Thursday, October 31, 2019

"Abandoning Allies": Another Progressive Lie


In wake of the Trump administration after three years making good on campaign promises of getting the United States Armed Forces out of foreign "undeclared" wars and moving America away from "entanglements"entered into by former administrations, the Democrats in the House of Representatives prove once again that their allegiances lie with the the Washington bureaucratic class rather than the American people.

President Trump has accurately portrayed the inner beltway crowd as "The Swamp". A mix of think tanks, lobbying groups, campaign and policy advocacy organizations that are a powerful force in the mechanisms of governance. Trump has been at odds with the "Swamp" for three years as they push back virtually at every turn and on every policy he attempts to implement.


Progressive Hakeem Jefferies D-NY the House Democrat Caucus Chair  this week has proclaimed how the House does not work for the President and yet it calls into question throughout this impeachment inquiry process just who these House members work for exactly. It certainly is not the President as the legislative branch is a co-equal branch of government but it also does not appear to be the people either.

The House of Representatives in the 116th Congress appears to be more of a corporation these days than a governing body with very little legislation to point to since assuming control of the body in January. In fact, many House members signaled the impeachment of Trump such weeks after Trump was sworn into office asserting he was "illegitimate".

The goal of Jefferies and others in the House since has been about "beginning with the end in mind". This process has been void of a rational due process which should alarm Americans because most of these members are lawyers. They are supposed to understand the rights and protections afforded to all Americans and they certainly are supposed to uphold the Constitution.

The focus for Hakeem Jefferies, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Jerold Nadler has been impeachment at any cost. The rights of the President to due process be dammed. Very dangerous territory for the House. As Jefferies asserts that no President is a "King" , it appears that what is lost on Jefferies and Democrats is that the President is still a "citizen". A citizen protected by rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Progressives have long been hypocrites when it comes to justice. In efforts to claim social justice or assert justice for those they deem require it they routinely strip others of rights and protections provided under the laws. Judge Kavanaugh was a clear example of this in September 2018 when Democrats would trump justice and due process in favor of political spectacle and theatre.

They appear to be at it again with the impeachment inquiry. Progressives like to make rules up as they go along. They routinely move the goal posts. This time they have have holding secret hearings, withholding transcripts, and not permitting questioning of witnesses by the opposition. It makes little difference that Progressives will not get a single vote from the Republicans on an impeachment inquiry vote. Only Progressives could call that "bipartisan".

As the impeachment process enters another phase, Progressives have been all over the President regarding Syria. Hakeem Jefferies along with many Democrats claim that Trump was simply "abandoning allies" when he informed the media that the United State would be withdrawing fifty troops from Northern Syria on the Turkish border with Syria. Turkey had informed the President that the desired to clear out hostiles from the border and implement a buffer zone along the border that would be twenty miles deep. The Turks and Kurdish elements of the PKK have been at war for decades and over 40,000 Turks have lost their lives mostly in the Turkish region along the Syrian border.

The United States entered into an alliance with the Kurds in the Syria much like the Kurds in Iraq however not all Kurdish elements are the same or believe in the same things much like not all Americans believe in the same outcomes. The PKK mostly in Syria has been designated as a terrorist network whom Democrats supported when President Obama enlisted their aid against ISIS.  The United States has had to deal with that alliance for years and that alliance was one Trump inherited. The PKK Kurds were provided weapons and supported by our intelligence community for the last few years even though it has been uniformly recognized as a terrorist group.

Many newly elected Democrats like Rep. Abigail Spanberger from Virginia are former intelligence community operatives that were part of the community during the Obama Administration and  begs the question were these operatives now members of Congress part of the operations that armed the Kurds in Syria or part of the push for strategic cooperation with Iran that resulted in the Iran Nuclear Deal. The Iranians seek to stability in Syria with Assad hold on power. In September 2014, Obama asked Congress to fund arming and training rebels against both ISIS and Syrian back Assad forces.

The program to fund the rebels by Obama cost the United States 500 million and was canceled just one year later according to the Pentagon. The program was followed up by a CIA backed program in Syria called Timber Sycamore which cost 1 billion dollars that ultimately was destroyed by Russian bombing operations in Syria. Trump cancelled this program in mid 2017. The programs of Obama never appeared to put American forces in direct combat with Syrian forces of Assad. Many critics are of the opinion that that was because Obama did not want to upset talks with Iran who was backing the Syrian forces.

Trump began withdrawing troops as promised in early December 2018 comprising about two thousand or so troops from Syria. Trump however, did not withdraw all forces and determined to leave a "contingency" force in the are totally about four hundred specialized troops. As ISIS influence in Syria was further reduced in 2019, ultimately this would lead to Trump finalizing the final withdraw of forces from the Northern region of Syria. Much to the contempt of Progressives.

Progressives that just years for in the election of Obama were the Anti-War Party using then President Bush's military operations in the Middle East as a rallying cry. Now a decade later, Progressive have become "hawks" in terms of foreign policy and mirror most Neo-Conservatives these days in terms of the use of the military. Its been quite the transformation for leaders like Hakeem Jefferies in truth.

Jefferies charge that Trump was "abandoning allies" in the Kurds is rather striking. The United States Congress has neither proposed not passed any agreement or alliance with the Kurds. In fact the Kurds have no state of their own in truth. If Progressives seek such a state for Kurds than why have thye not opened formal debate on recognizing Kurdistan in Northern Iraq territories. If the Kurds of Syria are truly are "allies" than would it not be prudent to recognize the Kurdistan State and formalize relations given the Progressives have taken so much issue with NATO ally Turkey in the last few weeks.

Recent developments in Syria appear to have proven Trump right and his detractors wrong. Last weekend, joint operations with the Kurds whom Progressives asserted we abandoned managed to locate and kill both the #1 and #2 ISIS leaders in Syria. Just weeks after Trump announced the pullout from the North. ISIS head Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi was killed in a daring operation that has been described as one of the most decisive operations since Syrian operations were begun. One such hero from the operation is our brave commando shepherd.

Hakeem Jefferies refused to give Trump any real credit. Like so many Progressives denial runs deeps. Progressives garnered Obama and Clinton with praise for the death of Bin Laden in Pakistan some years before, but refuse to provide any credit to Trump. Abigail Spanberger VA07 as of yesterday made no mention of Trump or the operation success in Syria and yet one would think she would acknowledge the importance of such a mission regarding terrorism due to her work in the intelligence community prior to running for Congress.

Instead leaders like Jefferies and Spanberger want to concentrate on a "bipartisan" effort to condemn Trump for "abandoning" Syria and "allies" which of course has not happened. Armed forces are still present in Eastern Syria where the oilfields are in order to protect them from the Iranian affiliates operation in the region.

Syria is yet another Progressive lie in an attempt to undermine Trump. Progressive will not acknowledge it was Obama's failed policies in Syria and programs that created the vacuum that was filled by ISIS fighters pushed out of Iraq. Nor acknowledge the wasteful spending in Syria in the first place appeasing the "Swamp" and intelligence communities that even today rail against Trump because he has taken the position that these wars going on eighteen years must end.

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Has Spanberger Lost Her "Pragamatism" and Joined her "Sisters and Brothers"?


Representative Abigail Spanberger (D) VA07 was elected amidst what many political analysts called the "Blue Wave" of 2018 where the Democrat Party too control of the House of Representatives. Spanberger defeated one of the "Tea Party" holdovers in the House Republican David Brat.

Like many other victorious Democrats in the 2018 Midterm Elections, Spanberger won in a district in Virginia that has historically supported conservative candidates. This Virginia 7th Congressional District had not elected a Democrat to the seat since the 70's.


