On Jan. 29, President Trump signed the United States Mexico Canada Agreement, which replaces the North American Free Trade Agreement. It’s not perfect. Both sides have issues with it, but they came together and got the job done.
 
Our Congresswoman, Abigail Spanberger, joined with Republicans and Democrats to pass the USMCA in the House. Earlier she met with several colleagues and Vice President Mike Pence in a bipartisan effort to work out the details. There were people on both sides who voted against it for various reasons, but she was able to bring enough people together to pass this measure.
 
Without this agreement in place to enable duty-free trade between the U.S., Mexico and Canada, farmers and manufacturers faced uncertainty about markets for their goods. Having it in place, even though it is imperfect, will instill confidence in the markets and help to bring prosperity to those who have been floundering.
 
We are lucky to have a Congresswoman who is able to work in this bipartisan fashion, in spite of the bickering that surrounds us. Things that need to be done, get done. Thanks, Abigail!
 
Eve McCormick Louisa

Editor’s Note: this letter originally appeared in February 13th 2020 print edition of the Central Virginian, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.

The starting gun has sounded; the 2020 Iowa caucus is in the history books.

Buttigieg, Sanders, Warren, Biden and Klobuchar did well. The New Hampshire primary is Tuesday, Feb. 11, followed by the Nevada caucus Feb. 22nd and the South Carolina primary on the 29th. Virginia will join fourteen other states on Super Tuesday, March 3rd, and this will bring Michael Bloomberg into the picture, as well. Voting by absentee ballot, in person or by mail, has already started in Culpeper. It is time to stand up and be counted.

Voters have an exciting cast of candidates, each one with a different personal and professional story. As primaries and caucuses progress, we will have an opportunity to see how voters from different parts of the country respond to the diverse Democratic candidates. We voters are equally diverse and come to the ballot box with different prospects and expectations
.
Economic issues, along with health care, are always high on the list as a concern, especially because the current economy has thin rewards for its middle class. The financial outlook for those under 50 is relatively dire, compared to the Boomers (who were born between 1946 and 1964).

Millennials, now 26 to 40 years old, and those in the younger Generation Z, may never catch up to the economic prosperity enjoyed by previous generations, even by working two or three jobs.

The Dow Jones average looks good if you have extra money to invest. But farmers and multi-job Millennials do not make up the part of the economy that is receiving disposable income. What is rising for these groups is debt. The farm sector is fighting climate change, tariffs and trade wars.

Generation Z is combating rising college expenses, just as Millennials are struggling with massive student debt. They feel the consequences of past Republican Virginia General Assemblies cutting government support for higher education year after year. Educational spending has decreased 8 percent in the last decade. Student tuition increases inflate student loans, leaving families with less income to invest in the economy.

We are all now fully awakened to the enormous job of righting the ship of state and making it serve the people, not the wealthy. The wide range of presidential candidates is proof of the diversity of the Democratic Party and its broad interest in every nook and cranny of the nation. The American melting pot is the future of a much more diverse America that cannot be stopped by a mere wall or serial violations of our Founders’ Constitution. The trash can of history is where Trump’s hateful misogynistic and xenophobic rhetoric and policies are headed.

Our job as voters is to use every opportunity to inform ourselves so that we may dissect problems and find solutions to heal those parts of our society that are aggrieved, sick or are suffering financially because of the damage caused by Republican tax cuts for the wealthy. Those trillions of dollars could have been invested in repairing our transportation, educational and medical infrastructures with the added benefits of providing jobs and reducing the burgeoning national debt—something Trump’s tax cuts were promised to do, but failed to deliver.

Choosing your advocate is challenging. All are persons of ability, character, magnanimity and sound judgement. Once that’s decided, choosing our next president will be easy. It is vitally important that all of us—especially young people who have the incredible power to determine the direction of the country, if only they will exercise their rights to vote—flood the polls on Super Tuesday, March 3rd, to pick our champion.

Dave Reuther

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

Anyone submitting letters to the CV should know they risk suffering the local peanut gallery’s slings and arrows, and Mr. Braswell’s January 16th response to my letter two weeks earlier was typical of the foaming Mad Dog take no prisoners approach that we’ve come to expect from today’s Replican’ts. 
 
