No Longer Just Monuments: Progressive "Blackwashing" of History Continues

Progressives throughout the country have made no secret that they plan to use the courts and other means to being about the removal of statues, monuments and war memorials "they" deem to be "offensive", "racist" or even "white supremacist".

Its not a matter of history.  In fact, its a history Progressives would rather deny in truth.

The latest attack front has been the renaming of schools in public school systems throughout the country bearing the namesakes of individuals they deem no longer worthy to be honored by present generations. Organizations that once stood for justice, equality and freedom of expression now have been overhauled by Progressive the humanist identity politics theories that shape the arguments they assert.

Recently, the NAACP brought a lawsuit in US District Court (Eastern District)Virginia to bring about the name changing of two schools in Hanover County, Virginia that bear the namesake of three Confederate period individuals. The NAACP claims that African American students at Stonewall Jackson Middle School and Lee-Davis High School are forced to attend schools which "champion a legacy of segregation and oppression".

While there are no reports of Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis or Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson teaching in the classrooms of any of these schools, it appears the NAACP is arguing that the "name" of a school in some way imparts a socio-economic condition upon African-American students unjustly and in some manner violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and equal protection.

No one has denied any students right to free speech within the guidelines of the student handbook nor has any student been denied access to education at either school on bases of race or ethnicity. Furthermore, no student has been documented to suffer from any condition like PTSD traumatic neurological conditions as a direct result of the school name or mascots associated with the schools.

Are African American students not afforded the same education as every other race or ethnicity in these schools? Are these students exposed to a different education than other schools in Hanover County simply based on the historic nature of the school names. Will re branding school names get Lee-Davis High School seniors into better colleges throughout Virginia region that they themselves have namesakes like Washington & Lee, Mary Washington, George Washington University, George Mason University, Christopher Newport, William & Mary, Thomas Jefferson's University of Virginia or James Madison University, George Wythe Law School-William & Mary, Randolph Macon College or even Longwood University named after Longwood House the birth site of two Confederate Generals.

Will Progressives seek the renaming of all these institutions and any other school with namesakes they deem "offensive". Can the NAACP make the case that education at these two schools is under performing due to the namesake? Are students themselves suffering academically? Are not our schools a place of "teachable moments" and education and not "social experiments" in Progressivism?

What are we demonstrating to children today exactly? That is you do not like the name of something or deem a name to "offensive" to you that that somehow usurps another's right to freedom of expression or speech? That speech must conform to their own views or has no place in the public square?

Proponents will argue that a name change is in order to better reflect the present and that by re naming or "branding" schools with new identities that students will embrace the new name and learn about the person who becomes the new namesake. However, that begs the question are students today actually being educated as to their current namesakes or are teachers afraid to have those "teachable moments" and if they are afraid should we not address why that is?

May teachers be afraid exactly because of the backlash of Progressive groups? That they would dare teach about Virginia history or inform students as to the role the namesake played "in their time" to history? It has become clear the effort is not merely removing monuments or re branding schools but rather the "blackwashing" of history so as to not offend one group or another.

Imagine if for example, we no longer acknowledged the Holocaust. That we became deniers of the Holocaust and how "offensive" that would be to Jewish Americans. Is not what the NAACP is doing on behalf of Progressive groups (and not students) simply denying history. They wish our schools systems to become deniers of history. That somehow removing the Confederate period of Virginia history will somehow create an environment of harmony and yet are the schools in Hanover County not harmonious?

https://www.greatschools.org/virginia/mechanicsville/826-Lee-Davis-High-School/#Students
Lee-Davis ranks a 6/10 on GreatSchools.net and a 7/10 College readiness ranking The school is comprised of twelve percent African American. Stonewall Jackson Middle School ranks 5/10 with nine percent of the student body African American.
https://www.greatschools.org/virginia/mechanicsville/832-Stonewall-Jackson-Middle-School/#Students

The focus of the NAACP lawsuit is on the African American students not the overall student body at large. That somehow spending millions of dollars to brand the schools should be the priority and not "in the classroom" funding to meet the needs of these students in order to raise their level of achievement.

