Categorized | Featured, News

Virginia Right! Endorses Libertarian Sarvis for Governor, Jackson for Lt. Gov. and Obenshain for AG


Virginia Right! Endorses Libertarian Candidate Robert Sarvis for Governor of Virginia!


Virginia Right! Endorses Republican Candidate E.W. Jackson for Lt. Governor of Virginia!


Virginia Right! Endorses Republican Candidate Mark Obenshain for Attorney General of Virginia!

About the governor’s race:

Sandy’s Comments on the Overall Endorsement:
I had fully intended to endorse Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli this fall. In fact, I take seriously the promise I made to intend to support all the GOP statewide (and local) candidates when I agreed to be a delegate to the convention this spring. Yes, I knew the Libertarians were going to try to run a candidate for Governor and knew his name but that was about all I knew about Robert C. Sarvis. I figured he’d get 1-2% of the vote and be a nonfactor.
Then two things happened: Giftgate and I got to know Sarvis better. I had decided to give the Libertarians a bit of time at the blog because there is a certain romance of the third party candidate with long odds to win but usually good at articulating important issues and the Libertarian Party has a message that is important to keep out there. I am concerned about what I see as the increasing “Tweedledee and Tweedledum”ization (That’s a terrible word I know – bear with me. I’ll never use “fundraise” as a verb!) of the major parties. The Democrats are largely gone as a pro-sovereignty party or anti-globalism party. Some in the GOP, for different reasons, agree with their Democratic counterparts. So it is important to have an American UKIP in the wings and while I had hoped the Constitution Party could be that vehicle, the Libertarians are more likely to be the American UKIP we might need someday. In this Commonwealth, ten percent makes your party an officially recognized party for the next four (maybe eight) years. It would be nice for the LP to get that ten percent. If they get ten percent, they have to become more professional and find solid candidates (one of which is by the way, Christopher Sullivan. He should be considered for future elections as a Libertarian.) and run them to win.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I was getting to know Sarvis better. I was impressed with him (needs a bit of work as a speaker – too many umms and aahs – but he’s quite articulate on issues.) He also is not associated with what I will call the kooky wing of the libertarian/Ron Paul movement. He wants to bring incremental change in the way of liberty. I have come to admire and respect Sarvis very much. I have written and gotten published in a few law journals; let me tell you, it’s hard work. Sarvis has not only written at least one law journal article – he helped START a law journal – a much needed law journal in deep blue territory (The New York University Journal of Law and Liberty) that promotes free markets and personal liberty. (Sarvis also writes at the Mercatus Center of George Mason University!) Sarvis also is trying to make the LP a winning party with winning ideas. You cannot get everything done at one time. Also there are utterly unelectable ideas in the libertarian movement and I agree that being libertarian is not an excuse for warmed-over anarchy or being separated from Biblical values.

Tom’s Comments on the Overall Endorsement:

People that know me and those that read this blog know I am and have been as solid a Republican as you will find. But what I have seen over the past few years is a Republican Party that has moved rapidly to the left and I now consider them the republican party – with a lower case “R”. The treachery shown by Bob McDonnell who presented himself as a fiscal Conservative and as soon as the hard work of people like me and those that believed McDonnell’s insistence that he was a fiscal Conservative paid off and we handed him the Senate, House and his own Executive office, he moved to the left of everyone and took a large part of the party with him.
And I found that many of his supporters were willing to overlook yet another big spending Progressive because he was “their” party. Well, someone needs to hold the party accountable.
Like Sandy, I had intended to support Ken Cuccinelli. I even had a discussion with Sandy about the coverage he was giving Sarvis, fearing he would add to the siphoning of voters away from Cuccinelli. But as I read Sandy’s posts on Sarvis and did my own research and listened to him, I really like what he had to say. In many ways he is more like Ronald Reagan than most Republicans and all republicans.
But every time I tried to muster support within myself for Cuccinelli,”GiftGate” came to the front of my mind and I just wanted to take a shower. The fact that the gifts came to Cuccinelli from Jonnie Williams who owes back taxes to the state (reportedly $1.7 Million) was simply unbelievable to me. I kept clinging to the thought that Cuccinelli is far less corrupt than his opponent Terry McAuliffe (in my opinion). The final straw was an explanation that the Attorney General only makes $150,000 and has 7 children to support and a lot of bills. REALLY!!! That’s the excuse?
Cuccinelli has been a rock star as AG. I have been very happy with everything he has accomplished or tried to accomplish. He is a good man who took loot from someone and did not report it. The man I thought Cuccinelli was would have reported it, legal or not, just to be open and honest.
But he didn’t. And that makes him corrupt. Perhaps less corrupt than Bob McDonnell and Terry McAuliffe if you measure things in dollar value, but corrupt is corrupt. And the fact that he is the Attorney General makes it that much worse. You can still be corrupt and not break the law. They are two different things.
So at the end of the day, I was left with a choice between a Democrat that I believe to be corrupt, a Republican that I believe to be corrupt and a Libertarian that has not been involved in any corruption that I could find.
There are republicans that will still support Cuccinelli. I simply can’t endorse him without being a hypocrite.


