Friday, September 27, 2019

Battle for Virginia: Senate District 11 Update





                                                       Virginia State Senate District 11

Things are heating up in Virginia with every single seat in the Assembly on the ballot this November.


The 11th Senate District in the Commonwealth of Virginia comprises portions of Chesterfield County, Amelia County and Colonial Heights, Virginia. Chesterfield is one of the largest localities in the Commonwealth and has been an area where Democrats have targeted over the last few elections cycles with money and resources. Historically, Chesterfield has been a Republican stronghold however, in recent election cycles Democrats have made significant gains in percentages Two of the three Virginia Senate districts are held by Republicans but the two State Senators representing portions of the County remain Republican.

The 11th Senate District (134,000 Chesterfield voters) is held by Amanda Freeman Chase  and comprises the largest block of any of the Virginia Senate districts relating to Chesterfield County. The other two districts are the 10th (72,000 Chesterfield voters)  held by Glen Sturtevant (R) and the 16th (36,000 Chesterfield voters) formerly held by Rosalyn Dance (D) defeated by Joe Morrissey in the Democrat primary. Republicans have no candidate on the ballot for the 16th this November.




These districts could be a very good indicator with regard to the Presidential and Congressional Elections in 2020. The recent developments in Washington and investigation fatigue caused my Democrats on the Hill and now the impeachment inquiry is creating an uptick in donations and support for Republicans in Virginia and their goal of keeping control of the Virginia Assembly.

Recently, the strangest thing you will ever see in a local race happened when The Prosper Group, a digital ad company placed an ad spot on behalf of incumbent Sen. Amanda Freeman Chase that from the outset appeared uncharacteristic to the officials previous ads and campaigning. Subsequently, the ad spot was determined to be edited and unauthorized by the Chase campaign for distribution via social media and marketing streams.


Senator Chase has stated that the digital ad "authorized"read:

 “I’m not afraid to shoot down any attacks by anti-gun groups, because gun rights are women’s rights.” Sign the petition to put an end to the assault on our liberties.”

The Prosper Group has apparently admitted that the ad placed was unauthorized version of the ad upon distribution that created incredible response on social media. It as yet cannot be concluded whether an employee of The Prosper Group intentionally misrepresented the Chase campaign ad.

It begs the question should there not be an investigation into the company or by the company to uncover exactly how an ad in such a pivotal district to control the Virginia Senate could not only be altered and misrepresented by then released to the public.

The Chase campaign has terminated its relationship with The Prosper Group but frankly that may not be enough. The campaign should consider all possible legal avenues with regard to this issue.

 The Prosper Group released an ad stating:


“I’m not afraid to shoot down gun groups.” Sign the petition to put an end to the assault on our liberties.”

Again, The actual digital ad authorized read:


“I’m not afraid to shoot down any attacks by anti-gun groups, because gun rights are women’s rights.” Sign the petition to put an end to the assault on our liberties.”

Senator Chase has been a strong advocate for gun rights in the Virginia Senate. The recent shooting in Virginia Beach and other parts of the country like Texas and California have put the gun control issue center stage to many in the Virginia Democrat Party this election cycle demanding more "restrictions" on purchases. National Democrats like Beto O'Rourke are proposing "confiscation" of guns like the AR-15, one of the most popular rifles sold in America.

It cannot be understated the political harm that Senator Chase may have or may still endure as a result of the misrepresented ad placed by The Prosper Group.

Clearly the changes made to the authorized ad were inflammatory. Were these changes intentional? Were they meant to portray their client in a manner in which to undermine her campaign? Who had the editing and release function or ad copy review responsibilities? Has any action been taken regarding those responsible for the errors?



Senator Chase's unwavering commitment to law enforcement, emergency services, first responders and the Second Amendment is unquestionable. Chase has heard the call from emergency responders the desire to open carry  as well in performing their duties. Chase is a big supporter of open carry and concealed permit carry in Virginia.

#ChaseforSenate #AmandaChase #VAOpenCarry  #OpenCarry #FakeAD #VADems #VAGOP #VASenate #Chase #Sturtevant #Morrissey

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Impeachment Democrats: "This Flagrant Disregard for the Law Cannot Stand"


On Tuesday September 24, Virginia Representative Donald McEachin (D)- Richmond threw in with other Virginia Democrats in a call for impeachment of President Trump. McEachin joins so called "moderate" Democrats along with Progressives from the Commonwealth like Gerald Connolly P- Fairfax, Jennifer Wexton- P-Leesburg , Don Beyer D-Arlington,  Abigail Spanberger (D)- Henrico and Elaine Luria (P)- Virginia Beach.


The only Virginia Democrat not to join the impeachment circus thus far is the senior House Representative Bobby Scott (D)- Newport News. Scott has been in Congress since the 103rd Congress (1993) and witnessed first hand the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998 in the House for lying under oath and obstruction of justice. Scott opposed the impeachment of Clinton.

