This is a special time of the year when people sit down and reflect on days gone past, perhaps creating a mental list of best movies, exciting sports events, or other milestones.

Some political pundits will sit back and wonder how we arrived at this point. As the engraving at the National Archives building in Washington suggests, “What is Past is Prologue.”

If you want to ask why the federal government doesn’t appear to work, the place to start would be the mid-1990s when the Republican Party held majorities in the House and Senate. One of the important Republican operating principles in the House of Representatives at the time was the Hastert Rule. This informal principle was used to limit the power of the minority party to bring bills up for a vote in the House.

Under this doctrine, the House speaker would not allow a floor vote unless a majority of the majority party supported the bill. By keeping the minority party from passing bills with the assistance of a minority of majority party members, bipartisanship was pushed into a back corner.
Today’s House is trying to resurrect bipartisanship, and has passed 275 bipartisan bills, which await Senate action.

​But under Speaker Dennis Hastert, bipartisanship was rare. In 2003, Hastert refused to allow a vote on a campaign-finance law that had bipartisan, but not majority Republican, support. In 2013, the Senate passed a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill, but it wasn’t brought to the House floor. Of course, by 2010 the Freedom Caucus had appeared in House Republican ranks; it took advantage of the Hastert Rule to slow legislation and even shut down the government.

From time to time, bipartisan bills that made people whole or protected society did overwhelm the Hastert Rule. In January 2013, Speaker John Boehner allowed a vote on aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy without the support of a majority of the Republican caucus. The bill passed with 21 percent of the Republican caucus approving.

Bravely, in February 2013, Boehner brought an extension of the Violence Against Women Act to the floor that he knew did not have the support of a majority of Republicans. The bill passed, with a few Republican votes, but has expired under subsequent Republican majorities.

High on our list of big moments in contemporary American political history has to be the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in January 2010. While wealthy donors, corporations, and special-interest groups have long had an outsized influence in U.S. elections, that sway was dramatically expanded after the Koch Brothers pushed this case to the high court.

Perhaps the most significant outcomes of Citizens United have been the creation of super PACs. At today’s level of wealth inequality, these super PACs fuel a growing sense that our democracy primarily serves the interests of the wealthy few, and that the vast majority of citizens have no voice.

Take this year’s election in Virginia’s 30th House District, of which Culpeper County is a part. What did Chicago billionaire Richard Uihlein, dumping millions into Libertarian campaigns, think he was buying when he gave Nick Freitas a half a million dollars? In fact, only 2.5 percent of Freitas’ campaign was funded by local sources, according to VPAP.org. He is a creature of out-of-state interests. That used to be called carpetbagging.

The larger point is that at a time when people are complaining about the U.S. government, it is easy to see why the public feels shortchanged. The Hastert Rule and Citizens United set the stage for the current administration’s warping of the U.S. Constitution’s explicit balance of powers among our three branches of government.

Now, there is something to think about for the new year.

David Reuther

Editor’s Note: this originally appeared in the Culpeper Star Exponent and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.

Judging from some of recent letters to the editor, one of the things locals infected with second amendment fever and obsessed with the “unfairness” of the recent impeachment proceedings have in common is a determination to act like whinny brats until they get their way just like their Impotus ®esident.

Despite Christianity Today and the National Review calling for his removal from office, none of the lies, law breaking, or even subversion of our government matter to them. The harsh truth is they don’t care — in fact they love it because they feel empowered to operate freely in their own alternative reality, with a recent poll showing 86% of Republicans wanting him to stay in office.

There’s more than rallying around a tribal leader going on here. It’s a cultish belief that winning is all that matters, and even torching democracy is tolerable especially if it means they don’t have to share power with the Demonrats — ahem Democrats.  Where keeping “those people” out of power and to sticking it to anyone who looks, thinks or acts differently is widely accepted.

Take what happened at this past December’s rally — I mean Supervisors meeting, where many people publicly declared their willingness to defy our government in a grandiose fight against tyranny. Oblivious to the fact that their intimidation tactics and harsh words were undermining the very principles of freedom and respect for others they claim to support. 
 
While it’s a matter of perspective whether that makes them useful idiots marching to a lost cause, or self-righteous hypocrites. All that I can say about such self-inflicted dysfunction is bless their fearful hearts. 
 
Besides fear, some other things they have in common are narrow reactionary and yes — authoritarian, racist and patriarchal views of the world. Seeing their reflexive support of a fearless leader and defiant opposition to a “dad-gum gov’ment” as magically righting historical grievances in a rapidly changing world, viewing those who don't share their autocratic vision — as illegitimate Americans and illegal voters.  

Such open contempt and flagrant disregard for these differences have long been part of an entitled mindset here in Virginia where the Republican controlled General Assembly has spent decades suppressing voters and gerrymandering districts into meaninglessness, allowing them to stay in power no matter what happened in elections.
 
One of many things the new Democratic controlled General Assembly will be fixing this year.
 
Speaking of fixing — and entitled attitudes, how many of the County’s residents are aware that our Board of Supervisors approved yet another development project in the Zion’s Crossroad area, and plans to spend another $2.5 million on the Shannon Hills business park?

Or that they are going ahead with these projects based on questionable assumptions, like their Pollyannish interpretation of the county’s 2011 Long Range Regional Water Supply Plan deluding themselves that water from the Green Springs wells would be adequate for future growth.
 
