Virginia Right! News from Virginia, the US and the World 2017-12-08T02:38:30Z WordPress Elwood "Sandy" Sanders <![CDATA[GREAT NEWS! US Withdraws From Another UN Agreement! I Got Some More UN Treaties for the US to Withdraw From!]]> 2017-12-08T02:38:30Z 2017-12-08T02:38:30Z In another wonderful example of great news unprecedented in recent US history:

U.S. Quits Migration Pact, Saying It Infringes on Sovereignty

This is the NYTimes article I got the headline from.

Isn’t it wonderful?  Let’s try this headline again!

U.S. Quits Migration Pact, Saying It Infringes on Sovereignty

Here’s a highlight or two:

“While we will continue to engage on a number of fronts at the United Nations, in this case, we simply cannot in good faith support a process that could undermine the sovereign right of the United States to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders,” Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson said in a statement on Sunday.


Mr. Trump’s United Nations ambassador, Nikki R. Haley, said in the statement announcing the withdrawal that the declaration contained “numerous provisions that are inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies and the Trump administration’s immigration principles.”

Technically there is yet no treaty, that will be debated in 2018.  But the Times called it a “political declaration” and they must have seen language that was unacceptable and could not stop it.  America First!

But it is fabulous!

BUT not enough:  I got a few more treaties for the US to GET OUT of:

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Control

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

And any other treaty that requires a report to foreigners.  Mandatory reports to foreigners is not authorized by the Constitution.

We should also “unsign” these treaties:

Convention on Eradication of Discrimination Against Women (abortion among other issues)

Convention on the Rights of the Child (threatens parental rights)

Convention on Rights of the Disabled (threatens parental and homeschool rights as well and also requires us to answer to foreigners and is a trojan horse for other treaties)

So, this is a good start.  For more info, can go here and here for status of US on UN treaties.  (It’s actually a pretty good record.)

Thanks to patriot Sue Long for this hat tip.

Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders ]]>
Elwood "Sandy" Sanders <![CDATA[How My Readers Can Do[ing] The Most Good This Christmas Season!]]> 2017-12-03T01:43:17Z 2017-12-03T01:43:17Z I discovered a interesting fact recently:  The ubiquitous bell-ringers for the Salvation Army who I thought were mostly volunteers – well some are not actually.

Mostly in rural areas, the bell-ringers are indeed usually mostly if not all volunteers.  But in more urban areas, and Richmond is one of them, a large number of the bell-ringers are in fact paid.  I discovered that 90% of the local bell-ringers are paid.  In the River City, the first year a bell-ringer earned $7.50 a hour and in a second or subsequent year it is $8.00 an hour.

The Salvation Army has many places allocated for bell-ringers (ought to check out who is allowing it – like Kroger in Mechanicsville – I could hear the bell from the next door gym I go to) and they got to fill the spots.

How can I help?  If you have time to ring that bell and “person” a kettle, contact the local Central Virginia Salvation Army at this website or call the Salvation Army office at 804 225-7470.  If you can help the Army save a few dollars, (Ten Hours will be a bit like a donation of $75.00) you’ll be Doing The Most Good(tm) this Christmas season.

Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders ]]>
Elwood "Sandy" Sanders <![CDATA[How Did Evolution DO This Amazing Thing? (Hint: It Didn’t!)]]> 2017-12-02T16:22:13Z 2017-12-02T16:22:13Z The Atlantic magazine has this fascinating article on the humble scallop.  Spoiler alert:  Might not want to ever eat a scallop again after reading this article!

The eyes of a scallop are like a complex telescope.  Read this description from the Atlantic article:

In 2019, if everything goes according to plan, the much-delayed James Webb Space Telescope will finally launch into orbit. Once assembled, it will use an array of 18 hexagonal mirrors to collect and focus the light from distant galaxies. This segmented-mirror design was developed in the 1980s, and it has been so successful that it will feature in almost all the large telescopes to be built in the near future.

But as always, nature got there first. For millions of years, scallops have been gazing at the world using dozens of eyes, each of which has a segmented mirror that’s uncannily similar to those in our grandest telescopes. And scientists have just gotten a good look at one for the first time.


Inside the eyes, the weirdness deepens. When light enters a human eye, it passes through a lens, which focuses it onto the retina—a layer of light-sensitive cells. When light enters a scallop eye, it passes through a lenslike structure, which … doesn’t seem to do anything. It then passes through two retinas, layered on top of each other. Finally, it hits a curved mirror at the back of the eye, which reflects it back onto the retinas. It’s this mirror, and not the lens, which focuses the incoming light, in much the same way that those in segmented telescopes do.

