DELEGATE ROB BELL ON VOTER FRAUD

voteOne of the signs that our republic is falling apart is the fact we are less and less willing to protect the integrity of the vote. Fortunately, we still have leaders willing to fight for our republic. Here is an email I received from Delegate Rob Bell today.

rob-bell-for-attorney-general
Dear Richard,

Today’s Washington Post headline: “He fought in World War II. He died in 2014. And he just registered to vote in Va.” According to the article, a JMU student in Harrisonburg registered 19 dead Virginians to vote in the 2016 election.  Read it by clicking here.

This follows on a TV news report of a long-dead voters who have nonetheless cast ballots in Colorado.

Virginia is a battleground state, and every vote is important. In the General Assembly, I have long supported the photo ID requirement and other voter fraud bills. Election crimes like that in Harrisonburg prove these laws are needed.

You’d think honest elections would receive bipartisan support, but Terry McAuliffe vetoed an absentee ballot measure in 2015 and Attorney General Mark Herring refused to defend Virginia’s photo ID law against a lawsuit funded by George Soros. Virginia taxpayers had to pay private lawyers $600,000 in taxpayer money to do the job Herring was elected to do, and the case is still being considered by the federal court.

Enough!  Stand against voter fraud – sign the online petition by clicking here.

Sincerely,

Delegate Rob Bell
Candidate for Attorney General

If you do not think voter fraud is real, then consider.

  • We have a political party that features “campaign finance reform” as one of its big issues. If we are supposed to believe that rich people will buy politicians, why are we not also supposed to believe that rich people will buy elections?
  • We are supposed to believe that voter ID is all about voter suppression.  If we are willing to believe people would suppress the votes of some people, why are we not willing to believe that other people would over-count the  votes they like?
  • Hillary Clinton is a known liar. There is no doubt about it. Even under oath she will lie and deceive. (And I see reason to debate the obvious. Look it up.) Why are we supposed to believe that a political party that would select someone as dishonest as Hillary Clinton as its presidential nominee does not have people in it who are capable of voter fraud?

I VOTED

donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-at-the-first-debateYesterday I voted, and I did so before the debate. So obviously the debate did not affect my vote.

Why did I vote early? I will be an election officer this year (working at the polls). Since the lines could be long, I had to vote absentee or I might not otherwise get the opportunity.

What was on the ballot? Since the part of Prince William County I live in includes Virginia’s 1st Congressional District, here the ballot => sample-ballot-pwc-cong-1., and here is a link to the website where I got that sample ballot.

How did I vote? I voted Republican, and I voted for our state’s two ballot initiatives.

So did I listen to the debate? Yes. Actually, I listened to a video of the debate this evening. I thought Donald Trump did okay. I had hoped for a better performance, but after years of debating people online I did not expect any miracles. Politicians may not know as much they would like us to believe, but do know how to avoid looking foolish.

On stage both Trump and Clinton accused each other of corruption. Which of them should we believe? Donald Trump made his billions as a businessman selling what people wanted to buy. Bill and Hillary Clinton made their ten’s of millions in public service selling access.  Which of these people is most likely to have earned their money dishonestly at our expense?

I believe Trump more truthful. Yet in that debate Trump was working against the odds. He is up against a much better financed opponent, one financed by all those rich people she is supposedly going to tax. So instead of buying airtime, Trump has to spend as much time stumping around the country as he can. Moreover, because the news media is so partisan, Trump can always expect a partisan moderator. Therefore, the moderator spent more time interrupting Trump than Hillary Clinton did.

However, Clinton’s big war-chest and the news media’s bias were not Trump’s biggest problem. His big problem was Clinton’s skill in misrepresenting the truth. Lies can always be made to sound so much more lovely than the truth. Hence, at the same time Clinton painted Trump as some sort of demon designing to keep us from a fabulous Utopian paradise, she spoke glowingly of the grand future that the “rich” will pay for if we make them pay their “fair share”.

For how many decades now have Democrats been promising to make the rich pay their “fair share”? How many ten’s of millions have Bill and Hillary Clinton amassed during the decades they have been promising to make the rich pay their fair share? Why didn’t Barack Obama make the rich pay their fair share? He most certainly had the chance.

Trump biggest problem was us. When are we going to stop believing government can give us anything we did not give it first?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT

school.pngSometimes the good guys win.

Here is another email from the Chairman of the PWC Republican Committee. It is a thank you note.

