vote for americaAt the Virginia Dept. of Elections, what happens if we click the center-top button? We get Presidential Primary Information. That page contains a table with dates. What are some of the critical dates?

  • Presidential Primary Election Day. — Tuesday, March 1, 2016
  • Deadline for presidential primary petitions and the combined Consent/Declaration of Candidacy to be filed with the State Board of Elections. — Thursday, December 10, 2015 (5:00 p.m.)
  • First day on which presidential primary petitions may be circulated. — Tuesday, June 23, 2015

In Virginia, those farseeing activist who wanted to get their candidate on Virginia’s Presidential Primary ballot started circulating petitions. Why that soon? Lots of signatures must be collected. Deadlines, Duties and Ballot Access Requirements describes the requirements. Here is the big hurdle. The petitions to be on the ballot:

Must be signed by not less than 5,000 qualified voters in Virginia, including at least 200 qualified voters from each of Virginia’s eleven congressional districts, who attest that they intend to participate in the primary of the same political party as the candidate named on the petition.

Because many people who are not registered to vote will sign a petition, it is recommended that 7,500 – 10,000 signatures be obtained with at least 300 signatures from each congressional district. (from here)

That’s why in Virginia’s 2012 Republican Presidential Primary Election only two candidates made it on the ballot: Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Both men, because they had run before, started early, had the money, and had the organization, were able to get on the ballot. The rest? Well, their supporters did not step forward, volunteer, and get the job done (see AN EXAMPLE OF HOW WE SHOOT OURSELVES IN THE FOOT UPDATED WITH OTHER VIEWS).

Well, since the establishment likes Virginia’s stupid rules for getting on Virginia’s Presidential Primary ballot, we still have those stupid rules. So what do we do? We get to work.

I have a friend who is a dedicated political activist. What is he doing? He is out collecting signatures for a couple of his favorite presidential candidates. Others are doing the same. When I was at the Prince William County Fair on Saturday (August 22, 2015), I stopped by a booth for Ben Carson and signed a petition for him.

What do you have to do?

  • We have to decide which of our favorite candidates have a real chance of winning, and we have to give them our support.
  • We must carefully read the rules (Deadlines, Duties and Ballot Access Requirements ), print petitions (PETITION OF QUALIFIED VOTERS FOR PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY), and collect signatures.
  • We must find out how to get our petitions to the campaigns we support. We must go to their websites. We must find a local office. We must let them know we want to volunteer, but we cannot wait to hear back from them. They still don’t have the people. We don’t have the time. We must get to work now.

Will it be easy? No. Will our favorite candidates be well organized in Virginia? Probably not, but that is why we need to help. We are electing human beings. By ourselves, none of us can do what needs to be done. The best we can do is to set a good example.


traditionsWhen illegal immigrant children started coming into our country, I hoped most of the opponents of illegal immigration would have enough sense not to direct their protests at the children. The children are not the problem. Our problem is the politicians aiding and abetting their illegal entry into the United States. If the politicians were doing their job, the children would not be trying to cross our borders. Unfortunately, there are a few people who have not given the matter enough thought.

Here is how Youth for Tomorrow Hires Off-Duty Police to Guard Entrance (bristowbeat.com) starts.

Following the controversy over Youth For Tomorrow’s Unaccompanied Minor Program, the Bristow facility that houses at-risk youth has posted off-duty police officers at its Linton Hall Road entrance as a precaution.

According to Prince William Police, they are not doing so at the county’s expense.

“YFT is paying for the officers to be there,” said police spokesperson Officer Jonathan Perok. “This is an off-duty detail not paid for by the county or department.”

While Youth for Tomorrow did not immediately return calls for comment on the issue, many speculate YFT is concerned about the strong emotions the controversy is garnering with the public and local politicians.

Tuesday, a resident contacted Bristow Beat soliciting support for promoting demonstrations in front of the facility. [Editor’s Note: The editorial staff refused the request.] (continued here)

Consider why Democrats think they can get away with bringing illegal immigrant children into our country. They are children. We are suppose to love children, not hate them. Therefore, if anyone opposes letting hordes of unaccompanied children cross our borders, the Democrats figure they can accuse them of hating children. Never mind the fact the Democrats have purely selfish reasons for bringing all these children into our country.