Now I knew the writer (Atlantic and the New Yorker has great writing but their editorial positions tend to be toward the left.) would spin this for evolution and here it is (Warning: Might hurt yourself laughing too hard!):

The whole structure is a master class in precision engineering. “When there is an elegant physical solution, the evolutionary process is very good at finding it,” says Alison Sweeney, a physicist at the University of Pennsylvania who studies animal vision.


So not only must the cells control the growth of the crystals inside them, but they also have to communicate with each other to arrange themselves just so. “How do they do that? I really don’t know,” she adds.

Okay everybody, stop laughing.  This is serious science.  Now read this:

This precision is all the more remarkable because guanine crystals don’t naturally form into thin squares. If you grow them in the lab, you get a chunky prism. Clearly, the scallop actively controls the growth of these crystals, shaping them as they form. Guanine crystals grow in layers, and Addadi thinks that the scallop somehow shifts the orientation of each layer by 90 degrees relative to the ones above and below it. As the layers grow outward, they do so in only four directions, creating a square. How it does that is a mystery, as is everything else about the way the mirrors form.

Guanine is a chemical that is one of the four bases of DNA and RNA, too.

Now let’s turn to Charles Darwin himself on the subject of the eye and evolution:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

To be fair, Darwin attempts to answer his own objection as stated in this article here.  What Darwin attempts to argue is that it occurred over a long period of time in tiny small changes into a completed eye.   But it is asking evolution a lot to come up by small stages and even Darwin admits that:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. I can find out no such case.

I will leave it up to the reader if the incredibly complex scallop’s eye is such an organ.  I would say it is extremely unlikely such an eye could form in such a way in small stages as it seems two retinas and a mirror system rivaling the most complex telescopes built by mankind but I contend:  Creation is a matter of faith – science cannot prove it.  But neither can evolution.  It also is a matter of faith.

Time to ponder the scallop’s wonderful complex eye and ask:  Did a Creator do it?  If the Holy Spirit is speaking to you right now, here’s where to go to find out more about how to know Jesus.



Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders ]]>
Elwood "Sandy" Sanders <![CDATA[Does Everybody REALLY Hate Jill Stein? Not This Blogger!]]> 2017-12-02T05:17:11Z 2017-12-02T05:17:11Z There is a fascinating article in VICE about two-time Green Party Presidential Candidate Dr. Jill Stein and here is the title (good clickbait for sure!)

Everybody Hates Jill

So I had to read it for sure (see clickbait works!) and I was fascinated.

Now let’s make it clear – I don’t hate anyone; rather my feelings for Dr. Stein is to the contrary some degree of admiration and respect for her.  She won over 1,400,000 votes but yet Hillaryites are mad at everyone that might have caused her defeat (they have not blamed me yet!) including Stein:

In the process, she’s become both a punchline and a scapegoat. Despite receiving a mere 1,457,050 votes nationwide last year, she became the perfect patsy (alongside many other targets) for devastated Hillary Clinton supporters to project their post-election grief onto. In Clinton’s election memoir, What Happened, she writes, “Stein wouldn’t be worth mentioning, except for the fact that she won thirty-one thousand votes in Wisconsin, where Trump’s margin was smaller than twenty-three thousand. In Michigan, she won fifty-one thousand votes, while Trump’s margin was just over ten thousand.”

Roll over Jill Stein and tell Rob Sarvis the news!  Sarvis was blamed for the Cuccinelli loss in 2013 even though the exit polls did not support that conclusion.

And I found wonderful how Stein feels about running for office:

Arguably, Stein’s career peaked during the 2002 Massachusetts governor’s race. She loved running for office—”it was so much fun,” she told me, oozing with girlish excitement—and performed surprisingly well, coming in in third place with about 3 percent ofe the vote.

Not quite BTSED and I am sure Jill Stein would never say it like that (maybe I shouldn’t have but it was to be good clickbait) but running for office can be exciting and even fun.  Ask some of the victorious Dems now in the House of Delegates.

It helps to run for office (and might be more fun) especially if you are essentially a multimillionaire:

When I emailed her spokesperson to confirm or deny whether she was a multimillionaire, a claim supported by a 2016 Daily Beast report, she sent me four paragraphs that emphasized how her “time, energy and financial resources have been focused on dismantling economic inequality and a political system serving the economic elite,” so yes, her “family income, being a two-doctor couple, has been very generous,” but make no mistake, her family has “had minimal expenses—driving old and used cars, rarely taking vacations (the last was ten years ago), sending [their] kids to public middle/high schools, eschewing fancy jewelry, clothes, vacation home and private clubs of any sort,” and then going into the “deceptive smears” she receives “from the DNC apologists.”

