Conservative Women to Launch Virginia Liberty Project
By E M Barner | Sunday, September 6th, 2009 | Policy
Virginia Liberty Project is bringing Liz Cheney and Kate Obenshain together to headline the launching event for the new organization. Judging by the list of organizations sponsoring this event, I expect that just one week from today, the elegant Waterford event center, next to Fair Oaks Mall, will be packed with a “who’s who” list of conservative citizen activists.
Cheney and Obenshain are formidable women who bring a great deal of experience in Virginia and federal politics to the table. Cheney has been raising her profile in the Commonwealth since the close of the Bush Administration, with many people urging her to seek office in the near future. Obenshain continues her service to the Commonwealth by advancing conservative principles through commentary on Virginia and national politics.
These women might agree with founding mother, Abigail Adams, who wrote:
“Wisdom and penetration are the fruit of experience, not the lessons of retirement and leisure. Great necessities call out great virtues.”
This is a time of great necessities. This is a time for people of strong character who are ambitious to use their experience in their country’s time of need. As we have seen with TEA Parties and a general grassroots conservative resurgence, men and women are answering the call of our time.
For more on the launch of the Virginia Liberty Project, see below:
(Alexandria, VA) – Liz Cheney, Kate Obenshain and others will be
headlining a September 13th event in Fairfax, Virginia to officially launch
the Virginia Liberty Project (VLP), a citizen-based organization focused on
preserving the heritage of the U.S. Constitution. The VLP seeks to impact
the way people think about government, focusing on the founding principles
of the Constitution.
“The goal of the Virginia Liberty Project is to return government to the
founding principles of the U.S. Constitution which have shaped our
Republic,” said Britt Courtney, Chairman of the Virginia Liberty project.
“Our nation was founded on a set of principles inherent to the
Constitution, and these principles have helped lead America to greatness.
The Virginia Liberty Project recognizes the importance of the Constitution
and looks to educate and help protect the fundamental principles of this
document. It is a celebration of the Constitution as well as an effort to
increase appreciation and respect for the values it brings forth,” added
Courtney.
The event will be held on Sunday, September 13th from 6pm – 9pm at the
Waterford at Fair Oaks, 12025 Lee Jackson Memorial Highway, Fairfax, VA
22033. The event is free of charge and people will have an opportunity to
learn more about the VLP as well as hear from Liz Cheney, daughter of former
Vice President Dick Cheney, as she speaks on the importance of the U.S.
Constitution 222 years after its implementation into American government.
The focus of VLP is to reduce government spending and return the government
to a limited role, rebuild a strong national defense, restore personal
responsibility, re-establish free markets, and help America regain its moral
compass. Sponsors of the kickoff event include The Gloucester Institute,
American Civil Rights Union, Americans for Tax Reform, Hillsdale College,
The Leadership Institute, The Heritage Foundation, National Right to Work,
Freedom Works, Virginia Society for Human Life and the Gun Owners of
America.
see www.virginialibertyproject.org for details
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
E M Barner, the blogger formerly known as DCH / De Civitate Hominis (“concerning the city of man”), writes from a Northern Virginia perspective. Barner has been active in Republican politics and policy since 1994 – as a grassroots volunteer, party leader, and professional.
Comments
18 Responses to "Conservative Women to Launch Virginia Liberty Project"
It looks like it will be a fantastic organization – and Kate Obenshain and Liz Cheney are making a smart move by associating themselves with it.
It is clear that in Virginia, conservatives must be, well, conservative, if they ever hope to get elected to statewide office. So, if Cheney wants to be a U.S. Senator from Virginia, this organization is probably a good one to have back her and on her resume.
As for Obenshain, she has remained active in the GOP following her time at RPV. One has to wonder what the future might hold for her?
“The Virginia Liberty Project was founded in May of 2009 by a group of neighbors in Northern Virginia. ”
And now all of a sudden they have these deep pocket sponsors and high profile speakers? You expect us to believe this is a ‘grassroots’ organization? C’mon admit it. This is just one more group being brought forth by the big boys in national politics and has nothing to do with Virginia’s common people.
Perhaps, Darrell.
I’ll grant you that your cynicism is well-placed. However, I still have hope that one of these days we’ll get it right.
And, to get it right, we’ll need deep pockets.