Abigail Spanberger campaigned on a platform that was characterized as "passionate pragmatism" and mostly moderate positions on things like immigration reform, healthcare, and educational funding, One of the issues she quickly tackled was rural broadband access which appealed to many of the rural voters of the District and signaled that Spanberger would represent that which she campaigned on in terms of representing all constituents. The rural areas of the District had supported her opponent during the election while Spanberger carried the larger Richmond suburban areas.

However, the tensions and animosity between Progressives Democrats and President Trump widened and Spanberger's positions on many issues appeared in direct contrast to her fellow Democrats. Although, Spanberger was one of only a small number of "Blue Dog" Democrats comprising the Blue Dog Coalition her identity within the new freshman Representatives portrayed on Saturday Night Live of all places began to fade and others like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Oman began to steal the headlines and fill the media news feeds.

Spanberger is part of the Blue Dog Coalition Rural Opportunity Task Force in the House and House Rural Broadband Task Force which as working groups or caucuses attempts to address the needs of the rural communities throughout the country.

Much of the Spanberger campaigned comprised convincing voters that Spanberger as a former intelligence "operative" had the experience and knowledge to address many of the issues the country faced whether it be immigration or foreign policy. Spanberger is a member of two main committees in the House; The Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Spanberger has been highly critical of the trump administrations foreign policy. She felt compelled to inform Secretary of State Pompeo what his functions are and instructed the Secretary that "as a former intelligence officer I understand the nuance is deep" and later challenged the Adminstration's commitment to the intelligence services which both were part of in the past. Spanberger asserted to Pompeao and the country that the intelligence community will continue to  "speak truth to power even when the truth even when the power ignores that truth".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyvL9uEXlRk

As Spanberger continually refers to the intelligence community as her "sisters and brothers" it is apparent that her allegiances have not left the intelligence community even though now she sits not as an operative or intelligence analyst but as a duly elected voice of the People in the House of Representatives. Spanberger's recent positions and said allegiance should alarming to every constituent but not not only them but all Americans.


Some have claimed that Spanberger has been nothing but an empty chair and caving to the Progressive leadership of the Party while in the House. Though she is a member of the Bipartisan Task Force on Combating Anti-Semitism she never directly condemned her fellow freshman Representatives in Talib and Oman for their anti-semitic tweets and rhetoric. This was not lost on both the Christians who support Israel but also the Jewish community in suburban Richmond in her District.


The House is now comprised of many officials from the "Swamp". Former career intelligence officers or other positions. Some politically appointed but the former administration or worked in some capacity or another in the former administration. The role of these individuals is tasked very differently than that of an elected Representative. Spanberger did not refer to her "sisters and brothers" in the past tense but the present tense implying she still stands with the intelligence community that she was once a part.

Constituents have little basis or knowledge as to what functions Abigail Spanberger performed during the Obama Administration. Spanbegrer has been highly critical of Trumps Syrian policy recently and even sent a letter to the White House joined with others condemning his actions in Northern Syria. Did Spanberger work on Syria as part of the Obama Administration. Was she an operative involved in gathering the intelligence in that area that led to what can only be described as fueling the rise of ISIS in that region. Was it the intelligence community that recommended selling arms and munitions to known terror groups like the PKK in Syria and forming an alliance with them in the first place?

There are many questions that likely may never be answered but it appears by Spanberger's statements she is clearly of the opinion that the Trump administrations policy and positions regarding removing American forces from the area is wrong. She has clearly joined the likes of former national security adviser to Obama, Susan Rice who stated the policy of removing forces was "bats**t crazy" which Rice stated on CBS "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert". Yet, was it not the policy of Obama and the guidance provided him by the intelligence community that created the situation facing America in Syria in the first place?

Wasn't the Obama intelligence community of which Spanberger hold allegiance to that struck the deal to align with YPG, the Syrian right wing of the PKK that the U.S. State Department declared a terrorist group and in effect betrayed our NATO allies especially Turkey who asked the Obama administration not to undertake such alliances?

In effect wasn't the Obama Administration who sought to align with the YPG in effect to appease the Iranians who they sought a strategic accommodation with? Who that had been negotiating with regarding the nuclear deal? Given Damascus was an ally with Russia and Iran, wasn't the Obama intelligence community who recommended the alliance with the YPG so not to upset negotiations with Iran? Is the the "nuance" of policy that Spanberger referred to in the March hearing involving Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Pompeo once served as director of the intelligence community and clearly Spanberger is at odds with his leadership as it appears both were serving in their respective capacities at the same time.

Spanberger while campaigning to work with President Trump has yet to by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, she has done the exact opposite. Spanberger has opposed Trump's support for Saudi Arabia and other allies in the region in the civil war in Yemen another Obama blunder leading to the most catastrophic humanitarian crisis in the world. Spanberger and her colleagues in the House have simply emolden the Houthi extremists in Yemen as they attempt to restrict the President and prevent our military and out intelligence services from assisting our allies.

Now the country is hearing how there may have been an intelligence community connection to the spying of individual American citizens and the Trump campaign and how the community may have been weaponized against the Trump campaign; Spanberger's "sisters and brothers". AG William Barr and others are investigating the matter and now it appears as though the investigation as turned into a criminal inquiry. This shift permits John Durham the lead on this inquiry to hold a grand jury and issue criminal charges. Of course the Democrats are furious and scrambling to move up their own impeachment inquiry against Trump.

Spanberger has not hidden her objections to Trump's continued portrayal of an intelligence community that appears ripe with issue. Spanberger also is clearly angered by Trump attempting to implement his own vision and foreign policy that is counter to the intelligence community she was once a part of. Yet, isn't that the right of the President under the Constitution? Spanberger appears to be implying that Trump works for "them" and not the other way around yet the Constitution clearly defines the role with regard to foreign policy lies directly with the President.

With all the Progressive condemnation regarding Trump Syrian policy, just last weekend we learned that both the #1 an #2 leader of ISIS in Syria have been killed by joint American and Kurdish forces in two operations in Northern Syria.

Rep. Abigail Spanberger has yet to praise our military forces or the President for a mission that has said to be one of the best planned and executed ever against ISIS or in Syria. Spanberger's lack of praise and support for the military over her own "sisters and brothers" speaks volumes about her true allegiances.

Now what she once claimed a "passionate pragmatism" is but a memory for most constituents in the conservative VA07. Her claimed desire of working with Trump has proven nothing more than an empty campaign promise and now with her support for formal impeachment of the President places her at odds with the majority of her district. Spanberger joins Rep. Elaine Luria of the 2d Virginia Congressional District in support of impeachment and the entire Virginia Congressional Delegation appears now to have jumped on board.

What are the implications of supporting impeachment?

Both Spanberger and Luria have one looming issue facing them. Like about thirty other Congressional Districts around the coluntry, both the VA07 and the VA02 were won by Donald Trump. Trump won the VA02 by 3 points in 2016 and won the VA07 as well over Hillary Clinton. Spanberger won her 2018 election by mere 2 points and only won two localities, Chesterfield and Henrico County out of the ten in the District both in suburban Richmond. Trump won Chesterfield County by two points but lost Henrico County by twenty points Clinton. Luria defeated Republican Scott Taylor by two and half points in 2018.

Any Republican challenger to Rep. Spanberger in 2020 with Donald Trump on the ballot will have alot of things on their side in terms of the District map but will have to concentrate as much resources as possible to Henrico County which will comprise about 110,000 votes of the 350,000 votes likely cast or roughly one third.