Fairfax County recently released its plan to rename schools to the tune of 15 million dollars. Would not Hanover County and students at large be better served if the School systems was permitted to allocate funding to actual initiatives that promote achievement? Funding that can be used to prepare students for college and beyond?

Can the NAACP provide any evidence that scholastic achievement will be raised should the school's be renamed? Is there any evidence to support that student participation in school activities will increase?

The City of Richmond renamed J.E.B. Stuart Elementary School in 2018 re branding the school as Barack Obama Elementary School. The school is comprised of 90% African American students. has the renaming influenced education? Has it raised the overall schools and levels of achievement  at the school? The data indicates it has not. The City has not formerly disclosed exactly how much it in fact costs in the end to rename the elementary school. Costs increase with each level of school given things like sports, stadiums, gymnasium flooring etc and not simply just the name of the school on the outside of the building. The hidden costs are also in social media, school identification, signage. In fact, Great Schools still has the school listed as JEB Stuart Elementary.

Hanover County School Board is projecting it to cost about of half million dollars if the Board was to advance with renaming the Hanover schools in wake of the lawsuit. It is clear that Progressives would rather have this money spent on advancing identity politics than spent in the classroom.

The NAACP narrative for many of these cases is the school namesakes represent "white supremacy" or honor "white supremacists". It goes so far as to claim in Hanover that the namesakes have no connection to the County whatsoever. That argument seems rather ridiculous in light of the Obama naming with no relation to Richmond and given the history of Hanover and the Civil War and the battles fought within the County from Cold Harbor or the Seven Days Campaign or the fact there are three national military historic parks and multiple sites in Hanover County that Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson participated in Hanover County. One could certainly argue that Lee and Jackson were in fact Virginians at least and had greater ties to Virginia's history than Obama ever has.

Why the City of Richmond did not name the school after former Governor Doug Wilder, the first African American Governor in United States History since Reconstruction. Wilder was born in Richmond.

Maybe the NAACP should read "Military Operations in Hanover County Virginia 1861-65" by John M. Gabbert if it truly is interested in the history of Hanover but lets be clear the NAACP is not interested in actual history. It is interested in progressive socio-engineering of classrooms based on unfounded and frankly divisive means that Hanover County citizens should reject.

Did Virginia own slaves? Yes. By 1860, the total slave population was almost 500,000 out of about 1,6 million inhabitants. Is every Virginian from that period supposed to e held accountable for the actions of the Confederacy or of slaveholders? The majority of families in Virginia did not own slaves. Is the assertion that if "one wore grey" and fought for the Virginia after it joined the Confederacy tan the legacy of all is "white supremacy"? What about those Virginians who fought for abolition? Or were members of the Whig Party?

This is less an attack on these two schools as much as it is on Virginia history itself. Progressives seek to redefine the past and elevate only the events that conform to the narratives they are attempting to enforce politically. They care little about the expense to localities nor the division they inflame with their hate filled rhetoric. Make no mistake it is not these namesakes reaching out from the past but rather the voices of Progressives that are dividing communities and doing so intentionally to advance agendas.

This notion that we should judge the past in our time and not "in their time" is fraught with peril. This exercise undertaken by the NAACP and other Progressive groups is pure "blackwashing"- the progressive aim to turn the light of history off and ensure it remains hidden in darkness.

Virginia Elections: A Story in Innovative Sprawl

Some may have been surprised by the outcome in the Commonwealth of Virginia elections on Tuesday. They should not have been. It has been evident in the trends for a decade.

The Progressive media loves to throw out participation medals or cast long shadows on results by the Republicans in just about every instance. In the face of sweeping victories in Kentucky for the GOP, the Progressive media only wishes to focus on the Governorship lost by Republicans. Meanwhile, in Virginia its an "all blue" narrative.

They certainly do not want to focus on the Kentucky Attorney General race where an African American Republican candidate, Daniel Cameron, whom President Trump while visiting and hosting a rally in Kentucky called a "rising star" won. The media of course reported his name as the winner all be it with little concentration instead focusing on the "one" Executive post lost by the Republican Governor. CNN and MSNBC pundits gave little mention of the fact it was a minority candidate that for the first time was elected to the Attorney General position.