Sandy’s Comments on GiftGate:
Here’s how I feel about the gift thing: One, it’s probably not a true measure of Cuccinelli’s character. Certainly Terry McAuliffe has nothing to say about Ken’s character. But I am disappointed. I would not have taken those kind for gifts if I held public office. It’s one thing for a family member to give a large gift but not someone like the CEO of a publicly traded company. Cuccinelli also held stock in the company (and disclosed that properly) while AG.

 Tom’s Comments on GiftGate:

I echo both Sandy’s sentiments and disappointments. Of all the people in the world, Cuccinelli should have known better and acted better after the fact.

Gay Marriage

Sandy’s Comments on Gay Marriage:

Yes I disagree with Sarvis on gay marriage. I do agree that marriage ought to be taken out of the civil code and replaced with a civil union and then gays be allowed to have a civil union, too. But marriage is a church term.
I think the gay marriage issue is on life support. The courts will mandate all the states within a few years “gay marriage” and I think we should get ahead of this issue now: Adopt the Jonathan Turley/Ron Paul approach of removing the word “marriage” from the civil code and replacing it with “civil union” and allow both gays and straights to have a civil union. BUT, religious liberty must be preserved. The churches must be free to define marriage.
Tom’s Comments on Gay Marriage:
I think the term Gay Marriage is absurd. Marriage is Holy Matrimony and exists primarily as the best vehicle to raise children. Children need two parents, a male and female. Reproduction, continuation of the human race, and providing the best possible atmosphere to teach young, impressionable minds are the primary purpose of Holy Matrimony. There simply is no reason or logic in two people of the same sex to enter into such an institution except more favorable tax treatment and, for some, as a stick in the eye to religious people or an “in your face” to the sexually normal people in the world. Any contractual arrangements can be achieved outside of marriage.
Now having said that, I really don’t care what two adults (or more or less) do. That is their business. But I would take Sandy’s thoughts a step further. Get the freaking government out of the marriage business. Marriage is a Holy Union. It should be done in a Church and recognized by the church. Period. A consumption tax would get the government out of picking winners and losers for tax relief. Initially, the tax break for married people was to encourage two parent homes which, from a government point of view keeps the state from having to support children born to single parents in poverty. These days, we probably do more to encourage single parent homes than two parent ones. We support both and we should support neither.
In the middle ages the government (in England) was intricately intertwined in marriage. That was usually a disaster and done for economic reasons rather than love. The state just needs to get completely out of the marriage business and let people do as they wish behind closed doors. Marriage should be between them and their God (or gods).
It would be a good thing for Sarvis to take his thinking on this topic one step further.