Spanberger championed that she was her own women when she was challenged repeatedly as simply being a "yes" vote for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi  her 2018 opponent yet Representative Abigail Spanberger has been just that since January having voted with Pelosi almost 94% of the time and with her support for impeachment has proved there is little difference in truth between her and the Progressives of the Democrat Party.

As Spanberger likes to tell constituents over and over about her intelligence background, never forget that they live and work in the shadows and deception is simply one of the tools of the trade when in comes to all of Spanberger's "sisters and brothers" in the community of intelligence operatives.

Voters should always consider that fact.

Monday, October 28, 2019

Delegate Elizabeth Guzman 31st District: The Art of Progressive Smears and Misdirection


It is clear that the stakes are incredibly high this November for the General Assembly. Nowhere is this more evident than races for Senate like the 11th and 12th Senate Districts but it is also being seen in the 31st House District of Virginia.

The 31st is comprised of precincts in Prince William County and Fauquier County. The Progressive incumbent in the District is Delegate Elizaeth Guzman.

In the weeks leading up to next weeks election, Guzman became one of the most heavily funded Democrat Delegates seeking re-election this cycle. The District was supposed to be safe. In fact, it isn't even on Virginia political analysts Ben Tribbett (@NotLarrySabato) or Chaz Nuttycombe's periodic watch list of races. Both have this race a Strong Democrat Hold.

And yet, contributions are pouring ion to this race as Guzman is being challenged by local product Republican DJ Jordan. Progressives have been funding a smear campaign via social media for months against Jordan in large part because Jordan is the antithesis of everything Virginia Progressives advocate about identity politics in Virginia and they are scared. Jordan is an African American Republican just like Garrison Coward running against Democrat Delegate Dawn Adams in House District 68 in Richmond. These challengers are having the Progressive machine going absolutely crazy.

DJ Jordan is growing broad support in the very diverse community with his positive, forward look messaging regarding road infrastructure, tax and spending policy and role of government. Guzman was awarded a grade of "F" by the Chamber of Commerce at a time when Virginia has been rated #1 in business environment nationally.
Guzman has the support of some of the largest out of state funding resources of any Virginia Delegate coupled with massive in state contributions from Democratic Party of Va (253K) and the House Democrat Caucus (240K). It begs the question why all this funding is coming into the Guzman campaign if this district is not "in play". Guzman is also heavily supported by sanctuary city policy advocates CASA in Action (90,501K) but alarming is funded more by Richmond, Washington D.C, Fairfax, Alexandria than the district itself. Gizman has also garnered more contributions from Pennsylvania, New York than either Prince William or Fauquier County.

Elizabeth Guzman recently secured contribution from the George Soros funded super Pac Democracy PAC as well as Emily's List, Every District, Virginia's List and Everytown for Gun Safety. The majority of these Progressive advocacy groups signal and represent Guzman's support for sanctuary policies, open borders, third term unrestricted abortion, and repeal of Virginia "open carry" firearms laws and restricting Virginian's Constitutional rights.

Recently, the smears via social media networks like Facebook and Twitter took a surreal and desperate twist as Guzman began engaging Jordan supporters. The Delegate began a tantrum of unprofessional proportions as she insulted fellow Virginians. One example was her engagement here on titter after Brandi Workman vocalized her support for DJ Jordan. After numerous tweets and comments Delegate Guzman responded with this:




Delegate Guzman has also come out in attack it seems regarding DJ Jordan's work with Virginia Kids Belong, an organization that helps foster children find loving homes. Guzman stance on third term unrestricted abortion and her dismissal at times of "fostering" as a option is at the heart of many of these criticisms as Guzman's radical views have come under scrutiny  by many constituents.

Shocking as the attacks leveled against Jordan are they are particularly unjustified given the fact that Jordan and his wife have fostered and adopted children. Furthermore, DJ Jordan himself was at "at risk" youth growing up. Guzman has been an obstructionist in making the adoption process less burdensome on potential parents in Virginia yet overwhelmingly will get behind making abortions easier and more accessible but not fostering.

The ridiculous nature of some of the attacks by a sitting Delegate are astonishing. Guzman went on the call out Jordan for his use of "color" on his campaign literature apparently staking out a claim to the color "blue".

“His logo is blue. His literature doesn’t say he’s the Republican candidate in the race,” she said of Jordan. “You have to start by being honest and transparent.”

Guzman also would make assertions regarding the color of Jordan's canvassers t shirts implying somehow Jordan was passing himself off as a Democrat to voters in the community.

Guzman's support and endorsements should be very alarming to many constituents let alone the massive amount of funding approaching one million dollars she has garnered for next weeks election.

It really begs the question. Is the 31st House District  'in play"? The ground swell of support at the local level for Jordan appears to point towards yes and the fact that Democrats are funneling even more money into the Guzman campaign signals that something is happening in the district that has Democrat pundits worried.

#Guzman #VAGOP #VAHOUSE #DJJORDAN #VA31 #PrinceWilliamCounty #FauquierCounty #BenTribbett #ChazNuttycombe @NotLarrySabato @ChazNuttycombe #BlueVirginia

Sunday, October 27, 2019

Virginia Senate District 11: Just who is Amanda Pohl?


The Virginia political analysts appear to have the General Assembly turning "BLUE" this November. Both Ben ("Not Larry Sabato") Tribbett and Chaz Nuttycombe both are predicting that the Republicans will lose control of the Virginia General Assembly next month if Democrats come out to the polls like they did in 2018 and if voters see the State House as a perfect way to rebel against President Trump.

One such race in the Virginia Senate is the 11th District where Republican Amanda Freeman Chase is in the middle of one of the toughest contests as the historical conservative leaning District has witnessed historical out of state contribution coming into the race in support of her challenger Amanda Pohl.

       "We can't wait any longer for affordable healthcare, fully funded public schools,equality..."(Amanda Pohl)


Amanda Pohl appears to have taken much her campaign strategy out of the page of Rep. Abigail Spanberger's playbook in the VA07 who won in 2018. However, much of Pohl's healthcare pitch appears hollow. Wasn't the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) suppose to address "affordable" healthcare? Instead, healthcare now costs many Virginians more than it did before the Progressives passed the measure in Congress. "Fully Funded" schools? Virginia ranks higher for its return on investment in public schools than many of its peers. Is Pohl calling for more than the 11,886 per student currently spent per child in Virginia. Is she aware that is in fact an increase from years past and Republicans did raise the level spent? Does Pohl wish Virginia to spend like the State's below do?



Many of Amanda Pohl's supporters have taken to Amanda Freeman Chase's facebook page launching repeated aspersions against the Senator but Chase has actually run a very strategic and message drive campaign staying on message regarding her challenger. Accusing Chase of not suppoting "equality" yet look at this race. What better example of equality for women in Virginia that both Parties have women running for the Senate seat in the 11th?

Pohl's supporters have taken offense to their candidate's portrayal by Chase, but the truth is voters do not have any real substance coming from the Pohl campaign that would indicate what Amanda Pohl truly stands for as a candidate. Instead Pohl supporters have launch attacks against gun owners in the District as supporters of domestic gun violence and asserting that Senator Chase is in the pocket of the National Rifle Association. Supporters of Pohl have declared that Virginia Open Carry laws should be repealed though out the Commonwealth and some have even called for firearms to be confiscated. A proposal endorsed by Presidential Candidate Beto O'Rourke of Texas.

Pohl is supported with contribution from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, one of the most Progressive gun control advocacy groups in the country.

Many voters in the 11th and all across the Commonwealth disagree with infringing on the rights provided by the U.S. Constitution as it relates to gun ownership.