A “damn the torpedoes full speed ahead” approach that is driving several other residential and commercial projects in the Zions Crossroads and Ferncliff area, including the proposed 605 Shannon Hills industrial park.
 
Keep in mind that what happens at a local level in affects people in the County far more that what transpires at the state or Congressional level, it would be in everyone’s best interest to start attending BOS meetings. And ask them to have an
independent group investigate charges of mismanagement of the James River Water Pipeline.
  
 
And what are their plans to resolve their ongoing dispute with the Monacan nation over a suitable location for the intake site for the pipeline? Considering that the BOS has already spent a fair portion of the ~ $50 million allocated for this project, you might want to hurry up and get your 2₵ worth in before it’s all gone. 
 
Jon Taylor

Editor’s Note: this is an expanded version of a letter submitted to the Central Virginian, Louisa County’s paper of record.
 

In response to the Sunday, Dec. 15 column by Jon Russell, the national director of the Koch brother controlled group ACCE,  “Virginia Democrats are picking a fight with law-abiding gun owners,” I would like to point out bills may be changed or tabled during the legislative process. All members of the legislature may pre-file bills, which is normal.

The Division of Legislative Service vets a member’s proposal for constitutionality, then drafts if for signature. It is assigned to a standing committee for deliberation. They study, discuss and vote on the bill in public session. If approved, the bill is sent to the other chamber to go through a similar process. When passed by both chambers, the bill is sent to the governor, and if approved, becomes law.

Russell mentioned Sheriff Scott Jenkins in his article. The sheriff said if the commonwealth tries to take Virginia residents’ guns away (for which, by the way, there is no pending legislation), he will deputize thousands of gun owners in Culpeper so they can keep their guns.

Despite the tone of this rhetoric, Jenkins then said on Fox and Friends this week that those he would deputize “will be properly vetted through a normal process. Everything from normal background checks that we do for other deputy sheriffs, as well as psych [evaluations]. It’s not just a blanket policy of swearing-in anyone who is interested.”

Why, that is exactly what 80 percent of Virginians want. Comprehensive background checks and red flag laws--meaning, Sheriff Jenkins is vowing to implement the policies that most gun safety activists support.

If Sheriff Jenkins refused to implement a red flag court order, after which the subject of that court order killed himself or others, the sheriff could be prosecuted for neglect of his duty, or certainly could be the subject of a potentially large civil suit.

Russell misrepresents the legislative process, provides no solutions to preventing gun violence and fails to recognize the majority who want reasonable gun safety measures.

David Reuther

Editor’s Note: This letter originally appeared in the Culpeper Star Exponent, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.
 

Guns save lives. I have seen this a lot lately. I wonder what all the victims that have died by gun violence would say if they had a vote. I think they would be in favor of some changes to our gun laws. The current laws didn’t work out for them so well.
 
Second Amendment laws should reflect the times we live in. If they do not, then we are doomed to have more tragic events. I think this is the definition of insanity.
 
The board of supervisors passed the Second Amendment sanctuary county idea—I’m not sure what to call it. Does this mean when new gun laws are passed they are to be ignored by those counties that voted themselves sanctuaries? Laws concerning guns should not be optional depending on where you may live.
 
I cannot believe there are even any arguments about gun laws that could make our schools, places of business, churches and anywhere else that people gather safe and secure.
 
Semper Fi,
 
Robert Haney
 
Editor’s Note: this letter originally appeared in the December 12th edition of the Central Virginian, and has been re-posted here with the authors permission.

I am disappointed the Culpeper County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution about the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in anticipation of sensible gun safety laws being passed by the Virginia General Assembly next year.

Even more disappointing was the county sheriff’s irresponsible public promise to deputize armed citizens without any screening or requirement for safety or training standards.
Both of these approaches sanction gun violence, and really have little to do with protecting the Second Amendment.

I am a gun owner and allow hunting in season on my property. I support the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I also support sensible regulation on gun ownership. I support reinstating the ban on multi-round assault-style weapons, which have no use in legitimate hunting. I support universal background checks and restrictions on gun ownership for persons legally declared to be a danger to themselves and/or others.

These types of limitations are not an infringement on Second Amendment rights. Our forefathers, in all their wisdom, could not have predicted what a single-shot musket would become almost 250 years later—so the amendment cannot be considered to cover assault rifles. Nor could they have forecast the population density and therefore the potential impact of those who may be mentally ill.

The U.S. has the highest rate of mass shootings of any developed country. Through September 2019 there were 21 deadly mass shootings in the U.S. that murdered 124 people, including one shooting rampage in Virginia Beach that killed 12. This is a 50 percent increase over 14 mass shootings in 2018. These mass shootings occurred in schools, offices, malls, movie theaters and other places of entertainment. Our fellow citizens were going about their everyday lives when they became casualty statistics.

I do not want to see these untimely deaths continue. Guns do not save lives; guns take lives. It is time that common sense prevails and we all unite behind reasonably regulated, responsible, safe gun ownership.

Donna DeAngelis   

Editor’s Note: this originally appeared in the Culpeper Star Exponent and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.

The 18th century English author Alexander Pope coined the phrase “To err is human; to forgive, divine.”
Those who wish to restore a sense of civility in our political discussion may not be looking for divine intervention, but they are at least looking for common sense and high standards.

