The word “pusillanimous” has come to my mind a lot lately. “The American Heritage Dictionary” says it means “lacking courage; lacking strength and firmness of mind; faint-hearted; timid.” I first heard the word back in middle school during a video recreation of a Patrick Henry speech. Although we use the word very seldom compared to Colonial times, I do think the word is appropriate to certain recent activities within the Republican Party.

At our State Central Committee (SCC) meeting on June 27, the SCC voted to hold an “unassembled” state convention. Several of us pled for an assembled convention because, among many other reasons, we need to challenge as totally inappropriate a Democratic governor dictating when and how Republican committees perform their political functions. Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) Chairman Jack Wilson replied that our Governor has the legal right to trample our constitutional freedoms and deny our First Amendment “right of the people peaceably to assemble.” In other words, we are in surrender mode.

Patrick Henry – who later became Virginia’s first and sixth governor – gave a speech on March 23, 1775, to the Virginia House of Burgesses in which he spoke very clearly about such surrender to dictators: “If we wish to be free… if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight!”

Wilson told the SCC that the RPV had not taken the Governor to court because litigation would cost $90,000 dollars and “we need to spend that on electing candidates.” I have never been so frustrated with political claptrap. If the RPV is only a fundraising group then we need to call ourselves a political action committee and not a political party. But if we in fact speak for conservatives in the Commonwealth, then we need to stand up on our hind legs, speak our truth, and use our resources to fight against these egregious violations of our constitutional rights. That fight is worthy of our funds. We gain nothing by waiting, by being conciliatory, by going along to get along.

Patrick Henry was, in that same 1775 speech, very eloquent on this point: “They tell us, sir, that we are weak – unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger?… Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?”

The RPV needs to be the lighthouse of conservative principles in Virginia, but we seem to be little more than a glow stick. Even our own Sixth District should have challenged the Governor in court weeks ago when we decided to have an assembled convention, but Chairman Jennifer Brown thinks and votes in lockstep with Wilson. And now, instead of getting the Governor out of our business, Chairman Brown is trying to jerk our convention around at the last minute to suit the whims of a powerful Democrat. Patrick Henry noted: “Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power…. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no [choice]. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery!”

Some might call my comments over dramatic, but I remind you of Venezuela, once the most vibrant economy in South America, but now socialism has turned it into the most likely place for citizens to either starve or be murdered. The same Socialist masterminds who ruined Venezuela have targeted the U.S. – while we spend our efforts appeasing an out of control governor rather than preparing for the coming battles for our very way of life.

Patrick Henry concludes his speech with these famous words: “Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

Unfortunately, the American public has become so comfortable that we don’t see the need to fight. Equally unfortunately, if we don’t fight for our freedoms, we will lose all our comforts. Patrick Henry must be rolling in his grave hard enough to make the ground tremble. I would rather cause a political, moral, spiritual earthquake while I’m alive. And I would much rather have leaders who will stand up and fight for what’s right than have those who merely organize a long, drawn out surrender.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

Congratulations to Daniel Gade, who handily won the primary on June 23 to become Virginia’s Republican nominee for the US Senate. He will face Democrat incumbent Mark Warner in the general election in November. But primaries and general elections were not what the founders of our country, the authors of our Constitution, envisioned when it came to electing Senators.

The original document says in Article I, Section 3, paragraph 1, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.” The Seventeenth Amendment – ratified on April 8, 1913 – changes who chooses Senators by stating “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State… [so far identical to the original, but here comes the change] …elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each /senator shall have one vote….”

It seems like a simple change, having the people choose Senators rather than the legislatures. But let’s think about why the original authors chose to have the legislatures choose.

Our Congress was designed in a way that resolved an argument between large states and small. States with small populations did not want to be dominated by large population states, so they demanded equal representation. But the states with large populations wanted their individual citizens to receive representation equal to the citizens of states with small populations. The solution was ingenious. There would be a House of Representatives to provide equal representation for all citizens no matter in which state they lived. The Senate would provide equal representation to all states no matter how big or small their population. To that end, members of the House of Representatives were to be elected by the people, and the members of the Senate were to be elected by the legislatures of the states. Brilliant!