His claim that “we’re a republic and not a democracy” inadvertently exposed a long-standing truth about conservatives. that they’ve always been devoted to protecting oligarchies of privilege, whether they are national, regional, or local.
 
And his use of antediluvian rhetoric dating back to the Republican’s days of wailing in the wilderness in the 1930’s, or reprising John Birch Society’s slogan from the 1960’s is no coincidence. Nor should his hypocritical indignation when exposed come any surprise.
 
Yet, a far greater insult is the way our local officials treat people. Even with a board supposedly divided between “aggressive fiscal conservatives” and sclerotic get-along-to-go along’s their attitudes about protecting privilege are quite similar.

Like the boards recent efforts to persuade a nonprofit group to raise seed money for a Lake Anna Rescue Station, or through years of inaction forcing another group to raise money to get the ball rolling on covering the county pool. Whatever money either of these groups raises it will be a pittance compared to the over all costs.

And that’s the point, give people the illusion they are “doing something,” while continuing to kick that problem down the road. While the Lake Anna rescue station is indeed a pressing need, it is as several commentators pointed out at the January 21st board meeting “one of many needed throughout the county.”
 
While I applaud the Boards new Chair and Vice chair's efforts to put the County’s long term fiscal planning on paper to assist them with “prioritizing the County’s needs with what they can afford.” Given the Chair’s stated desire to “make sure we’re not caught in a bad situation,” with regard to the James River Pipeline their lack of urgency thus far on this issue is puzzling.
 
Especially since all planned development along the 250 corridor and much of the County’s projected economic growth hinges on a sustainable source of water. With that in mind, now is a good time to ask your Supervisor the following questions:
 
Do they accept the findings of Aqua Law’s report, and believe GAI Consultants Inc., fresh oversight of the archeological dig is adequate?
 
Does the Board intend to order an independent investigation of:
 
- The Timmons Group role in advising the JRWA, and “expediting” the pipeline permit process?
 
- County officials’ actions while serving on James River Authority from 2015 to present?
 
Will they make available to the public, Timmons proposed alternative routes for the pipeline, locations for the pumping station, and their respective costs?
 
Is there a plan B, for the Crossing Pointe development in Zion’s other than the Green Springs wells?  And is the Board prepared to order an independent review, and not depend on the developers “revised analysis?” 
 
Finally, with the County poised to approve ½ acre lots in developments around the lake, and increased density at the Cutalong development. Will they conduct an impact study on corresponding increases in ground water usage?
 
Jon Taylor 
 
Editor’s note: this letter originally appeared in the Central Virginian, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.
 
 

Our country was founded on the principle of one man, one vote. What “one man” means has gradually expanded to mean “one person,” regardless of race or gender. Our country has a history of alternately making voting more and less difficult.
 
This session, our congresswoman, Abigail Spanberger, has worked hard to make it less difficult. She was one of the original cosponsors of the Voting Rights Advancement Act, the bill that will help to make sure that everyone who is eligible to vote will be able to. Thanks to her, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill in December.
 
This year we are also seeing legislation working its way through the Virginia General Assembly that will make voting easier for people by allowing us to vote absentee ahead of Election Day. We already have that right if we have an excuse, such as being out of town. Hopefully we will soon have that right without having to produce an excuse. People with crazy busy lives, like so many of us have, will be able to vote without having to sacrifice time at the job or with the family.
 
Upholding our democratic ideal of one person, one vote is certainly something all Americans can agree on. This will bring us closer to upholding that ideal.
 
Mary Kranz Louisa
 
Editor’s note: this letter originally appeared in the Central Virginian, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.

Dan Braswell’s January 16th diatribe against bipartisanship is exactly what is wrong with today’s Republican Party.
 
We need intelligent, mature leaders like Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger who are eager to work across the aisle to pass laws that benefit ordinary people. She has had bipartisan co-sponsorship for nine out of 12 of her sponsored bills.
 
Jen Wainright

Editor’s note: this letter originally appeared in the Central Virginian, and has been re-posted here with the author’s permission.