Sandy’s Comments on Abortion:
Yes I disagree with Sarvis on abortion. But…
Abortion ought to be resolved like this: Yes it is willful taking of human life. Yes it is evil. But a necessary one. So regulate it like crazy and only allow it up to a certain point in the pregnancy for the hard choices: Life of mother, rape or incest or serious deformity. I am not saying some of those hard choices are RIGHT but they should be legal. The Constitution has nothing to say about it.
Tom’s Comments on Abortion:
I am a firm believer that life is only created by God. And that life begins at conception. And for anyone to take a life after creation is murder. The phrase Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness was not in random order. This country declared it’s independence with that phrase and the stated and intended purpose of becoming a nation was to create a country where the government protected Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Life being listed first.
We deny Life to an unborn child and betray the foundation of this nation with each and every abortion.
Republicans (or anyone) that consider exceptions for rape, incest, deformities etc, and then claim life begins at conception are supporting murder and are out of step with the founding of this country. In my opinion, the only exception should be the life of the mother. And who lives should be up to the mother and her alone. If one or the other is going to die, and only one life can be saved, then it is consistent with the founding principles to save a life.
The often cited and rarely applicable exceptions for rape and incest (you would think most abortions were due to these conditions listening to the feminists) are irrelevant. The circumstances of conception do not matter if you believe life begins at that moment. And “pro-life” people that allow these exceptions are not really pro-life. Most Republicans subscribe to these exceptions and are simply gutless. Either life is sacred, comes from God and is created by God, or it is not.
And the hysterical argument that people like me would “force” a woman to carry a defective child or a product of rape or incest is simply a false argument. We either protect life or we do not. But the vast majority of abortions are done for the convenience of the mother and the enrichment of abortion mills like Planned Parenthood.
Killing a child that is not a life or death situation is murder.
That does not mean I am not sympathetic to the plight of the mother. I am. And we need to severely punish the person that did this. But the baby does not deserve to be put to death. There is no justice in that.
Unfortunately, our society has grown to accept the murder of unborn children and that is a sign of our continued decay as a nation. And ultimate demise. And I know I am in the minority with my beliefs. But to believe otherwise would make me a party to murder. And no matter what, America will keep killing unborn children. And God is the final judge.


Sandy’s Comments on Euthanasia:
We lose elections because of issues like Terri Schiavo (I am convinced the suburban moms turned away from the GOP due to that issue) that are troubling (The husband ought to have been removed as Terri’s guardian when he took up with another woman) but none of our business.
Tom’s Comments on Euthanasia:
As always, I come down on the side of life. The President of a company I used to work for was told his son, after a beating from a rival high school and stabbing, was brain dead. And he needed to buy a plot and bury him. He used massive prayer, Holy Water blessed by the Pope himself and almost daily company emails that I thought were not quite appropriate. He refused to give up and his son awoke. He will neve be the athlete he once was, but he has recovered.
Had they listened to the 3 neurosurgeons and countless doctors, he would be dead.

Closing Comments on the Governor’s race

Sandy Says:

So, I got excited about Robert Sarvis. Maybe too excited. Then I observed the strangest thing I’ve ever seen in politics. Robert Sarvis is getting fantastic polling numbers for one who a commentator said had barely enough money for a delegate race, let alone Governor. What would he do if he had money? I’d like to find out. Is this Minnesota 1998 (The Jesse Ventura race)? I also want to be careful not to blur my lines as blogger and commentator by being involved in campaigns. I started to help Sarvis behind the scenes. It was fascinating. As the Virginia Conservative said as to why he joined Team Sarvis, it was nice to be appreciated. I have not joined Team Sarvis but is it more a formality; they do not tell me what to blog of course but I’ve offered an idea or two and received an idea for story or two from them.
So I am conflicted. Terribly conflicted. I do not want McAuliffe to win. Ken Cuccinelli is eons better than McAuliffe. But if I had the deciding vote in the Governor’s race, I’d cast it for Robert Sarvis. Each voter gets to decide on their own. I may well decide on election day who I vote for. I want to vote for Sarvis and send a message to the GOP: Get your act together. Be the American UKIP.  But I do not want to contribute to a McAuliffe victory. I also would like to see the LP get that 10% if it can be done without hurting Cuccinelli.
Tom Says:
I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils ever again. I have been a big Cuccinelli fan and still am. But his behavior was inappropriate for the office he held and that which he seeks. And he has not earned my endorsement. If  McAuliffe wins, at least we have Senator Wally Stosch’s promise that he will pretend to be fiscally Conservative again. But only if the next Governor is a Democrat.