Clearly, had Daniel Cameron been a Democrat the news feed would have exploded. You see, Cameron goes against the narrative just like many candidates in Virginia this election cycle that ran closer than expected races. Candidates like DJ Jordan who can for House of Delegates in an entrenched growing liberal area of the Northern Virginia influenced by growing immigrant populations. Areas of Northern Virginia have witnessed massive growth over the last few decades.

The number of Hispanics in many areas have doubled while the number of Asian immigrants has tripled. The population in general has exploded especially in Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William Counties. There is no argument the population is more diverse and more concentrated. Housing has turned to greater concentrations of townhouses, condos, apartments etc over single family homes in many areas to accommodate the growth. Maximum density of housing exists now in areas that were once rural in nature.

Counties like Loudoun morphed into true "bedroom" communities of Washington D.C. However, the effort to attract greater business classes and cheaper labor by Republican administrations in Richmond would eventually create exactly the outcome that would revert the Virginia Assembly back to Democrats for the first time in over eighteen years. The Republican "pro growth" and Chamber of Commerce influenced policies invited the Party's own demise on Tuesday. It was simply a case of cause and effect.

Virginia was recently rated #1 for business. CNBC rated Virginia the "Top State for Business" 2019. The workforce is highly skilled and dozens of technology and innovation companies have come to Virginia and set up shop mostly in Northern Virginia. Virginia's reliance on the defense industry and all its tentacles that permeate Virginia's economy equates to 12% of the overall economy. Throw in all the lobbying firms operating in Virginia that lobby the federal government and that percentage climbs even higher. The defense spending that is attributed to a significant percentage of the economy is the largest percentage of any state in the country.

Almost 40% of Virginia adults have college education. 9% of the workforce is concentrated in what is referred to as (STEM)- Science, Technology, Engineering, Math areas. Amazon plans to spend 2.5 billion and hire some 25,000 employees to operate its planned facility in Northern Virginia. Many would argue the plan to place Amazon in Northern Virginia was by design by Democrats. The areas certainly was not in "need" of the facility from an employment perspective. There are dozens of areas of Virginia that require a facility like the one proposed more so than Northern Virginia but the Democrats siezed on the opportunity that continues the changing of the political landscape of Virginia.

These high technology jobs are not actually being filled by existing residents in truth. The majority of new workers are being brought in from outside the state by the technology companies. Many of these companies are actually buying up real estate. Residential real estate for housing their employees either for transition or permanent residency. These employees are coming from largely liberal areas of the country. Place like Silicon Valley, California, Seattle,Washington Portland, Oregon and large numbers coming from New York. New York is actually experiencing its largest decline in population growth in decades as workers and retirees are leaving.

What does all this mean for Virginia politics? The trend shows that over the course of the last decade and half, Virginia has gone from being mostly a Conservative state supporting Republican Presidential candidates up until President Obama and an Assembly whose control rested with Republicans generally. As election cycles progressed, the majorities thinned and the thinning was largely in Northern Virginia districts. Democrats have long controlled the urban centers; both locally and in Assembly seats but as more and more workers arrived in Virginia from out of state and even out of the country the demographics shifted dramatically.

Progressive pundits will argue that Democrats are winning the messaging and taking control of suburbs like Henrico and Chesterfield County outside Richmond as well as others outside urban areas but its less about "messaging" than sprawl.

Individuals and families have left the cities though some data has demonstrated a return of sorts in some areas and moved to the localities adjacent to the urban area. However, the vacuum being filled is one that was left by county families moving further west in their own counties for better schools and nicer homes. The areas closed to the urban centers but located in the localities outside the city have largest concentrations of rental and leased homes which is a direct result of the higher growth areas taking families into newer developed areas. Those families that sought to leave the city in the 80's and 90's found better housing and  by far better schools in the county than the urban areas.

