When I got this email from Delegate Bob Marshall today, I cannot say I was dumbfounded or especially depressed, just a bit sad.
3 Weeks to Go! Joe Biden Endorses Opponent!
Help Me Compete with
Six Figure Ad Buy!
We’re under attack. Joe Biden just endorsed my opponent! The Left is certainly energized to defeat me.
The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and other out of state leftist organizations have been funding my opponent to the tune of over a hundred thousand dollars. They’ve decided that my race is where they try to advance their radical agenda. Help me fight back!
My opponent has committed to a SIX FIGURE TV ad buy!
Help me compete with these out of state donations. Help me fight for a future where Virginians reject these out-of-state activists. Help me fight for a future where it’s Virginians like you that make an impact.
They’re pulling out all the stops to rally their billionaire supporters and Planned Parenthood’s tax-funded political machine. I have to raise more money than I ever have and ask more of our great volunteers than I ever have. Our volunteers are stepping up to the challenge, can you step up to the challenge with a donation right now?
There’s no time to waste. Can you step up right now with a donation to help raise enough money to counter out-of-state radicals?
I’m always grateful for the support you show me everyday.
God bless you and thank you again for your generosity!
Delegate Bob Marshall
P.S. One last request please share this with your family, friends and neighbors on social media and ask them for their help!
The Democratic Party is not what it use to be. There was a time Democrats respected America’s founding principles. Now? Not so much.
Who is Joe Biden? Think about where he stands in the Democratic Party. Consider the values he represents. Understand that Biden is endorsing Democrats in Virginia because they represent his values.
- Biden endorses Danica Roem, four other Va. Democrats in House races (washingtonpost.com)
- Pence, Biden stump for Virginia governor candidates Gillespie, Northam (foxnews.com)
- ‘Middle-class Joe’ Biden campaigns for Virginia Democrat in third-richest county in America (washingtonexaminer.com)
What values does Biden represent? Well, we had Joe Biden as our Vice President for eight years, and Biden faithfully executed President Barack Obama‘s instructions. Do you actually like how Obama was “transforming” America, slowly making our nation second-rate, our people poor and dependent upon government?
Was Obama about abortion rights, redistributing the wealth, and pitting us against each other through identity politics? No. Not exactly. What Obama sought to do is give us our “rights” instead of protecting our rights.
What is the difference between a government that protects our rights and a government that gives us our rights? Well, I am going to borrow some words I saw in a couple of comments on another blog: here and here.
Here are some excerpts from the first comment.
At the founding of the nation, Americans understood their rights to be what is expressed in the Declaration of Independence. That is, the Declaration of Independence speaks of what some philosophers call negative rights. Here the term “negative” refers to rights that the government or some other power could take away from an individual. The Declaration of Independence summarizes these rights as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
So what is the limit of negative rights? Well, if the exercise of my religious beliefs involves human sacrifice, it is a cinch I am imposing my religious beliefs upon someone else. Therefore, government has the duty to stop me. That is, the government must arbitrate our disputes. My right to own property, for example, does not give me the right to take ownership of what belongs to someone else, for example.
What confuses the matter today, however, is the notion that the government can give us our rights. These are called “positive” rights. Examples include: the right to a job, the right to an education, the right to health care, the right to a retirement income, and so forth. There are two big problems with positive rights: (1) the government has to abridge the negative rights of some people in order to give other people their “positive” rights, and (2) “positive” rights create a huge conflict of interest for politicians.
Once you realize there are no such things as a free job, free education, free health care, free retirement, and so forth, I suspect you can begin figure out the nature of the first problem on your own. The second problem is only slightly more complex. When we allow politicians unfettered administrative authority over our “rights”, we have to trust the same people to both protect our rights and to give us our rights. Many happily succumb to the temptation to sell our rights for votes. (from here)
So what should we do? How do we protect our rights? Here is an excerpt from the second comment.
The primary way we protect our rights to live our lives as we wish is to not put anyone else in charge of them. When we insist upon positive rights, the government giving us “rights”, we begin loosing control of our lives. Eventually, if we insist upon being given enough “rights”, we become dependents of the entity that gives us our ‘rights”. That entity then has the power to control us. (from here)
Is this an exaggeration? Are the values that Obama and Biden represent dangerous to our freedom? After eight years of Democrats in charge, isn’t our country more divided than ever? Wasn’t the Obama administration all about giving some people their rights at the expense of other people?
Consider the nature of identity politics, which is actually a form of discrimination BY THE GOVERNMENT. For the Democratic Party, Danica Roem personifies identity politics. I say “personify” because most of Roem’s funding is from out of Virginia, and now his biggest endorsement is a nationally recognized politician from another state.
What is Roem’s objective? What is the Democratic Party’s objective? With issues like transgendered children, same sex “marriage”, affirmative action and hate crimes, the Democratic Party strives to establish government’s power to decide for each of us the difference between right and what is wrong.
Consider these examples.
- Freedom of religion involves more than simply the right to go to church and worship. When we leave our places of worship, we also have the right to exercise our religious beliefs. Yet many in the Democratic Party insist upon freedom from religion. They insist religion has no place in the public square. Do you have a conscience? Did you form your conscience based upon your religious beliefs? Many in the Democratic Party think you should ignore it.
- When people engage in personal fantasies such as sex changes and same-sex marriage, do these people have the right to make others participate? Why? Why should the government force the unwilling, using the force of law, to participate in fantasies they think are immoral? There is no good reason. Yet the Democratic Party has abused appointments to the Supreme Court to force same-sex marriage upon our country, and now Democrats want to use government power to force transgender politics into the public school system.
- When a less qualified “minority” person insists upon being hired or given “equal pay”, and when a private company is the employer, why does government need to be involved? Where does the Constitution justify Federal involvement? It doesn’t. Nevertheless, the Federal Government, using a weird interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, sics lawyers on private companies who are supposedly making the wrong hiring and wage decisions. This is absurd. When private companies make stupid decisions, it hurts their profit margin. We need laws against wrongful discrimination based upon race, sex, and creed because of government abuse, not abuse by private companies.
- What is a hate crime? What makes a murder a hate crime? Consider that we still don’t know why Stephen Paddock, the gunman who machine gunned hundreds of people in Las Vegas, committed those murders. Was his crime a hate crime? What if Paddock was indifferent to those he killed and maimed? He just wanted to kill. Would his indifference make his crime more or less evil?
The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it’s indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it’s indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it’s indifference. Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies. To be in the window and watch people being sent to concentration camps or being attacked in the street and do nothing, that’s being dead. — Elie Wiesel (US News & World Report (27 October 1986)) (from here)
One last thought. When you vote for someone like Marshall, you are voting for someone who respects the Law. Year after year Marshall has sought to abide by the limits of the Law, and that is an expression of humility. Marshall has not pretended that he knows how to run the lives of his individual constituents. Instead, he has protected our rights. He has sought to let us run our own lives. On the other hand, when we vote for a politician who promises to give us our rights — including the right to force others to respect our “identity” — whatever we might think that is, we are voting for someone who is perfectly happy to make up the law. That is especially true if our “identity” is a wish, a fantasy. Then without a doubt we are voting for someone who has the arrogance to tell their neighbors what they should believe and how they should live.
If we don’t want our own conscience abused, then we should strive to let our neighbors live by the dictates of their own consciences.
What goes around comes around. (explanation here)