in the movie.  (God's name is not used in vain.)

Far too often the idea of a Christian movie is something that is second rate but that we should see anyway because it is good for us.
This is not that kind of Christian movie.  In fact, it would be best described as a great movie and about a great man who was a faithful
Christian.

If you are looking for something to spark the imagination of your children (or yourself) to do great things for God, get to the opening
weekend of "Amazing Grace."

For Christ and for Liberty,

Michael P. Farris, Esq.
Chairman & General Counsel
Cofounder of Home School Legal Defense Association