Dear Faithful Republicans,

I want to thank each and every one of you for your overwhelming support sending emails and for showing up to the PWC School Board Meetings. It truly made a difference! It was particularly encouraging to see the unity that came out of this very divisive issue. While the fight is not over, we can keep this momentum going by continuing to show up and let our voices be heard. Thank you again!

“Yes” for Brentsville and Gil Trenum; “Wait” on Trans Gender – An Update from the PWC School Board Meeting on September 21st.

Nearly 500 people showed up last night while the board took citizen comments from 7:00pm to 1:00am on policy 060, the policy change to add sexual preference and gender identity to the lists of protected classes.  The entire Kelly Leadership Center school board complex was full, to include an over flow room and the atrium.

Approximately 150 people spoke.  Speakers came from all backgrounds: Hispanic, African American, Muslim, Christian, parents and kids.  Some of the more moving arguments came from young ladies who simply pleaded, “Please protect my privacy and dignity.”  Several African American speakers said “this was not the civil rights issue of the 21st century.”

More than 90% of speakers were against changing policy 060.  Their arguments were: legal “wait for the Virginia Supreme Court to Rule”; transparency “why are you making this decision so hastily without soliciting staff or public input”; and safety “please don’t force a child to undress in front of another student of the opposite biological sex.”

Proponents of policy 060 talked about bullying, hatred and discrimination.  But there was no hatred or discrimination on our side last night. In fact our speakers talked about loving and protecting all children. Sadly, gay and transgender kids are the subject of bullying.  But as a Muslim parent of kids who have been bullied for their faith noted, this policy doesn’t stop bullying. He said we cannot equate bathroom preference with bullying.

Speakers asked the board to focus on meaningful bullying prevention, SOL scores, crowding, in short, real education policy.

In the end, Chairman Sawyers pushed his policy proposal ahead, as originally written.  Loree Williams (Woodbridge) seconded his motion.  Diane Raulston (Neabsco) offered a competing motion to stay the vote until the second SB meeting in June 2017 (presumably after the courts have issued their ruling).

After some deliberation the vote to delay was 5 aye, one nay (Sawyers) and one abstain (Williams).  The Brentsville seat was empty during this vote.

Bottom Line: we showed up, stuck to our message and won the night.  But we need to stay engaged.  This issue isn’t going away.

At around 2:00am, the board voted unanimously to appoint Shawn Brann to fill Gil Trenum’s seat until Gil returns for the 2017-2018 school year.  Shawn was one of Gil’s recommended replacements and is well qualified to serve on the School Board!

Warm Regards,
Dottie Miller
Chairman PWC Republican Committee

It is an old expression, but it applies. We are at a crossroads. What Dottie Miller describes sounds like a great victory. It could be, but so long as we keep electing big government busybodies, such people will push increasingly crazy agendas. Eventually, they will have us at each others throats, more concerned about demanding our “rights” from each other than we are about protecting each others God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Whatever it takes, we must remember the people who vote for expanding the power of government, and we must vote for someone else. Whatever it takes, even if it seems to go against our best interests in the short term, we must vote only for the government we deem absolutely necessary. Otherwise, the busybodies will wear us down with nitnoid nonsense.

In a country where government runs everything, gender confusion will be the least of our concerns. Here is why. When we pass from this life, we will be rightfully ashamed. We will have left our children entirely confused and in the power of leaders who do not even care about the difference between what is right and what is wrong.

WHEN ECONOMISTS BECOME THE COURT MAGICIANS — PART 2

bad economySome time back I got the itch to write WHEN ECONOMISTS BECOME THE COURT MAGICIANS — PART 1. With the title I promised there would be a Part 2. So here it is. Why the lack of enthusiasm? Well, I don’t see economics as a dismal science, but I do weary of pointless argument.

Consider. Here of late I have had a debate (see here, here, and here) with Stephen. wants to redesign our entire socioeconomic system. He is smart, but he has a warped understanding of the purpose of government and how economics works. He has a very limited understanding of that thing we call money. He equates interest with usury. What can I say that would change his mind? I don’t know, but I have tried.

Am I an expert on economics? No, I am not. I actually wonder if there is such a thing.

Ask five economists and you’ll get five different answers – six if one went to Harvard. (from here) Edgar R. Fiedler

Instead of promoting my expertise in economics, I am just writing to observe that we don’t know enough to identify an “expert” we should trust as much as the ones are trusting. Look at how we “manage” our economy. How many of us voters even have a clue as to what the “experts” are doing? Let’s see what we know about fiscal and monetary policy.