In short, yes, Jill Stein is a multimillionaire—she’s just unable to answer the straightest of questions in fewer than three paragraphs.

But I think Stein is being sold short in this very respectful article.  It is okay to be nuanced on issues like this.  Is it better for Jill Stein to spend her personal money to make her ideas better?  Look at Green registration:

Although Green Party membership fell to a 15-year low in May 2016, with only 216,200 registered Greens, Stein’s post-election recruitment efforts seem to be paying off—as of August 2017, there are 257,389 registered Greens throughout the United States, down from the 2004 high of nearly 319,000, but a solid number for an American third party.

BTW, the Libertarians have over 500,000 registrations!  And Stein was helping local parties:

Since the election, Stein has been traveling around the country to support local Green Party groups. When we first met, Stein was preparing to fly to Salt Lake City for the official launch of the Utah Greens.

But I do agree with the criticism of useless spending of millions on crazy recounts after the election:

It’s true that everything she does gets pilloried by national political observers. After Hillary Clinton’s razor-thin 2016 loss, Stein led an effort to recount the votes in the Midwestern swing states that gave the election to Donald Trump, raising over $7 million.

What could seven million dollars do for local Greens?  Greens in Virgnia?  (I could use some of that money for missions trips!)  Major ad campaigns for their ideas.

Let me make it clear:  I disagree strongly with some aspects of the Green Party platform.  Too much climate change nonsense and globalism.  But also some things I do agree with:  Fewer US wars.

But I admire the heck out of Dr. Jill Stein for running and standing for what she thinks is right.  We do need choices – a lot more choices – at local and state and the national level for politics.  Third parties seldom win but they do influence the debate.




Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders ]]>
Elwood "Sandy" Sanders <![CDATA[Publius Huldah is Absolutely Right Here!]]> 2017-11-30T23:54:49Z 2017-11-30T23:54:49Z Another essay from Publius Huldah.  I endorse this position.

The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment and Daniel Webster

By Publius Huldah

“The politician that undertakes to improve a Constitution with as little thought as a farmer sets about mending his plow, is no master of his trade. If that Constitution be a systematic one, if it be a free one, its parts are so necessarily connected that an alteration in one will work an alteration in all; and this cobbler, however pure and honest his intentions, will, in the end, find that what came to his hands a fair and lovely fabric goes from them a miserable piece of patchwork.” Daniel Webster, 4th of July Oration, 1802.

We live in a time of constitutional illiteracy. A recent survey found that only 26% of Americans can name the three branches of the federal government. Yet every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows all about how to amend a document he never bothered to read. Our lawyers were indoctrinated in law school with the Supreme Court’s perversions of our Constitution, and know nothing of our actual Constitution. We should read and learn the Constitution we have before we tinker with it or jump on the bandwagon of tinkerers. Otherwise, we destroy the “fair and lovely fabric” we were given.


Under our Constitution, Congress makes the laws, and the President enforces them. The powers of “making” and “enforcing” are separated so that the President and Congress may act as a “check” on each other.

But 100 years ago, Congress starting passing laws they had no constitutional authority to make, and delegated the details to be written in by agencies within the Executive Branch. This process continued and resulted in the Code of Federal Regulations which contains the huge body of regulations made by agencies within the Executive Branch. And thus we got the unconstitutional administrative law state under which every aspect of our lives is being increasingly regulated and controlled. 1

And now appear those who, under the promise of limiting the regulatory administrative law state, propose an Amendment to our Constitution which would legalize it!

1. Only the Legislative Branch has Constitutional Authority to make Laws

Article I of our Constitution created the Legislative Branch of the federal government. Section 1 thereunder says:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

That means what it says. Only Congress may make laws [and laws are restricted to the powers granted in the Constitution]; and laws may be made only by elected Senators and Representatives in Congress.

2. The Executive Branch Enforces the Laws Congress makes

Article II of our Constitution created the Executive Branch. A primary function of that branch is to enforce laws passed by the Legislative Branch. Since the President’s Oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, he is obligated to refuse to enforce any Act of Congress which is unconstitutional.

3. Rulemaking by Agencies in the Executive Branch

But during the early 1900s, Congress began to make laws outside the scope of the handful of powers granted to the federal government, and delegated the details to be written by unelected bureaucrats in the Executive Branch.