The charge regarding the NRA appears to be a daily charge against Senator Chase. However, this charge appears baseless in truth. There does not appear to be contributions made to the Chase campaign by major gun advocacy groups or associations. In fact only 2% of all contributions to the Chase campaign have come from outside the Commonwealth. 2%.

In contrast, Progressive challenger Amanda Pohl who secured the right to face Chase by winning the Spring Democrat Primary has received contributions approaching over twenty percent by outside organizations and advocacy groups. Pohl supporters cried foul when Chase raised the issue of Chesterfield "sanctuary" policies yet Pohl is being supported by CASA in Action, which is one of the Mid-Atlantic's largest immigration rights and pro-sanctuary groups in the region supporting Montgomery County, MD sanctuary policies and other localities efforts.

Virginia Republicans passed legislation to limit sanctuary policy in Virginia localities but Governor Ralp Northam (D) vetoed the legislation. See here:
https://www.richmond.com/news/local/government-politics/northam-vetoes-sanctuary-cities-bill/article_a0594c7e-b87f-5e4e-9eb8-feb32abdbfc7.html

Amanda Pohl supports "Sanctuary" Policy and has gladly accepted the contribution and support from CASA in Action. Furthermore, Pohl is in support of the Virginia Dream Act sponsored by Del. Alfonso Lopez (D-Arlington), would offer in-state tuition to DACA recipients that reside in Virginia; under current law, these hard-working Virginians are considered out-of-state and are ineligible for federal financial aid programs, rendering an affordable education inaccessible to many. (Vote Vote Summary, Pohl Positions)

Amanda Pohl's also supports localities right to refuse cooperation with federal authorities like Immigration Custom Enforcement (ICE) with regard to violent felons in custody being turned over to ICE for potential deportation should they be in the country unlawfully.

Chase supporters also point to the fact that while Amanda Pohl supports allowing unlawfully present immigrants to secure in state tuition rates she refuses to support state funding for charter schools in Virginia. Pohl, an educator, appears willing to put unlawfully present immigrant education before the right of parents to chose better options for their children when face with failing schools. City schools for example have a drop out rate of almost 20% and a graduation rate of 75%. City of Richmond schools have the worst graduation rate in the Commonwealth. See here:
https://www.richmond.com/news/local/richmond-public-schools-has-the-worst-high-school-graduation-rate/article_b68a6040-d19e-5321-b433-dc2dff08a801.html

Why as an educator is Amanda Pohl willing to leave so many students through Virginia's urban cities and rural areas behind and not fund options that parents can have for their children? Could it be because of the contributions made to her campaign from educational political action committees?


Another alarming element regarding contributions is Amanda Pohl has taken contributions from End Citizens United, a group working to reverse the 2010 Supreme Court ruling regarding campaign finance and yet has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from political action committees, advocacy groups and association from outside the Commonwealth. This to the Chase campaign appears to be very contradictory and hypocritical. Pohl also will not support a Voter ID bill that would require all voters to have a valid state issued identification card or license to vote in elections.



Another endorsement secured by Amanda Pohl was from NARAL-Pro Choice Virginia. This group is in support of Delegate Kathy Tran's bill which would remove virtually all restrictions on abortion up until the time of birth. This is a very controversial proposal even for some Pro-Choice Democrats in the District. Most citizens while they may support a women's right to an abortion questioned whether abortions should be undertaken so long into a pregnancy let alone right up until child birth or even after. Pohl supports the State funding through tax payer contributions to support organizations that perform abortions which is the exact position of the Planned Parenthood PAC.

Amanda Pohl has also stated that supports government spending as a means of promoting economic growth in Virginia. That government should pick winners and losers. What does that look like when one Party may have control of the Assembly and the Governorship exactly? Will we see politicians pick the winning industries? See them support industries like Green New Deal initiatives Progressives may seek? Absolutely we will. Pohl  also does not support lowering state income taxes as a means of promoting economic growth.

If the Assembly had supported Pohl's position, Virginians would not have reaped the benefit of the almost 800 million dollar budget surplus delivered by Amanda Freeman Chase and Assembly Republicans. Virginia would have not seen the benefits of the Trump Tax cuts and the state refunds to tax payers in Virginia. Pohl also supports expanding even more entitlement and welfare programs like unemployment insurance at a time when Virginia is experiencing its best performing economic and employment trends and furthermore does NOT support drug testing for all those receiving welfare benefits but the biggest question is whether Amanda Pohl supports Virginia's "right to work" laws that are in place or would repeal them.

As far as employment goes, Amanda Pohl appears to support State workers and State bureaucracy over that of the individual employee in the private sector. Pohl does not support reducing State employees salaries or pension compensation pegged to national averages and will not support any necessary furlough of employees in the event of budgetary issues or economic downturns. In short, government jobs will always be protected if Pohl is elected while average citizens working in the private sector do not get the luxury of having their employment guaranteed.

These are just a few of the policy positions that Amanda Pohl is advocating in her challenge to Senator Amanda Freeman Chase. They can be found at the Vote Smart website. Pohl supporters have been vocal in defending the charge that their candidate is a "Socialist" yet many of the positions or policy advocacy that Amanda Pohl seeks are very similar to those advocated by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the Democrat Primary for the Presidential nomination.

Pohl has endorsed by:

Run for Something
Human Rights Campaign
Emily List
Democracy for America
LGBT Dems Of Virginia
NARAL-Pro Choice Virgina
VA AFL-CIO
Virginia's List
#Chase #AmandaPohl #BenTribbett #ChazNullycombe #VAGOP #VADEMS #VASenate #VA11 #VoteSmart

Donate: Amanda Freeman Chase
https://secure.anedot.com/amandachase/donate

Friday, October 25, 2019

Progressive Advocacy Groups Funding Ghazala Hashmi: The 10th Virginia Senate District



Progressive advocacy groups from all over the country have engaged next months election for the Virginia General Assembly. Every seat in the House of Delegates and Senate are on the ballot all across Virginia. The Senate and House as it stands today are both narrowly held by Republicans. Progressive groups seek to change that next month.



Millions has flowed into Virginia. Planned Parenthood PAC  and Justice and Public Safety funded by George Soros, Emily's List, CASA, Every District, Everytown for Gun Safety are just a few of the groups or political action committees pouring money into Virginia races. Not unlike the 11th District Senate race where the same groups are contributing to Progressive Socialist Amanda Pohl's camapign challenge against Republican incumbent State Senator Amanda Freeman Chase so to are they supporting the challenger in the 10th Senate District.


Incumbent Republican Glen Sturtevant is battling a heavily funded challenger who is being supported almost eighty percent by contributions from outside Virginia.

The 10th District is comprised of parts of the City of Richmond and Chesterfield County, Virginia. 46% of the voter reside in the County, 40% in the City and the remaining in Powhatan County. The District supported Hillary Clinton over Trump by 53-41%.

Powhatan County remain a Republican juggernaut for Democrats. Every single precinct in 2016 supported Trump. However, Powhatan represents only 14% of the District's voters. The City and Chesterfield will determine this race. Western Chesterfield remain strongly Republican and the precincts closest to the City in places like Bon Air like Cranbeck #509 and Greenfield #506 went Hillary and Crestwood #502 was only precinct that went Trump and only did so by two points.

The City of Richmond remains strongly Democrat. #106 One Hundred Six along the banks of the James River remains leaning Republican  but the remaining areas prove to be much more Democrat than ever before. Sturtevant will need turnout in Chesterfield and Powhatan to offset the City of Richmond precincts but also do better in those than Trump.