If you examine the precincts carried by Democrats on Tuesday, it is clear for the most part the Democrat precincts are those closest to the city. The further west to you go in places like Chesterfield County or Henrico County the more those areas are either solid Republican or lean heavily Republican. Tuesday bore that out with the GOP winning majority of local races in Chesterfield with only one Democrat on the Board of Supervisors. Republican identified candidates for Commonwealth Attorney and Sheriff also won. State Senator Amanda Freeman Chase also won her Senate race in which majority of voters in her district reside in Chesterfield.

While Northern Virginia appears to have been lost to Republicans. All of suburbia is not lost to the GOP. In Henrico County, incumbent State Senator Siobhan Dunnavant withstood a significant challenge by Democrat Delegate Debra Rodman. Henrico has turned "blue" faster in truth than Chesterfield. Some claim its a direct result from redistricting, especially Congressional districts.

The influence of the policies that have contributed to the loss of the Assembly in large part can be placed at the foot of the Chamber of Commerce which has been the strongest proponent of increasing the labor force and business growth in Virginia. The result has changed the entire political  landscape and it is going to get worse for Republicans. The exodus of California will continue over the next decade as a direct result of poor policies implemented by many Progressive Governors like Gavin Newsom.

The innovation migration will continue. These technology migrants will continue to bring with them their value systems and belief systems that are not Virginian. Most of Virginia in truth is conservative minded. Yet many of these workers and transplants ring with them the politics of the places they are coming from and appear to be changing the Democrat Party of Virginia.

Virginia Democrats for a long time had significant rural pro gun voters for example. Now the Democrat Party of Virginia appears to have moved further left to the Progressive arm of the Party and left moderate, conservative "blue dog" Democrats behind. Many of these voters have moved to the GOP in truth but not in significant numbers to offset the population growth in Northern Virginia in terms of statewide races.

The majority of localities in Virginia are Republican. In fact, its not even close and yet the Democrats now control the both the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates. Progressives will say it is all because of Trump but that is simply lazy and intellectually dishonest. Virginia has been trending this way a decade before Trump and will continue because of the migration of skilled workers and the arrival of immigrants; both legal and illegal to the Commonwealth.

Both urban sprawl to suburbia and technology and innovation sprawl is what has changed the voting trend dynamic in Virginia.

Campaign Finance Questions Loom: Richmond Assembly Races

#Breaking

By now everyone following Virginia politics knows what is at stake with next Tuesday's General Assembly races. Every seat in the body is on the ballot and Progressives are hoping to turn Virginia #AllBlue. A #BlueVirginia would mean massive changes in the manner in which the Commonwealth of Virginia operate. The Republicans have controlled the Assembly with slim majorities while the Democrats have controlled the Governorship since Republican Bob McDonnell left office in 2014.

How Progressives seek to make such change in Virginia is coming under closer scrutiny. Long claiming that its the Republicans who are in bed with the "special interest", it now appears rather obvious to political observers that it is the Democrat Party of Virginia which has surpassed the State GOP in contributions that in truth has more "special interest" contributions.

This is easily demonstrated by examining the Richmond Assembly races where there are three Senate races and as many competitive Delegate races. These races have witnessed massive contributions this cycle and this is no more evident than contributions linked to the so-called "Clean Virginia" PAC.

Clean Virginia provided contributions, endorsements and support to candidates willing to refuse to take contributions from Dominion Energy a powerful Virginia utility company servicing the Commonwealth. Clean Virginia seeks to out contribute Dominion and thus far and this cycle has. It secured 13 Senatorial candidates and 32 Delegate candidates  to commit to not take contributions from Dominion in exchange for support from Clean Virginia PAC and ultimately its benefactors. Endorsements and support are contingent upon not taking Dominion Energy money.

It goes further though. Clean Energy while claiming to be a bipartisan environmental advocacy group has not contributed to a single Republican. Even those that have in fact pledged not to take Dominion Energy money. The truth behind Clean Energy is it is hardly an organization at all. It appears more a front for "dark money" contributions to candidates.