The Virginia Democrat/Progressive Delegation appears to be calling now for impeachment over conversations between the President and Ukraine. The actually facts are not even clear as of yet and the matter has hardly been investigated in terms of the assertions and outright accusations made by Progressives regarding Trump's interaction with President Zelensky of Ukraine yet they wish to push further for impeachment without any real evidence being made public.

Has Trump lied about #Ukraine conversation? Has Trump obstructed justice with regard to #Ukraine and the leveling of corruption charges by the Progressives to warrant impeachment proceeding by the House? How can you call for an impeachment first then supply the evidence you ask? Simple. Because they do not have the evidence and may never have it.

Progressives are once again wildly speculating and making accusations. Accusations as we have seen multiple times with Progressives; Judge #Kavanaugh and Russian Collusion just two examples, are simply that; accusations.

We live in a society of due process. Or at least we did until the 116th Congress. The nation now has had to endure investigation after investigation of baseless accusations made by Progressives who seem to always begin with the end in mind; oust Trump.

The Ukrainian circumstance will prove little different. The Ukrainian government appears to be backing Trump's assertions of no wrong doing, no pressuring, no intimidation and no withholding of foreign aid in any quip pro quo action by Ukraine against Trump's political rivals.

Trump has stated the following:

"We want to make sure that country is honest. It's very important to talk about corruption. If you don't talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?

"I put no pressure on them whatsoever. I could have. I think it would probably, possibly have been ok if I did. But I didn't. I didn't put any pressure on them whatsoever"


"I did not make a statement that 'you have to do this or I'm not going to give you aid. I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't do that...With that being said, what I want is — I want, you know, we're giving a lot of money away to Ukraine and other places. You want to see a country that's going to be not corrupt."




Is it misplaced for a President to want to guarantee that corruption is addressed if a country is to be granted foreign aid by the Unites States? That seem to be what the Progressives are implying. And yet these Progressives had little problem with President Obama dealing with providing terror state Iran with foreign aid to the tune of 150 billion with 1.8 billion said to be in cash to the regime in the nuclear deal made with that nation. Did Progressives take any issue with the President buying off the Iranians to get that deal done? Of course not.

The Progressives are now spinning the beltway bubble over Vice President  Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden's involvement in Ukrainian corruption resulting in pay offs to Hunter Biden in addition to Hunter Biden's dealings who had no experience, background or expertise when he received 1.5 billion dollars in funding from the Chinese for his investment funding group that also comprised former Secretary of State John Kerry's step son Christopher Heinz.

Heinz and #Biden would co-own Rosemont Seneca Holdings. Biden would join his college roommate Devon Archer who was a managing partner in Rosemont on the board of Burisma Holdings in the Ukraine.

Question remains why would Christopher Heinz cut ties with Hunter Biden and email the State Department altering them that Hunter Biden and Devon Archer had both joined the board?

Between 2014 and 2015, #Burisma Holdings paid almost 3.5 million to Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC. This company in turn paid Hunter Biden 50,000 month. It was in 2014 that Vice President Joe Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to remove the Prosecutor who was about to interview Hunter Biden in corruption related matters with the gas company.


Ultimately, Christopher Heinz would cut all business ties with Hunter Biden over Biden's involvement with Ukrainian gas company in 2014. Hunter Biden would remain on the Board until right before his father announced plans to run for the Democrat nomination for the Presidency of the United States.

Recently however, Rudy Giuliani has highlighted a 1.5 billion private equity funding deal between Bohai ( Hunter Biden's affiliation) and the Bank of China after Hunter Biden traveled with his father Vice President Joe Biden to China aboard Air Force Two. The Progressives claim there is no connection between the funding and Joe Biden yet have not explained with clarity why Hunter Biden would have taken that official trip to Beijing with his father. 

Media Progressives are now scrambling to debunk the Peter Schweizer’s 2018 book that addresses many of the irregularities and dealings, Secret Empires.


Hunter Biden, who had no prior military experience was selected for direct commission program as a Reserve Officer in the Naval Reserve to be part of the Navy Public Affairs Element East in Norfolk, Virginia. These commissioned officers are not required to go through the rigors of formal officer candidate school as most officers in the armed forces.

Just months following Hunter Biden's commissioning he was found guilty of failing a drug test for cocaine. This resulted in his discharge from the Naval Reserve. As Progressives come to Hunter Biden's defense in terms of his drug addiction it begs one question; did Biden in fact know that he was a drug addict and lie on his application to the Department of the Navy for the Direct Commissioning Program in 2012? The Navy is not in the habit of commissioning known drug addicts.

Progressives always seem to want to investigate anything and everything as it relates to Trump yet will continue to spin and obstruct any attempt to have Biden and the Ukraine connection examined. #UkraineScandal #Obstruction

Senate Chairman Richard Burr (R)-NC of the Intelligence Committee and Chairman Lindsey Graham (R) - SC of the Judiciary Committee must intervene hearings immediately to investigate this potential corruption by government officials of the United States, Ukraine and China from 2014 to 2015.

