Tonight, NorthernVirginiaGOP.com, Republicans United for Tax Relief and the Fairfax County Taxpayers Alliance are co-sponsoring an anti-tax rally in front of the Fairfax County Government Center from 6-7 PM at the start of the County’s budget hearings. If it rains, don’t worry, they’ll also have a room reserved inside. Even though the rally is in Fairfax, taxpayers from all localities are invited to this NOVA-wide rally. For information to help turn out people to speak at the various local tax rate hearings across NOVA, please see their online calendar at NorthernVirginiaGOP.com.

• 0 Comments

Yesterday morning while reading the paper, I came across a letter to the editor from a Mr. Corbo. Presuming that this is the same Mr. Corbo that I know (and please pardon me if it is not), he wrote how he, as a conservative, would not be supporting or voting for John McCain in the general election. Now the Mr. Corbo that I know is a good man and put in many volunteer hours on behalf of Senator Allen’s reelection attempt in 2006, so that is why the name popped out at me when I saw it.

Let me start out by saying that I am fairly certain that as conservatives, Senator McCain was likely not our first, second, or even third, choice for the Republican nomination early in the process. Perhaps it was Mike Huckabee, or Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney, or Duncan Hunter, or for a select few of us, Ron Paul, but not John McCain. But, leaving history in the past, here we are with John McCain as the Republican nominee and either Hillary or Barack on the Democratic side. As a result, some conservatives have embraced McCain, while others (like Mr. Corbo) have rejected him.

When it comes to voting, you should bear in mind that there are several different types of conservatives. First, we have the single-issue conservative. This conservative values one or two issues as key and will not vote for a candidate who does not agree on that particular policy. Second is the grocery list conservative who considers a handful of issues to be important and if a candidate agrees with most of these positions, he or she will get that voter’s support. Third, we have the strict Republican conservative who will always (or almost always) vote for the Republican candidate regardless of any specific issue positions.

Unfortunately in Mr. Corbo’s letter he does not address the specific issue or issues that make him unable to support Senator McCain. Should he happen to read this post, I would greatly encourage him to write back and express his particular grievances, not because I wish to debate him, but rather to seek understanding. There are several legitimate reservations I think some conservatives could make about John McCain, such as illegal immigration and campaign finance reform, and therefore it would be very helpful to know his particular reasoning.

Lastly, if you are a conservative who supports Senator McCain, feel free to comment as to why you support him, or if you are a conservative who opposes him, reply with reasoning likewise. If conservatives who think like Mr. Corbo make up a small percentage of the vote, then the Senator and his campaign would take little note, and I would project the election will go relatively well for him. However, if many are planning to dump the Senator, then it will be very tough for him to win, especially here in the Commonwealth. So if you are a fan for Senator McCain, or you despise him, respond here on VCAP’s blog and let your voice be heard.

• 3 Comments

Yesterday evening in Prince William County we saw a foreign government engaging in direct interference of the domestic laws of the United States. The same Mexico that refuses to repatriate murderers who face the death penalty, and has the gall to arrest Dog the Bounty Hunter when he does something about it is sending members of it’s diplomatic corps to aid and abet the criminal invasion of the United States by citizens of Mexico. Apparently PW Police Chief Deane is getting a case of the weak knees on Prince William’s crackdown on those who have no business being in the country much less Virginia. Deane made a point of inviting a member of the Mexican consulate, a direct aknowledgement that the Latino community is populated by foreign nationals that are in violation of the law by their precense in Prince William County.

It is imperative that for the sake of the preservation of law and order and the culture of Virginia that we shun all efforts by the Mexican government to be involved in the domestic enforcement of our immigration laws. Mexico has aided and abetted illegals during their time in the United States because Mexico recieves tens of billions of dollars in remittances from these illegals. On top of a trade deficit started by NAFTA and continued by horrible trade policy we see Mexico leeching off of the United States and it is high time that this came to an end. Don’t count on McCain for this because he not only wants to preserve NAFTA and CAFTA but to expand the trade regime across the entire hemisphere and into South America. The only manner to solve this problem is the same way Oklahoma, Georgia, and Arizona are doing so and that is to crackdown hard on the state and local level to force illegal aliens to vacate our communities and our state.