So what should we do if we want to protest illegal immigration? Try the following:

  • Visit and protest at the office of our congressman and two senators. We should be respectful, of course.
  • Send letters to our congressman and to our two senators. No curse words. We just need to tell them that if they don’t promptly fix this mess we are going to vote for someone else.
  • Send letters to the editor of our local paper. Here we can focus on the fact our leaders need to protect our country, not import more welfare dependents.
  • Support candidates who advocate limited government. If we are going to keep voting for increased funding of Social Security, Medicare, public education, food stamps, unemployment benefits, tax loopholes, and so forth, why should our leaders care what we think about illegal immigration?
  • Participate in the Tea Party protest movement and fight for our constitutional republic.
  • Join the Republican Party and fight for our constitutional republic.
  • Study the history and the traditions of the United States and pass that history and those traditions onto our children. Because we do not appreciate what the founders accomplished — because we don’t know how to make what they built work — our constitutional republic is dying.

We in America still have a distinct culture, one that even now has the potential to continue flourishing as the cradle of liberty. However, if we do not protect our borders, devious political leaders will succeed in completely dividing us by language and culture. You say that is not possible? Don’t our leaders already seek to divide us by race, sex, religion, age, wealth, …….? And you don’t think they won’t try to divide us by language and culture?

Consider what this phrase means:  God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Is it not just about living and letting others live in peace? Unfortunately, we have put a bunch of busybodies in charge, and busybodies are not content just to do the minimum government needs to do and then leave the people they seek to “serve” in peace. Instead, they want to make all our decisions for us, and that’s why our government now runs our healthcare, our schools, our retirement, our banking industry,… That’s why our government is putting the coal industry out of business, is forcing us to subsidize windmills, insists upon regulating Christian religious practices out of the public square,…. That’s why this country is going broke.

So leave the illegal immigrant children in peace. Pity them. If they had any sense, they would have stayed home. If we must protest, then we ought to give our elected officials some grief.

Other Views and Other News


war between AmericansAmericans have fought one another in two civil wars. That first civil war we now call the American Revolution. Why did so many of the colonists revolt against the mother country? To determine the causes, we need only read the Declaration of Independence. The American colonists were trying to throw off an odious tyranny.

Our second civil war goes by the name “civil war,” The American Civil War. We still argue over the causes of this war, but plainly the enslavement of blacks of African descent had something to do with it. Northern abolitionists wanted an end to the practice of slavery. Southerners wanted to spread the practice of slavery. Therefore, when Abraham Lincoln, the leader of a new political party opposed to slavery, became president, southern slave-owning states violently seceded from the Union.

Could it happen again? Could we have another civil war? The answer is “yes.” So long as the United States exists, there is a chance we will experience an irresolvable conflict that leads to war. Although we may look back at the issue of slavery and wonder why Southerners would not free their slaves, the plain fact is that the South fought with dogged determination to keep blacks in bondage. Even though they might have increased the number of their soldiers by offering enslaved blacks their freedom in return for service in the Confederate Army, the South would not do so. Some blacks served in the Confederate Army, but few had a role in direct combat. Official policy never supported the use of black soldiers in the Confederate Army.

However, blacks did serve in the Union Army (see Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War). Some were even awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

So what would the next American civil war be about? Since we cannot know for certain when or whether this war will be fought, we can only guess. How can we guess? What if we went to war with each other in the near future? What issues divide us today?