Progressive Democrats in Virginia have now wrangled up Democrats from red leaning districts in their #impeachment circus, but like the Russian collusion disaster for Democrats these officials are hitching wagons to a train that very well may result in these freshman Representatives being defeated at the polls in 2020.

Early signs point to both Rep. Spanberger and Luria both to be in potential "flip" districts back to the Republicans when they are on the ballot along with Trump next year. Trump won the majority of the precincts in these districts in 2016.

As for Rep. Donald McEachin while his seat may be safe in urban Richmond, Progressives should heed his warning of sorts with his on rational for joining the impeachment Democrats when he states "to look the other way is an abrogation of my oath, my duty and my responsibility".

Progressives appear poised to "look the other way" regarding VP Biden and his son's involvement in Ukraine and China.

#collusion #Ukraine #Pelosi #Spanberger #Luria #impeachment #impeachtheMF #impeachmentNow #impeachmentinquiry #RussianCollusion #Zelensky #whistleblower

Friday, September 20, 2019

Standing Watch: Charlottesville SLAPPd in the Face over Monuments!





                    Charlottesville ,Virginia remains hollowed ground for incivility these days.


 "We implore white accomplices to leverage the relative safety of white privilege to take preemptive action, to join the long-standing struggle against white supremacy" (Dr. Jalane Schmidt, University of Virginia)



Charlottessville, Va appears poised to enter an era of historical denial and revisionism as the city attacks or as local activists term it "reckon" its past. The attacks on history and those seeking to remove history from the public square are the very same people claiming to be honoring history. In fact, they are doing nothing of the sort.

Home to one of the most prestigious collegiate institutions in the nation, the University of Virginia , Charlottesville is rich with founding history tied to Thomas Jefferson but now over the past few years it is a city making a name for itself as a home for "historical resistance".

Recently, prominent activists both in Virginia and nationally have used Charlottesville as an incubator of hate. One in which they test not only the will of local and state government officials but also the will of the "People". They claim that history belongs to everyone yet in their own myopic view of society and justice feel as though their modern humanist version of Virginia history must be the only one on display and any other is no longer fitting shall be removed from both the public square and history all together.

Kali Holloway  (@KaliHollowayftw), Director of the Make It Right Project which is a national campaign dedicated to taking down Confederate monuments throughout the country published an article recently in the "Daily Beast" concerning the legal climate that has ensued in Charlottesville post 2017. Lawsuits ranging from protecting and preserving Confederate monuments like Monument Fund v. Charlottesville to defamation suits like Tayloe v. C'ville Holdings. Activists and the ACLU like to label such lawsuits as SLAPP suits or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The former lawsuit stems from the City Council decision to remove Confederate monuments from their existing locations.

Monument locations often are donated to cities and localities by private individuals and institutions for the purposes of creating green space, parks or simply to honor the historical legacy of local, regional or national figures. The plaintiff in the latter lawsuit, Edward Tayloe II has been a prominent opponent to the City removing any existing monuments from the public space and furthermore has supported the City erecting new monuments or memorials to better reflect other aspects of history where gaps may exist in the public square.

Holloway characterizes Edward Tayloe's lawsuit in an very telling manner illuminating "Tayloe employed a strategy once frequently used by the those of means to silence critics that's seen a resurgence in recent years". It is clear that Holloway in this instance does not see a courtroom to be a logical means of remedy upon which an individual should pursue should they believe they have been wrongly defamed. Rather it is apparent given the losses sustained inside the courthouse over the monument issue thus far, activists and organizers like Holloway would rather have these matters discussed openly in the public arena where fact and truth are often muddled by inflammatory rhetoric.

As articulate and passionate as she may be, Holloway makes little attempt to hide her bias in the matter in her piece and furthers the same positions of those named in the defamation suit as a means of insinuating that Virginians who descend from the "First Families of Virginia"  who wish to preserve history, protect monuments and memorials are somehow tied to family "racial" history and stated "First Families of Virginia" is "a euphemistic way of saying white, rich, socially prominent before the American Revolution and -through the Civil War- slaveholding"

The "First Families of Virginia" or as many historians call them "Second Sons" are comprised of families such as Washington, Jefferson, Lee, Fitzhugh, Fairfax, Randolph, Berkeley, Bland, Warren and Warner. I wonder of if Ms. Holloway is willing to investigate which leading Virginia officials today descend from such families.

 Could Senator Mark Warner (D) be related somehow to the Warner Family and if so than does that somehow impune his standing, his reputation or make him a slavery apologist? Or could Elizabeth Warren in some way be related somehow to the Warren Family another First Family of Virginia. Will activists continue efforts to remove other monuments and memorials to these families or remove their legacies such as Berkeley Plantation, Richard Bland College, Randolph Macon College, Monticello, Washington & Lee University, James Madison University, George Washington University on the grounds of identity politics? Must we change all the school and place names?