This is now routine practice: Congress passes an overall statutory framework, and bureaucrats in the Executive Agencies write the rules to flesh it out. The Agencies themselves are often unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers granted in the Constitution. 2

To illustrate: Congress passed – without reading – the over 2,000-page Obamacare act. Then it went to the Department of Health & Human Services (an unconstitutional federal agency) to have tens of thousands of additional pages of regulations added to fill out the framework.

This unconstitutional practice resulted in the infamous Code of Federal Regulations. The Code is so huge it’s difficult to impossible to keep up with the rules and revisions which pretend to regulate one’s trade, business, or profession.

The administrative law state and agency rules are unconstitutional! They violate Art. I, § 1, US Constitution, and are outside the scope of powers granted to the federal government.

So, what’s the solution?

4. The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment

Roman Buhler of the “The Madison Coalition” says we should support the “Regulation Freedom” Amendment to the US Constitution:

“Whenever one quarter of the Members of the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate transmit to the President their written declaration of opposition to a proposed federal regulation, it shall require a majority vote of the House and Senate to adopt that regulation.”

Do you see the trap the amendment sets? It would legalize rulemaking by federal agencies in the Executive Branch and would thus supersede Article I, §1 of our Constitution! And the entire existing Code of Federal Regulations and the rulemaking process itself – which now violate the Constitution – would be made constitutional! 3

The amendment would thus bring about a fundamental transformation of our Constitution from one where Laws are made by elected Representatives on only a handful of enumerated powers; to the administrative law state where laws are made by unelected, nameless, faceless bureaucrats in the Executive Branch (the same branch that accuses, prosecutes, and judges violations). The executive agencies would make whatever Rules they pleaseand they would stand unless Congress, which often doesn’t even read the laws they pass, overrules it.

It protects 2nd Amendment Rights?

In an email dated November 10, 2017, Mr. Buhler said his proposed amendment “protects 2nd Amendment Rights”.

But his amendment does the opposite – it legalizes all the existing federal regulations which restrict firearms and ammunition. Look at Title 27, Chapter II, Subchapter B, Parts 478 and 479 of the Code of Federal Regulations. As of now, every rule in Parts 478 & 479 is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated in the Constitution; violates Article I, §1; and violates the 2nd Amendment. But with Buhler’s proposed amendment, all those rules would become constitutional!

Furthermore, the amendment would provide constitutional authority for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to make whatever future rules they want – and they would all be constitutional unless Congress objects and votes against them.

So the amendment vastly increases the powers of the federal government by legalizing what is now grotesquely unconstitutional.

5. Daniel Webster’s Warning

We are in a state of moral, religious, intellectual, and psychological decline. We don’t know what our Constitution says, and didn’t bother to find out. We elected people who didn’t know and didn’t care – and they made a mess.

To fix the mess, we must learn and enforce the Constitution we have and elect people who know it and obey it. We can gradually downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers. And as to Buhler’s proposed amendment, heed Daniel Webster’s warning:

“…If an angel should be winged from Heaven, on an errand of mercy to our country, the first accents that would glow on his lips would be, Beware! Be cautious! You have everything to lose; you have nothing to gain. We live under the only government that ever existed which was framed by the unrestrained and deliberate consultations of the people. Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once gone, might leave a void, to be filled, for ages, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism…”Webster’s Oration.


1 Administrative law judges in Executive Branch agencies decide whether violations of agency rules have occurred. The agencies thus act as lawmaker, prosecutor, and judge! Isaiah 33:22 says God is our Judge, Law-giver, and King. Because humans are corrupt, our Framers separated the functions into three separate branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. And since the Oath of Office requires persons within each branch to obey the Constitution – not the other brancheseach branch has a “check” on the other branches.

2 Where’s the constitutional authority for the Dept. of Education? Energy? Agriculture? Housing & Urban Development? Labor? Environmental Protection? etc., etc., etc.?

3 Our existing, but long ignored, Constitution limits federal power to the enumerated powers. But the proposed amendment would supersede that limitation because it permits the exercise of federal power on whatever the Executive Agencies make rules about!

I would have to see about a statute that would do same thing.  But enshrining the regulatory plan in the Constitution would be a serious mistake.  It is critical to ensure laws that are passed are carefully written.  The voters in the Sixth Congressional District will have two solid choice if what I heard on John Fredericks yesterday is true:  Del. Ben Cline v. former Texas State Board of Education member Cynthia Dunbar.



Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders ]]>
Bob Shannon <![CDATA[FOX NEWS NEEDS TO FACT CHECK CLAIMS MADE BY TULSA SCHOOL TEACHER]]> 2017-11-29T10:59:38Z 2017-11-27T17:22:32Z

truth photoPerhaps it was one of those warm fuzzy Holiday stories that a news director thought need told so they ran with it.