 Michael Bliss

"Dark money" is a form of campaign finance where organizations making contributions to political campaigns are under no requirement to disclose their donors. In terms of Clean Virginia it is apparent that the donors are in fact Michael Bliss and his wife Sonjia Smith.

 Sonjia Smith

Michael Bliss is a former Golden Sachs executive who now runs the hedge fund group BlueStem Asset Management. The concern currently has over one billion in investments and is based in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Bliss and Smith are staunch supporters of gun bans and gun free zones, repealing right to work laws, support the environmental New Green Deal proposed by Congressional Progressives and also seeks implementation of red flag laws in Virginia.

The couples rather unsavory contributions whether personally or through the dark money Clean Virginia front have poured into races:

Delegate Debra Rodman running for the Senate in the Virginia 12th has taken over $165,000. According to VPAP (Virginia Public Access Project) Rodman has secured $100,000 from Bliss, $55,000 from Smith and 10,059 from Clean Virginia PAC. Rodman has accused her opponent, Senator Siobhan Dunnavant of catering the the "special interest".

In the 10th Senate District, Progressive Ghazala Hashmi has been contributed $50,000 by Bliss and $45,000 by Smith as well as $5,000 from Clean Virginia PAC. Hasmi is running against incumbent Republican Glen Sturtevant and the 10th covers portions of the City of Richmond, Chesterfield and Powhatan Counties.

 Senator Amanda Freeman Chase

In the 11th Senate District where Progressive Amanda Pohl is challenging Conservative Senator Amanda Freeman Chase, Sonjia Smith contributed $35,000 to the Pohl campaign just recently while Bliss contributed to Sheila Bynum Coleman in her race to unseat Speaker of the House Kirk Cox in Chesterfield County in the amount of $40,000. Smith has also contributed to Coleman and provided $30,000 while through the Clean Virginia PAC the couple has provided $2,500 for the Delegate seat.

So it is obvious that you have both people and entities contributing to candidates where the funds are coming from the same originator.

Bliss, Smith and the Clean Virginia PAC have contributed almost $350,000 in just these races alone.

In the 31st House race where Delegate Elizabeth Guzeman is being challenged by DJ Jordan in a competitive race; Bliss contributed $40,000 while Smith added $20,000 and the Clean Virginia PAC $10,059. Their commitment to this race totals $70,059.

In the critical Virginia Beach region, the 7th Senate race where Progressive Delegate Cheryl Turpin is running against Republican Jen Kiggans has been provided $160,000 by the Bliss, Smith, Clean Virginia PAC. And Missy Cotter Smasal has been provided 140,000 for her bid to challenge Republican Bill Destephe.



One thing is very clear. Progressives are taking in funding from what can only be deemed as questionable methods for individuals who claim to support End Citizen United.

#EndCitizenUnited #Hashmi #Chase #Sturtevant #Dunnavant #Kiggans #Guzeman #DJJordan #CleanVirginia #CleanVirginiaPAC #MichaelBliss #SonjiaSmith #Turpin #VaBeachGOP #VASenate #VAHouse #BlueVirginia #HenricoGOP

Katie Hill: Accountability Should Never Be Held Hostage by Gender or Sexuality

Another story virtually overshadowed by the impeachment inquiry being undertaken  by the Progressives in the House of Representatives was the resignation of one of their own this week.

Rep. Katherine "Katie" Lauren Hill who represented the 25th Congressional District of California (Simi Valley, Santa Clarita, Palmdale) resigned from the House of Representatives this week after revelations of her misconduct and inappropriate relationships with paid campaign and House staffers.

Her resignation came on the very day her Progressive Party passed an Impeachment Inquiry Resolution 232-196 in the House. This resolution would be the last vote cast by Katie Hill as a member of Congress.

Katie Hill came to Congress after serving as the Executive Director of PATH- People Assisting the Homeless, a California non-profit addressing the state wide homeless epidemic in California. Hill defeated Republican Steve Knight in the 2018 mid-term elections as part of what Progressives have coined the "blue wave".