The City of Charlottessville  has attempted for the last two years to do everything in its power to remove history. Thus far it has been unsuccessful. Whereas the City managed to tarp its monuments with a black tarp to prevent Virginians and tourists from seeing the monuments for a time the tarps ultimately have come down. The City still challenges its own history and seeks to revise it in a manner of sensitive social progressive advocacy. Its activists both in the public square and the local media with contributors like Molly Cronger have attempted to shape the dialogue along racial grounds now for two years. They have done so it appears with the complicit support of current officials on the City Council and former ones like Wes Bellamy.


Wes Bellamy, former Vice Mayor of Charlottessville, thats right Vice Mayor is well known for his racist anti-white tweets directed at both men and women. Bellamy (@ViceMayorWesB) tweeted "I don't like white people so I hate white snow", "I hate seeing white people in Orangeburg", "Funniest thing about being down South is seeing little white men and the look on their face when they have to look up to you" or "White women=Devil RT".

All this from an elected official tasked with representing an entire City regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation and not just the citizens who voted for him.

Of course the activists accusing supporters of the Confederate monuments of racism have little problem ignoring such tweets by Bellamy or his past  offensive and incendiary comments while on the City Council which have no place in official meetings but this is the kind of "leadership" Charlottessville has had to endure the last few years.

It has become clear that any association with those seeking to protect, preserve or maintain the status quo (legal or otherwise) shall be condemned as racists or bigots. Over the course of the last year, local media reporters, contributors like Molly Cronger and  University of Virginia professors Dr. Jalane Schmidt and Assistant Professor of Public Policy Sally Hudson of the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy have interjected into the civil discourse in rather alarming ways for employees of a Commonwealth of Virginia public institution receiving funding from Richmond via Virginia tax payers. Schmidt is also aligned with the Black Lives Matter movement.

Recently, Molly Cronger , a co chair of the Charlottesville Chapter of Democratic Socialists was removed as a contributor of C'ville Weekly for perceived assertions she made regarding C'ville Police Sergeant Logan Woodzell and his alluded association with groups that Cronger deemed racist.

In fact, it has merely been a continuation of the debate centered around the Civil War monuments located in Charlottesville for a century or more that Cronger has determined as offensive to the community at large that ultimately resulted in the city covering the monuments with black tarps in the face of legal challenges. Many citizens opposed not only the tarping of monuments but also their removal advocated by Progressive Socialist activists and City Council.

Sally Hudson (D) coincidentally has been very vocal in her position at the University of Virginia and having won the Democrat Primary for the 57th District of the House of Delegates in the General Assembly in Richmond following the retirement of Delegate David Toscano (D). Hudson is unopposed in the 57th which comprises Charlottesville City and parts of Albemarle County and will join dozens of other Progressives in the House of Delegates that seek to re visit the law that protects war memorials and monuments throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Whereas the State law protecting monuments shall be removed, localities would be able to circumvent recent court rulings preventing localities like Charlottesville , Arlington, Richmond and Norfolk, Virginia from removing, dismantling or relocating monuments that leaders deem offensive.

There have been some other legal measures  pursued as a result of Charlottesville's public position regarding the monuments that have called into question the actions taken by the likes of Molly Cronger, Jalane Schmidt and the C'ville  Holdings, LLC. These actions were taken in deference to individuals whom oppose the city policy and the activist positions and advocacy against the monuments remaining within the community.

The Progressives consider these suits to be SLAPP suits or in their view; threats. In the case of Molly Cronger, the implication was that she insinuated by the association of a public photograph that Officer Logan Woodzell of the C'ville Police Department was a racist.  The published contribution made in the C'ville Weekly by Molly Cronger regarding her opposition to the promotion of Sergeant Woodzell resulted in both her and the paper being advised that they both would be sued over the contribution and insinuation.

Molly Cronger's comments on the promotion of the officer publicly were perceived in a manner to disparage both the officer and C'ville Police Department procedures. Cronger stated:

"These actions show not only poor judgment, but a disregard for the concerns of a community that had alerted police months before the rally and shared background on the hate groups planning to attend. The department’s desire to simply paper over its past mistakes, shutting out the community, is its standard operating procedure"

Upon the determination of C'ville Weekly to part ways with Molly Cronger over the contribution, Cronger tweeted:
"Earlier this year, I had a short-lived opinion column covering city politics (a subject I am very passionate about!) in a local weekly paper. It quietly disappeared two months ago. My relationship with cville weekly came to an end after the attorney for the police benevolent society, representing an individual officer in this case, threatened to sue both me and the paper. Specifically, the cop’s lawyer claimed I had defamed her client" Logan Woodzell who was promoted by the C'ville Police" Cronger went on to further accuse the individual harmed by her insinuations published by the paper of "weaponizing" the legal process:
"I’m not surprised a police officer and a former prosecutor would try to weaponize the legal process to silence a critic. I am surprised that the paper reacted with such incredible cowardice. The threat itself was just that. A threat.