Progressives know this. The Progressive funding has increased the ability for a ground game to be implemented on a level that has not been done before. Ghazala Hashmi the Progressive Challenger is heavily funded by groups from Washington D.C, California and New York.

In fact, only just over twenty percent of Hashmi contributions come from Virginia. Hashmi has raised 1,25 million thus far and only $45,000 has come from Chesterfield County but Albermarle County, Fairfax County and Alexandria City have all contributed more than Chesterfield. The bulk of Hashmi's Virginia contributions have come from City of Richmond but 130,895 have come from Washington D.C, $67,858 from California and $50,800 from New York according to The Virginia Public Access Project.

Glen Sturtevant has secured almost eight percent of his contributions from inside Virginia but contributions from Chesterfield County are concerning given the campaign has garnered more support from the City of Richmond where it will be tough to turn out voters. Hashmi has secured almost as much in Chesterfield as Sturtevant put by far outpaces him in the City of Richmond.


Hashmi has raised 397,000 in the City of Richmond. Almost 3 to 1 to Sturtevant but the bulk in recent filings is coming from outside the Commonwealth. Approaching 350,000.

The Progressive groups contributing are some of the most radical single issue advocacy groups in the country. Groups like Planned Parenthood PAC or CASA that promote and endorse sanctuary city polices or Everytown for Gun Safety advocating for stricter gun laws and appeal of "open carry" and increase in "gun free zones" are all engaging campaigns this cycle.

Just a few recently contributing to Hashmi's campaign:

Everytown for Gun Safety
Emilys List
Progress Now
Next Generation Climate
New Virginia Majority
CASA

The Progressive groups make no attempt to hide their agenda. They seek stricter gun laws, no restriction abortions and sanctuary policies where local governments are not compelled to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. They also seek to double down on failing public school policies and fight against charter schools or vouchers.

Ultimately, that is what these Progressive groups expect for their contributions and support of many Virginia campaigns. Hashmi has not shied away from her support of these policies and advocacy. The influence of the groups can already be seen in the ad buys by Canal Partners Media based in Atlanta, Ga and Washington D.C.


Hashmi has run away or attempted to do so from her stance on Governor Ralph Northam. She once advocated for hsi resignation over his racially charged "blackface" incident but later secured 25,000 from his committee for her campaign. Her flip flop did not go unnoticed.

#Hashmi #Sturtevant #VaSenate #Northam #VAGOP #Chesterfield #Richmond #Powhatann #Chase #VA10 #VA11

The 3.5 Million Dollar State Senate Race: The 12th District Virginia


With the election in Virginia only a few weeks away, many would be surprised to learn that one Senate race is breaking all the records for contributions and funding. It has become clear that Progressives have targeted the 12th District Senate seat as their main focus in the suburbs of Richmond, Virginia.



The 12th District is comprised mostly of Henrico County but also has precincts located in deep "red" Hanover County. Voters will remember that in the Congressional election held just last year, Democrat Abigail Spanberger won the 7th Congressional District delivering Democrats the seat for the first time since 1971. Spanberger won the District 50-48% over incumbent Republican David Brat. This District was long held by Republican Eric Cantor, former Majority Whip in the House of Representatives before being upset by Brat in a Republican Primary back in 2014. Cantor had represented the District since 2001. The 7th had been "gerrymandered" removing the Hanover County precincts that long have supported Republican candidates and many contribute this fact to Spanberger's victory.

Hillary Clinton defeated Donald Trump in the 12th 48-46%. The area has one of the larger "independent" blocks in Virginia and this block supported  those candidates with 6% in 2016. This block is certainly up for grabs this November.

Henrico County represents 92% of the District and Hanover County 8% with about 148,000 voters. This election is poised to have above average turnout.


Many of the Henrico County precincts in the 7th Congressional are in the 12th Senate District as well. Henrico is one of fastest growing communities in the region and the 12th is currently represented by Republican Siobhan Dunnavant. her Democrat challenger is Delegate Debra Rodman who many in Henrico were surprised threw herself into the race last Spring having served just one term as Delegate of the 73rd House District. Rodman in the previous cycle for Assembly House seats defeated long time Delegate from Henrico John O'Bannon 51-48% having raised half as much as the Republican incumbent. Rodman became a darling of the Democrats straight away.

It was clear from the outset that Progressives would attempt to make the defeat of Republican Siobhan Dunnavant a priority. In 2015, Dunnavant defeated Democrat Deborah Repp by almost twenty point margin. Many believe on the cusp of Spanberger's victory in many precincts of Henrico County that the District is changing or at the very least shifting center left.

Thus far the Senate race in the 12th District has been nothing more than historic. The contributions from outside the Commonwealth alone are astonishing and the bulk of these contributions are funding Democrat Debra Rodman, Progressive advocacy groups from all over the country seem to be involved in this race.

Thus far Rodman has raised just under 1.9 million and incumbent Dunnavant has raised just over 1.5 million with more likely to pour in with two weeks to go. The question remains whether these contributions will in fact put the 12th in "play" or will turn off alot of voters in the area. Only 27% of the campaign contributions to the Rodman campaign according to The Virginia Public Access Project are from Virginia.


In fact the Rodman campaign has secured $192,083 from Washington D.C., $110,000 from New York and $85,612 from California. An alarming statistic in the race is that of the 1.9 million raised by Rodman, only $138,000 has come from Henrico County. In fact, Rodman's campaign has secured almost as much from Albemarle County, Virginia (Charlottesville) where it has been funded with $134,850. Above, Rodman is pictured with  Tom Periello former Congressman from that area of Virginia and current leader of Progressive Open Society Foundation in Baltimore, Maryland. from that area of Virginia.The largest contribution total by locality to Debra Rodman however is from contributors from the City of Richmond where the campaign has been funded with $736,468.

While both candidates have used their resources to place campaign ads, Siobhan Dunnavant ran an early effective ad during the recent Women's World Cup with local affiliate carrying the game that made it known that Dunnavant was taking the Rodman challenge very seriously. Since then both have run ad buys with the majority coming in the way of social media. Both campaigns expenditures show contracting with firms whose sole purpose are campaign advocacy and many are digital companies not just print media. Rodman has spent almost $475,000 on TV/Radio buys through Buying Time LLC and MVAR Media. Buying Time is located in Washington D.C and MVAR Media in Alexandria, Virginia. Rodman also has contracted Gumbinner, Davies and Simpson in Washington D.C for majority of the campaigns printing and mailing services. Dunnavant has largely been using Virginia based Pinpoint Media and Targeted Creative Communications for her media placement buys and mailings.

The influence of outside contributions in the race is enormous. This race is far exceeding other races, though many of the same contributors from outside Virginia via political action committees or PAC's are funding various Senate races. The goal for the Progressive advocacy groups is the "flip" the Virginia General Assembly.

One of the main reasons is just this week the Supreme Court has ruled that it will leave redistricting or "gerrymandering" up to the State Legislatures. The Democrats control the Governorship in Virginia and should they also secure the Assembly currently narrowly held by the Republicans there will be a clear path to implementing wide spread Progressive policies not only concerning guns, abortion, taxes but also redistricting especially after the next census.

This is what is at stake and Progressives know it. Progressives see opportunity and its advocacy groups have been pouring money into Virginia. The Rodman campaign alone has been the beneficiary of over one million in funding from groups and committees either single issue focused or simply seeking to elect Democrats.