A 3rd grade teacher in Tulsa decided last year to “ pan handle” with a street sign…. “ teacher needs money to buy school supplies”    standing on the side of a busy intersection “ panhandling”, as they say.

I sat listening to her story of how that effort last year morphed into a “ Go funding page” where she raised some $ 20,000 for her effort, commendable as they are. It was however when this teacher made the statement that “ we haven’t had a raise in 10 years”, a clear reference to teacher pay  that my ears perked up.

In 2015 our local T.E.A Party group did a rather detailed analysis of Public School data provided by the reputable Heritage Foundation that studied public school statistics covering the period from 1950—2012. The study showed that Student populations in U.S Public Schools had increased 96%–Teacher Count during that same period was up 252%…………….Administrative Staffing over 700% !

That same year we took a closer look at the King William County School budget data to see if we could glean some truths about teacher and staffing compensation. I was a bit befuddled because I would hear and read these claims that our local teachers hadn’t had a pay raise in XXX number of years. What puzzled me was after attending numerous school board and budget meetings I was learning simultaneously a new language….the language that bureaucrats speak. I had never heard the terms…..

Salary scale adjustments—–step increases—compression adjustments—–and then it dawned on me what was happening. Language fraud. You see they have invented these new terms so as to avoid using the conventional language we all associate with an increase in pay—pay  raises ?  The various school officials School Superintendent, the school Finance Director are vocally stating or in Power Point Presentations they do for the Board of Supervisors………….”we haven’t had a pay raise in XXX years”

Article written by: Bob Shannon ]]>
Samuel Bocetta <![CDATA[12 Weeks in Virginia: Why More Laws Will Not Stop Gun Violence]]> 2017-11-23T09:35:59Z 2017-11-23T09:35:59Z

Another day, another silly, uninformed anti-gun story by a liberal media outlet.

This time around, it was The Washington Post tracing where a handgun went over 12 weeks, and from the beginning, you can tell they’re trying to sell you on the horrors one gun can cause. The title alone references “a dozen criminal acts” and “the rapid cycle of gun violence.”

Today, we’ll go over how this gun-tracking experiment worked, and what ridiculous stories like this mean for you as a Virginia citizen.

What Happened in this Gun-Tracking Experiment

The story starts in a Virginia strip mall. Two young men, Jamal Fletcher Baker and Lawrence Monte Morgan, had been on a shopping spree, buying more than $3,500 worth of firearms.

They picked out a used Glock 17 at Virginia Arms Co. In case you’re not too familiar with Glock pistols, the Glock 17 is essentially the flagship model. Glock pistols in general are known for being reliable and easy to use, with a no-frills design.

The Glock 17 is the most widely used handgun by law enforcement. Even though a popular variant on it, the Glock 19, is a smaller version of the gun, the Glock 17 is still fairly easy to conceal, making it a popular choice for concealed carry.

So, Baker bought the gun and got a solid deal at $325. Even though he had just fille out Federal Form 4473 and claimed the gun was for himself, he gave it to his buddy Morgan about as soon as they got out of the shop.

Surprise, surprise – after that, the gun became part of all kinds of criminal activities. Six days after Baker bought the Glock, it was near Nationals Park, where it was used during a shootout at a barbecue. That incident occurred at a man named Romeo Hayes’ home. A friend of his had purchased the Glock from Morgan and got an extended 30-round magazine for it.

A few days later, the gun was in the glovebox of Hayes’ Nissan Altima. After a night of drinking and a brief confrontation at a nightclub, Hayes’ friend drove the car while Hayes opened fire with the gun. An off-duty police officer chased after the Altima, and Hayes shot at her, as well.

The Altima then pulled up to another car that coincidentally also had an off-duty detective, Thurman Stallings, in it. Hayes shot Stallings multiple times, but fortunately, Stallings survived.

Hayes and his friend fled the scene and briefly escaped. Police soon found the car again, since it was badly damaged, and chased it. The police would capture Hayes soon after, although they didn’t recover the gun. It would end up in the hands of an underground gun trader nicknamed “Poppa.”

The Glock 17 was eventually recovered about six months after Baker first bought it.

Stricter Gun Laws Aren’t the Answer

The Washington Post piece says that how quickly a gun can move from being sold to being used in a crime is “breathtaking,” although that is a bit overly dramatic. Of course if a criminal buys a gun, they probably aren’t going to wait long before using it during a crime.

Unfortunately, people draw the wrong conclusions from stories like this. Citizens and politicians hear about how recklessly criminals use guns like the AR-15, and they start calling out for what they consider “common sense” gun control measures. It’s funny how their common sense tells them to willingly give up rights that the Founding Fathers would have died for.