Conservative. That is the question. Isn’t this Cheney’s daughter who became a homosexual a few years back?
How do you restore our “moral compass” without addressing that issue?We will see what this group says about that.
Negative, DV. That would be Mary Claire Cheney.
Thanks, of course, for equating something that has nothing to do with being a conservative or not with whether or not it gives a person conservative bona fides.
It has everything to do with being a conservative. Ask any liberal.
Sexual perversion has been rejected by American voters everytime they have been allowed to vote on it.
Conservatives support a moral not amoral America. Choosing to participate in sexual perversion is not what conservatism is about.
Trust me, politically this won’t fly as “conservative”.
God, Gays, and Guns, eh, DV?
Dry,
How much are you willing to pay in taxes to prohibit a gay individual from doing what they will? How large of a government do you support existing to restrict individual liberties that you happen to not agree with? And how happy will you be with that government when you and those you support no longer hold the reigns (see Bush-Obama transition)?
What is your financial threshold to deny another freedoms?
NDV
Whoa. We conservatives don’t want to deny anyone their freedom. I could care less what anyone does in their bedroom. Keep it there.
But if you say that sexual perversion is OKay, it isn’t. If you say that immoral activities are conservative, they aren’t. Do what you want but don’t ask the nation to accept it. It does not good to call evil good and good evil.
You RINO’s will continue to oppose the things that separate us from the liberals, like morals.
Other than being appointed to a polictical job by her draft-dodging dad, and lying about torture to defend her dad, what has Liz Cheney done?
She’s another zero political pundit with no accomplishments of her own. Why would anyone care what she does or thinks?
Dry Viking,
I agree that we must elect conservative candidates. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to evaluate Liz Cheney based upon somone else’s actions. Liz Cheney actually has several kids and is noted as a family woman. She is also on record as supporting socially conservative candidates.
Mark,
Liz Cheney was deputy assistant secretary of state. If the best that the Democrats can do is try and link her to her father, than their arguement is very shallow indeed.
With all of this being said, I do believe that the marriage issue ties in with conservatism, a conservative believes that in order to preserve liberty, order must be preserved in a society. This is why most conservatives oppose redifining marriage period, whether it be in the form of homosexuality or polygamy, conservatives understand that government has no right to redefine the standards of natural law.
I read just the other day that Lincoln and the early Republicans were accused of trying to force Evangelical Protestantism on people when they took positions against slavery and polygamy. History views them as correct in their beliefs, history will likewise view the moral values proponents of today in a positive light.
I really get suspicious when somebody says something like:
“Whoa. We conservatives don’t want to deny anyone their freedom. I could care less what anyone does in their bedroom. Keep it there.
But if you say that sexual perversion is OKay, it isn’t. ” – Dry Viking
What is perversion? Somebody has to decide. Is that Bob McDonnell? Does he get to decide that a “69″ by a married couple in the privacy of their home is a felony? He sure thought so until the Supreme Court shot that down! When asked about whether he ever commited one of the oral sex related felonies, he couldn’t recall? ………how flattering to your lovers.
Oh well,,,,,,,,,,,,Bob for jobs.
Consensual activities between two adults in privacy is not the business of government. The function of government is to protect the individual from force and from fraud. We don’t need the Taliban legislating “their” moral code dejour.
Your “good” deeds are not deserving of credit unless they are of your own free will. “Goodness” at the point of the government’s gun(jail) merely means you fear the government rather than going against your faith.
exactly right Britt. what social conservatives keep failing to understand is that govt intervention in morals makes them weaker.
Amit,
Social conservatives are not calling for government intervention in morals, they are calling for government to protect those standards which pre-date the United States. The concept of natural law, the basic concepts of wrong and right, have helped to shape our laws. Government has every right, under the Constitution, to enforce the basic standards of things like marriage. This is why we had laws against immoral actions during the days of our Founders. Protecting the sanctity of marriage is not an intervention, it is a protecting action.
There is a difference between a libertarian viewpoint, and a libertine viewpoint.
The thing there is Steven, that government is really more involved today with marriage than it ever was. Government, as pertaining to defending against fraud, is an enforcer of contracts. Marriage, being a contract between a man and woman and blessed by the church.