Her campaign to unseat Knight was called "the most millennial campaign ever" for Congress and Hill was endorsed by former President Barrack Obama. She was a shining star in the Progressive movement. She defeated an incumbent Republican. Knight had served for two terms before losing to Hill in 2018.

Katie Hill has levied the charge that she has become the victim of  right wing operatives who she claims were behind the release of naked photos of her as well as reporting on her inappropriate relationships with staffers. The mainstream media outlets ignored the story. It hasn't really even been news in truth until Kaite Hill publicly stepped down and then and only then was her story even mentioned. The Progressive media has been trumpeting their impeachment inquiry and taken the oxygen out of any other real reporting.

But that is exactly what this was. Katie Hill violated the trust of those around her and that of her constituents. Hill engaged in what can only e described countless inappropriate interactions with staffers many of whom were were younger than her. Hill is said to have engaged in "throubles" with staff and her husband Kenny Heslep who is said to have worked under Hill at PATH. The couple were married in 2010 but separated earlier this year after Hill went to Washington.

Many have claimed that Hill suffered from "power lust". That Hill used her position a leverage over staff and demanded things of her staff that many felt were inappropriate but engaged in because Hill was their boss. A clear case of sexual harassment. Was the sex consensual ? It appears so but that does not excuse the action engaged in by Hill.

Hill was declared a rising star of Progressives in large part because of her championed sexuality. Hill made no secret of her openness and bisexuality. Hill is said to be demanding and appears as though many whom worked for her feared her. If Hill used that fear or used her position as power held over her staff than this of course is a story that should have been taken very seriously by the media; it wasn't. Only a few media concerns and mostly "right leaning" covered the story for weeks. Red State took the lead for example with reporting from Jennifer Van Laar whom Progressives now have painted as a revenge operative because she worked for Republican campaigns in California and for opponents of Hill during the 2018 election.  The mainstream Progressive media has dismissed the notion that these allegations were growing even while Hill was campaigning in 2018 however the media largely ignored them.

It was really not until nude photographs were revealed that placed Hill in very uncompromising positions. When these hit the internet, the Progressive media spun the story as "revenge porn" from Hill's husband Kenny Heslep in an attempt to garner support for Hill. The media also then began to spin the yarn of Republican operatives attempting to bring Hill down yet failed to ever acknowledge the facts in the story being reported. The facts of the story were never disputed by Katie Hill.

Hill was involved in a two year "throuple" with a female staffer much younger than her who was in her employ. This inappropriate relationship also involved Hill's husband. However, both Heslep and the staffer noticed changes in Hill once she arrived in Washington.

The Progressive media virtually ignored the facts as well as the reporting by Red State and others and never really gave credit to this concerns for the reporting in the first place. Many would not even mention who broke the story at all. The Progressive media simply took to the offensive as they typically do when they know that the truth is not on their side.

It became clear that none of the California Congressional Delegation was coming to the aid of Hill in her attempt to defend herself. Katie Hill has attempted to play the "victim" in this story and has refused to address her clear "power lust". Hill's own words on the House floor regarding "power" were very telling and align with the story told by her husband and staffer regarding how she used her position. Instead she lay blame at her husband for the events. Hill was quoted as stating that Heslep "seems determined to try to humiliate me".

Jason McGahan of Los Angeles Magazine reported on the story and revealed an interesting insight into the media's motives with regard to the story or as it seem the "non story" regarding Hill and the media's priorities. This references Heslep's attempt to tell his side of the story:

On September 27, Stephen Daniels, host of The Talk of Santa Clarita, a local politics podcast, received an ominous Facebook message from Heslep: “Any interest in an interview, and the whole story yet?” the message reads. Daniels declined Heslep’s offer, telling him that the impeachment inquiry of President Trump, which Hill had backed on September 24, took precedence for him over the couple’s marital problems. Heslep responded: “screen caps of this conversation to be making an appearance soon!” Heslep did not return a message left on his cell phone. 
https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/katie-hill-jennifer-van-laar/

Very interesting. The response demonstrates the concerted effort to focus solely on impeachment and not report on the story involving a sitting California Representative who has abused her office. It is very clear however, that had this been a California Republican the media would be covering this very differently.