To do so we need a Senate majority and a governor willing to do the right thing. We have another year to wait for that but we ought not remain idle while this critical issue is ignored by the presidential candidates. We can and must demand that our officials enforce the law and for God sakes, don’t invite the same Mexican government that has as much love for America as Hugo Chavez.

• 0 Comments

Now they might not know it up there at the Washington Post but they’re doing Prince William County and all of Virginia a service in their profile of the recent crackdown on illegal immigration. Though meant to be viewed through lenses sympathetic to the plight of illegal aliens, it is plain to see that there is no objective reporters at that institution on the subject of the Third World invasion of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia specifically. What we can gather however by the WaPo’s focus on this story is the most important fact of all, crackdowns work.

Since the October 2007 passage of the crackdown on illegal immigration championed by Corey Stewart, Prince William’s illegal alien population has begun to clear out. Combined with the unfortunate downturn in the economy and law enforcement now being able to verify the state of a person’s immigration status, the results have been stunning and gratifying. Nearly half of all the students enrolled in English as a Second Language programs have left while one could hardly miss the U Haul’s heading towards Fairfax County, Arlington, and the People’s Republic of Maryland. Still more are going back from whence they came, back into Mexico and Latin America. While the crackdown has only been in full effect since March, we can only speculate as to whether the overall crime rate in the county will fall in concert with this crackdown.

Another key point to take from this episode is that those who decry tough law enforcement, never intend to follow the law to begin with. That goes for Mexicans w/o Borders, the ACLU, presumed Republican John McCain, and senatorial candidate Mark Warner. While both McCain and Warner talk a good game on securing the border, neither want to build the fence, neither speak of interior enforcement aside from deporting violent criminals, and neither rule out the amnesty for illegal aliens here. I would suggest to the gentlemen that they ought to visit Prince William County and see the fantastic results of what can happen when common sense and the rule of law prevail. Just as Pat Buchanan said in 1992 in his famous address to the RNC, we’re taking it back, block by block.

• 5 Comments

With the recent announcement of Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling to run for reelection (as opposed to seeking the office of Governor), it looks as if the year 2009 will be a strong election year for Republicans in the state of Virginia. Presumably Bob McDonald will hold the first slot on the Republican side as the nominee for Governor followed by Bill Bolling. Sounds good to me. Both Attorney General Bob McDonald and the Lt. Governor have proven their electability statewide with their wins in 2005. Although it is true that both of their wins were close then, surely their chances have increased as they have improved their name recognition considerably, and, to the best of my knowledge, neither have been successfully labeled or slandered by their detractors. In addition, it is highly unlikely that either will have to face a tough Republican opponent in the primary, thus saving both campaigns considerable time and finances. Already several potentials candidates for Lt. Gov. have withdrawn from consideration upon hearing of Lt. Gov. Bolling’s reelection intention.

I suppose the only real question remaining is, who will be the Republican nominee for Attorney General. Thus far, the name I most often hear is State Senator Ken Cuccinelli. Although I have never met him, I have read many favorable things about him and think he would bring much to the position. Another good choice, I think, would be my own State Senator, Mark Obenshain. Although I don’t think any of us have much knowledge about his intention to seek the office, if, as a conservative, you were to examine his voting record and positions, I think you would find little, if anything, to offer objection. Do bear in mind, there are likely other options out there to make conservatives happy, but these two, in particular, stand out so far.

With a slate of strong conservative candidates running for office, at this point, I would say our chances of taking all three statewide offices in 2009 look pretty good. Much work lies in store between now and then in order to make this hope a reality.

• 1 Comment

Tuesday and Wednesday, Governor Kaine will continue his string of Townhall meetings open to the public. So if you’re upset about a piece of legislation that made its way through the General Assembly and landed on the Governor’s desk, make it known. There’s plenty to question about the Governor’s over the top spending priorities during these tight economic times.

Wytheville: 5:00-6:30pm
Wytheville Meeting Center, Evansham Ballroom C
333 Community Boulevard
Wytheville, Virginia

Martinsville: 5:00-6:30pm
Martinsville High School Library
351 Commonwealth Boulevard
Martinsville, Virginia

• 0 Comments

Check out Jeff Schapiro’s column, “Pork is big side dish in Va. budget,” and let me know what you all think. Here’s a sample:

The budget is more than numbers. It reflects the whim and fancy of politicians.

