This Virginia Virtucon post should strike you as quite ironic.

Cathy Crabill doesn’t oppose bank bailouts

Posted on May 29, 2010 by D.J. McGuire

In a survey for the Prince William Family Alliance, Cathy Crabill refused to oppose bank bailouts.

You read that right, the woman who would like us all to believe that Rob Wittman isn’t conservative enough answered thusly on the PWFA survey (her elaboration is in red; h/t to Tim Watson, who emailed this to me):

9.  Authorize regulatory agencies to provide relief to banks in exchange for bank stock.

Support __________   Oppose _____________ Undecided _____X_______

Don’t know enough about this (the ramifications).

Don’t know the ramifications?  Seriously?  This woman wants to represent me in Congress?

True defenders of limited government ripped the 2008 bank bailout (a.k.a. TARP) from the start.  We knew it would fail to solve the problem, while greatly improving the power of the federal government in our economy.

Yet almost two years after it happened, Cathy Crabill can’t bring herself to oppose this.

Well, Rob Wittman could.  He understood the ramifications and opposed it not once, but twice.

If you, like me, are in the 1st District, remember this: Cathy Crabill, the supposed champion of limited government, does not oppose bank bailouts. Only one candidate on the ballot on June 8 opposes bank bailouts – Rob Wittman.

Please remember this the next time Ms. Crabill or any of her supporters claim that Congressman Wittman isn’t conservative enough, and please vote for the only candidate who opposes bailouts Rob Wittman.

Cross-posted to RWL

What is funny is that the poster misses such an obvious irony. How did Congressman Robert J. ”Rob” Wittman answer to that question?  He didn’t (See here.). Wittman did not respond at all to the Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance‘s candidate survey. Out of the four congressional candidates invited to take part, only Wittman refused. Yet Wittman’s supporters think it important to nitpick one of Catherine T. Crabill‘s responses to a 25-question survey — on a question she responded as undecided.

How are we to take Wittman’s refusal to take part in the survey? Here are some options. Wittman is:

  • undecided on all 25 questions.
  • a busy man, too busy to let the voters know what he thinks.
  • does not have the time to fool with the Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance, a Conservative, pro-family organization.
  • has something to hide.
  • is afraid his opponents will use his responses against him.

Unless Wittman chooses to tell us, we will not know why he ducked the Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance‘s candidate survey. So all voters in the 1st Congressional District can do is make the best of the information they have, Crabill’s responses. Based upon the advice of an old Chinese proverb, voters may wish to carefully consider which of the candidates is most forthcoming with their views. 

Better the Devil you know than the Devil you don’t. (from here)

Preparation for Memorial Day

The following is from one of those chain emails I get from time-to-time. When I get one that strikes me as interesting, I like to add a few personal impressions.  

I served in the military, and I was proud to do so. Nonetheless, I never thought myself better than anyone else because I served in the military. On the other hand, I do think my service made me a better person. That is, military service gave me the opportunity to do something important in cooperation with some good people, and working with those people rubbed off on me. So when I read this chain email, I did not see it as a slam against preachers, reporters, poets, campus organizers, lawyers, or politicians. Instead, I understood it to mean that there is a point where talk is not enough.   

Let this sink in – think about it and then send it on. 





Preparation for Memorial Day

Keep it
moving, please, even if you’ve seen it before.

 It is the
not the preacher,

who has given us freedom of religion.

It is
not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.  

It is
not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech. 

It is
not the campus organizer,
who has given us freedom to assemble.


It is
not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.


It is
not the politician,
Who has given us the right to vote.


It is the
salutes the Flag,

It is


who serves
under the Flag,



I’d be
EXTREMELY proud if this email reached as many as possible. We can be very
proud of our young men and women in the service no matter where they serve. 


Bless them all!!!   



 Makes you proud to be an AMERICAN!!!!  

So why the picture of the guy standing from a wheel chair while the rest of the crowd sits? As odd as it may seem, I do not think most Americans understand what the flag symbolizes. We all have an intellectual understanding, but not all of us have the same heartfelt understanding. To appreciate the flag with your heart, I think you have to spend some time in a foreign land. Then when you see the flag, you will understand that what the flag says to your heart is “home.”


 On June 8th, we will have elections in Prince William County. 

Tuesday, June 08, 2010   Primary Elections Candidates

    Office Title : Member House of Representatives   Seats : 1 
        District : 1st District 
Incumbent    Party    Candidate Name    Address    Email/Web
Y    R    Robert J. ”Rob” Wittman    PO Box 999 
Montross   VA  22520
     R    Catherine T. Crabill    PO Box 345 
White Stone   VA  22578
    Office Title : Member House of Representatives    Seats : 1 
        District : 11th District 
Incumbent    Party    Candidate Name    Address    Email/Web
     R    Keith S. Fimian    PO Box 3131 
Oakton   VA  22124
     R    Patrick S. Herrity    PO Box 2863 
Springfield   VA  221520863

Are you having trouble finding out the candidate’s positions on issues important to you? Do you know where the candidates stand? No? Then please check out the voter guide at the Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance‘s website.  See their VOTER GUIDE for the PRIMARY ELECTION, JUNE 8 11th and 1st DISTRICTS, U.S. HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES.