Anyone who understands Virginia’s gun laws would know that none of what happened with that Glock 17 was legal. That’s the problem with using these stories to argue for stricter gun laws. The people involved didn’t care at all about the current gun laws. What good would it do to add more gun laws that criminals won’t follow? The only person who suffers from that are responsible gunowners who respect the law.

Saying we need more gun control laws because criminals use guns illegally is like saying we need to go back to the Prohibition days because people drink and drive. The blame should be on the person who’s committing the crime. For that reason, there’s no need for more gun laws. We just need to enforce the ones we already have.

Virginia’s Gun Laws Are at Risk

As it stands, Virginia’s gun laws effectively balance public safety with the right to bear arms. That could change, though, if we aren’t careful.

The Democrats swept Virginia in early November, and advocates of gun control got an encouraging sign when they had just as many people hit the polls as advocates for gun rights. That hasn’t happened often, because it’s typically the gun rights advocates who come out to vote and protect their Second Amendment rights.

Some called it the “enthusiasm gap,” as the people who supported gun rights were much more committed to their beliefs than the people who supported gun control.

You can bet that the Democrats are going to try to use this victory to institute more gun legislation in Virginia and turn it into another heavily regulated mess, just like California or New York.

It’s important to remember that these things don’t happen all at once. The left slowly chips away at our gun rights, piece by piece, referring to everything as a common-sense measure that’s all about keeping people safe. Then, they gradually take more and more, until we end up with mandatory waiting periods, no concealed carry permits and assault weapons laws that ban just about every semiautomatic rifle you can imagine.

It has happened to other states, and it can happen to ours. That’s why we can’t be complacent just because we’re okay with our gun laws now. If we want to keep our right to bear arms, it’s our responsibility to fight for them.

Article written by: Samuel Bocetta ]]>
Tom White <![CDATA[Hypocritical Ted Cruz and his Cruz-bots Demand Roy Moore Step Down from Senate Bid]]> 2017-11-16T14:52:50Z 2017-11-16T14:52:50Z

Ted Cruz photo

Photo by DonkeyHotey

Remember back in May 2016 during the Republican Presidential Primary? Remember these headlines?

Presidential candidate Ted Cruz is trying to survive an explosive “dirt file” on the finger-wagging conservative senator!

Dirty Politics!

SHOCKING CLAIMS: Pervy Ted Cruz Caught Cheating —

With 5

Secret Mistresses!

The romps that could destroy his presidential campaign!

Cruz denied the allegations. His followers attacked anyone that dared to mention the story. Especially us Trump supporters.

But as allegations from 4 decades ago arise against Roy Moore, most of which involve claims without proof that Moore “hit on them” when they were young, the same Ted Cruz that asked people to believe his denials over his own “false” allegations is now piling on Moore and has withdrawn his endorsement of the Alabama Republican.

Cruz claimed his alleged dirty affairs were all just a political hit job designed to thwart his presidential aspirations.

So with these equally unproven allegations surface against Moore, several of the claimants being Democrats and supporters of the Democrat opposing Moore, you would think Cruz – of all people – would give Moore the benefit of the doubt. Especially when one of the accuser’s own step son says his step Mom is lying you would think Cruz would see this as a political hit job.

But no. Cruz and his Cruz-bot disciples have all turned on Roy Moore.

The reason might seem confusing to those that do not follow politics that closely.

Don’t Teddy and his Cruz-bots hate Donald Trump?

Well, yes. Many pretend they are somewhat supportive, but at every opportunity they turn on our President with absolutely no proof of the allegation of the day put forth by the liberal Trump hating media.

But didn’t Trump back Moore’s Primary opponent? Trump was never a Roy Moore supporter, right?

Yes. That too is true. Trump worked and tweeted for Moore’s swamp dwelling opponent in the Republican primary, much to the consternation and disappointment of Trump’s base. And Mitch McConnell spent millions in a losing effort.

So I am confused. Why would Cruz and his minions abandon the guy Trump opposed? That doesn’t make sense.

Ok. Follow me closely. Yes Cruz and the Cruz-bots hate Trump. And it makes sense that they would be happy when a candidate that Trump supported loses. So why don’t they at least give Moore the benefit of the doubt here? And come to his defense. Surely Cruz, after being on the receiving end of this type of political character assassination himself would be sympathetic to Moore being hit with 40 year old unproven allegations of sexual misconduct by Democratic operatives, right?

The Steve Bannon factor.