 The Charlottesville Police Department quickly responded regarding the promotion of Officer Woodzell and issued the following statement:

"Police Chief RaShall Brackney herself stated: “Law enforcement officials are frequently asked to pose with members of the public and these requests are accommodated here and throughout the world. The circumstances of this photo were explored, the promotion process was carefully vetted, and the Charlottesville Police Department is confident that Sergeant Woodzell will provide excellent service to the citizens of Charlottesville.




In other suits involving Charlottesville activists seeking the removal of Confederate monuments  you have two individuals in the employ of the University of Virginia, a state funded university. It is unclear whether both Dr. Jalane Schmidt and Sally Hudson have acted inappropriately or not in the terms of their employment contracts with activism but both are center in the monument issue that has been festering in Charlottesville since 2017.

Both Schmidt and Hudson are strong supporters of the movement to remove all Confederate monuments as a matter of public policy and have been quoted regularly. Schmidt, a UVA  Religious Studies Professor,  was quoted as stating that those individuals (citizens) that supported the law suit to prevent the removal of the Confederate monuments could be characterized by: 

“You’ve got the bow tie, upscale people tied to the League of the South people who want to secede and are slavery apologists,”.

Again the insinuation being that if you are a citizen of Virginia or any other southern State for that matter and support the preservation of Confederate Monuments than you must be a "slavery apologist". Code for "racist". This is further supported it would seem by Kali Holloway's article in the "Daily Beast" with her reference to "First Families of Virginia".

The complete mischaracterization in this manner completely denies that fact that Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson never owned slaves. In fact, the Presbyterian minister like Virginia Governor John Letcher at the time of the Civil War were adamantly opposed to slavery. All of the Jackson and Letcher manuscipts point to this fact. There are countless works in the University of Virginia Library that support this fact that clearly Professor Schmidt in her activism has chosen to either deny or simply just not bother to read.

Furthermore, Dr. Jalane Schmidt went on to further assert accusations directed at the Tayloe family in response to the lawsuit brought against her stating:

“For generations this family has been roiling the lives of black people, and this is what [plaintiff Tayloe] chooses to pursue.”

Dr. Schmidt has gone to great lengths to link Edward Tayloe II to his ancestry in her condemnation of his families history. Are we all now to be linked to the actions of former generations? Even those as far back as the 17th century? Do we really believe attempting to link individuals today to actions undertaken so long ago is ethical? While it may prove to be politically expedient, there is certainly a line clearly in this instance that has been crossed regardless of whether it is defamation or not. Is this really the optic that the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia wish to advance for the university?

The notion that speech is "free" is always one of great debate. Of course in instances like this, speech are never "free" and often comes at a great cost to all those involved. Professors Schmidt and Hudson for example have brought undo and unnecessary blemishing upon the University of Virginia and its reputation. They are of course "free" to have their opinions and to be activists of public policy they support, but at the end of the day let us not try and convince ourselves that their speech is in truth "free".

Again the implication here is that Tayloe is somehow racist in his support for the preservation of the Confederate monuments of Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson and Robert E. Lee on historic "war memorial" legal grounds supported by statute but lost on the activists is also the fact that the Charles Keck statue has been determined to be one of the best examples of equestrian art in the United States.

There was a time in this country where Progressive supported the arts and thought that the arts should be protected no matter what as freedom of speech and expression. Those days are clearly gone but it is ironic that their "free speech" somehow being "stifled"  has greater value and meaning than the "freedom of expression" by Charles Keck and the people who authorized his work over a century ago.

Professor Schmidt further stated that the Tayloe lawsuit "is also a disdainful attempt to stifle speech and prevent me from speaking out about matters of public concern. These types of claims, known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits, are designed to silence, censor and intimidate critics with the threat of costly litigation"

Dr. Schmidt characterizes the Tayloe family "historically" without providing any real substance to her view is very different than commenting publicly as a counter voice to the opinion of position of Tayloe. Schmidt further went on to state that:
"History belongs to everyone, not just scholars. Marginalized narratives of vulnerable groups of our community must be included in our collective story in order to inform our efforts to make changes in the present and to promote a more just and equitable future. First Amendment protections should not be stifled by lawsuits designed to make anyone fearful of the consequences of exercising their rights."

Dr. Schmidt here touches on an interesting point to consider. She states "history belongs to everyone" and yet her entire activism has been grounded in the determination that every Confederate monument must be removed. How does that set the example of inclusion? How does "history" destroyed belong to anyone? How does the removal of a statue in the public square contribute to history exactly?

It would seem in order to "promote a more just and equitable future"as Schmidt advocates, additional statues or monuments honoring Virginians should be the direction that the Charlottesville Council undertakes and not the destruction or removal of existing history. Has the City Council proposed any new monuments or memorials for the public square?

The fact remains that the activism in Charlottesville by the media via Molly Cronger and both Dr. Jalane Schmidt and Sally Hudson have little to do with history and everything to do with political narratives. Hudson has used the Confederate monument issue as a manufactured vehicle to elevate herself to the House of Delegates in Richmond.