Yet, misrepresentations make the road to common sense a stony one. Take the current misuse of “socialism,” for example.

The dictionary definition and the one which economists use refers to government ownership of the means of production, such as the British nationalization of the coal mines at the end of World War II. You would think anyone referring to “socialism” in public debate would define what industries the speaker wanted to nationalize.

But conservatives use a much different definition. At the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held earlier this year outside Washington, D.C., Vice President Pence said to a Republican crowd that the choice in the next election is “between freedom and socialism, between personal responsibility and government dependence.”

So, for the vice president, “socialism” is a label shorn of all economic meaning. In fact, we see in this example of the conservative lexicon, “socialism” juxtaposed with “freedom.” Thus, Conservatives argue that anything that makes you dependent is socialism. If you hope your car insurance will pay for that accident, you are dependent on the insurance company and therefore are a socialist.

Basically, conservatives want you to believe any benefit from any source makes you dependent. Other socialist benefits would include your roads, schools, air traffic safety, clean air and water, safe food and drugs or anything else done for the common good. That would include payments to farmers crippled by China’s response to the administration’s tariffs.

In this year’s campaign mailings, Republican candidates largely ignored running on programs that solved community problems, such as community health or broadband for students and businesses or stopping the decreased funding of our schools. What they supported was “freedom.” Apparently, the fewer goods and services the community provides for its members, the freer they are. Does this mean a single mother with starving children due to the administration’s cut back in food stamps has more freedom than the rich family whose tax breaks fund a second vacation this year?

We are surrounded by examples of misrepresentation and labeling, which make our national conversation rocky.

The National Republican Committee, its secretive PACs and wealthy corporate backers have decided to make a major financial effort to oppose Representative Spanberger here in the 7th Congressional District. The main label they apply to her seems to be “liberal.” How embarrassing for her, “liberal” is such a step down from “socialist.”

The RNC adjustment in labeling vocabulary is because she has conducted herself with modesty and moderation. She has held town halls in all ten counties in the district. She makes herself and her staff available to the public—Republicans, independents and Democrats alike. Eighty percent of the bills she has supported are bipartisan. She said she would not vote for Nancy Pelosi for House speaker, and she did not. Nevertheless, the misrepresentation and labeling don’t end.

How do we handle these misrepresentations which make our conversations so toxic at the Thanksgiving table?

Some defensively say, “Well, everyone does it. Get over it.” That is an unacceptable response. What that argument means is that you lack independent standards; you are tying your standards to the standards of others.

If freedom, civility and conformity with reality is your goal, the characteristics required are high standards, informed knowledge of the issues and judgment.

Dave Reuther

Editor’s Note: this originally appeared in the Culpeper Star Exponent and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.
 
 

In addition to riling up the base for the 2020 election, this Second Amendment sanctuary movement is normalizing the notion of  massive resistance across the Commonwealth, and like the astroturfed anger behind the Tea Party in 2009, there’s more to this than meets the eye.
 
One that starts with the Republicans oft-stated desire to shrink Government down to a size where it’s small enough to “drown in the bathtub.” Along with their general antipathy to government having any role in promoting the common welfare, contemptuously labeling everything they don’t approve of as ─ communism or socialism.
 
Counties who have passed these 2A resolutions are willfully putting themselves in direct conflict with the states Dillon Rules. Nor is it likely that our supervisors gave much thought to the possibility that their resolution would not survive court challenges, wasting taxpayer money defending their actions.
 
Or that their actions would force the LCSO and the Commonwealth Attorney to choose between obeying local resolutions, or state laws. Or as people are predictably injured and die because of their refusal to enforce existing laws, that the county would be defending avoidable civil liability cases.
 
The ability of well-funded front groups like ALEC, AFP, etc, to provide Republicans around the state with the necessary talking points, and logistical support is something most people are unwilling to talk about just like the first rule of “Fight Club.”

And it's no coincidence that the primary organizer of this movement, the VCDL has been circulating a "model resolution" document to Supervisors around the Commonwealth, or that it is little removed from the "model legislation" which ALEC is so well known for, since it all comes from the same playbook.
 
No matter how you slice it, this meeting was an object lesson in the utility of “weapons of mass distraction” like Facebook that profits from groups like VCDL using their services to spread their thinly veiled hateful messages.   And from all appearances it has become their preferred platform for coordinating angry mobs using techniques that are far more effective than most people are comfortable acknowledging.

With that in mind, it would be interesting to learn how the Boards Chair and/or the County Administrator arrived at the unusual decision to hold this past Monday’s BOS meeting at the Betty Queen Center, and not the County Administration building, and did they have advance information about how many would be attending?
 
Considering this Freudian slip by Duane Adams during a TV interview, claiming 1000 people came, when the actual number was around 600, it does give credence to suspicions that he (and possibly other county officials) were working to coordinate and orchestrate this dog and pony show.

What those actions, and previously mentioned groups like ALEC, AFP have in common is their shared goal of ensuring their corporate sponsors have "a voice and a vote" on specific changes to laws and ordinances, and it is how they render government unable to function, except to further those interests.
 
And locally, another lesser-known group, ACCE, spin-off of the Koch brothers sponsored ALEC, and lead by Culpeper’s Jon Russell has been busy training and electing candidates to local offices across the country.