Virginia Right! Endorses Republican Candidate E.W. Jackson for Lt. Governor of Virginia!

Sandy’s Comments on E.W. Jackson:
Of course I am for Jackson! It might have been my idea to get him to run for Lt. Governor in the first place! Jackson will not be beholden to any group or special interest. His opponent is an honorable man (VMI grad and all that!) who will do exactly what he says he’ll do. Too bad Senator Northam is for gun control, abortion and is endorsed by Planned Parenthood! Bishop Jackson is also honorable and will do what he says, too. He’s interested in school choice and helping the middle class. Voters can count on him. They should trust him with that vote.
Tom’s Comments on E.W. Jackson:
Sandy again echos the same sentiments as I have on Bishop Jackson. He is a smart man and an honorable one. He is by far the best orator of the entire group, thinks quick on his feet and knows what it means to be a Conservative.
I have a lot more thoughts I will be publishing on Jackson in the days leading up to the election. And I believe we can make the case that Jackson is also the best candidate for Black Americans. (Which seems a rather odd thing to have to say considering the fact that Jackson is black.) Jackson earns my personal endorsement as well.

Virginia Right! Endorses Republican Candidate Mark Obenshain for Attorney General of Virginia!

Sandy’s Comments on Mark Obenshain:
Senator Obenshain is an excellent candidate for Attorney General. From a distinguished political family, an attorney in private practice, a movement conservative and unquestioned integrity. I hope he’ll see the need for an appellate defender (and even a state-wide public defender system soon!) but he is clearly superior on the issues than his opponent.
Tom’s Comments on Mark Obenshain:

I supported Mark Obanshain in the primary and continue to believe in him. The Tea Party Patriot’s vetting process had Mark as a clear winner. Some remarked that he must have picked up his Conservative ways by being Ken Cuccinelli’s seat mate in the Senate. I think perhaps it was the other way around. (My endorsement of Sarvis does not change my mind on Cuccinelli’s true Conservative nature.)

Obenshain will move right into the AG’s office and pick up the duties without missing a step. Mark is a good man and earns my personal endorsement as well.

About Tom White

Tom is a US Navy Veteran, owns an Insurance Agency and is currently an IT Manager for a Virginia Distributor. He has been published in American Thinker, currently writes for the Richmond Examiner as well as Virginia Right! Blog. Tom lives in Hanover County, Va and is involved in politics at every level and is a Recovering Republican who has finally had enough of the War on Conservatives in progress with the Leadership of the GOP on a National Level.

10 Responses to “Virginia Right! Endorses Libertarian Sarvis for Governor, Jackson for Lt. Gov. and Obenshain for AG”

  1. Gene says:

    Well, first off, if you promised to vote Republican, you should do so Sandy. Regardless.

    I do not like abortion, however I am pro choice. Why, will probably not make any difference to either of you. At least I suppose. But here is why.

    1) It is a God given right for each human being to choose between good and evil. Who gives man the right to undo what God has done? To take away what God has given? Where in any Bible does God take away our freedom to choose between good or evil? Vengeance belongs to The Lord for those who choose evil before good, not man. Sin is sin. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. Do I need to put in the chapter and verse?

    Genesis 2:7, clearly says that man became a living soul when God breathed the breath of life into the man that He had formed out of the dust of the Earth. According to this verse, man was not, and is not, living when formed, but when he starts breathing the God given breath of life. The Bible is also very clear about adding to or taking away from it, if my memory is correct.

    I believe God could easily breathe life back into a corpse. Can you kill a corpse? How can you kill something that is not living? If it is not breathing, it is not living.

    Please Read Matthew 21: 12,13. Why would either Party use a Church for a Political Fundraiser? I believe I should stop there. However, face to face, with those who have used a Church for Political purposes, I will follow scripture and tell them what the Bible says, “My House shall be called a House of Prayer, but you are making it a Robbers Den”. How can any God loving person of either party take their vile political filth into a House of The Lord? Wake up.

    In closing, I am not a Religious person, and have come up far short in the Religious department. Christ is the only Savior, the Bible is the only truth. I do accept Jesus Christ as my Savior.

