Something for everyone? (from here)
Something for everyone. (from here)

It seems that every year now the our politicians scheme to work while the rest of celebrate our joy in the birth of Jesus Christ. Here is how CNN,  the first of the blatantly Liberal Democrat cable news networks, puts it.

Mimicking college students everywhere, Congress is waiting until the end of the term to get things done.

Lawmakers have crammed a year’s worth into two massive tax and spending bills they are expected — but not guaranteed — to pass later this week. Released in the middle of the night Tuesday, the measures detail how the federal government will spend $1.1 trillion on everything from national parks to NASA to veterans’ health. They also dictate new policy for cybersecurity, oil exports and suspend some Obamacare taxes. (continued here)

In fact, the going has been so smooth for our new Speaker that he is getting his bills passed with so little opposition he is having trouble delaying them to a time when almost no one is noticing.

Democratic leaders are unanimous in declaring a complete victory over House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and his close allies, who wrote the $1.1 trillion omnibus budget without asking House conservatives for any input — or even for some public objections to help their closed-door negotiations.

The Democrats’ victory, and Republican Ryan’s defeat, was garishly displayed when his omnibus got more Democratic votes in the House and in the Senate than it got Republican votes.

“I said I would not accept a lot of [conservative] ideological riders that were attached to a big budget deal,” President Barack Obama said Friday, at his end-of-year press conference. “And because of some terrific negotiations by the Democrats up on Capitol Hill and I think some pretty good work by our legislative staff here… it was a good win,” he said. “We met our goals,” he said. (continued here)

Think about the sheer stupidity this headline describes: Congress Votes To Fund Nearly 300,000 Visas For Muslim Migrants In One Year. Will you find anything in the Liberal news media about this provision in that 2,000 page bill that Congress  presented to us at the last minute? Yet it is there. Even though we are heading for an obvious crash, our glorious leaders still have us on auto pilot. Spending is through the roof. Our foreign policy is a wreck. We don’t even protect our borders. Even with a majority in both houses, we have too many RINOs in the Republican Party, too many RINOs who care more about pleasing fat cat donors than they do about the welfare of our country.

Is the Virginia Commonwealth different? Time will tell. Consider this email I got from Delegate Rob Bell.

ROB BELLDear friend:

Just in time for Christmas, Governor McAuliffe announced his $109 billion budget, which includes a wish list of $3 billion in new initiatives. Some of his proposals, like cuts in the corporate tax rate, are clearly intended to win conservative support.

But look deeper and McAuliffe’s real plan becomes clear. To pay for these proposals, McAuliffe endorses the Obamacare Medicaid expansion and imposes new taxes on hospitals (that would ultimately be passed on to patients).

This is fiscally reckless. Since 1985, Medicaid spending has increased by 2068% and has grown from 5% of the general fund (state) budget to more than 22%. (See the full chart, here.) Just since 2004, state Medicaid spending has grown from $1.8 billion to a projected $4.46 billion in 2018. This growth is clearly unsustainable, and McAuliffe’s proposed expansion would add hundreds of thousands more Virginians to the Medicaid rolls. Such expansion will only make it that much harder to address Medicaid’s runaway growth.

McAuliffe has stated that the only way to pay for his budget is to expand Medicaid. The House has repeatedly rejected this approach. As the budget process moves forward, I hope you will support a more fiscally responsible budget that addresses Virginia’s true needs without raising taxes or mortgaging our future.

If you would like to share your thoughts with the Governor, you can contact him here. Please also e-mail me any thoughts you have.


Rob Bell
Delegate, 58th District

Autopilot is not good enough. We have to replace the RINOs.


Do we have sufficient discernment to pick the best people to run our nation? The simple answer is no. To begin with, we have too much trouble distinguishing between a con man and an honest man.

What is a con man? The expression is an abbreviation. Here is the more formal term.

confidence man noun

a person who swindles others by means of a confidence game; swindler.

That leads to the next question. What is a confidence game?

confidence game noun

any swindle in which the swindler, after gaining the confidence of the victim, robs the victim by cheating at a gambling game, appropriating funds entrusted for investment, or the like.

The key detail is that the con man must gain the victim’s trust. That is, the con man must  convince his victim that his lies are true. How does a con man do that? He confidently tells us lies that we want to hear. Because the unvarnished truth is less palatable, the honest man usually has a more difficult sell.

With these thoughts in mind, let’s consider a few observations from the Vice Presidential Debate.

