Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Rule Of Law Or Rule Of Party?

Gary L. Bauer
Campaign for Working Families

Obama's attack on the rule of law during his five years in office has taught other Democrats how they should govern. The latest example comes from Virginia, where the newly elected Democrat governor, who won by just 56,000 votes in a very close election, is threatening to expand Medicare by executive order if Republicans in state legislature don't bend to his will.

Now the state's newly elected Democrat attorney general, who won his race by just 165 votes out of more than 2.2 million cast, is suggesting that he will not defend the state's marriage amendment. In 2006, 57% of Virginians voted to protect the normal definition of marriage. Clearly the marriage amendment is far more popular than the liberal attorney general, and Republican state legislators are, thankfully, exploring their options to defend the amendment.

But, once again, liberal Democrats think they know better than the people, and those "extreme conservatives" can just be ignored.

It is striking that not one Democrat politician I am aware of has raised a single objection to these extra-constitutional abuses of power. That is not only infuriating, but it represents a real threat to the future of our country.

This is a two party country, and wide swaths of the country will be governed by Democrats. But if one party abandons the rule of law, the alienation of the people and voter cynicism will get much worse and this great experiment in ordered liberty under God will be in greater jeopardy.

The March For Life

Tomorrow thousands of Americans will come to Washington, D.C., to take a stand for the sanctity of human life. America was founded on the principle that everyone is created equal and endowed by our Creator with the inalienable right to life. Yet that promise is tarnished by the reality that more than one million unborn children are destroyed in abortion facilities every year. We are better than that.

We fought a civil war to settle the question of whether some men possessed no rights we were bound to respect. In keeping with our founding principles, we rightly determined that every life has dignity and is worthy of respect.

Roe v. Wade is an injustice based on the same misguided philosophy as Dred Scott -- that some humans are not "people" for the purposes of our Constitution. But I have confidence that this good and decent land will someday once again live up to its image as a "shining city upon a hill," when every child is welcomed into the world and protected under the law.

Meanwhile, GOP politicians who think they can avoid the issue better think again. Democrats have no intention of ignoring values issues. Obama used the so-called "war on women" theme to turn Mitt Romney -- the GOP establishment's model candidate -- into a monster. Virginia Democrats successfully used the same tactic last year against the Republican nominee for governor. By one account, nearly a third of left's ads in Virginia were about abortion and birth control.

Democrats think they have a winning model and they do -- unless our side is willing to fight back and expose their extremism. Can any Democrat running for the Senate next year name one abortion they would oppose? Will they vote to ban abortions based on gender? Will they ban late-term abortions? Will they support commonsense regulations to prevent butchers like Kermit Gosnell?

That's the debate we should be having, and I intend to do everything possible to make sure more GOP candidates have the courage to put Democrats on defense when it comes to the sanctity of life.