  • Abortion: Some people consider what they do with “their body” their right. Many of these even insist that they have the “right” to use government funds to pay for their abortions. Others see the rights of the unborn as far more important, and they are horrified by the prospect of being forced to pay for the “right” of other people to have an abortion. Thus, “Pro-Choice” advocates would impose their beliefs upon those who believe in Life.
  • Unconstitutional Taxation and Spending: Look at the Constitution. Then look at the Federal Budget. Don’t we have numerous large Federal programs unmentioned by the Constitution. Yet what was one of the major arguments for seceding from the United Kingdom? Was it not taxation without representation? Today our government officials routinely take money from taxpayers and give that money away to buy votes. In fact, the cost of government seems increasingly out of control. Thus, taxpayers are represented, but not in a meaningful way.
  • Secular Public Schools: Although they are suppose to be run by local and state governments, our nation’s schools have acquired many of the characteristics of a nationalized system. That includes our universities as well as K-12 education. And as the Federal role has increased, government has inexorably secularized what is taught in our nation’s schools. What the schools teach children too often conflicts with what their parents believe. Instead of being taught Christian values, government teachers preach multiculturalism, environmentalism, liberalism, humanism, socialism, and so forth. Thus, government interferes with the right of parents to educate their children in their own beliefs.
  • Immigration: According to Elements of international law: with a sketch of the history of the science by Henry Wheaton:

    A sovereign state is generally defined to be any nation or people, whatever may be the form of its internal constitution, which governs itself independently of foreign powers.

    Yet even children can swarm across our borders, and our dubious leaders will ensure these illegal aliens receive the “free” benefits of our welfare state. Thus, because we will not protect ourselves from even the weakest attempts at invasion, we risk national sovereignty.

  • Abuse Of The Powers Of Government Agencies: The power of Federal Government has grown beyond what was originally conceived in the Constitution. Here are a couple of examples.
    • At this point there is little doubt that during the last presidential campaign, leaders of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) used their organization’s powers to stifle Conservative organizations.
    • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), using Global Warming as an excuse, is being used to destroy the coal industry. Yet, no new legislation has been passed to justify this, and the legislation Congress has passed never envisioned carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

    Thus, because government leaders have so blatantly abused their authority, we risk both our freedom and our prosperity.

  • Dishonorable Judges: Our nation’s courts no longer adhere to what is plainly stated in the law.  Our judges have weirdly decided: (1) taxpayers must pay for the education of illegal immigrant children, (2) states must “marry” same-sex couples, (3) government can force citizens to buy health insurance, and so forth. Thus, because the meaning of the Law can no longer be discerned from what is actually stated in writing, we risk chaos and tyranny.
  • Dishonorable Elected Officials: When elected to executive positions, our officials no longer believe themselves obligated to either enforce the Law or adhere to the letter of the Law. This All-Star Panel: Has President Obama abused his authority? explains the problem. President Obama is essentially rewriting laws, threatening to combine legislative with executive authority. Thus, because the combination of executive power with legislative power is so easily abused, we risk tyranny.

What is the peaceful solution for these issues, one that might avoid a civil war? Because the United States is suppose to be a federation, we still have three identifiable levels of government: federal, state, and local. In the past, we exercised most of the power of government at the state and local level. Therefore, if the people of a city, county, or state were sufficiently unhappy with their government, they could leave and go where they could find a government more to their liking. Unfortunately, Federal Power has grown so immense we can no longer vote with our feet. In fact, we now have cause to wonder whether We The People have a government or the Federal Government has a people, and that should cause all of us to consider what we need to do to fix this problem.


elephantgop.pngHere I am sitting in my basement wondering who to vote for at Republican Party of Virginia 2014 Convention. I am leaning towards Shak Hill. Why? That is what this post is about.

Hill takes clear stands on the issues. Consider this paragraph from An Open Letter to Virginia Republican Delegates at The Virginia Conservative.

As I’ve written previously, I tried on several occasions to discover where Ed Gillespie stands on the issues.  Although his website contains a multitude of well-crafted videos in a variety of languages, there is very little substantive information of what he will actually do if elected.  For example, I know far more about his family history than I do about his stance on foreign policy.  To me, this deficit is a major problem.

If you don’t know anything about a candidate except the fact he is well-funded by wealthy donors, why vote for him? If all you really know about him is some rich people want him to win, why is that a positive? Yet some think it is. Consider this excerpt from ‘s post, What Happens if Shak Hill Wins the Nomination? at The Bull Elephant.

