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.

Thomas for 2012???

The Washington Post had an interesting article out today speculating that Justice Clarence Thomas might be a potential Presidential candidate for 2012!

The end of the Supreme Court term later this month marks a milestone: four years in which Justice Clarence Thomas hasn't spoken during oral arguments. That's more than 250 cases heard, and not one word from Thomas, the longest silence of his nearly 19 years on the bench. Is he unhappy? Bored? Restless?

The Republican Party is in disarray, with no clear message -- as shown in last week's primaries -- and with no obvious candidate to challenge President Obama in 2012. Thomas could be the GOP's new standard-bearer. He has enviable name recognition, both as a long-serving justice and as the author of the bestselling 2007 autobiography "My Grandfather's Son." And he has already survived the nasty political attacks that marked his 1991 confirmation hearings.

A Thomas candidacy would bring racial diversity and a moving personal story to the Republican ticket.

Thoughts?

Thoughts on the State of the Union Address

President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address tonight in front of Congress and millions of Americans. His points delivered are outlined below, along with my thoughts and analysis of them -

• After his introduction and rather long winded talk about feeling American's pain through the letters he "reads every night", he jumped in to job creation. He began by mentioning that he has saved 2 million jobs over the last year, but then skipped right to his goal for this upcoming year - what he called a "Job Creations Bill". This bill would consist of tax incentives and cuts for small businesses, which is all fine and good (and got the right side of the room clapping), BUT it would also include taking $30 BILLION from big banks, and transferring it to community banks. Can we just say - Robin Hood?
  


• To the analysts great surprise, President Obama next talked about an issue that has seemed relatively dead for the past 6 months - climate change. This was lumped in with another surprise - offshore drilling! The President urged Congress to pass a "Comprehensive Energy and Climate Bill" - the title itself sounds a bit fishy. However, in the GOP Response, Bob McDonnell expressed his delight at bi-partisan solutions that this new energy bill will support.
  


• Third on the list of new bills to write up is the "National Export Initiative", which would ensure that U.S. exports double over the next 5 years. He expressed his concern at the fact that the United States is becoming "second place" in the world's trade markets and assured that he would not settle for second best.
  


• Education was next up and this was something that everyone was expecting him to hit hard on. He proposed, yes another bill - a bill that would "revitalize community colleges" and give $10,000 credits to American families for 4 years of college. He also said that debt accumulated while in college would be "forgiven" after 20 years, and 10 if you choose a career in public service. Can I just ask, where are we getting all these handouts?
  


• What used to be President Obama's hottest topic, was not mentioned until nearly his 5th bullet point - Health Insurance (yes he changed the name) Reform. His plea to Congress was simple: "Don't walk away. We are so close." After spending a few minutes bragging on the Congressional Budget Office's predictions of this reform saving us $1 trillion (over the next 20 years [that's a long time]) he moved on.
  


• Next up was a bashing session, although the proper title should be Deficit, which explains the bashing. Again it was all blamed on the past administration - "we took office amid a depression" he said. His plan to save us? A government freeze, effective in 2011, that would last for 3 years. He called on Congress to create a "Fiscal Commission", saying that he "refuses to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans." He also mentioned that he was here to "do our government openly... that's what I came to Washington to do." Um, what happened to those health care talks being broadcast on C-SPAN again?
  


• Here in the middle he merely commented on numerous issues including Lobbyists, Earmark Reform, and Partisanship (where he instructed the Democrats not to "run to the hills" because, you know what?, we have the largest majority we've had in decades, so let's take advantage of that! And to the Republicans, Leadership does not mean blocking every bill that tries to get through. Thanks.)
  


• The last portion of his speech focused on foreign relations. In respect to National Security, he emphasised that he will do whatever it takes to defend our nation. Then went on to say that all the troops will be out of Iraq by August. "This war is ending," he said, "and our troops are coming home." Really? Terrorism has been defeated?
  


• Nuclear Weapons. He likened himself to Ronald Reagan here, saying that they both wanted a world free of them. Hate to tell him, but that is unrealistic considering the world we live in. The President then made a promise - now mark this - PROMISE: IRAN WILL FACE GROWING CONSEQUENCES. Let's hold him to his word.
  


• He touched on human rights, and then announced that he was actively working to repeal the law that prohibits gays and lesbians to serve in the military. Gag.

Few side notes:

- He was interrupted 86 times at first count.

- I think it was completely inappropriate for him to have bashed the Supreme Court's ruling overturning McCain/Feingold - inducing the standing applause of the entire left side while all the judges could do was sit there and stare. This was an intimidation of another branch of government that was absolutely improper.