When our nation adopted the Constitution, the Founders discussed what they should call the leader of our new government. They settled on the “President.”  Even today, the term does not suggest a being with extraordinary powers.


  1. (often initial capital letter) the highest executive officer of a modern republic, as the Chief Executive of the United States.
  2. an officer appointed or elected to preside over an organized body of persons.
  3. the chief officer of a college, university, society, corporation, etc.
  4. a person who presides.

The Founders envisioned a limited government headed by a competent administrator, someone who could serve as our nation’s Commander-in-Chief in time of war.  They hoped we would always be led by someone humble and wise, but they knew better than to expect such a thing.  So we have a Constitution chock full of checks and balances, including those they put on the President. Unfortunately, time has taken its toll upon the structure of our government.  So we now put unreasonably high expectations upon the President. 

Consider this example.

President Barack Obama used the growing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to renew his pitch for alternative energy Wednesday, arguing that the unfolding environmental disaster “gives you a sense of where we’re going” without comprehensive reform.

The federal government is “going to bring every resource necessary to put a stop” to the spill, the president said during a visit to a solar panel manufacturing facility in Fremont, California. “We will not rest until this well is shut, the environment is repaired, and the cleanup is complete.” (from here)

Our Federal Government does not drill for oil, and Obama has zero expertise as a oilman. Nonetheless, Obama promises he can clean up the mess and prevent any and all future problems with “alternative fuel sources” (see here). Yet it is BP, not the Federal Government, that is doing all it can to plug the leak (Gulf of Mexico response).  Moreover, it is private industry that has the skilled people and resources needed to develop new sources of energy. In fact, just as it would be with any other inept meddler, the more the Federal Government government gets involved in areas beyond its expertise (and charter), the more likely it is to screw things up.

What does King Obama propose to do?  Here is an example of how he proposes to invest our money.

Last year, the Department of Energy gave Solyndra a $535 million loan guarantee funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Five-year-old Solyndra was the first company to receive a loan guarantee, and it has become a poster child for the success of federal stimulus spending and its ripple effects on the economy.

Solyndra is one of several companies in Silicon Valley making solar panels that use non-silicon materials known in the industry as “thin film.” Solyndra’s panels are largely designed for flat, commercial rooftops and are installed in 200 locations around the world. (from here)

At first blush, our “$535 million loan guarantee” sounds like a great idea. We are making alternative energy possible! Wrong.  We are just setting up conditions for mob rule. What we are doing is letting politicians arbitrarily pick winners and losers. Instead of allowing profit and losses to decide who wins and who loses in the market place, we are letting politics decide which company’s efforts are rewarded.

When the Federal Government “invests” our money, how do we know the politicians will do a good job? We can trust these people to invest “other people’s money.”  Why should we believe politicians will not use our money to seek a personal advantage? 

How do we even know Solyndra’s panels are worth our investment?  Everything has a downside.  Consider this article in the Washington Post.

The first time Li Gengxuan saw the dump trucks from the nearby factory pull into his village, he couldn’t believe what happened. Stopping between the cornfields and the primary school playground, the workers dumped buckets of bubbling white liquid onto the ground. Then they turned around and drove right back through the gates of their compound without a word.

This ritual has been going on almost every day for nine months, Li and other villagers said.

In China, a country buckling with the breakneck pace of its industrial growth, such stories of environmental pollution are not uncommon. But the Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co., here in the central plains of Henan Province near the Yellow River, stands out for one reason: It’s a green energy company, producing polysilicon destined for solar energy panels sold around the world. But the byproduct of polysilicon production — silicon tetrachloride — is a highly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards. (continued here)

How much pollution will result from the production of Solyndra’s solar panels? I do not know (Note that Solyndra makes thin-film panels.), but I do know the production of any such sophisticated product must result in pollutants. I also know I want our government to focus on regulating pollution, not investing my money. I do not need that kind of help.

If instead of doing its job our government gets into the business of investing (picking winners and losers), our public officials must then have a conflict of interest. Then our government officials will lose sight of their job.  Instead of regulating against pollution, our government will pollute us.

To avoid such conflicts of interests, we must reconsider why the Founders wrote the Constitution. They knew the problems of a king. They knew that unchecked power corrupts. Obama and Congress cannot produce clean energy, and they cannot be trusted to invest our money.  At best, politicians can discourage private industry from recklessly polluting us. If we want Obama and Congress to do the job they are suppose to do, we must insist Obama and Congress stay within the bounds of their authority.