Debra Rodman's campaign has secured funding from some of the most Progressive groups in the country and mostly from Washington D.C , New York and California. A few of the well known groups and PAC's are:

Planned Parenthood PAC   $205,836
Everytown for Gun Safety  $51,662
Forward Majority                $44,889
Flippable                             $30,000
Emily's List                         $13,500
Progress Now                      $13,000
Every District                      $12,250
Next Gen Climate Action    $14,614


The Planned Parenthood PAC has been funded by billionaire Progressive Socialist George Soros for contributions to Virginia races next month to the tune of a half million dollars. Last session in the Virginia General Assembly, Democrats attempted to follow New York State with a sweeping abortion rights bill called the Virginia Dream Act that would have eliminated restrictions on third term or later term abortions up to the time of actual birth. The Governor himself got into hot water with pro-life groups when on his radio show he insinuated that a mother could decide after a live birth whether the child could be aborted or not in certain situations. The comment was deemed to be calling for "infanticide" by national commentators and President Trump.

Everytown for Gun Safety has long advocated for strict gun control. The fear many in Virginia have is the groups influence this election cycle will result in the repeal of "open carry" laws in Virginia should the Progressives win the Assembly.

It is clear that Progressive advocacy groups are willing to bet on Debra Rodman. She has a record of defeating a entrenched Republican in Henrico County and has gone after Siobhan Dunnavant record in the Senate on things like healthcare and education.


Rodman has come under staunch criticism for her ad buys and Politifact recently found one to be False or Misleading regarding individual insurance plans. See here:
https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2019/oct/01/rodman-debra/rodman-misstates-dunnavants-short-term-health-insu/
Rodman went as far as to call Senator Dunnavant a "quack".

Others have objected to the gun control ads being run by Rodman that attempt to imply that Dunnavant cares more about gun rights than the safety of children and the community at large.

It is clear when examining the funding coming into the Rodman campaign that the next two weeks will be packed with ad buys regarding healthcare, abortion rights and gun control. Her contributors are relying on her to deliver the message and they are spending hundreds of thousand of dollars to ensure that message gets out.

Thus far, the race for the 12th District Senate seat is approaching 3.5 million dollars.

Thursday, October 24, 2019

The Supreme Court Rules on Gerrymandering




The issue of "gerrymandering" has long been a controversial political tool used by the majority in State Houses across the country to redraw district lines and boundaries. Some argue these redistricting measures favor the majority and are mere attempts to keep power in ever changing demographic environments.

Gerrymandering is pure self interest and merely a tool to keep power. Nothing more. It is merely undertaken to secure or to maintain political advantage.

States like North Carolina, Maryland, Ohio, Michigan and Virginia have seen these actions sit center stage as political maps are changed and with the new census coming next year the matter certainly could get even more contested.

The Supreme Court was asked to take up the matter regarding the maps drawn in North Carolina by Republicans and Maryland where the maps were redrawn by Democrats.

Chief Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsouch, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito in a 5-4 decision ruling that the federal judiciary is not the place of jurisdiction to rule on such political matters "gerrymandering".

Roberts would assert:

 "We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions."

The result of the Supreme Court ruling to stay out of such matters means that the boundaries drawn by Democrats in Virginia and likely all the other States will stand.


So all those Progressives like Delegate Mark Levine 45th District, Delegate Kathy Tran 42d District and Delegate Elizabeth Guzman 31st District all Northern Virginia Progressives can thank the man they disparaged last September in Judge Brett Kavanaugh in delivering the gerrymandered districts favored by Democrats for the upcoming election cycles in the Commonwealth.

Delegate Mark Levine in his typical racially divisive and inflammatory level charged Virginia Republicans "engaged in racial gerrymandering" and that Republicans "rigged the system". (Newsletter, June 18, 2019 Mark Levine).

Levine championed the courts ruling back in 2017 that went against the Republicans who sought to maintain existing lines drawn but now of course that Levine will not admit that the ruling this week actually weakens the Republic. Levine claimed that the 2017 ruling that he perceived benefited Democrats was "a victory for democracy, voting rights and racial justice". Now however none of that will matter. Whichever Party controls the Assembly and the Executive likely will be able to redraw lines continuously it seems with the flow of power every election cycle. 

Levine similar to President Obama and Eric Holder has stated that "elected officials should not choose their voters" yet that is exactly what the Democrats have done in Virginia and they themselves have done so to alienate and consolidate voters based on racial demographics and voting metrics.

The 7th Congressional District is a prime example of this.

The gerrymandering already delivered the 7th Congressional District to Virginia Democrats with the election of Abigail Spanberger (D) who campaigned as a "moderate" in 2018 and defeated Republican incumbent David Brat in large part due to the removal of the heavily conservative Hanover County precincts from the District. President Trump carried the 7th Congressional District in 2016. Spanberger has since demonstrated the Progressive she is by voting with Progressives 90% of the time and Nancy Pelosi 94% of the time. Spanberger has yet to work with Virginia Republicans on co-sponsored legislation in the Congress though pledged she would and just recently endorsed the House impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

Former President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder announced a campaign earlier this year to combat "gerrymandering". Meaning they were opposed to it yet Virginia Democrats appear to actually relish the idea. Eric Holder stated that “For too long, politicians have been able to pick their voters, instead of all
owing voters to choose their representatives,”

#DelegateMarkLevine #VaDems #SCOTUS #Gerrymandering #VA07 #Spanberger #SpanbergerWatch #Holder #Obama #JusticeRoberts #VaGOP #VaHouse #VaSenate



Public Safety for Sale in Virginia?: The Progressive Special Interest says YES!




We are less than three weeks away from Election 2019 and the "Battle for Virginia". This election cycle has witnessed unprecedented "special interest" contributions from Progressive advocacy groups that for the most part are not even based in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

While there is certainly millions of dollars being funneled into Virginia from outside sources up and down every ballot whether for Assembly races like the Senate or House of Delegates or local races, no where is the special interest of the Progressive Left more evident than in the races for Commonwealth Attorney seats.


This of course flies well under the radar for most voters. Most have little idea the millions being contributed in such races or even the reasons why. One such reason is the recent push for localities to endorse "sanctuary city" policies, especially in Northern Virginia but the remainder of the Commonwealth is not immune. Localities like Chesterfield outside Richmond or Virginia Beach localities are also facing candidates who support such policies. Progressive candidates like Amanda Pohl (Chesterfield) running in the 11th Senate District, Cheryl Turpin (Virginia Beach) in the 7th Senate, Missy Cotter Smasal (Virginia Beach) in the 7th Senate, Debra Rodman in the 12th Senate (Henrico) John Bell in the 13th Senate (Loudoun and Prince William) and  Amy Laufer in the 17th Senate (Spotsylvanis/Fredericksburg)and Ghazala Hashmi in the 10th Senate District (Richmond) appear in support of such polices but Progressives have determined to hedge their bets with regard to implementing policy not through laws passed by the Assembly in Richmond per say but through the criminal justice system.

This is why for the first time in Virginia political history elections for Commonwealth Attorney positions are receiving unprecedented contributions to influence the outcome of the elections on the local level. Some of these races are approaching one million dollars in overall contributions. One million dollars in contributions to a candidate for Commonwealth Attorney.

No where is it more evident than Northern Virginia. A bastion for Progressivism or Cultural Marxism, Northern Virginia in the last two decades has shifted as far left as it has ever been electing radical Progressives like Delegate Mark Levine of the 45th House District unopposed yet again in this legislators political history where rarely challenged and people like Gerry Connolly representing the 11th Congressional District comprising Fairfax County. Both staunch supporters of "sanctuary" policies.