More importantly, because the new Constitution gave the federal government more power than it had been given under the Articles of Confederation that it replaced, having state legislatures elect the senators reassured anti-federalists that there would be some protection against the federal government overpowering the individual states and usurping their powers. The Senate was to be a body of “ambassadors” from the states to the federal government. These ambassadors – appointed and authorized by the separate state governments – had the authority to approve international treaties, cabinet appointments, ambassadors, and judges, and other decisions, on behalf of the states, thus allowing the states to keep the federal government under control. If a Senator started voting contrary to the best interests of his state, the legislature – in its efforts to put the interests of the state first – could replace their Senators as necessary. States’ rights were protected, senators voted as representatives of the state, and the federal government was held in check.

We lost that with the Seventeenth Amendment. Proponents of popular election of senators said that legislative selection was open to corruption and electoral deadlocks. The people did not have sufficient time to consider the end results of passing this amendment as it was ratified less than a year after it was first proposed by Congress. Had the people had opportunity to put more thought into the amendment, they would have realized that corruption is a function of men not of legislatures or elections. Corrupt men exist no matter the circumstances. And if a legislature wants to endure a stalemate regarding who will be their senators, then they can go without full representation at the federal level until their citizens start taking action to force their legislators to do their jobs.

The trouble with the Seventeenth Amendment is that now senators don’t have to be good or able or much of anything other than well known. The only skill they need is the ability to sell themselves to enough voters to win an election. The average citizen does not take the time to know the individuals who are running for office. They generally go with what they read on a mailer or because a friend supports that candidate or because they recognize the name. Flyers, campaign teams, and name recognition all take money. That means only rich people or people who can raise money – often by selling themselves or their votes – have a chance at becoming a senator. Too many highly qualified people will never consider representing their states because they don’t have the money or the inclination to try to make people like them. It just isn’t worth it to them. Instead we get too many people who speak well regardless of whether they are worth anything. Not every senator is like that, but too many are, and that is a major reason we have a swamp in Washington, D.C. We would do ourselves a favor by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment so that legislatures could elect senators based on quality rather than popularity.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

Sixth District Southern Region Vice Chair Steve Richards and I were asked to assist the Teller committee at the Fifth Congressional District “Unassembled Convention” held Saturday, June 13. Steve was asked because of his organizing skills and his reputation for honesty and integrity. I was asked because I chaired the balloting committee at the 2018 Sixth District convention and have for several years served as a Chief Election Officer in Lynchburg.

The difference is that instead of the one precinct I deal with in Lynchburg, we were dealing with what amounted to 23 precincts, that is the 23 units in the Fifth District. As a result, it took a long time to tabulate the end results. I learned later that a number of Twitter and Facebook posts questioned whether the “delay” in getting the results out was an indication of vote manipulation in the tally room. Actually, it was a sign of thoroughness and accuracy.

Because of the contention surrounding this election, the dozen of us in the Teller room (not counting at least ten observers) were very careful to document every ballot and match the number of voted ballots with the number of delegates checked-in by each unit. The tally process was more complicated than merely scanning the ballots. There were a few minor discrepancies – normal in any large election process – that we chose to sort out (identify, explain, document) before we would report the totals from a unit to the spreadsheet operators. (There were two identical spreadsheets, each on a separate computer, with the output of each computer projected on a wall so that all of the observers could see/compare the results – raw votes and weighted results – as entered into each computer.) We decided it was better to get an accurate number than a quick number. Even though it took much longer than any of us would have liked, the final vote count came from a clean, fair, open, and accurate tally process.

The Fifth District convention is done, but another contentious convention — the Sixth District convention – comes on July 11. (I’m running for reelection to the State Central Committee.) We approved the call for this convention in December because convention preparation takes a long time. But the time we provided was squandered. A month or so ago, since no committees had been announced, the Sixth District Committee instructed current Chair Jennifer Brown and current Vice-Chair John Massoud – the two candidates for District Chair – to each select two members of each temporary convention committee and to select committee chairs on whom they could both agree. (Temporary committees are appointed because the committees don’t become permanent until voted on by the convention delegates.) We instructed them to complete the process by May 26. When the committees had still not been selected by May 28 (due to disagreement about one specific committee), we called a District Committee meeting for June 15 (to allow for the required 14-day notice) to appoint committees if the two candidates could not reach agreement by then. Finally, less than an hour before the District Committee was to meet, the convention committees were announced. Chairman Brown sent out her privately funded newsletter that evening with a few wrong names on it. I have included the correct, official list below:

The Temporary Convention Arrangements Committee includes Patsy Walker and Dexter Gaines (selected by Brown) and Steve Arrington and Dave Goetze (selected by Massoud). Jane Burner (Brown) is the committee chair.