Fiscal Policy

Fiscal policy is the more transparent of the two policies.

Fiscal policy is when our government uses its spending and taxing powers to have an impact on the economy. The combination and interaction of government expenditures and revenue collection is a delicate balance that requires good timing and a little bit of luck to get it right. The direct and indirect effects of fiscal policy can influence personal spending, capital expenditure, exchange rates, deficit levels and even interest rates, which are usually associated with monetary policy. (from here)

According to some “experts”, Congress is supposed to exercise control over the economy thru taxes and spending. Instead of taxing us and spending our money just to do what the Federal Government is supposed to do, according to some economists  “good” fiscal policy requires Congress to also tax and spend to regulate economic growth. Somehow or another government spending is supposed to stimulate economic growth and taxes are supposed to bring economic growth under control.

As a practical matter,  Congress tends to use “good” fiscal policy as an excuse to tax and spend to excess. So we are in debt up to our ears. Congress has wasted huge sums that undoubtedly would have been better spent by the people who earned that money in the first place.

Want a “good” laugh? Check out some of these quotes on fiscal policy.

Monetary Policy

Almost everyone is familiar with the expression “Federal Reserve“, but what does the Fed do? Here is a brief description.

The “Fed” is an independent agency, one that is self-funded (see here). The Fed is a powerful group of economists, “experts” who regulate the banking industry. We routinely hear the Fed’s latest announcement of the Fed funds rate. The other thing we hear from the Fed these days is its latest announcement of quantitative easing. That’s a fancy way of saying the Fed is electronically “printing money” out of thin air. These two activities are the most visible aspects of the Fed’s role in monetary policy, that is, controlling the money supply.

Since the Fed also supervises and regulates banking institutions, the Fed does stuff in the background that only the financial experts notice. These activities relate to the risky nature of fractional reserve banking.

Fractional reserve banking is a banking system in which only a fraction of bank deposits are backed by actual cash on hand and are available for withdrawal. This is done to expand the economy by freeing up capital that can be loaned out to other parties. Many U.S. banks were forced to shut down during the Great Depression because too many people attempted to withdraw assets at the same time. (from here)

Not enough money in the vault? That is called a bank run. The bankers want us to believe that that problem is not real. I guess it depends upon one’s point-of-view. What if you want your money, and the bank says you cannot have it?

Audit the Fed

The Fed is one of the Federal Government’s most powerful institutions. It operates as an independent agency.  Some people think the Fed is too independent and needs to be audited so we can find out what it is doing. That proposal has created considerable controversy. Partly, that is because the Fed is already audited to some extent. The issue is that not everything is audited, and what is not audited is actually quite important.

Bottom Line

Our experiments in fiscal and monetary policy have failed.

  • We do not have a fiscal policy, and it is doubtful whether such a policy would be moral. Why should the government spend other people’s money to stimulate the economy? The idea doesn’t even make sense. We cannot spend our own money? Our elected officials just want to spend and spend and tax and tax. Fiscal policy is just another excuse. Unnecessary Federal Government spending diverts capital and human resources into low priority or even unnecessary projects and programs. Most Federal Government spending now goes into Social Security and Medicare. The Constitution does not even charter the Federal Government to spend money on such programs, but these programs serve to bribe voters old enough to know better.
  • Our fiscal policy is also a dubious enterprise. The Fed exists to prop up fractional reserve banking, a dubious practice that most likely would have been replaced with something less risky without government interference. In addition, the Fed works to “hide” Congress’ huge deficits by manipulating the currency and the banking industry. This puts unelected officials in control of huge sums of money, officials who can operate in relative secrecy. That is just a recipe for thievery and other sorts of trouble.

So what is the alternative? We probably ought to try reading our Constitution and doing what it says. Most of the government in this country is supposed to be at the state and local level. The Constitution does not empower the Federal Government  stimulate or regulate economic growth. The Federal Government was supposed to borrow money, if needed, and to regulate interstate commerce to keep the states from interfering in interstate commerce. In addition, the Constitution says the Federal Government is supposed to coin money.

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

…….

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; (from Article. I., Section. 8)

How did we get from that to the Federal Reserve?

The bottom line is we need to elect Donald Trump. Will he get rid of the Fed? Probably not, but who knows what might happen if we thoroughly audit it?