How many of Virginia’s Republican Supervisors, school board members, and county officials have gone through this ideological indoctrination … I mean training isn’t something we’re likely to find out, barring some whistle blower stepping forward, as was the case with ALEC several years ago.
 
Based on their actions over the past few years, it’s clear that several members of our Board support these goals, and from all appearances are doing everything they can to ensure that Louisa County government stays focused on promoting those interests.
 
While it’s not clear how long this 2A fever will last, it’s clear that our Boards willingness to go along with the notion that massive resistance is good governance is something that citizens of Louisa County should pay close attention to.
 
Because it’s a smokescreen, which allows unscrupulous local officials to exploit the confusion they helped engineer as a pretext for ideas, like Michigan’s emergency manager laws, an ideological takeover of local government in that state, which that lead directly to the contamination of Flint’s water supply and subsequent denial that it even was a problem.

If the people of this county are looking for something to channel their energy into besides meaningless 2A resolutions, they should follow how the Louisa’s BOS handles development in Zion’s Crossroads and Ferncliff, and especially the James River pipeline project. 

Jon Taylor

The Culpeper County Board of Supervisors just voted unanimously to make Culpeper County a Second Amendment “Constitutional County.” I’m not quite sure what that means other than that the county officials and sheriff’s office have announced their intention to not follow any law on firearms that may become law in Virginia, that they don’t like.

The reward is that feel-good NRA moment—but what is the risk? Could there be any financial risk to the taxpayers of Culpeper County? I believe there is financial risk, which should have been considered.

Here is one scenario.

Red Flag laws allow a judge to order the removal of weapons from a person who poses a risk to others, such as a person who is mentally impaired, who may be a danger to themselves or others. I expect the Commonwealth of Virginia to pass just such a law.

So, Sam’s family and doctor report to a judge that Sam has been making threats and talking about suicide. The judge agrees and issues an order to remove weapons from Sam’s possession. The court order is given to the sheriff’s office for execution. The sheriff has said he will not enforce this kind of gun law, so there it sits. A week later, Sam kills his neighbor and himself. The neighbor’s wife sues the sheriff’s office and Culpeper County. They willfully failed to execute a court order and people died. Could be a multi-million-dollar award. Taxpayers’ money.

The Board of Supervisors is supposed to look out for financial liability of the county. They have a responsibility to be careful with the taxpayers’ money. I think they have failed in their responsibility. I feel confident that some similar scenario will happen somewhere in the commonwealth. I sure hope it is not in Culpeper County.

George DeSerres 

Editor’s Note: this letter originally appeared in the December 5th edition of the Culpeper Star-Exponent, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.

Last night the Louisa County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution based on a public hearing in which many more people spoke in favor of the resolution than against it. At the close of the hearing, Supervisor Duane Adams spoke glowingly about what a wonderful example this was of democracy in action.

Over the course of the past year, there have been public hearings and speakers during public comment periods about the regional business park planned at Shannon Hill. Almost every speaker was opposed to the business park and yet the Board passed it. Where was democracy then?

I think in the case of the business park those opposed were labeled as a group who did not represent the views of most of the residents. Despite the large turnout, I would contend that those who spoke in favor of the resolution last night were even more representative of a group not speaking for most of the citizens.

If the Board purports to be listening to the people, maybe they need a better system than listening to the side who imports the most and the loudest. It’s a good way to get attention, but it’s not democracy.

I would suggest that a referendum would be the way to find out what the people of Louisa want on both of these issues.

Mary Kranz

Editor’s Note: this letter originally appeared in the December 5th edition of the Central Virginian, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.

In thinking about the impact of the recent Board of Supervisors approval of the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Resolution, I found myself reflecting on my experiences as the Democratic candidate for the House of Delegates. I learned and heard a lot while out on the campaign trail. No one, no voter and no candidate, suggested that the General Assembly of Virginia should go into people’s homes and take away their guns. I did hear a lot about REAL issues that our neighbors in Louisa need help with, including lack of access to doctors and healthcare, lack of public transportation, and the need for access to affordable high-speed internet. I believe the most important point of view I heard at the doors of Louisa voters was one that came from across the political spectrum.

That point of view was and is a frustration with the divisiveness in the United States of America today. I’ll quote from some conversations: “Bring us together.” “Do whatever you can to stop all this silly name-calling and fighting”. The citizens who talked to me wanted politicians to steer clear of actions that would further divide us, and to find real solutions to real problems we have – not to manufacture issues that lead to us taking sides and further dividing us.

Whatever you want to call us – democracy, republic, representative government – our governing bodies are supposed to take action based on what we know and what we want and need. There are gun regulations that are constitutional and should be acceptable to all reasonable citizens. A 2017 national poll showed that universal background checks are supported by 94% of Virginians.

We know, based on scientific research, that universal background checks and Extreme Violence Protection Orders, commonly called Red Flag laws, save lives. The citizens of Virginia are not currently protected by these laws. They have been proposed for consideration during the 2020 General Assembly and have already been enacted in many other states, successfully undergoing judicial scrutiny about their constitutionality.

I hope we can recover from this divisive idea of localities calling the shots for themselves without consideration for the constitutional processes for questioning laws. The approval by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors of the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary resolution takes us in the wrong direction.

Let’s understand that we are all in this world and this life together. My dad would say we have to work together like his team of mules – we have to figure out how to “gee” and “haw” together if we want to get anything done. And that’s what the people of Louisa County told me they want – that their elected officials get things done that benefit us, not divide us.