Sally Hudson publicly stated the following regarding the monuments: #Confederate

                                                           "Let us take them down"

Its a cornerstone policy Hudson will take to Richmond as she will work to change the laws governing the Commonwealth of Virginia regarding war memorials and monuments upheld by the courts. If the law enacted to protect war memorials is removed by the General Assembly than the future of all monuments throughout the Commonwealth will be in the hands of localities and no longer be held under the protection of the Commonwealth.


None of the individuals being sued  have publicly condemned the recent defacing and vandalism of the monuments where "1619" was spray painted at the base of the monuments. The "1619" refers to the progressive movement of resistance to anything in United States history tied to its founding that resulted in the prolonging of institutional slavery and referencing the first date that slaves arrived in America.

Activist like Dr. Jalane Schmidt and Delegate candidate Sally Hudson refuse to address how the slaves arrived in America in 1619 and whom in fact sold such slaves into bondage long before they arrived at Jamestown and other ports in the New World. Instead, it has become politically expedient to use racial discourse and divide and inflame relations even further by using the Confederate Monuments as concrete to break their identity politic agenda against including there disdain for "First Family of Virginia" heritage.

The clear message seems to be if your white you are racist and if you descend from the "First Families of Virginia" or anyone from the colonial period in Virginia and seek to preserve history that somehow you are a "slavery apologist".  Its like saying that if you support Holocaust museums and keeping that history shared that somehow you are a "holocaust denier". There appears to be a complicit nature to the vandalism as well given the lack of any real effort to determine the perpetrators and after countless incidents why the City refuse the place surveillance at monuments to protect them as well as keep the residual expenses in cleaning up the vandalism.

The impact of the SLAPP suits is unknown but stands to be an example of what may be the only recourse for citizens in the face of activists who clearly have little respect for the laws governing the Commonwealth but also respect for their fellow citizens. Disagreement on public policy or the advocacy of positions should never be cause or justification for asserting racism, bigotry or ancestral slavery apology.




#monuments #unitetheright #hatewatch #charlottesville #wesbellamy #slapp #antifa #punchanazi #saveamericanhistory #confederatemonuments #racist #blacklivesmatter 




Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Blue Dog Democrats: Red Meat for Vegan Burgers?


Many have argued for years now that in terms of the Congress that "Blue Dog" Democrats no longer exist. The Blue Dog Coalition, commonly known as the Blue Dogs or Blue Dog Democrats, is a caucus of United States Congressional Representatives who identify as fiscally-responsible, centrist or moderate Democrats.

The current Coalition lists 27 members out of 235 Democrats in the 116th House of Representatives which the Democrat Party control. A clear minority voice in a Party driven in 2019 by the Progressive arm of the Democrat Party even though it is these 27 members that have the greatest risk of being removed from office in 2020.




Blue Dogs typically are Democrats in rural areas or districts that comprise a significant rural population. This can be seen in the Virginia 7th Congressional District where population density may be suburban Richmond, the bulk of the precincts and land mass in rural localities. 

These Districts tend to be centrist or center right areas historically. In fact, Rep. Abigail Spanberger in 2018 was the first Democrat to win the Virginia 7th in decades. Spanberger ran as a "pragmatic" moderate in her election bid against  incumbent Republican David Brat who himself had defeated long time Republican Eric Cantor years prior in a Republican primary thanks in part to the Tea Party movement. Spanberger was assisted in truth by the redistricting measure executed in Virginia which removed every Hanover County precinct from the 7th Congressional District that historically has gone Republican with almost seventy percent of the vote.
.

The fate of the Blue Dogs in 2020 remains tenuous as best given the lack of any significant accomplishment of the 116th Congress. With little to point to except impeachment inquiries and investigation after investigation, Progressives have neutered any opportunity for Blue Dog Democrats to work with Republicans. They have yet to live up to the basis for their own coalition.

Abigail Spanberger who promised voters to work with Republicans on immigration, trade and fiscal policy reforms has yet to muster one single success. In fact, she has voted with the Progressive arm of the Democrat Party almost 90% of the time since assuming office in January. Spanberger has been incredibly effective at engaging constituents throughout the Congressional session but is delivering RED MEAT to her base in Henrico County and Chesterfield suburbia. The rest of the district not unlike most Blue Dog districts that supported President Trump in 2016 have been delivered in effect Vegan burgers lean on any substance.
“Bipartisanship, fiscal responsibility, defense, and working with business as well as labor ... the country is more reflective of that Blue Dog philosophy now,” Representative  Kurt Schrader of Oregon stated reflecting on the current political  environment yet little has been done to effective meet that standard by these Democrats.
Blue Dogs have an opportunity at redemption before the election cycle begins for them in 2020 and that is the passage of USMCA trade agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada that is widely praised as more beneficial to the United States than the NAFTA policies of the 1990's. 
Will "Blue Dogs" like Rep. Abigail Spanberger VA-7  demand a vote on USMCA and join Republicans in the House or will they once again turn their backs on their own standard for the existence and once again cave to the Progressives obstructing any measure that would move the country forward in a feckless attempt to harm the President going into 2020?