Steve Bannon was a major Trump supporter and advisor. But if there is anyone that Trump haters hate as much, or more than, Trump, it is Steve Bannon. The guy is a big part of the reason Trump won. And he is on a mission now to continue draining the swamp. He and Trump were on opposite sides in this primary. Trump supported the McConnell candidate and Bannon supported Moore. Moore is not likely to be a “yes” vote to allow McConnell to remain Majority leader. So McConnell has done everything he could possibly do to sink Moore. Even if it means a Democrat wins the seat. And speculation is, McConnell and Trump came to some sort of a deal. If Trump supports “Big Luther” in the Primary, McConnell will return the favor with some piece of Legislation Trump wants. Perhaps killing Obamacare or Tax Reform. Whatever the reason, Trump went off the reservation ind waded into the swamp to help McConnell.

But Teddy and the Cruz-bots loathe Bannon and anyone he supports. And this in spite of Bannon saying he plans to primary every Senator except Ted Cruz.

I know. It doesn’t make sense. But just remember. There are very few “former” Ted Cruz supporters who actually support President Trump. They try their best to hide it, but most, if not all of them, are keeping their powder dry in hopes of Ted Cruz mounting a primary challenge to try to take out Donald Trump in 2020. Which is why they never fail to miss an opportunity to back-stab Trump. Or Bannon. Or any of us Trump supporters.

I had hoped that this divide would go away after the election. But I now believe it never will.

Which is why the GOP is headed down the toilet.


Article written by: Tom White ]]>
Tom White <![CDATA[SOS – SAVE OUR SOVEREIGNTY by Sue Long]]> 2017-11-14T23:49:59Z 2017-11-14T23:49:59Z

nafta photo

Photo by BorderExplorer

To his credit, Trump pulled the USA out of TPP, which would have diminished our sovereignty.  However,  he is now misguided about NAFTA ; Instead of getting out of it he is talking about renegotiating.

He has appointed as our trade negotiator, twenty-year veteran of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, Robert  Lighthizer

Also, Wilber Ross, Trump’s Secretary of Commerce, has said that  TPP should be the foundation on which NAFTA should  be renegotiated.

Granted, our trade situation is not good.. but NAFTA is not the solution.
Free Trade could be written on one page.  NAFTA has many pages of regulations, and, we would be subject to the rules of a foreign government.   This is how the once free nations of Europe lost their sovereignty. Thinking that it would be good for trade, they joined the EU.

NAFTA would lead to America, Mexico and Canada uniting into the North American Union,( NAU) a regional government and more loss of American sovereignty and elimination of our borders.

When the globalists failed to bring America directly under the control of the UN,  they changed their strategy to form regional governments that could then be merged into the UN. The EU, NAFTA and  NAU are such  governments.

Help save our sovereignty.  Please contact:

President Trump    (202) 456-1111  and
Post cards get there sooner than envelopes:
The White House,1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500
U.S. Representatives  (202)225-3121   and    U.S. Senators  (202)224-3121

Urge them to get out of NAFTA,  not renegotiate.

By Sue Long

Article written by: Tom White ]]>
Elwood "Sandy" Sanders <![CDATA[My OPEN LETTER to Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark]]> 2017-11-14T12:16:04Z 2017-11-14T12:16:04Z Now let’s meddle in LP politics:  Since the election is over and no one can accuse me of pro-Libertarian bias (not the worse bias to have) or to influence the election (one of my readers has already rightly said I do not influence elections!) in 2017, I can now draft this open letter:

An Open Letter to Libertarian Party Chairman Nicholas Sarwark:

Dear Nicholas:

First, let me say how much I respect and admire you.  Former public defender (in Colorado), now part of the operation in Arizona for a family car business, and elected twice the Chairman of the Libertarian Party.  We’ve communicated and I am not prominent but I have been treated by you and other libertarians as if I am.  I appreciate it.

I know you will listen and ponder this matter as coming from a friend of liberty and the LP.  I am not a member of any political party; helps keep my blogging somewhat honest and multi-partisan.  I can endorse any candidate I want.

What could have happened in 2017 could have been:

Say about 9 pm EST election night, talking head after talking head are again marvelling…

So-and-so at the DNN or the CSSR network would be saying:

Another remarkable election story – from Virginia this time – the wonderfully funded Libertarian candidate for Governor – compared to prior elections – libertarians made thousands of small contributions to lift IP attorney Hyra out of obscurity – he raised millions of dollars.  Now Hyra is on the verge of actually doing something no Libertarian has ever done:  Win a statewide election.  With 89% of the vote, Hyra has 40% of the vote with GOP nominee Ed Gillespie at 33% and Democrat Ralph Northam at 25%…

But alas…2017 in Virginia was another wasted opportunity for the LP.  It is no disrespect to Cliff Hyra that he only garnered 1.2%; it is not due to his ideas.  I think there was an issue on the office to run for but Cliff took the chance, ran statewide (while his wife had a baby!  Few spouses would have been okay with that!) and got ideas out.  I can have nothing but respect for that.  Almost a little bit of temptation to envy.