CNN had is on take of course at the end upon the Hill resignation calling it the result of "online trolls" and a "casualty of smear campaign" it is clear CNN is only getting back what it routinely does to conservative officials all the time.  Hill wasn't "targeted" for being a women.  Rather, Hill was "reported" on by media in large covering like so many stories CNN refuses to cover when it does not fit into its narratives. Hill did not have to resign, Hill could have stayed in the fight. She chose to walk away.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/opinions/katie-hill-resignation-revenge-porn-against-women/index.html

This not about Katie Hill being the first openly bisexual in the House of Representatives no matter how hard the Progressives try. Nobody really cares about her sexuality. It was not until she abused her office in the manner in which she had and the lengths she had gone was discovered that then issue revealed itself. Hill was not targeted due to her sexuality or gender as she has claimed but rather for abusing her office just as any other member of Congress should be.

Accountability should never be held hostage by gender or sexuality. Period.

Progressive media's only concern appears to be the person who may have leaked the photo\s of Hill with her lovers. They have spent little time asking questions regarding Hill's behavior that the photos themselves illustrate.

"I am leaving now because of a double standard. I am leaving because I no longer want to be used as a bargaining chip." (Katie Hill- @RepKatieHill) @KatieHill4CA

"I am leaving because I didn't want to be peddled by papers and blogs and websites, used by shameless operatives for the dirtiest gutter politics that I've ever seen, and the right-wing media to drive clicks and expand their audience by distributing intimate photos of me taken without my knowledge, let alone my consent, for the sexual entertainment of millions.

I am leaving because of a misogynistic culture that gleefully consumed my naked pictures, capitalized on my sexuality and enabled my abusive ex to continue that abuse, this time with the entire country watching.

I am leaving because of the thousands of vile, threatening emails, calls and texts that made me fear for my life and the lives of the people that I care about. Today is the first time I've left my apartment since the photos, taken without my consent, were released. And I'm scared.

I'm leaving because for the sake of my community, my staff, my family and myself I can't allow this to continue. Because I've been told that people were angry when I stood strong after the first article was posted and that they had hundreds more photos and text messages that they would release bit by bit until they broke me down to nothing while they used my faults and my past to distract from the things that matter most.

I am leaving because there is only one investigation that deserves the attention of this country and that's the one that we voted on today. Today I ask you all to stand with me and commit to creating a future where this no longer happens to women and girls.

Yes, I'm stepping down, but I refuse to let this experience scare off other women who dare to take risks, who dare to step into this light, who dare to be powerful. It might feel like they won in the short term, but they can't in the long term. We cannot let them.

The way to overcome this setback is for women to keep showing up, to keep running for office, to keep stepping up as leaders, because the more we show up, the less power they have.

I'm leaving, but we have men who have been credibly accused of intentional acts of sexual violence and remain in boardrooms, on the Supreme Court, in this very body and worst of all, in the Oval Office"

*People like Democrat Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax accused of sexual assault  by two women in the Commonwealth of Virginia ***

Ultimately, Katie Hill is leaving because she broke the public trust and abused her office and the "power" she craved more than anything else.

Hill reveals this in her own words when she states:

"The forces of revenge by a bitter jealous man, cyber exploitation and sexual shaming that target our gender and a large segment of society that fears and hates powerful women have combined to push a young woman out of power and say that she doesn't belong here."

Nobody ever claimed Hill did not belong in Congress. She was in fact a rising star. It was her own actions that led to her demise. Hill and the Progressive media have yet to prove one shred evidence to support that Hill's husband was/is abusive. Not one.

Rather, Heslep and the staffer have provided hundreds of texts with Hill that demonstrate it has been Hill herself that has been the abusive player in the story that ultimately resulted in her resignation.

The rest is mere damage control.

#Breaking #CNN #KatieHill #Heslep #CA25 #RedState #Lamag #VanLaar #Congress #Throuple #Resignation 

"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.

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.

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