I noted with great interest Dan Braswell’s letter in your Jan. 16 issue. Braswell spent several paragraphs taking Jon Taylor to task for issuing in a previous letter, in Braswell’s words, “distortions and flimsy accusations” while “offering nary a shred of evidence.” We can wonder about the meaning of that last word, “evidence,” as used by partisans on the Right, when mountains of evidence against President Pinocchio pile up in great drifts but are dismissed by them as “fake news” and the latest fact-free conspiracy about the Left is gleefully embraced.
 
Braswell went on to castigate Republicans and conservatives to “play hardball” against and call out those who “choose to sow hate and discontent as a method to gain power over our lives.” We are led to believe that honest and civil discourse will follow from taking their hardball tactics to a new level. The mind reels at the prospective new lows possible in our public discourse when infanticide, sharia law, and massive voter fraud become too tame to be used as attacks against the Left.
 
Braswell wants “robust political debate.” In consideration of the current fevered blather over the Second Amendment, I would offer the public at large this hypothetical case. Suppose two old, white men walk into a crowded theater showing the latest Hip-Hop movie. One carries an AR-15 or some other weapon of war. The other one shouts, “FIRE.” Before the machine gun-toting citizen can move, a young Straight Outta Compton fan pulls out a pistol and shoots the potential assailant.
 
I wish it were more absurd, but in this country today it seems all too plausible. Assuming all survive, who should be arrested, and for what?
 
Submitted in the interest of the public good,
 
Jim Wolf

Editor's Note: This originally appeared in the January 23rd edition of the Central Virginian, and has been reposted here with the author's permission.

Culpeper, and much of the rest of the Commonwealth, has been in an uproar over recent, and mostly successful, efforts to declare “Second Amendment sanctuaries” or “Constitutional” towns, cities and counties—thanks to the National Rifle Association, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Culpeper’s own Culpeper County 2A.

To what end? They have no legal standing.

Tomorrow is the traditional day for citizens to demonstrate and lobby the General Assembly, and a massive gun-rights rally is planned. The legislature has already banned firearms from the Capitol and legislative offices. Thankfully, we no longer see Senator Amanda Chase sporting her revolver on her hip in the elevators of the General Assembly building.

Still, the whining on the right is reaching a fever pitch, with our very own Del. Nick Freitas sounding more hysterical than anyone else. Really, do we need lawmakers armed to protect themselves and spectators from whomever? Isn’t that what the Capitol Police are for? What weapons will perpetrators bring into the building that go undiscovered by the new metal detectors? Snowballs?

Even liquor stores ban weapons.

This past Wednesday, the Governor wisely declared a temporary state of emergency that, from this past Friday through Tuesday, will prohibit firearms, sticks, bats, chains and other weapons on Capitol Square and throughout the Capitol complex. There are reports of busloads of extremists coming from as far away as Texas.

Governor Northam cited alarming evidence that authorities had “received credible intelligence,” some gathered via “dark web channels used by white nationalists outside Virginia,” about groups with “malicious plans” such as “storming our Capitol” and “weaponizing drones” over Capitol Square.

“This includes out-of-state militias and hate groups from across the country,” Northam said. “They’re not coming to peacefully protest. They’re coming to intimidate and cause harm.”

The FBI arrested three men who are members of a neo-Nazi group known as The Base, which describes itself as an international network that is training its members to fight in a race war. Authorities believe they were planning to attend the rally, but it is unclear of what crimes the men are accused, as their federal charges have not yet been disclosed.

Culpeper County citizen Tristan Shields cogently summarized the situation:

“This whole 2A Civil War thing has been completely driven by misinformation and conspiracy theories. It is up to our leaders, local and state, from all political backgrounds, to provide clear facts about what is and is not being proposed. Yet I’m seeing quite a few elected officials—both local and state—throw fuel on the fire, re-enforcing this dangerous and false rhetoric. This has to stop. We all saw what happened in Charlottesville on 8-11-17. Please don’t let 1-20-20 be another tragedy.”

Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Las Vegas, Virginia Beach—so many violent deaths. Last Monday, there was a gun scare at a middle school in Henrico County. Somalia and Yemen are possibly the only countries in the world that are more violent than the United States.

Where will it all end? Will anything meaningful be done to reduce gun violence? Not if Republican delegates, senators, sheriffs, supervisors and council members have anything to say about it. They are not the kind of people we need to help parents and teachers take care of our children. Remember that at the ballot box.

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

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.