- The tone of the whole speech was very strained.

- See the full transcript HERE.

UPDATE: Obama used the words I, I'll, or I'm 152 times during the speech.

UPDATE 2: "Gaff" of the night? Supreme Court Judge Samuel Alito mouthed the words "Simply not true" during the President's bashing of the Supreme Court ruling discussed above. I'm glad they were as disgusted as I was.

Sotomayor: Precedent or the U.S. Constitution?

One of the things that stood out in today's round of Supreme Court confirmation hearings was the absence of the U.S. Constitution. I watched most of the questioning, and for someone who takes an oath to uphold the constitution she hardly mentioned it. She seemed to analyze court precedent when answering questions instead of explaining what the constitution had to say about the issues. She was even asked what criterion she would use to interpret cases dealing with the 2nd ammendment and property rights, and refused to explain that. It is shocking that she is unwilling to explain how she interprets the document she is supposed to uphold.

Also if you would like to get some analysis of the first day of the confirmation hearings go here.

Ken Cuccinelli Calls for Special Session of the General Assembly

Ken Cuccinelli Calls for Special Session:

"We need to Protect Virginians from Drug Dealers and Drunk Drivers."

FAIRFAX -- Today, State Senator Ken Cuccinelli, (R-Fairfax), and Republican Candidate for Attorney General, called on Governor Tim Kaine to bring the Legislature back to Richmond immediately to address the problems created by the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. This decision has begun forcing prosecutors to suspend drug and drunk driver prosecutions, "which is a situation that is bad and will likely get worse if we don't act quickly," said Cuccinelli. "The first priority of Government is public safety. It is with this in mind that I call on Governor Kaine to convene the General Assembly as soon as possible to fix the problem with our notice waiver statute in the Virginia Code. While Virginia's law was ruled constitutional by our Virginia Supreme Court, that ruling was a close 4-3 decision, and it is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. While I share our Attorney General's opinion that Virginia should prevail under the current statute, the U.S. Supreme Court will not reconvene to hear this case until at least October, and the case is clearly a close call at best," said Cuccinelli. "Commonwealth's Attorneys are on the front lines in the war on crime, they need to be secure in knowing that all Virginia's statutes are constitutional and that their prosecutions will not be undone because of Melendez. And of course the state has an obligation to the defense, to ensure protection under the 6th Amendment. I believe the only way to ensure constitutionality is to conform Virginia's notice waiver statute to Georgia's, which the U.S. Supreme Court said is constitutional in theMelendez case. Anything less I believe would be a disservice to Virginia's Commonwealth's Attorneys and its law enforcement community," concluded Cuccinelli. Until the ruling in Melendez-Diaz, the Virginia state forensic lab was able to submit a certificate of analysis of their findings for use in court in drug and D.U.I. cases. Virginia law allows the certificate of analysis as proof of the drugs involved in the case or blood alcohol content. "With the volume of cases analyzed, requiring court appearances by the scientist in every case has the potential to cripple the criminal justice system," noted Cuccinelli. Local prosecutors across the Commonwealth are also asking for a special session to fix the problem. Louisa County Commonwealth's Attorney Tom Garrett said, "Across the Commonwealth drunk drivers and drug dealers are going free in cases that would have been certain convictions two weeks ago." Senator Cuccinelli said, "A legislative fix would be much better than hiring 100-200 new scientists, which we couldn't do now even if we tried." Senator Cuccinelli noted that under the Virginia Constitution, if the Governor does not act, the legislature can call itself into session if 2/3 of the Senators and 2/3 of the Delegates write to the Governor making such a request. "We can call the special session now, before too much damage has been done, or we'll end up doing it later, after hundreds or thousands of drug defendants and drunk drivers have gotten off spot-free. I think we should act right now."

Court Upholds Ban on Partial Birth Abortion

Victoria Cobb, President

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Victory Alert: Court Upholds Ban on Partial Birth Abortion

Read Our Latest Blog Posts @ www.familyfoundationblog.com

Sign Up for Our Twitter Updates @ www.twitter.com/TFFVA

Join Fans of The Family Foundation On Facebook @ www.facebook.com

Visit Our YouTube Channel @ www.youtube.com/user/TheFamilyFoundation

The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals this afternoon upheld Virginia’s long sought ban on partial birth abortion. The law, passed in 2003, has been blocked by courts ever since.

Substantially similar to a federal ban that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court last year, Virginia’s law could face one more hurdle should pro-abortion advocated appeal to that court, but the hope is that the Supreme Court won't hear the case because of its decision last year (retiring Justice David Souter voted against the law.)