The Temporary Convention Rules Committee includes Bethany Harrison (Brown), Scott Seaton (Brown), Vance Wilkins (Massoud), and Jeff Adams (Massoud). Dan Webb (Brown) is the chair.

The Temporary Convention Elections Committee includes Jeff Roadcap (Brown), Anne Seaton (Brown), Gary Chatelain (Massoud), and April McWilliams (Massoud). The chair is Austin Armentrout (Brown).

The Temporary Convention Nominations Committee includes James H. Kostelni (Brown), Scott Cline (Brown), Dave Christovich (Massoud), and Kyle Ford (Massoud). Doug Smith (Brown) is chair.

The Temporary Convention Credentials Committee includes Craig Storrs, Jr. (Brown), Eric Harrison (Brown), Jim DeLong (Massoud), and Brandi Rutz (Massoud). Nate Boyer (Massoud) is the chair.

Virginia House Minority Leader Todd Gilbert will be Temporary Convention Chair. Some people have posted that he came because Jennifer Brown asked him to. That is not true. It took a concerted effort and specific invitations from both candidates before he would agree to serve. If both candidates agreed to it, then his nomination as convention chair would not become a point of contention at a convention that already promises to be quite… lively.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

The infamous, 2005 US Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London let the government of New London, Connecticut, take private property from its owners – including primary litigant, Susette Kelo – and transfer it to a private entity – New London Development Corporation (NLDC) – in order to provide economic benefits to the city. For the record, NLDC could not come through with financing, and the project was abandoned after the thriving, well-kept, modest-income community was razed to the ground. New London now has a denuded wasteland.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the 5-4 opinion that said a “public purpose” equaled a “public use” even though the city government would not itself own the property. He said, “the city was justified in trying to improve its tax base by attracting wealthier property owners.”

This concerns us here in Virginia because the Town of Strasburg in Shenandoah County is considering doing the same thing to a private citizen.

Strasburg has for many years reputedly had an identity crisis as to whether they are a part of Shenandoah County, an off shoot of Front Royal, or an exurb of Washington DC.  In trying to find its own identity, the Town wants to create some economic growth to boost its tax base. A few years ago, the city built the start of a business park on Bowden Mowery Drive just outside the Town.  The problem now is that to finish the park, they need more parking and access space. To get it, the Town decided that it needs approximately 25 acres of land that is, and has for many years been, owned by the Dellinger Company.  Butch Dellinger is a long time Strasburg resident who has Shenandoah Valley roots going back to the 1700’s.  Butch and his family built a successful construction contracting business so they could live their share of the American dream.

The Town has tried to purchase the 25 acres, but Butch insists that he cannot sell because that land is vital to his business.  As could be expected, some people who want the sale to happen have elected to trash Dellinger.  Now the Town Council of Strasburg plans to vote on whether to use eminent domain to take Mr. Dellinger’s land from him.

However, in 2012 the citizens of Virginia – with a 74.45% affirmative vote – added an amendment to Article I, Section 11 of the Virginia Constitution that requires “that eminent domain only be exercised where the property taken or damaged is for public use and, except for utilities or the elimination of a public nuisance, not where the primary use is for private gain, private benefit, private enterprise, increasing jobs, increasing tax revenue, or economic development…”

Yet, the fact remains that despite the clear language of the Virginia Constitution, the Town Council of Strasburg just might condemn Dellinger’s land anyway. If they are not careful, instead of one of the identity options above, Strausburg could find that they have identified themselves as bullies. When three-fourths of the citizens of Virginia vote to say, “This is wrong,” government should listen to the people.

There is only one way for voters to counter the wrong-headed, inflexible notions of elected officials, and that is by electing officials who actually do vote the will of the people. The Bill of Rights confirms that a man has the right to decide what to do with property he has gained through his own grit and hard work. A government entity deciding that another man needs it more is irrelevant. The government has no right to pick and choose who owns what.