In Fairfax, Steve Descano is running for Commonwealth Attorney with the full support and backing of political actions committees and special interest groups largely from outside Virginia. Only 27% of Descano's contributions come from Virginia and even less from Fairfax County itself. The following is Steve Descano's contribution breakdown:

                         Contributions From:
                                            Washington DC : 465,862 (68%)
                                            Virginia : 187,748  (27%)
                                            California:  15,200
                                             Maryland:  5,969

Who is contributing to Descano's campaign? Of the $734,035 funded thus far lets examine the largest donors which are:

                                   $462,212 from Justice and Public Safety PAC

                                     $37,170 from New Virginia Majority

Just these two PAC's contribute to about 500,000 in funding of his total 734,035 raised thus far. And add in Real Justice PAC and it eclipses more than eighty percent of the overall funding.

Steve Descano has pledged not to prosecute felony larcenies under $1,500. Meaning, Descano will not enforce the laws addressing the theft of property valued less than $1,500. See here:
https://www.insidenova.com/news/election/contenders-for-fairfax-commonwealth-s-attorney-find-little-common-ground/article_7f944d00-86f5-11e9-9588-3b22ba291e6f.html

So who is the Justice for Public Safety PAC exactly and is it seeking to influence? The PAC is billionaire George Soros sponsored Progressive political action committee that is contributing mostly this cycle to Northern Virginia Commonwealth Attorney races. The why is calculating. The PAC is attempting to circumvent the legislative process where policies are created and enacted and using the judicial process to influence the outcomes they seek. For example, the implementation of "sanctuary" policies at the local level through non enforcement or limited prosecution or leveraging social justice as a means of setting guidelines punitive or otherwise and gun restriction policies like gun free zones.



This PAC is heavily contributing in the Loudoun County Commonwealth Attorney race as well to the tune of $57,655 in support of Progressive Buta Biberaj in her race against Nicole Wittmann. The New Va Majority is also contributing to her campaign like Steve Descano's. But Justice for Public Safety PAC hasn't stop with these two and has contributed what could only be characterized as alarming in its effort to influence the Arlington County Commonwealth Attorney race.

The office was formerly held by Jim Plowman (R) now elevated to the 20th Circuit Court bench.

Nicole Wittmann (R) is being out spent almost 10 to 1 in her race against Progressive Buta Biberaj who attempted to have Wittmann removed from the ballot just last month citing she misrepresented her domicile. The court ruled in Wittmann's favor but the process demonstrates to what lengths Progressives will go should one oppose them. They are heavily funded and the hope was that the costs of litigation would result in Wittmann's withdrawal. How is that for "justice".

Justice to these people is about power and money. Its about being able to use that power and money to influence what should be the legislatures responsibility but do it through activism in the criminal justice system.


In Arlington County, Justice for Public Safety has contributed  $618,091 to Parisa Dehghani Tafti. Of the 849,361 raised by the Tafti campaign, $618,091 has come directly from George Soros sponsored PAC's  as well as New Va Majority and Real Justice PAC. See here for commentary by Ben Tribbett @notlarrysabato:
https://www.arlnow.com/2019/06/12/whats-next-what-last-nights-primary-election-means-for-arlington/

In this case, t had kore to do with the Primary where the funding was in effect meant to defeat Theo Stamos in the Democrat Primary back in June which Tafti was successful. The majority of her funding as well came from Soros and "foreign" money from outside her Arlington County locality.

One has to ask whether "public safety" is actually being bought in places like Loudoun, Fairfax and Arlington but this "foreign" money being contributed coupled with any "dark money". Dark money are those contributions made that do not disclose who the donors are.

The funding provided by George Soros helped each of these candidates secure the Democrat nominations in their localities by far out raising there party opponents. Now, the funding is increasing for the general elections against Republicans.

Understand what is at stake this November. Attorneys endorsed by Justice for the Public Safety PAC that have been successful have purged the ranks of prosecutors in their office upon securing office. This is not fear mongering. In Philadelphia Larry Kasner after securing over two million in funding for his bid for District Attorney and winning election purged his new office. See here:
https://www.worldtribune.com/remaking-this-country-soros-funded-prosecutors-win-key-victories-in-northern-virginia/

Do Virginians really want localities to follow the Philadelphia way? Well Justice for Public Safety PAC certainly hopes so. It is clearly attempting to influence and create its own reforms by funding candidates who will be beholden to the contributors.

Whether you reside in Loudoun, Fairfax or Arlington this should alarm every Virginian. Its should because your locality in the Commonwealth very well may be next. It is important to send the message to these "foreign" contributors that Virginians will not stand to have justice bought in the Commonwealth.

This movement is not an organic movement in Virginia but one that mirrors more of a financial invasion of the Commonwealth but outside interests set to instill its own values upon Virginians.

Consider donating to the following campaigns to ensure that justice prevails:

Commonwealth Attorney Races:

Nicole Wittmann- Loudoun County
https://secure.anedot.com/wittmann2019/donate

Jonathan Fahey- Fairfax County
https://secure.anedot.com/friends-of-jonathan-fahey/donate

Senate Races opposing Sanctuary Policies: All targeted by "foreign" contributions to Progressive Campaigns


Amanda Freeman Chase: VA11
https://secure.anedot.com/amandachase/donate

Glen Sturtevant VA 10
https://www.glensturtevant.com/donate

Siobhan Dunnavnt: VA 12
https://secure.anedot.com/friends-of-siobhan-dunnavant/general-fund-cd9e3380702ff52b2a29f

Bill DeSteph: VA 8
https://www.billdesteph.com/contribute/

Jen Kiggins: VA 7
https://secure.anedot.com/jenforsenate/donate

#Fahey #Wittmann #Tafti #DehghaniTafti #SteveDescano #Descano #Biberaj2019 #Biberaj #JimPlowman #Virginia #CommonwealthAttorneyRaces #VASenate #VAElections #sanctuarypolicy
#criminaljusticereform #Chase #Sturtevant #Dunnavant #Rodman #Hashmi #Pohl #Desteph #JenKiggans
#Turpin





Thursday, October 17, 2019

Everytown "Blue Flag" Laws?: NO not Virginia Towns!




The shooting in Virginia Beach that took place on May 31, 2019 the lives of 12 Virginians and wounded four more was a tragedy. There is no denying that fact. However, the notion that the laws being advocated by Progressives require Virginians to surrender their due process rights. Progressives claim that these "pre crime" laws are required to keep Virginia safe but is there any evidence to support such laws in fact reduce gun violence or keep citizens safe.

Now five months removed, Virginia still has not been told why the shooting in Virginia Beach happened. No motives as of yet have been provided for the city employee to commit such an act of violence in his workplace. we simply have been told that he submitted his resignation and had two forty five caliber handguns on his person.

Progressive Democrats would have us believe that "red flag" laws or in truth "Blue Flag" laws would prevent such violence. Yet we still have no knowledge to make that determination or use as a basis for implementing laws that in effect violate our Constitutional rights.

There is nothing constitutional about these laws. The only aspect that aligns with our founding principles is that States can enact such regulations regarding guns and have done so since our founding. States can regulate carry laws or where guns may or may not be carried like "gun free zones". Congress however under the U.S. Constitution has no authority to implement these laws. None.

So when we talk about "Blue Flag"  (red flag) laws what are we talking about. These are gun control (not safety) laws that permit police or family to petition a State or Commonwealth court to order the temporary confiscation of firearms from a person who allegedly represents a danger to others or themselves.