I had suggested (even at the Virginia LP convention) that the office to run for was Lieutenant Governor.  Governor and AG would be hotly contested races this time.  But maybe not so in 2021.  Herring will probably run for governor in 2021.  Adams might run again but I think his future (if he wants it) is the state supreme court or federal district/appellate court.

That brings me to this news story:

Ballot Access News reported that Libertarian Party registration in the 32 states (Virginia is not one of them) where persons register by party is now over 500,000.  That’s right – one half million LPers throughout the nation.  The third largest party in the nation.

Democratic 44,706,349 (40.30%)
Republican 32,807,417 (29.57%)
independent & misc. 30,818,334 (27.78%)
Libertarian 511,277 (.46%)
Green 258,683 (.23%)
Constitution 97,893 (.09%)
Working Families 52,748 (.05%)
Reform 5,204 (.00+%)
other parties 1,684,317 (1.52%)

Twice the Greens!  Five times the Constitution Party.

There is now no excuse.  I am making a political observation.  There is no excuse.  If each of those 500,000 libertarians had given Cliff Hyra just $25.00 his campaign would have – not one million dollars – not even five million dollars – but a cool $12,500,000.00!

Suppose there was a legal movement (There is a state PAC that is to help Libertarian and friends of liberty candidates) that says let’s get $25.00 from each registered libertarian – now understand these persons are not voters leaning toward the LP or voters calling themselves a “libertarian” but voters who have gone to a registrar or sent in a registration form and said – “I’m affiliating formally with the Libertarian Party!”  Just $25.00 I am saying.

What does $25.00 buy? I priced a 12 pack of Budweiser beer online and it is about $12.00.  (I am not condoning the purchase or consumption of alcoholic beverages.)  And a Chick-fil-A sweet tea gallon is just over $5.00 with tax.

So could every person in USA, in the states where voters register by party (Virginia is thankfully not one of them), who has formally affiliated with the LP gave up TWO twelve packs of beer or five gallons of sweet tea at CFA and sent it to Cliff Hyra’s campaign and what would be the result?

The result would be $12.5 MILLION DOLLARS.

Can you imagine the headlines if Hyra had raised even FIVE MILLION DOLLARS?


Libertarian Hopeful Raises COOL FIVE MILLION Dollars!

Is Hyra NOW a Contendar!

Hyra would be on every national talk show (again in some cases) and would surely have money for a credible campaign – if he uses the money well.  Should get the ten percent needed for ballot access.  Might actually win.  And money draws other money into the race.  People will say – check that out – I’ll give a hundred!  Or a thousand.  Only need a few thousand such donors and there is another million.  PACs would get in the race because they could make a difference.

People gave a cool million (in spite of campaign finance limits) to Dr. Larry Lessig for a wacky but serious campaign for President in 2016 to talk issues.  (I think with the duest respect for Dr. Lessig, he should not have withdrawn but used the Ron Paul guerrilla campaign to get his ideas out.  A million will buy some serious airtime say in Iowa and NH where his campaign could have made a difference but I digress.  Mighty tarantula, back on focus!)

I know about and just saw the money bomb 2018 and I would say that is a great start.  Let’s start with 25 dollars.

Only 25 dollars.  What if libertarians rallied around their off-year elections and increased their electoral exposure?  Might change US political history.

One more thing:  I am an evangelical follower of Christ and most of the churches I am familiar with talk about tithing – donating ten percent to the church.  Fierce discussions about is it sinful not to tithe and should you tithe on net or gross but that is not relevant here.  But it would be useful for libertarians to consider a serious commitment:  A one percent of either net or gross income donation to the LP or a PAC helping libertarian candidates as a political version of the tithe.  It would be helpful to a lot of candidates.

Well, there’s another wasted election cycle down the drain.  Maybe there’s always 2019 when Virginia has the entire legislature up for election.  12.5 million smackers would encourage solid candidates to run, especially in uncontested elections and maybe a surprise on election day.  We saw what underfunded hopefuls with passion and a passionate following can do Tuesday.  And 2021, when the big three are up again.  Remember, LG is the sleeper position.  $12 million ought to win that one for the right LP hopeful.


Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders ]]>