Juanita Jo Matkins

Editor’s Note: this letter originally appeared in the December 5th edition of the Central Virginian, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.

In recent years, we’ve been hearing the term “fiscal conservative” without taking the time to understand what it really means. On the surface, the impression is that claims for this label represent some lofty ideal that benefit the financial status of the public and that the individual wearing this title is actually interested in the financial well-being of all constituents – whether they understand any financial mechanisms, or not.

It is unfortunate that not enough people are curious or concerned enough to ask the relevant questions of anyone who frivolously throws out those words without any understanding themselves. On a national level, we see that the national debt ($22 trillion) and the national deficit ($1 trillion) are outrageously high in spite of protestations to balance the budget under the banner of “fiscal conservatism.”

The measures that produced that mountainous debt can be attributed to the so-called “trickle down” theory of economics. (If only at the time Reaganomics was being foisted, someone would’ve said, “It’s only a theory,” we might have been much better off with wealth distribution.)

I only mention “trickle down” because it isn’t financial benefits that flow downhill; instead, it’s the abuse of fiduciary responsibility that’s passed on to plague the citizens of this country, state by state, until it reaches the levels of remote rural places like Louisa County.

There’s a long enough list of members of the board of supervisors who claim to be fiscally conservative – but we have to wonder what it is that they are talking about.

Consider what the board has been doing with high-dollar projects that rely on the James River water supply and ask how fiduciary responsibility is preserved. If being fiscally conservative in Louisa County means having a balanced budget, then there are some questions to be asked – and answered.

 • What is the real commitment, in dollars for the James River water supply?

• Why is the board making decisions without having a clear understanding and resolution with the Monacan Indian Nation?

• Why is the board speculating with public tax dollars on high-risk projects that rely on the James River water supply?

• What is the real financial deficit to the Louisa County budget when all the financial commitments have been factored in?

• When can the citizens of Louisa County expect to start paying for the board’s decisions to be “fiscally conservative” not only in projects related to the James River, but for all other county projects as well?

I would prefer that the supervisors be fiscally responsible, if that’s possible. Just by itself, this new term implies a sense of fiduciary accountability that is missing from the misnomer currently propagandized.

Instead of favoring developers and the “benefits” they provide, the board should be striving to enhance government for the rest of us.

Joe Mikolajczak

Editor’s Note: this letter originally appeared in the December 5th edition of the Central Virginian, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission

Editor’s Note: As many of Blue Louisa’s readers know, we have synergistic relationship with the Culpeper Dems and Persisters and have been re-posting their members letters to the editor for several years. Occasionally, we post those letters alongside contrasting ones from the far right to give those letters greater context. So with out further ado.
 
Spanberger's record should be analyzed accurately

Regarding the Nov. 24 letter “Spanberger has joined with liberals and should be replaced,” Raymond Bender writes a letter criticizing U.S. Rep. Spanberger (D-7) for joining Democrats. In fact, Rep. Spanberger joined with a group of conservative Democrats with backgrounds in national security and law enforcement to belatedly call for an investigation of the actions, circumstances and individuals involved in delay of aid to Ukraine.

In their serious and thoughtful Op-Ed these six U.S. Representatives spoke from their experience and concerns. They did not recommend impeachment, but an investigation, similar to a grand jury process. Only after a thorough review of facts does a grand jury recommend charges or decline to do so. The grand jury process is a cautionary one, designed to prevent an emotional or vindictive pursuit against an individual.

To assert Rep. Spanberger should be replaced from office on the basis of misunderstanding the current process is ill-conceived.

Other than those who trade in the stockmarket—in which only a small percent of Americans participate—where is the economic prosperity of which Republicans speak? If unclear and demonstrably false Republican talking points continue to be repeated, Rep Spanberger will successfully win re-election, and continue her outreach to constituents and efforts for positive change she has demonstrated since entering Congress.

M. Campbell
 
Abigail Spanberger is working hard, accomplishing a lot for constituents

On Nov. 24, a letter to the editor titled “Spanberger has joined with liberals and should be replaced,” criticized U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-7) but neglected to look at her record as our Congressional Representative. I would encourage everyone to visit her Congressional website, https://spanberger.house.gov/# and review her many accomplishments.

Rep. Spanberger works nonstop to support her constituents in the 7th Congressional District. Spanberger and her staff have resolved over 600 cases for constituents who had problems with a federal agency. With the help of her office, nearly $600,000 has been returned to constituents who had struggled to obtain funds that were rightfully theirs. She has held public town hall meetings in all ten counties of her district and is beginning a second round of town halls to maintain an open dialogue with district residents. Why not go to the next town hall in Culpeper or another location nearby and hear what she has to say?

Congresswoman Spanberger listens to her constituents and takes appropriate and measured action. She conducted a healthcare roundtable and has toured health facilities and free clinics. She worked in a bipartisan manner to move legislation through the House, including the recently passed bill (H.R. 2115) to make prescription-drug price negotiations more transparent and address the affordability crisis of prescription drugs.

She also worked on another bipartisan bill to speed up the process of getting generics of patented prescription drugs to market faster. She sponsored legislation protect the development of 5G capabilities and the integrity of our future elections. Spanberger has met with farmers, educators, and small business owners and has advocated for their needs and interests in Congress.