In the case of Strasburg, the people have elected at least one council member who is fighting for the will of the people. Town council member John Massoud, who is also currently the Sixth Congressional District Republican Committee’s Vice Chair as well as a candidate for Chairman, is dedicated to fighting this governmental overreach.

Thankfully, John is good at working with the members of the Council despite their incredibly diverse political ideologies. He was able earlier this year to get the council to unanimously approve the Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolution that he authored – an amazing accomplishment since the council includes eight people who cover the political spectrum from Tea Party to Bernie Sanders. Hopefully, John will again be able to bring reason to chaos and convince the Town Council to preserve the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. If John wins, the people win.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

 

P.S. A video recorded last fall gives a different perspective on this Spring’s protests gone wild. Click here to watch.

Along with most everyone else in the country, we had no trouble depositing our COVID stimulus check in the bank. I figure the government has taken a whole lot more of my money than I have ever gotten back. We also took a Payroll Protection Plan loan to offset the loses to my wife’s business due to the quarantine. We plan to file for loan forgiveness and keep the money because the government will still have taken far more money from us than we will ever get back. So those two checks really just represent a small part of what the government has taken from my family.

I understand that I get a well defended country with a (sort of) sound financial system, representation on the international stage, and a reasonable justice system. But 70 percent of what the federal government spends goes to things that do me little good and are not in fact areas where the federal government has any business involving itself.

So yes, I took advantage of the stimulus program because it was my money in the first place, and the government was responsible for cutting our income with their fear-based, bad-data-based quarantine. Yet this short term “safety net” is doing long term damage just as the effort to quarantine people to keep them from getting COVID-19 has increased the suicide rate, increased domestic violence, has impoverished people who had a chance to get ahead in the world, harmed people’s health by keeping them cooped up in closed environments and preventing them from getting medical treatments for conditions that were considered elective, but which when left untreated will threaten more lives than even the most pessimistic COVID-19 model.

Another long-term casualty of this pandemic panic is the total distortion of people’s investments. Some people think that anyone with investments is rich. A large percentage of those are people who don’t even have bank accounts. They get a government check each month and spend it all because they know they will get another government check next month whether they do anything or not. They don’t recognize that a lot of people don’t get entitlements. They live by working for what they get. They don’t spend it all because they know that at some point they will want to or perhaps be required to stop working, so they try to set money aside for when they are no longer working or to help their family. To get the most for their money, they invest it in retirement accounts and mutual funds. These investments buy stocks – which represent ownership – of reputable companies that generally pay dividends – a share of the profits – to stockholders. These are not “fat cat” billionaires. These are the people that own the local dry cleaners, the local music store, the local hardware store. These are people who serve on community committees with you and whose children attend school with your children. Yet their future may be in jeopardy because this panic pandemic has totally upset the balance of the investments your neighbors have made in their futures.

The interjection of trillions of dollars of borrowed cash into the economy has upset the natural balance of our financial system. Injected cash causes inflation at a time when people’s income from investments has become flat or even non-existent. People who live on government assistance don’t understand this. Socialists encourage this, because they want government to grow bigger and bigger and the business community to grow smaller and smaller. This panic pandemic (followed by protests turned into riots by outside agitators) plays right into the socialists’ plans to destroy the American economy and Americans’ liberties.

Some people think that the Federal Reserve Bank can fix everything by just issuing more money. This time they cannot. The economic growth of this century has been built on the poor foundation of record debt (both corporate and governmental), cheap credit, and belief in the Federal Reserve. That belief is evaporating quickly because the most recent money rate cuts have done nothing to stop the stock market roller coaster. In fact, the Fed’s ineffective measures cause many financial analysts to think the Fed is looking desperate to control a situation which has gotten totally beyond their ability to do so.

Democrats try to blame President Trump, but the blame lies directly at the door of Democratic leadership, who have tried to manufacture every possible excuse and crisis to bring down the President. They haven’t yet, and I doubt they will in 2020. Instead of bringing down a president, they are instead on the verge of bringing down the entire country. They’ve damaged the moral fiber that made us strong, they’ve damaged our faith in each other, they’ve sowed lie upon lie into the American consciousness, and now they have done major damage to our economic future. A financial anomaly such as the COVID-19 quarantine is called in financial circles a “Black Swan.” This swan isn’t pretty, but it’s swimming in our lake.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.