A person could be "flagged" for saying insensitive things, perceived threatening speech, not using the right "pronouns", opposing political speech, support another candidate, or simply posts comments on social media that someone objects to in order for a protective "red flag" order to commence. In essence you will see "limited" speech prevail over free speech. Can you imagine the use of "red flag" laws for couples going through a contested divorce or custody dispute? What is to prevent one parent from claiming the other "could" do something to them, the children or the themselves? Mind you it merely only has to be "claimed" not proven to get the order to remove and confiscate the guns. The individual does not get due process of law in truth nor gets to defend himself.

There are roughly 17 states around the country who already have these "red flag" laws but as one identifies these states you will see that the majority are all "Blue" states. Thats right. Only Indiana home to Vice President Mike Pence who was Governor of Indiana from 2013-17  and Florida are the only Republican electoral college states that supported Trump to enact such measures.

Just two out of 15 states. States like California, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Delaware all have these measures as a matter of law along with the District of Columbia and yet have they reduced gun violence?

Large amounts of campaign contributions have flowed into Virginia regarding gun control issue. With every seat in the General Assembly on the ballot next month in November, political action committees focused on the gun issue are providing Democrats with support in their bids to unseat Republican incumbents. The Republicans in Virginia currently control both chambers of the Assembly but the Democrats control the Executive.

Democrats have been using the Virginia Beach tragedy for political gain. This can be most visibly seen in the Senate races involving the 8th Senate District and the 7th. Both these districts are along Virginia's eastern coast and where the shooting in May touched many of the communities. Both these districts are heavily comprised of precincts in Virginia Beach City. The 8th has 135K voters all within city limits whereas the 7th has 133K Virginia Beach voters and roughly 5k City of Norfolk voters.

The 8th supported Donald Trump 51-42% over Hillary Clinton and the 7th was a dead heat between the two candidates. Bill Desteph (R) incumbent in the 8th won his district in 2015 with 59% of the vote but the district has supported Tim Kaine and Governor Ralph Northam since his election in 2015. The 7th District supported Kaine, Northam by wider margins than the 8th and Frank Wagner (R) who won the 7th in 2015 with 54% of the vote is no longer on the ballot. Delegate Cheryl Turpin (D) is running against Jen Kiggans (R) for the the districts Senate seat next month. Both Desteph's opponent Cotter Smasal (D) and Jen Kiggans opponent Cheryl Turpin (D) have been endorsed by Everytown, (see below)

The relationship with these districts and the other Senate seats is not unique. Many Virginia Senate Districts have split allegiances when it comes to Party affiliation of its elected officials. This is why the outside money is flowing into these districts to influence the election.

In fact Everytown for Gun Safety through its Action Fund has endorsed 25 Virginia candidates ALL Democrats in this years election providing almost a half million dollars into candidate races. They see potential pick ups in Virginia as result of recent mass shooting across the country but in particular the Virginia Beach shooting.

That being said, we must ask ourselves if the proposals endorsed and financially supported by Everytown and the candidates they have endorsed would actually solve gun violence. Would "Blue Flag" laws decrease gun violence or simply just restrict access by law abiding citizens?

Progressive candidates endorsed by Everytown are not out on the campaign trail endorsing "safety" rather they are advocating for restrictions. Progressives seek to repeal Open Carry laws which permit citizens to carry or transport firearms under the protection of the law. Progressives also seek to reform if not repeal "concealed carry" laws that permit citizens whom have been approved by a judge to carry firearms under concealment or not seen with the naked eye.

Recently, former Congressman Beto O'Rourke took it a step further when he issued the statement that the local governing authorities would "confiscate" firearms not turned over through buy back programs to the federal government. Problem is its not a "buy back" program in truth. No legal gun owner EVER bought a gun from the federal government so it is not buying back anything in truth. And why would law abiding citizens turn over firearms that they purchased only to pay for them again through a buyback but not have use of said firearm? Isn't is tax payer money that O'Rourke is advocating be used to purchase the guns back?

Just the other night, Beto O'Rourke stated that is there is non compliance that local law enforcement would be used to go to citizens homes and confiscate weapons. In Maryland in 2018 law enforcement officers under red flag laws shot and killed a man whom they attempted to remove firearms from as they entered his home. Are we sure these laws would "reduce" violence?

The New York Times has even stated that the data in "inconclusive" as to whether extreme risk protection orders aka red flag orders actually reduce gun violence. Most gun violence in the United States is not the workplace or mass shooting but rather domestic violence often in the homes and often by people who know their victims. There are already means by which protective orders may be granted for domestic violence or threats of violence throughout the Commonwealth.

Has California's or Illinois's gun violence declined after the implementation of red flag laws or extreme protection laws that violate an individuals rights not only to have a firearm but also due process rights.  The Constitution protects us from the removal or confiscation of property without due process. Progressives wish to take action against individuals without any criminality, charges or trial and strip them of the rights under the Constitution. They claim its in the interest of public safety.

These actions that Progressives are endorsing are what they like to call "pre crime" actions. They seek to "prevent" crime before it happens. Remember the Tom Cruise sci fi thriller "Minority Report" where they would round up criminals before they acted because they had a system in place that informed them the person would "at some point in time" commit the action.

There is of course NO evidence to support the claim that these "BLUE FLAG" laws actually reduce gun violence. NONE. That of course will not stop Progressive groups from advocating for these laws and Everytown has been a major source of campaign funding for Democrat candidates in Virginia.

The efforts of outside contributions coming from outside the Commonwealth is striking. The 12th District Senate Race has already eclipsed two million dollars spent. Two million.



Everytown has endorsed the following with the expectation they will repeal open carry laws and enforce strict gun control or confiscation efforts in Virginia:

Wendy Gooditis for House District 10
Danica Roem for House District 13
Kelly Fowler for House District 21
David Zilles for House District 23
Larry Barnett for House District 27 #BarnettforDelegate
Joshua Cole for House District 28
Elizabeth Guzman for House District 31
Dan Helmer for House District 40
Hala Ayala for House District 51
Sheila Bynum-Coleman for House District 66
Clint Jenkins for House District 76
Rodney Willett for House District 73
Len Myers for House District 81
Nancy Guy for House District 83
Karen Mallard for House District 84
Alex Askew for House District 85
Martha Mugler for House District 91
Shelly Simonds for House District 94
Cheryl Turpin for Senate District 7 #Turpin
Missy Cotter Smasal for Senate District 8 #Smasal
Ghazala Hashmi for Senate District 10 #Hashmi
Debra Rodman for Senate District 12 #Rodman #DebraRodman
John Bell for Senate District 13
Laura Jane Cohen for Fairfax County School Board
Michael Hammond for Fauquier County School Board

Released by Everytown for Gun Safety: #EverytownforGunSafety #Everytown #EveryDistrict

Last month, Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund launched $135,000 in digital ads in 14 Republican-held Virginia state-House and Senate districts. The ads are appearing in four Senate Districts and 10 House Districts spanning the Northern Virginia, Richmond suburbs and Hampton Roads regions, including: SD-07; SD-10; SD-12; SD-13; HD-27; HD-28; HD-40; HD-66; HD-76; HD-81; HD-83; HD-84; HD-91; and HD-94


#guncontrol #VaOpenCarry #OpenCarry #Northam #VaDems #Kiggans #VA12 #VA11 #VA8 #VA7 #VA10 #Chase #Dunnavant #Sturtevant #VAGOP #Redflag #redflaglaws #Beto #VaSenate #freespeech #VaHouse
https://everytown.org/press/everytown-for-gun-safety-action-fund-endorses-25-candidates-in-virginias-2019-elections-donates-438000-to-endorsed-candidates-and-political-committees-working-to-elect-gun-sense-majority/