The Moderate Democrats failed constituents on immigration and permitted the reduction of the National Defense Authorization Act by 17 billion and now appear poised to do it again over trade by aligning with Progressives.

The reckoning for these Democrats may be on the horizon.

Friday, September 13, 2019

Virginia Democrats: Following the Progressive Lead on Guns



                              "Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15, your AK"
                                                        Democrat Beto O'Rourke



"WE"

The Commonwealth of Virginia is on the front line this November of a number of issues facing the nation that are being addressed in the Democrat Presidential Primary Debates as every seat in both the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates are up for election.


One of the biggest issues being highlighted in gun control. Virginia has its own laws on the books as it stands today that address guns and gun rights.  For example, Open carry is generally allowed without a permit for people 18 years of age and older. The following cities and counties have exceptions that disallow the open carry of "assault weapons" (any firearm that is equipped with a magazine that will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or is designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock) or shotguns equipped with a magazine that holds more than 7 rounds: the Cities of Alexandria, Chesapeake, Fairfax, Falls Church, Newport News, Norfolk, Richmond, and Virginia Beach and in the Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Henrico, Loudoun, and Prince William. These restrictions do not apply to valid concealed carry permit holders. Stated differently, you may open carry an assault weapon/shotgun with more than 7 rounds with a permit in the aforementioned locations, but do not need a permit to do so in any other locality in Virginia. #opencarry 


Proof of age (18+ for long arms, 21+ for pistols) and proof of citizenship (or permanent residence license) are required for the purchase of "assault weapons". "Assault weapons" are defined as a semi-automatic, centerfire, firearm equipped with a folding stock, or equipped at the time with a magazine capable of holding more than 20 rounds, or capable of accommodating a silencer/suppressor 


Virginia Democrats have advocated reviewing and changing open carry laws and increase the number of gun free zones throughout the Commonwealth. As it stands today, there are already some restrictions under the law that prohibit firearms in certain areas and buildings. In terms of possession of firearms in a vehicle, a firearm is exempt from the requirement for a concealed carry permit if the firearm is "properly secured in a container or compartment within the vehicle" (ie glove box, center console, trunk, etc). The container/compartment does not have to be locked, the firearm may be within the reach of the driver or a passenger, and the firearm may be loaded.

Concealed carry is another target of Progressives in the General Assembly who seek to place greater restrictions on whom may be granted a concealed permit to carry a firearm in the Commonwealth. Progressives oppose teachers being able to carry in order to protect students at schools throughout Virginia.


Prohibited places for carry include courthouses, air carrier terminals, schools, Capitol and General Assembly buildings (open carrying only, members of the General Assembly and those with a valid CHP are permitted in the Capitol General Assembly buildings), and churches, though some exceptions apply, including a 2011 Attorney General opinion that personal protection constitutes good and sufficient reason to carry at a church. George Mason University, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Virginia Polytechnic University (Virginia Tech) currently possess rules that prohibit firearms on school property.

A 2006 opinion issued by State Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell stated "... the governing boards of Virginia's public colleges and universities may not impose a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons by permitted individuals ... Pursuant to specific grants of statutory authority, however, it is my opinion that colleges and universities may regulate the conduct of students and employees to prohibit them from carrying concealed weapons on campus."

Before July 1, 2012, a person could not purchase more than one handgun per 30-day period, though some exceptions applied; most significantly, holders of valid Concealed Handgun Permits (CHP) from Virginia were exempt from this restriction.The bill that repealed the "one-handgun-a-month law" was signed into law by Governor  Republican Bob McDonnell on February 28 of 2012.

What is rarely covered by the media is Virginia already has laws addressing "assault" or "automatic" weapons.
Fully automatic firearms (machine guns) must be registered with the state police. Plastic firearms and some destructive devices (such as the striker 12 shotgun) are prohibited outside law enforcement. SBS, SBR, AOWs, and suppressors are legal with NFA paperwork


Furthermore, Virginia is a "shall issue" state for concealed carry. Permits are issued to non-residents and training is permitted online or in person.Fully automatic firearms (machine guns) are required to be registered with the state police.

The recent shooting in Virginia Beach involving a disgruntled local government employee intensified Progressive calls for actions regarding gun control. Progressives in Virginia are following the lines of national Democrats advocating for increased background checks but also gun confiscation. Just last night in Houston, former Congressman Beto O'Rourke advocated for confiscating guns they deem to be "assault" style which of course could be anything they deem as such given there really is not a defined "assault" weapon. Currently, laws address "machine gun" or "fully automatic" guns but the use of "assault" is more inflammatory so it is used to influence the debate.

Fact remains Progressives hate guns. They seek to limit gun ownership and confiscate guns should they gain control of the government. Every statute regarding gun ownership or possession will come under attack should Progressives win control of the General Assembly as Governor Ralph Northam (D) remains in office until 2021.