But today, we celebrate the Fourth Circuit’s decision!

Honestly, I still have vivid memories of the courtroom last fall where this case was debated. Those of us who were there can remember the lawyer from the Center for Reproductive Rights arguing against the ban making her case that, should the Virginia statute as it currently reads be upheld as constitutional her client, a doctor who performs abortions, could potentially face prosecution. During the course of her explanation, she actually described a potential situation in which the doctor fully delivers the child, who is then separated from the mother, and placed on a nearby table to…“expire.” Not, die. Expire. Born alive, and left to die.

The coldness of that statement and the complete lack of compassion for human beings in their most vulnerable stage were palpable in that room. These were people who were advocated for the killing of a child, a fully developed child just days from birth. Thank God the majority of the court rejected their argument.

All pro-life Virginians owe a debt of gratitude to Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13, Manassas), the original patron of the legislation, for his passionate advocacy for the unborn on this issue, and to former Attorney General Bob McDonnell and his office for their skilled defense of the law throughout the process.

(This was not in the Family Foundation e-mail, but here is Bob McDonnell's response to the decision.)

Will Lady Justice Remain Blind?

Earlier I posted how Justice Sotomayor believes the predominant factor in deciding how to decide court cases should be personal experience, instead of case law. This was based on the Sotomayor quote that surfaced saying that wise Latina woman would make better decisions than white males as a result of the richness of her experiences. When the quote surfaced, the Obama administration responded by saying it was a poor choice of words. However, it seems Justice Sotomayor has a long history of saying things like this. As part of the files she gave the Judiciary Committee, there are a number of speeches which indicate that she has a long history of making these comments. She has a regular pattern of saying that experience enables a judge to make a better decision.

The idea of blind justice and equal protection under the law are some of the oldest concepts in American jurisprudence. If judges decide cases based on their experience then justice is no longer blind. We are ripping of the blindfold and dispensing with the idea of deciding guilt or innocence based on what the law says. Instead cases will be decided based on the background you came from.

In past judicial confirmations, much of the attention has focussed on the legal background a person brings to the table. This is important because we are giving someone a lifetime appointment to decide the law(or atleast that was the idea). By nominating someone who believes cases should be decided based on experience instead of case law, we are dispensing with the idea that legal experience is important. If we continue down this path, does it even matter if a supreme court pick attends law school? Maybe we should just find a poor oppressed minority in some homeless shelter and place them on the bench. I'm sure they have a rich experience to draw from to make decisions.

If you beleive that justice should be blind, and cases should be decided based on case law and not experience, then I hope you will contact your senator and ask them to vote against confirming Justice Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Two Different Views of the Judiciary

Yesterday we had two major announcements concerning the courts. One was the California Supreme Court 6-1 ruling on Proposition 8, and the other was the announcement of Sonia Sotomayor as Obama's nominee for the supreme court. These two events display two completely different views on how the judiciary should act.

The California Supreme Court ruling upheld Proposition 8 and allowed the marriages performed before Proposition 8 was adopted to stand. In the decision, the court acknowledged that it's job is to interpret the laws, not inject their own political and personal opinions into the decisions. On page 3 of the majority opinion the court lays out this principle.

In addressing the issues now presented in the third chapter of this narrative, it is important at the outset to emphasize a number of significant points. First, as explained in the Marriage Cases... our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution. Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question. It bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.

In contrast President Obama's supreme court nominee seems to believe that the courts are a policy making body and that you can and should use your own personal experiences to make this policy.

"The court of appeals is where policy is made."

In a quote that is becoming more popular Sonia Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." Here we have a judge who believes judges should make policy based on their personal experiences. (This New York Times article has a number of other interesting quotes from Judge Sotomayor.)

This is distinctly different from the view offered by the California Supreme Court that the courts should just interpret the law and can not inject their personal opinions.

When John Roberts was nominated he compared being a judge to an umpire accurately calling balls and strikes. Do we want an umpire who will call balls and strikes, or one who will make up new laws on the spot. That is the choice we have in this supreme court nomination battle, and it is the distinct difference between the judicial philosophies of the Bush and Obama whitehouses.

For an excellent article comparing the Sotomayor nomination to the Miguel Estrada hearings by Mason Conservative, click here.

Jeff Sessions for Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee

The following is an excellent post by Yankee Philip concerning an aspect of the fallout of Specter's party switch.

Call on the Senate Leadership. Tell them to remain "Robust".

Jefferson "Jeff" Sessions III is now looking to become the ranking member of the Republican Party on the Senate Judiciary.