Big-money programs get their names in the papers. Penny-ante stuff gets them re-elected. That’s why the General Assembly equivalent of disputed congressional earmarks endures.

There’s squat for private cultural and tourist attractions, which two years ago shared almost $40 million.

Health organizations, excluding those providing abortion services, do just fine, drawing nearly $24 million…

• 1 Comment

Recently, it has been reported that in Senator Hagel’s newest book, he calls for the creation of a new political party. Now I’m sure that as conservatives, we have all expressed similar thoughts, whether openly admitted or not. As conservatives, in modern times, we mostly trend toward the Republican Party to advocate our views. Depending on what your most important issues might be, e.g., abortion, illegal immigration, gun rights, lower taxes, reduced government spending, the death penalty, education, welfare, or another issue, some candidates just aren’t want we had in mind. Some social conservatives are not fiscal conservatives and some fiscal conservatives are not social conservatives and, as a result, we sometimes fight each other. Neoconservatives will have a tough time supporting a Paleoconservative candidate and Paleos will not rally behind a Neo. The big tent mentality of the GOP can sometimes frustrate, but that is a result of our two-party system.

So how about a new party devoted to always supporting the conservative way? Well, if one hopes to create a new third party, I would highly recommend against it. Why, might you ask? The reasoning is quite simple. Our system works to prevent the creation, success, and sustainability of third parties. Our elections consist of single member districts typically with a plurality of the votes needed to take office. Therefore, he or she with the greatest vote totals in the first round of voting wins. With all due respect to our Libertarian and Constitutional party friends, when was the last time a new party enjoyed considerable and long lasting success in national elections? Answer: the 1860s with the formation of the Republican Party. What was the difference between the GOP and other new parties? The Republicans formed after the splintering and dissolution of the Whig party that pre-existed it. They didn’t look to become a third party, but rather a new major party.

Now, say that the Conservatives rise up and challenge the Republican Party with the creation of their own party. What will happen? Well, in the short term at least it should ensure greater success of the Democratic Party. As the traditional Republican vote will be split between the Conservative and Republican parties, the Democrats can make inroads into swing and Republican-leaning areas. No longer needing 50% +1 of the vote, they can now achieve success in regions where they only capture 40% of the vote assuming an even split between Conservative and Republican. (The Democrat gets 40%, the Conservative gets 30%, the Republican gets 30%, and the Democrat wins.) Think it can’t happen? Here are a few historical examples of third parties or independents altering the course of the election. Consider the presidential election of 2000. I am convinced that if Ralph Nader had not run, Al Gore would have won the state of Florida and, as a result, the election. If just 538 of Nader’s 97,488 votes swung toward Gore, he would have won. Or how about the 1994 Senate race in Virginia, where Chuck Robb beat Oliver North 46% to 43% with former Republican-turned-Independent Marshall Coleman claiming 11%? Or the divisive Presidential election of 1912 where the defection of former President Theodore Roosevelt and his short-lived Bull Moose Party took such a great percentage of the vote from President Taft as to allow the election of Woodrow Wilson?

I believe that unless we adopt a new political system (like proportional representation) we will always have two major parties and that any new party will ultimately result in one of several outcomes. It will either: replace one of the two major parties (rare), run in a few races, lose, and then die out (common), run in a few races, shift one of the two major parties to adopt some or all of its platform and then disappear (also common), or continually run but never make much success at least nationally (also common). While the second or fourth results would only serve to weaken the conservative movement, only the other two would be of any benefit. So, unless a conservative party could either achieve the first or third set of results, with all due respect to Senator Hagel, I would highly recommend against the creation of a new party. Sure, as a conservative, I would always like to see the most conservative candidate in office, but the reality of the political process forces coalitions of the two-party variety.

Now, if, as Rush Limbaugh had stated during the primaries, the nomination of Senator McCain does, indeed, destroy the Republican Party, then some party will, by necessity, need to come into existence to fill the vacuum. Then it may be possible for an even more conservative party to take shape.