Spanberger is a conscientious and hard-working member of the House of Representatives and does not seek the limelight of national media or make rash or incendiary statements. She takes her responsibilities seriously and stands by her oath to defend and protect the Constitution.

I wish those who serve in the executive branch would do the same.

Peggy Kenney
 
 

The front page of last week’s edition of The Central Virginian shows us just how Looney Tunes things can get.

A 16-year-old allegedly shot and murdered one Louisa County resident and wounded his wife, while our board of supervisors is considering a resolution making Louisa a sanctuary county for firearms.  

Can anyone tell me how those two articles are compatible? Sure, there’s a lot of fear of what that new government majority will do, but let’s not knock out our front teeth with a massive knee jerk.

There’s a lot of quoting the Second Amendment, specifically “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  But that’s the second part of the amendment. 

The whole amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  

So are we to believe the 16-year-old was part of a well regulated militia?  Who trained him, who taught him, who regulates him?
 
This is like saying the Ten Commandments say “…commit adultery,” leaving out the qualifier “Thou shalt not ...”!

I’m a gun owner, shooter, hunter, veteran and former National Rifle Association member (before the NRA decided there was more money in politics than in training young people how to be safe with firearms). I see no problem with waiting times and federal regulations regarding fully automatic weapons. I have no problem with cross-relating forms of abuse, mental illness, crisis intervention and the like resulting in the confiscation of weapons. 

I have a real problem with having our board of supervisors passing meaningless, unenforceable resolutions.  It’s a stunt.

Larry Zemke

Editor’s Note: this letter originally appeared in the November 27th edition of the Central Virginian, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.

Beyond the fearful rhetoric; what Supervisor Duane Adams is really proposing with his call for the Board to declare Louisa County a “Second Amendment Sanctuary,” is a return to the mentality that fueled the massive resistance movement against school desegregation in the late 1950’s.
 
Judging from the comments on the Central Virginian’s FB page, it’s clear many see themselves as proud “resisters” against a conspiracy to deprive them of their rights, when a confederacy of dunces marching to someone else’s agenda is closer to the mark.
 
Less obvious, is the reality that NRA and VCDL propaganda is driving this astroturfed movement, and state and local Republicans are openly exploiting it. Since losing the General Assembly this past election, they will no longer be able to abuse their majority to kill common sense legislature in unrecorded committee votes.  
 
And their decade’s long legacy of under funding our schools, favoring corporate interests over their constituents, and suppressing voter turnout with no consequences has come to a abrupt halt.  Rather than acknowledge that reality, Republican's have made it clear that they are unwilling to work with Democratic Party leaders, and have chosen to undermine not just the General Assembly’s ability to function, but local government as well with distractions like this.   
 
Determined to dial those fears up past 11 in county after county, hoping it will propel them to electoral victory in 2020, a majority in the General Assembly in 2021, along with manipulating the emotionally triggered into helping them maintain their stranglehold on rural county Boards across the state.
 
Speaking of fear, reportedly some Supervisors have been told on no uncertain terms, that if they didn’t support this, that the local Republican Party would run candidates against them. While that’s certainly their prerogative, such tactics have consequences. 
 
Starting with irreparably damaging what little trust exists between the board members on an already sharply divided board. Should the Board “get along to go along,” and pass an unenforceable resolution with no legal standing, they will have set themselves down a path of violating  the Commonwealth’s “Dillon Rules.” And should it be challenged in court, it will ensure that the County wastes taxpayer money defending the indefensible. 

The Board of Supervisors has no legal or moral justification for supporting obsolete notions like nullification, and massive resistance to legislation that has yet to pass the General Assembly. 
 
While such “we ain’t going to take no shit” attitudes may resonate with the local yahoo’s, in practice passing this resolution is far more likely to ensure results like last weeks story about 16 year old with mental health issues, due to a lack of legal jurisdiction.
 
Shame on Mr. Adams for foisting this travesty on the citizens of Louisa, and shame anyone who supports these antediluvian notions, and for allowing fear to control their actions.  
 
Jon Taylor
 
Editor’s Note: This is an expanded version of a letter submitted to the Central Virginian for their upcoming November 27th issue.

The Nov. 5 election completed Virginia’s progression from red to blue, although not in Culpeper or its neighboring counties. For the first time in a generation, Democrats took control of both houses of the General Assembly.

Republicans fought this election with their usual vitriol and misrepresentation, while rarely offering problem-solving proposals.

During the time they controlled the General Assembly, Republicans blocked most meaningful legislation aimed at practical solutions to serious problems, usually by not allowing it out of committee.

After only 90 minutes, they shut down the governor’s special legislative session on gun violence in response to the Virginia Beach shootings and relegated any action to a commission. Then, just this past week, that Republican-controlled commission issued a mere three-page report without any recommendations.

Political observers note that Virginia Republicans outside Northern Virginia have been stepping to the right and boosting narrow partisanship at every opportunity.

Culpeper Republicans censured GOP Sens. Emmett Hanger and Jill Vogel, and even removed these candidates’ names from the Republican sample ballot mailed out across the county. Furthermore, the Culpeper Republicans made every effort to advertise down-ballot candidates as Republican, even though Virginia ballots do not list party designation for offices below House of Delegates and state Senate.