The goal of republicans across the country is to take back the Senate.  Shak will be of no help in reaching that goal.   Ed Gillespie has raised over $3 million and is well on his way to raising over $20 million, money we need to get our message out to the voters if we are to have any hope of winning the seat.  Gillespie was Chairman of the party with a proven record as a fundraiser.  He is known nationally, in every state.  He knows what he’s doing and will bring in money from across the country.  No national organization is going to waste money on an unknown in Virginia.

But what is Ed Gillespie known for?  THE RIGHT-WING LIBERAL offers this observation in Ed Gillespie – would-be Senate candidate – backed TARP (meaning I can’t support him).

While Gillespie is the most well known, he is also on record defending TARP (a.k.a., the bank bailout), which would be a crippling blow to his campaign (and the party as a whole) should he be nominated. For that reason, he doesn’t make the cut.

That said, Gillespie has one very critical flaw: as White House Counsel in 2008, he was a loud defender of TARP (CNN):

(CNN’s John) KING: You mentioned the economy. One of the last acts was this bailout. And $350 billion of it has been spent on George W. Bush’s watch. The second installment will come on Barack Obama’s. But many Americans, when you travel, they think, where did this money go? Did big banks get it on Wall Street? It is being flushed literally down the toilet? They don’t see the impact on Main Street.

But can you cite specific evidence that the first $350 billion has done anything to begin the turnaround?

GILLESPIE: You can, John. And in fact, if you look at the rates that have narrowed in terms of credit markets, the TED spreads and LIBOR, things, frankly, I didn’t know that much about until about six months ago, they were very — the spreads were high. And that’s not good for the credit markets.

The injection that the Treasury has put into the capital markets has helped ease those. Again, this is a difficult time. But the president said the other night, I believe rightly, that had we not acted boldly and had we not put this money into the financial markets, we would have seen a lot worse of a financial strain on the American people today than what we’re already witnessing.

Now, readers of my blog will know that I’ve been critical of TARP practically since its conception, and I have maintained that it was a terrible mistake. However, there is more to it than that. When Republicans nominate TARP supporters, they are essentially agreeing with the Democrats’ claim that the situation in 2008 was so terrible that President Obama should essentially be given a pass for any economic problems under his watch. It was one of the reasons Mitt Romney’s criticism of the president on the economy was so ineffective. It also damaged his efforts to criticize enlarging government in general.

When the Bush administration started pushing TARP, that started Tea Party activism. The reaction to TARP initiated the movement. Barack Obama’s huge stimulus bills, and Congress’ huge unread bills (especially Obamacare) just increased the horror and intensified the movement. Millions suddenly began to realize just how far our nation had gone down that dead-end road to Socialism (in the guise of crony-capitalism).

With TARP we began to understand we had a crisis created by allowing too much government interference in the economy. With TARP we could see the foolhardiness of letting politicians like President George W. Bush “fix” the problem by increasing government interference. And Ed Gillespie advocated TARP. There is simply no point in supporting any candidate who supported such a blatantly irresponsible raid on our government’s treasury.

Here in this WSJ editorial, How the GOP Should Approach TARP 2.0,  refined his support for TARP –once it became a Democrat program.

As the world awaits the details of the Obama administration’s version of TARP, two things have changed since last fall: First, we’re not facing the same massive, day-to-day market volatility and frozen credit markets that were the context of the original TARP decision. Second, our new president doesn’t have the same instinctual resistance to government intervention as his predecessor. Consequently, the next iteration of TARP is likely to be much more far-reaching. Democrats appear poised to impose many intrusive conditions on our financial institutions.

Note how he said what he said as if it were okay for a Republican administration to start the whole mess. If it was wrong for Democrats to do TARP, it was wrong for Republicans to start TARP. Can you imagine supporting TARP and then criticizing Democrats for their profligate spending? What is the point of taking Gillespie seriously?

Read the rest of How the GOP Should Approach TARP 2.0 by Gillespie. It is all about positioning, not Constitutional principles or just the plain difference between right and wrong.

That’s why I don’t care how much money Ed Gillespie can raise. I don’t want give him a chance to help his donors steal what’s in the Federal Treasury — again.