• 0 Comments

The contest between Bob Marshall and Jim Gilmore is actually resembling something more of a contest then many first believed. This can be attributed mainly to the issue of abortion and Bob Marshall’s succesful challenge to the unconstitutional Regional Authorities that were first proposed by Mark Warner and now passed under Tim Kaine. Del. Marshall’s criticism of Gilmore’s unwillingness to oppose first term abortions has forced the former governor to spend more effort concentrating on his Republican rival instead of looking ahead to facing Mark Warner in the fall.

According to the Washington Times, Governor Gilmore is performing well in the mass meetings that select the delegates to the May 30 Republican convention in Richmond but Marshall’s tenacity has earned him more then a few fans on the campaign trail. While Gilmore has earned the support of Lt. Governor Bolling and Attorney General McDonnell it is certain that Bob Marshall will be a determined opponent just as he has been in Richmond of those attempting to usurp liberty from the people.

I hope that all inspired conservatives have filed to join the convention to make your voice and conscience known to the Republican Party. The GOP has drifted in Virginia, and we have two consecutive Democratic governors, a Democratic Senate, and Jim Webb to vouch for that. As Barry Goldwater said in 1960 we conservatives have to grow up and take this party back. We can and we will and we have two good candidates for US Senate with which we can fulfill that undertaking.

• 0 Comments

Earlier this week I returned to the commonwealth from a trip to Washington D.C. While there, I happened to walk past the Supreme Court. Camped outside were about two dozen or so folks. Although they were not vocal bunch (at least at the time when I passed by), I noticed each had a blue and white sign bearing such slogans as “Guns save lives” or “Protect our second amendment rights.” It then hit me that they were demonstrating regarding the current court case as to whether D.C.’s ban on handguns (and other assorted strict restrictions) was constitutional. Growing up in the Shenandoah Valley, I have been around firearms for as long as I can remember and therefore a discussion of the legality of guns has never really been a hot topic. Sure, after the various school shootings, Columbine and VA Tech being the most well remembered examples, you would see some distraught parent or activist on TV calling for stricter gun laws, but those outcries would dissipate with time. I think that most folks in this area realize that a gun is merely a tool that can be used for either good or ill, depending on the intentions of its owner.

To me, a firearm serves three legitimate purposes. First we have hunting. In this region especially, sportsmen hunt all sorts of prey, be it deer, bear, squirrels, or any other sort of wild animal. Some do it for food, some for recreation, and others still to thin animal overpopulation. I confess that I have never gone hunting myself, but the tradition of hunting is older than civilization itself and serves many valuable functions. The second purpose is self-defense. Unfortunately threats can come up at anytime and anywhere and a loaded weapon is a valuable tool for protection. Many times the weapon does not even need to be used, but the mere sight of it can deter thieves and those who seek to do bodily harm. For example, if an assailant came up to me brandishing a gun, I assure you that I would not be thinking, “This situation could have been avoided if we had tougher gun laws in this country”. Instead, if I were unarmed, I would think, “I wish I had a gun with me right now.” Think about it; get inside the mind of a criminal. If you were looking to rob one of your otherwise identical neighbors and you knew there were a gun in your house to your right, but no gun in the house to your left, which would you choose? Assuming you had some shred of rationality, you would logically choose the house without the gun. No doubt this statistic explains why there are significantly more crimes per capita in D.C. than in most other major cities in the country. Lastly, individual ownership of firearms acts as a deterrence against the tyranny of the government. If our founding fathers did not have access to guns, I’m fairly certain that the United States would still be a possession of the British crown. But some liberals among you might argue, “sure, but guns are no longer needed to protect us against the government today,” you should remind them that as totalitarian governments seek to further their stranglehold on political power, they often reduce or eliminate the populace’s ability to defend itself. Although there is no need to take up arms against our government today, the threat of tyranny still exists and gun ownership helps ensure our lasting freedom.

So, as we await the fateful decision of these nine justices, one has to be at least a little apprehensive. Although it appears that they will rule in favor of individual gun rights, the nagging worry still exists. Don’t think the court could make such a stupid mistake? If you will recall, a couple of erroneous court decisions back in 1973 have since led to the deaths of millions of Americans through supposed constitutional right of abortion. Nevertheless one issue remains certain. If for some reason the court upholds the D.C. ban on handguns, new laws and restrictions will begin to pop up in many states across the country. We will be one step closer to the banning of all guns, and, as the saying goes, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” I would not like to think what a grim future would be in store for us all.

• 0 Comments