This ill-advised partisan labeling does not well serve our local community. For example, a School Board member is also in charge of Culpeper Republican party campaign events, including staging demonstrations for President Trump, instead of focusing on improving our local schools.

Culpeper Republicans are now characterized by Corey Stewart’s brand of Republicanism: immigrant-bashing, gun-loving, women’s healthcare-controlling, trash-talking, Trump-lionizing, and the like.

Del. Nick Freitas, who is on the libertarian side of the conservative spectrum, is equally in limbo. He had hoped to position himself for a congressional race in 2020. Emerging from a hard-right small county in the northern part of the 7th Congressional District will not help him in the suburbs of Richmond, regardless of how much money outside libertarian millionaires put into the race.

Democratic control of Virginia House and Senate committees means Culpeper’s five Republican legislators could be isolated, impacting the farmers, businesspeople and families they represent. If these lawmakers fail to find practical ways to influence legislation, such as adopting a veneer of bipartisanship, as Loudon County Republicans have done, they will be ignored.

While Culpeper Republicans are on the outside looking in, the new legislature will work on important issues that have not been addressed in years.

Passage of the Equal Rights Amendment may be first on the list. It is unsettling that full citizenship rights for women and freed African-American slaves have required specific constitutional protections.

Virginia’s formulas for funding of rural schools should come under scrutiny. Reducing gun violence by enacting expanded background checks and red-flag laws should be a top priority. There will be no legislation that takes away anyone’s guns.

We should see continued support for the bipartisan constitutional amendment that will create Virginia’s first-ever redistricting commission and, hopefully, end gerrymandering in the commonwealth once and for all. Culpeper voters would welcome this. Many found this last election confusing because the county was divided into three state Senate and two House districts that required 17 different ballots.

Elections have consequences. Culpeper Republicans may be right that change is coming. The new Blue Virginia will be significantly different, and that’s what most Virginia voters want.

David Reuther

Editor’s Note: this originally appeared in the Culpeper Star Exponent and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.

We need change in Richmond. I believe that change is voting Juanita Jo Matkins into office.
 
Living in the richest country in the world, we should all have the opportunity to become prosperous. That’s not what we have right now. The evidence of this is the vast disparity between the billionaire class and the many who work more than one job and still can’t afford the basics. Something is not working and it’s not because people are lazy.
 
It’s because a lack of education, especially in early childhood, can prevent a person from obtaining the necessary tools to succeed. It’s because poor health and medical emergencies can destroy a family’s savings and cause them to lose their home. It’s because too many jobs do not pay a living wage. The children suffer the most and the cycle continues.
 
Having to choose between medicine, food and housing puts a person in a situation none of these proud billionaires (who claim to have made it on their own) would be able to extricate themselves from. And yet some members of the House of Delegates and Senate voted last winter against bills designed to alleviate this situation, both in the areas of health care and education. Instead they voted for House Bills 1027 and 2260 and Senate Bill 1674, all of which undermine health insurance by allowing insurance companies to insure healthier people separately. Those healthy people aren’t always going to be so healthy. Then what?
 
These members also voted against expanding access to pre-k education, where inequality starts, as well as against providing additional funding to low-income school districts in order to close achievement gaps. (House Bill 1700-136 #3h and #10h)

We need a delegate who believes we can all prosper if we have access to the tools. Vote for Juanita Jo Matkins. She has been in the trenches. Having taught school for 20 years in Louisa County, she has seen promise die in young minds for lack of needed supports. She knows what would have prevented these tragedies. She will work for solutions to these problems and move us toward a society that works for all of us.
 
Sara Macel
 
Editor’s Note: this letter originally appeared in the October 31st edition of the Central Virginian, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission

I’m voting for Juanita Jo Matkins for delegate next Tuesday, Nov. 5th, and I hope you will too.
 
Her heart and mind will be on the job of bringing the voice of the people of Louisa to Richmond. She will be focused on solving the problems facing us here. She knows our district and she understands rural issues, such as lack of internet. She will spend her time and energy working on our problems.
 
Our legislators are only in Richmond for a short time each year. But that doesn’t make it a part-time job. It takes year-round work to find solutions to the problems facing the citizens of the Commonwealth. Juanita Jo will be spending her time between legislative sessions hard at work for us. Being recently retired, she has the time and has publicly committed to representing us in Virginia’s General Assembly for the full term of service.
 
Juanita Jo Matkins has lived in Louisa for over 40 years. She taught school in Louisa for 20 years. She grew up on a tobacco farm. She not only understands our needs, but she also knows how to work in a bipartisan way to solve problems. We need her voice in Richmond.
 
Dan Patton
 
Editor’s Note: this letter originally appeared in the October 31st edition of the Central Virginian, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.

Culpeper has become a more modern, educated and diverse community than the rigid radicals the Culpeper GOP touts for office. It has been trending “blue” in the past three elections. Culpeper is anything but a Republican county.

Many fine candidates are up for election this Nov. 5. Virginians almost always run as independents rather than with party labels, as is appropriate where community issues are at stake.

The divisive, extreme politics that have been perpetrated by the current occupant of the Oval Office and his worshipers, including those right here in our community, have no place in Culpeper.

Republicans recently posted on Facebook, “I’d Rather be an American than a Democrat,” and “Keep on Trumpin.’ ” Seriously? This is not the way patriots do business.