    Now, we can go back to disagreeing! .

    • Tom White says:

      Gene – The Hebrew that was translated into English as “Breath of Life” is nishmat chayyim. This is literally “Spirit” or Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with aspiration. Adam’s life began at conception – which was by God. The moment God gave Adam life was Adam’s conception.

      You have to be very careful with literal translations of the English versions of the bible. Before you for an opinion, you should always check the original texts and the possible translations.

      For example, the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” has been used by conscientious objectors to avoid military combat. The translation is actually “Thou shalt not commit murder”. God led the Israelites into battle and “smote” theie enemies and allowed their armies to kill in battle. According to God, killing in battle is not murder.

      So if your previously erroneous Biblical logic was incorrect, and the “Breath of Life” is actually the Holy Spirit that God imparts on life at conception (as with Adam) then you should now be pro-life – unless your commitment to the Word of God was a farce.
      Tom White recently posted…Virginia Right! Endorses Libertarian Sarvis for Governor, Jackson for Lt. Gov. and Obenshain for AGMy Profile

  2. Gene Lefty says:

    I am always open to change. I am well aware of the correct translation of the thou shall not murder Commandment, have been for about 30 years. Thank you for bringing it to my attention again.

    Please be careful using Commandments written on Stone, because if one does, I think that they must accept all 10.

    Can one throw out any, and keep the rest, An example? Take the 4th Commandment, it even contains a specific warning to, “Remember”. Even without the 4th Commandment, there is Genesis 2:3. 7th day, not the 1st. We can go there now, or at a later date if you would like?

    Besides, what ever the day, man has thrown it under the bus. I mite also point out, that man was able to throw this Commandment under the bus, because he has a choice between good and evil. Why can man throw this Commandment under the bus, and not another is beyond my ability to reason,

    Government needs to stay out of religion, including marriage and abortion. I do not think that I will be held accountable for someone who gets an abortion, anymore than someone who tells a lie.

    By constantly bringing abortion into politics, I believe people are opening the door to bring other Religious beliefs into politics. Not good. Educate people on prevention.

    You mentioned Acts the other day. Try Acts 5:5,10.”fell down and breathed his last”. Then what did they do? They buried him and her! This would indicate to me, not breathing, not alive. Dead or asleep.

    When was the Holy Spirit given to man? Genesis, or Acts?

    Your paragraph seems to support my position. Are you saying that Adam was a living soul before God breathed the breath of life into him? Or, the Spirit entered through Adams nostrils? Either way, what it says to me is this, Adam was nothing but dust until God brought him to life. Man becomes a living soul when the breath of life enters.

    My contention is that Lucifer can form a man out of dust, but that he cannot give life. He cannot not make dust breath. ( He can cause a deception) Adam was not conceived, he was created, by the hand of God, in His own image. Genesis 1:27. Only God knows the secret of life, at least in my opinion.

    To me, this says that until a body starts breathing, it is not living. It simply is not a living soul, which is exactly what separates us from animals.

    An animal is alive, it breathes. Is it a sin to kill an animal to eat? Man has a living soul, animal does not. Man did not have a living soul when formed from dust, not until God breathed into his nostrils the breathe of life. Does the Holy Spirt have to enter through ones nostrils?

    There is no living soul at conception. At least that is not what the Holy Spirit has written in my heart. However, it also has written that abortion is wrong. That being said, we all make mistakes in life. I have certainly made my share of them.

    I mite also point out, part one of my previous post. You did not comment on that.

    Thanks for your time.

  3. Tom White says:

    Point 1 being voting Republican? Well, Governor McDonnell and Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling showed us how that is supposed to work in the Henrico Commonwealth’s Attorney election. After he received the nomination, it was found out that the candidate had some issues. (The gentleman later committed suicide, so I am not going to mention his name out of respect for his family. And this is not about him.)

    Unable to convince the candidate to drop out, another Republican decided to run as an Independent. A lot of Republicans including McDonnell and Bolling supported the Independent over the Republican. I DID NOT because of my promise to support the Republican as a member of the Hanover Republican Committee Executive Committee. I took my promise seriously.