Just as we have seen Virginia Democrats follow the National Progressives in debates over third term abortion and expansion of Medicaid, climate change and Raparations for racial justice the far left socialist movement being propelled by Progressives will influence Virginia Democrats to follow suit should they gain control.

If one is on board with increases in gun restrictions or confiscation then the Democrat ticket in Virginia is your vehicle to that end.

#guncontrol #guncontrolnow #gunsense #amandachase #pohlforvirginia #chaseherout #blueva2019 #bluevirginia #dosomething #momsdemand #activeshooter #backgroundchecks #assaultweapons #Northam #Beto




Thursday, September 12, 2019

Montgomery County "Sanctuary City" Rally: "Justice, Justice Shall You Pursue"


Rally to Voice Opposition to " The Promoting Community Trust Executive Order" by Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich July 25, 2019


On Friday, September 13 in Rockville within Montgomery County, Maryland will be ground zero for the escalating debate over sanctuary cities. Organizers on both sides of the issue we be holding rallies in downtown Rockville outside the government offices of Montgomery County at 11am. Officials have already determined to shut down the streets adjacent to the offices in anticipation of a large turnout.

Rally organizers are certainly advocating "hate" or "xenophobia". In fact organizers have clearing stated they are simply seeking the rule of law and justice for those who have suffered at the hands of criminals who have not only committed crimes within the community but also are residing in the community and the United States illegally.

Anti-Justice and Anti-Law organizations that are getting behind the Takoma Mobilization in their effort to silence free speech and freedom of assembly where citizens can voice their concerns in a peaceful manner have pledged to "drown out" those forming the rally. Ironically. the Takoma Mobilization group says they are for a "more just and equitable society". How is compelling individuals to "drown out" the voices of fellow citizens either just or equitable? Do not the concerns of all citizens have value or just those that subscribe to the Progressive agenda?

NO HATE NO FEAR * LEGAL* IMMIGRANTS ARE WELCOME HERE!! No one is opposing legal immigrants in Maryland nor advocating anything against immigrants in the community. Citizens are seeking the removal of violent criminals from the community that are illegal aliens whom have been detained by authorities and under federal law should be turned over to federal authorities before ever being released into the community on bond.


The original rally organized is in protest to Montgomery County's executive order enacted on July 25, 2019 by Marc Elrich to restrict law enforcement cooperation with Immigration Customs Enforcement whereby formally made Montgomery County a "sanctuary" locality. In fact, overnight Montgomery County became the largest official "sanctuary" locality in Maryland reinforcing the policies that were begun in 2014 under the former County Executive Leggett.



Executive Marc Elrich and the Takoma Park Mobilization community organization have been mobilizing its "protest the protesters"  rally to "drown out" the Concerned Citizen Coalition of Montgomery County and Help Save Maryland organizations who scheduled the rally to address officials who they feel have failed to empower enforcement of federal and local laws in the community. Dozens of Progressive organizations and unions have signed on to Marc Elrich's call to "drown out" the so labeled "forces of racism and hatred" showing support for Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) and federal law.

Strangely, both Takoma Park Mobilization and Marc Elrich have both recently stated that Climate Change is the single biggest issue facing Montgomery County and yet the impact of crime upon the community has risen dramatically since 2014 and recently the community witnessed 8 violent criminal arrests involving rape and child molestation committed by individuals with prior felony records who were never turned over to ICE before or are currently being held with no bond by the County law enforcement who have been restricted by Elrich's executive order to contact ICE or respect any ICE detainer authorized.

Marc Elrich's supporters have labeled the speakers at the scheduled rally "pro hate VIP's". These speakers are led by nationally known political commentator and author Michelle Malkin and local radio host and resident of Montgomery County Larry O'Connor along with about a dozen local speakers. Elrich has refused to speak with O'Connor on his WMAL daily radio show nor debate Ken Cuccinelli, Director of Citizenship and Immigration Services regarding the legality of "sanctuary" cities.



It begs one simple question. Why is the Montgomery County Council unconcerned with justice in the community. The data and statistics bore out the rise of crime and acts of violence committed against members of the community in the last few years and yet the Council appears to ignore the desire of law enforcement to work with federal authorities. The Council appears to be placing the status of illegal aliens within the County before the safety and security of the people resided in the County.

Why would a local jurisdiction not wish to turn over violent felons who committed serious crimes against the community over for deportation? Is it optics? Is it to appease its Progressive community organizations? Appease religious organizations? Why was the July 25 executive order even required? Why was there no community engagement or scheduled town hall meetings to determine the will of the community on this issue?

The issue facing Montgomery County is not immigration. The issue is justice. Marc Elrich and County officials are putting identity politics and racial justice above the safety and security of all citizens.

"Justice, Justice Shall You Pursue" is the very heart of the matter and it is justice that remains the victim in Montgomery County, Maryland.