If you want to keep Culpeper from returning to the dark ages, you will vote for real community activists and public servants such as: incumbent Paul Walther for commonwealth’s attorney, incumbent Terry Yowell for commissioner of the revenue, Denise Whetzel for treasurer, Tami Coughlin for Salem supervisor, Kathy Campbell for East Fairfax supervisor, Gary Deal for West Fairfax supervisor, Paul Bates for Catalpa supervisor, and Ed Dunphy, Pat Baker, Anne Luckinbill and Barbee Brown for School Board, Thomas O’Halloran and Dennis Verhoff (write-in candidate) for the Soil and Water Conservation District, and these four people for the Town Council: Frank Reaves Jr., Meaghan E. Taylor, Hank G. Milans III and Jamie M.D. Clancey.

And finally, vote for C.J. Johnson for sheriff, for obvious reasons.

In the state legislature, Culpeper deserves better than the five Republican incumbents who have ill-served us for many, many years. This means you should vote for Ann Ridgeway, Laura Galante, Amy Laufer, Ronnie Ross and Annette Hyde. They are all community-oriented individuals running for office based on local issues and the needs of our residents.

Mike McClary

Editor’s Note: This originally appeared in the Culpeper Star Exponent and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission, and has been edited to include a relevant graphic.

Jon Russell’s columns in the Culpeper Star-Exponent are always insightful. In his Oct. 27 column [“Republicans, our future hangs in the balance”], his call to vote should be heeded by one and all. 

Russell warns that if Democrats win a couple of seats, Virginia will have one-party rule. Missing is the fact that we have had one-party Republican rule for over two decades now
.
That is why financing for public schools has fallen 8 percent in a decade. That is why there is no broadband, no gun-safety provisions even after the Norfolk massacre, why children are being killed in their homes because of unsecured guns, why the prices of insulin and other medications are soaring, and why hospitals can charge outrageous fees and sue people into bankruptcy.

Russell writes the Republican voter should not “monkey around with voting for candidates who are Democrats or even independents.”

God forbid you vote for an independent candidate, someone with an open mind.

Apparently, problem-solving is not as important as maintaining political rigidity. That is why two Republican candidates who have part of their districts in Culpeper are not included on the Republican sample ballot.

Republicans seek a red wall of ideologically motivated candidates from state Senate down to School Board. At this moment, one of our School Board members is the Culpeper Republican campaign manager and is in charge of President Trump rallies.

Is that what we want for the School Board, for the Town Council, perhaps the Board of Supervisors?

Republican candidates in Loudoun County and other areas of Virginia are moving toward the center to attract votes. In fact, it is axiomatic in democratic politics that as political parties become evenly balanced, more effort goes into finding common ground. Don’t build this wall.

David Reuther

Editor’s Note: This originally appeared in the Culpeper Star Exponent and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with thee communication model, I’ll try to describe it quickly and give a brief explanation of how it should work, especially with the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.
 
The sender is the board, which has about 95 percent of the responsibility for making sure that the message gets communicated to the public with as much understanding as it can collectively muster. Even if there’s incomplete understanding, that’s relevant for the public to know.
 
It’s been made painfully obvious by the board itself that it has little understanding of substantial issues brought up for its deliberation. This factor itself is significant and deserves much more attention than the supervisors are willing to give.
 
The message is the information that the board is supposed to provide the citizens. That includes things like financial reports, status of projects, projections about growth, school system, public safety and other matters. All these things are important to us because we have to pay for them, and we are impacted by the decisions of the board, which they make on our behalf—not for us, as they claim.
 
Most important is that the message is accurate, both from the perspective of facts and how the board processes those facts.
 
There’s a serious gap that the board keeps making wider. That gap is noise and there are several possible reasons for that mindset. One being the self-impression that the board thinks it should be omniscient—which will never happen—and any display to the contrary would be a sign of weakness. Another is a mental state of arrogance that more actively pursues the myth of omniscience.
 
The medium is the board meetings that the public is “graciously” allowed to attend, and this is where the problem begins. For the supervisors, we are an impediment to their actions.
 
As the receiver in the communication model, we have the remaining responsibility— about five percent—to be open-minded and receptive to new projects. The board prefers we remain ignorant, uninformed and gullible. That would create fewer complications and distractions from whatever its unstated mission really is.
 
The final piece of the communication model is the feedback that interferes with board activities. There is at least one very effective means of disrupting the feedback mechanism—ignore the public comments. In fact, it works so well that the board uses it consistently to confound the efforts of the citizens.
 
If the board was less intent on deflecting the legitimate concerns and comments of the public, the result would be a meaningful dialogue leading to a constituency satisfied with the performance of our elected officials. Instead, we have supervisors who cajole the citizens into participating with a government that only intends to rebuff them for their efforts. The board is nowhere near fulfilling its share of responsibility in the communication model. I wouldn’t even give it five percent based on its actions.
 
Status quo is what we have in Louisa County. The board ignores what we say, does what it wants and sets us up for another round of ignoring us.
 
If the only thing we do is complain about what the board does—like we have been doing—we’ll keep getting the same results. Some people have mentioned that the pressure should be kept on the board. Well, maintaining that pressure has done precious little to change the board’s strategy of ignoring the public.
 
I hear very little about increasing the pressure to get government for the rest of us.
 
Joe Mikolajczak
 
Editor’s Note: this letter originally appeared in the October 31st edition of the Central Virginian, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.