    McDonnell, Bolling and others did not honor their promise and the whole thing was swept under the carpet. So, I am simply following the example of the party leadership. When I determine a candidate to have ethical or other issues, I am free to support another candidate, no matter the part. A flaw in a candidate releases Republicans from any such promise.

    And I assume you are not a biology major. All cells take in food and oxygen. A fish “breathes” underwater, an Amoeba “breathes” through osmosis taking in oxygen through the cell membrane. A fertilized egg takes in oxygen through the cell membranes until the umbilical cord fully forms and the “breathing” occurs through the cord. Think of it as a “snorkel” of sorts. And around 20 weeks, the baby starts “breathing” amniotic fluid as “practice” as well as to circulate surfactant which prepares the lungs to take over once the “snorkel” is no longer attached.

    All living cells take in oxygen and expel CO2. Well, the carbon based life forms we know.

    And again. The Bible has been translated from numerous languages. Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc. Some are translations of translations. And some of the translations were altered (King James) to fit the political agenda of the day.

    There are 4 different words in the bible that are translated into English as “love”. Each has a different meaning, but we only have 1 word for it in English.

    Breath, nostrils and other such terms are not necessarily literal.

    No matter how you try to justify killing an infant, every fiber of my being tells me that God will not approve. He tests us. He gives us challenges sometimes not to prove to Him we can do them, but to prove it to ourselves. To make us stronger.

    A child’s life is a gift from God. Just because we do not like the fact that a baby is on the way – for whatever reason – the fact is, God has started a life. If someone allows that life to be wiped out willingly, both the mother and the abortionist will be called on to answer to God.

    But it is my duty as a Christian to speak out against the murder of innocent gifts from God.

    Using your logic, you would have had no problem aborting Jesus.

    And I can tell you, I wouldn’t want to be Mary or the abortionist if that had happened.

    Of course, there is always the Calvinist view that we do not have free will and that whatever we do was preordained by God. And I will tell you that I completely reject that. And I have spent years debating that with an old friend this has been a Missionary in China most of his life – almost 40 years – and really don’t care to rehash the Free Will issue.

    And you realize that there was no calendar when God created the earth. Christians consider the Sabbath to be Sunday. My Jewish friends (and others) begin the Sabbath at sundown Friday night. God Commanded 1 day a week. I really don’t think it matters that we all synchronize to the same day. One day out of 7 is what He commands.

    So did God create the Heavens and the Earth on Sunday? Or Monday? Since neither existed at the time.
    Tom White recently posted…Virginia Right! Endorses Libertarian Sarvis for Governor, Jackson for Lt. Gov. and Obenshain for AGMy Profile

  4. Sad Pastor says:

    Dear Mr. Lefty,

    When I run across people with your twisted logic it makes me sad. It always reminds me of how our government run schools have failed. Mr. White is so Right that on very complex deep subject matter, you most always go back to original source documentation. Try

    I always like to go back and look to see what the Founders had to say about subject matter like religion. Here’s a VERY small sampling;

    “Our Constitution is for a moral and religious people and for the government of no other” Jefferson
    “Education is useless w/o the Holy Bible” Washington
    “It is impossible to govern the World w/o the Bible” Washington
    “The Bible is more valuable than all other books combined” Henry

  5. Gene Lefty says:

    Thank you both for your comments!

    I noticed that both of you failed to use Scripture for instruction and teaching. Would I be asking to much of you both to go back, and back up your comments using Bible Chapter and Verse? Did I not use Scripture in my Comment? Is Scripture now considered twisted logic?

    Again, thank you both!

  6. Marc Montoni says:

    Only freedom gives both the right and the left they both want.

    Only freedom results in fewer abortions.

    Only freedom gets state approval out of gay marriages; while at the very same time allows LGBT people to marry whom they wish.

    • Marc Montoni says:

      Sorry, mangled that first sentence. Should have read, “Only freedom gives both the right and the left what they both want.”


  1. […] though Governor McAuliffe perhaps ought to be supporting me for something because of this, I got to throw myself on the grenade: I think it stinks. There is still time (if I read the […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Tom White Says:

Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
* = required field

Follow Us Anywhere!