There are calls from "establishment" Republican types to promote Chuck Grassley or Orin Hatch into that position.

If Grassley or Hatch get the job, it will take a "go along , get along" view of the party. Sessions is more likely to bring a leadership role to the position. He is more likely to take his job as leader of the opposition seriously. The others will more likely acquiesce to whatever Senator Leahy and his cronies recommend.

You know Leahy didn't bow down to the Republican majority. They fought tooth and nail. They fought hard enough to keep Sessions from the bench. Why should the Republicans do any less? Why should the Republicans become the lap dogs for the Democrats? Do we want another Supreme Court Justice that looks to Europe for guidance?

We need to urge Mitch McConnell to promote Sessions as the ranking member. We have to call Senator McConnell and let him know . We have to email him.

Mitch McConnell’s phone number is 202-224-3121. Video beneath the fold.. We must convince Senator McConnell to remain Robust.

Tyranny by Another Name

On March 4th news that the Virginia state central committee was pressuring Jeff Frederick to resign as RPV chairman hit the blogosphere.  The following day the California Supreme Court held oral arguments on Proposition 8.  While most would argue that these two events have nothing in common, I would like to disagree.

Last November California voters approved a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.  In a state that voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, this measure passed by 52.1% with Barack Obama on the ballot.  After Prop 8 passed the opponents of the measure argued that a majority of the people have no right to take away the rights of the minority.  They argued they have a right to homosexual marriage.  If this is true the measure clearly removed that "right".  In an attempt to win on this argument they appealed the measure to the courts which resulted in the oral arguments on Thursday.  If the California State Supreme Court overturns the voice of the people, it will be yet another example of judicial tyrrany.  Judicial tyranny occurs when the courts override a decision of the legislature or the people for political reasons, and not because it is legally unconstitutional.  Conservatives would argue that Kelo vs. New London and, the two biggest thorns in the sides of social conservatives, Roe vs. Wade and Texas vs. Lawrence are examples of judicial tyranny.  Judicial tyranny occurs when unelected judges make the law instead of the people and their elected representatives.

In California we are faced with the possibility that a few judges will of over five million voters will be overturned.  In Virginia we are faced with the possibility that sixty plus members of the state central committee will overturn the will of the Virginia grassroots at the 2008 RPV State Convention.  The last convention was attended by over 4,000 activists from across this commonwealth.  Over the course of the campaign they were presented with two different visions for the RPV and were able to vote on the vision they agreed with.  The Virginia grassroots overwhelmingly supported Jeff Frederick for chairman of the RPV.  Instead of respecting that fact, members of state central have been opposing Jeff Frederick at every turn, and now it appears that in under a month a little over sixty party insiders will overturn the will of the Virginia grassroots as expressed last May.  We went to Richmond last May to make our voices heard, and we thought they were heard.  Now the party leadership says we don't care what you said we will ignore your voice.  It makes you wonder why we should have voted at all last year.

In California the voters are faced with the possibility that their votes for prop 8 last November will be overturned by a couple judges.  In Virginia Republican politics, we are faced with the possibility that our vote at last year's convention will be overturned.

This may not be judicial tyranny, but that is only because judges aren't involved.

Abortion, When will the Holocaust end?

Last night was slavery movie night. We watched Amistad with Dr. Spinney as a U.S. History extra credit opportunity, and watched Amazing Grace, the story of William Wilberforce, later. My regular readers know that I absolutely love Amazing Grace. Amistad was also inspirational (note:: Dr. Spinney advises skipping the middle passage section due to nudity). It is the story of some slaves who captured their slave ship, and still end up in America. When they arrive they are tried for manslaughter in a case that makes its way all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States. This movie focuses on the legal fight for freedom the slaves go through.

So y'all are thinking, "He is telling us about slave movies and I thought this post was about abortion?" I know. Well I can't help reading or watching the horrors of slavery and the fight against it with out thinking about abortion. Abortion is our national crime against humanity that has been justified, excused, and permitted for years. We need someone to stand up and dedicate his life and political career to ending this atrocity. While I am willing to be the one, I pray God will end this tragedy sooner. Abortion can't be allowed to go on for another twenty years.

On this same note, this is the reason the presidential race is so important. A liberal member of the court will almost certainly retire by 2012. We need to nominate a president we know will nominate judges who will overturn Roe. We also need him to be the man who can help the GOP regain it's image nationally and help it regain the senate. Without the senate the president will have a difficult time getting his nominees confirmed.

As you think about your choice for president remember lowering taxes saves money, while ending abortion saves lives.

"Jesus, please protect the little unborn children, they deserve a chance to run and play."