As a matter of existing law, a marriage can be defined as that. Civil unions can cover the rest. Really government shouldn’t be involved with marriage at all. They then become “the church” and give their blessing to what your particular denomination may or may not hold as a union not worth blessing given the behavior of some men and women.
We can’t stop two guys from shacking up and calling eachother husband. We can’t ……..or shouldn’t obstruct contracts. However, we shouldn’t have law so entangled in marriage that it makes the various churches unable to adequately publicly condemn certain behavior. That’s freedom of religion and expression.
I’m with you on the natural rights thing, but government does weaken your faith by getting entagled into it. They need to stay out.
You can regulate morality all you want, but at the end of the day when some man at the point of a sword and for no other reason, accepts your religion, are they truly “Saved”? I would say, not. It must be of free will or it means nothing, but slavish enforced obeidiance……..like the Taliban……..convert or die.
In the case of oral sex (for the sake of arguement, involving married couples in private), if that is a felony, you end up with unconvicted felonies, that end up disrespecting the “rule of law”.
At the end of the day, legislating morality beyond the Constitution and natural law, ends up weaking both morality and the rule of law.
Britt,
I am glad that you agree with me on the concept of natural law. The standard of marriage being between one man and one woman is a part of natural law.
The question then becomes, does government have to right to condone something outside the boundries of natural law? That, in and of itself, is an example of government overstepping its bounds. If the government institutes civil unions then they will be lending government credence to something outside of the bounds of natural law, thus attempting as a government to redefine natural law. Any libertarian should be opposed to government expanding its powers by redefining natural law.
As to the slippery slope arguement that you have presented concerning religion in America, I think that injecting some reality into the situation would be the best course of action. If it were not for the Judeo-Christian heritige of this country, we would not have religious freedom. If we were an Islamic country, either Sunni or Shiite Muslims would be persecuted. Judeo-Christian ethic has always promoted religious freedom, it is an oxy-moron to compare it to the Taliban’s ethic.
The concept of government protecting the sanctitiy of things like marriage is not a new concept. In Reynolds v. USA it was decided that the federal and state governments have the right to protect those standards. In the court decision they quoted Thomas Jefferson in saying that while the government does not have the right to regulate thought, it does have the right to regulate certain actions.
I totally disagree, Steven. The government does NOT condone anything by allowing for a civil union contract. A contract between adults competent to make them. These are Business Transactions not sactioned or blessed agreements. That goes to the churches.
Further, the only reason marriage has anything to do with natural law is because two free people chose that course of action. I do not agree that marriage is “natural law”, but a result of it. Marriage is different in civil unions as it was already defined in previous law as what we traditionally view marriage. I reject your notion that government has a place at all in marriage other than enforcing the obligations of that contract.
There are plenty of business ventures that are completly legal but are sinful to some. Gambling, selling of cigarettes and beer etc. etc. These are not condoned, though legal.
If I contract to use your land twice a year to hold my “Tea Party” protesting taxation and the government forces me to pay you our agreed amount, that is enforcing a contract, not blessing or sanctioning my protest or your business deal.
We can agree that there is no “gay marriage”. Other than that, I’m not too sure.
OK, guys. Nice hijack of a thread about the fledgling Virginia Liberty Project. I very much enjoyed bringing my young daughters to the event the other evening, and will continue to support this organization. Yep, they’re well connected to some excellent sponsoring organizations that only the left could assail. I am a proud member of The Heritage Foundation, a consistent supporter of Hillsdale College (and happy homeowner in Hillsdale, MI where my children will go to school), a life member of the NRA, and admirer of a slew of other organizations who recognized the bona-fides of the founders of this group of friends. I didn’t see any corporate interests directly represented on the list of sponsors, though after hearing the reason and passion in the presentations, wouldn’t begrudge any corporate entity for directly supporting the VLP’s efforts. Much the contrary, I’d gratuitously support such a business. This is about our liberties, after all, and we should all be supporting VLP, organizations like it, and their sponsors. We can have great discussions about alternatives to marriage, contract law, health care, Cap&Tax, socialism and its variants, and other things only through the survival of our founding document. The burning platform here is that we have an anti-Constitutionalist president and need to organize against his machinations. Our very liberty depends on good people being constructively involved against our common opponent – not sniping against one-another on semantics or shades of black. Get on board and let’s roll!!!
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.