What Did They Say?

Below I have provided the video.

Here is the transcript from the Commission on Presidential Debates, and here both a copy of the  transcript and the audio are available.

Why Did They Select Martha Raddatz To Moderate The Debate?

Read ABC News scrambles to downplay Obama’s attendance at VP debate moderator’s wedding.  Here is how the article starts.

President Barack Obama was a guest at the 1991 wedding of ABC senior foreign  correspondent and vice presidential debate moderator Martha Raddatz, The Daily  Caller has learned….

The article goes on to make it clear that Raddatz and Obama have personal ties. Moreover, ABC News is considered a socialist Democrat outfit. Given that, why beg further trouble by selecting Martha Raddatz to moderate the debate? Why did the Romney/Ryan campaign agree to this? That we may never know, but here is the concern. The Federal Government alone spends 4 trillion dollars a year, and the complex mazes we call the federal tax code and federal regulations can radically influence business success. Therefore, our elected officials exercise enormous power and influence. That’s why the struggle to win elected office is so intense, and that’s why we must carefully deliberate over the procedures we use to elect our leaders.

Subtle Partisanship

Consider the difference between these two extracts from the debate.

The following is from the Commission on Presidential Debates’ website.

BIDEN: The court — the next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. That’s how close Roe v. Wade is. Just ask yourself, with Robert Bork being the chief adviser on the court for — for Mr. Romney, who do you think he’s likely to appoint? Do you think he’s likely to appoint someone like Scalia or someone else on the court far right that would outlaw (inaudible) — outlaw abortion? I suspect that would happen. (from here)

The following is from NPR’s website.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: The court — the next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. That’s how close Roe v. Wade is.

Just ask yourself: With Robert Bork being the chief adviser on the court for — for Mr. Romney, who do you think he’s likely to appoint? Do you think he’s likely to appoint someone like Scalia or someone else on the court, far right, that would outlaw Planned — excuse me — outlaw abortion? I suspect that would happen. (from here)

Note the differences. What Biden said was clearly audible. Even NPR could not ignore it. So why did difference? Is what actually came out of Biden’s mouth relevant? Consider this editorial, Planned Parenthood’s rebranding scheme. Listen to what Biden said, and form your own opinion.

The Vice President’s Debating Style Versus Ryan’s Substance

During the debate Paul Ryan felt compelled to make this statement.

REP. RYAN: Mr. Vice President, I know you’re under a lot of duress — (laughter) — to make up for lost ground — (laughter) — but I think people would be better served if we don’t keep interrupting each other. (from here)

Why? During the debate the Vice President constantly interrupted Ryan. At times, Ryan had to speak over Biden’s interruptions. What was that about?

My personal theory is that Biden chose to portray a sin as virtue. When someone exercises their right of free speech and we disagree, we have a choice. We can listen respectfully and then offer a reasoned counter argument, or we can self-righteously try to shut them up. I believe Biden chose the latter course of action.

At the same time, Biden — with all the confidence he could muster — portrayed himself as the guy with the facts. In the debate transcript, some version of the word “fact” occurs 30 times. Biden either used the term “fact” or “facts” 27 times. Ryan used the term “facts” once, and he used the term “factor” twice. Unlike Biden, Ryan seemed content to let the “facts” speak for themselves.

Only one time, apparently worried that anyone might believe otherwise, was Ryan compelled to “assert” the facts.

REP. RYAN: Absolutely. Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt. These are indisputable facts.

Contemplate the absurdity. Ryan has to assert that Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt? Who is in denial? But isn’t that the problem? Because we have let con men use unconstitutional “welfare” programs to raid our nation’s treasury, our nation is going bankrupt.

Of course, some of the socialist Democrats in the news media enjoyed Biden aggressive performance. Thus, we have this article, In vice presidential debate, Biden puts Ryan on the defensive.

So What’s The Bottom Line?

Listen to the news media.  Whenever we have a debate, this question enthralls them: who won? Thus, they want to know (and to tell us): did Ryan or Biden win the debate?

Is who won really the issue? Shouldn’t we care more about how much we can trust a candidate to run our country. Therefore, when you listen to a debate, I suggest the following. Ask yourself these questions.

  • Which candidate best understands the need for constitutional, limited government?
  • Which candidate calmly lets the facts speak for themselves?
  • Which candidate displays the most confidence in our ability to run our own lives?

When government officials demand more power, that power must inevitably come at the expense of the People.