The predicted “blue wave” appears this week to be a wave of bad news that would make a Democrat “sing the blues.”

On October 12, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth used the words “shocked” and “dumbfounded”when he boldly accused career State Department officials of trying to stop a series of Freedom of Information Acts (FOIA) law suits concerning Hillary Clinton’s email server and the Benghazi attacks by filing affidavits that were “clearly false.” Judge Lamberth said he was glad he had not dismissed the lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch to gain information because during the pretrial “discovery” lawyers discovered that contrary to what was stated in sworn affidavits signed by State Department officials, there were a lot of documents that had not been turned over as was required by FOIA.

Democratic Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey is feeling the effects of a hung jury in his federal bribery trial last fall. His lead over Republican and Marine veteran Bob Hugin has slipped to as low as two points in a state that Hillary Clinton carried by 14 points in 2016.The Democratic Party is running scared. They are pouring millions into the campaign trying to shore up support for Menendez. (That is money they cannot now use in other states.) Hugin is campaigning on the theme that the people of New Jersey deserve better than a senator whom the Senate Ethics Committee says “violated federal law,” “abused the power of his office,” and “disgraced the Senate.”

And in North Carolina, federal immigration officials have subpoenaed over 20 million documents as they look into alleged voting fraud. This comes not long after 19 foreign nationals were charged by the Justice Department with filing false claims of citizenship in order to vote illegally. Getting rid of fraudulent voting will certainly hurt Democratic turnout. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall any Republican operatives being indicted on voter fraud charges.

But North Carolina has serious problems with potential voter fraud. The state legislature passed the “Voter Information and Verification Act” in 2013 with the idea of reducing voter fraud. Key points were the requirement for a photo id to vote, reducing the time for early voting from three weeks to two, and eliminating “same day registration,” which allowed people to register to vote at the polling place and then vote that same day. A federal district judge in Greensboro upheld the law, and instead of the bemoaned suppression of the black vote, there was actually an increase in participation by African-American voters. But then a three-judge panel (one Clinton appointee and two Obama appointees) of the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the law.

The legal wrangling in North Carolina might not seem like bad news for Democrats, but North Carolinians are fed up with the situation, and there is a proposed constitutional amendment on this year’s ballot to require photo id. Polls show that two-thirds of North Carolina voters approve of photo id’s for voting, so perhaps some sanity will return to the process.

San Juan, Puerto Rico, Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz (a Democrat) famously castigated President Trump for not doing enough for Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria hit the island – even though a number of shipping containers of supplies provided by the federal government were locked up in guarded areas on the island and were never distributed to the people of Puerto Rico. And just this week the FBI raided San Juan’s municipal offices– including the office of the mayor – as part of an investigation into possible fraud and obstruction of justice by the city government.

And then we had the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing debacle. I think swing voters, and even some Democrats are getting sick of Democrats.

We Republicans need to be careful. We can’t assume that the blue wave will only be a splash on the beach. We have to take seriously the millions of dollars pouring into these campaigns in order to sway uninformed voters. Yet we have reason to believe that if we are diligent in our own efforts to elect our conservative candidates – by getting conservative voters to the polls and convincing undecided voters of the value of our positions – that we will prevail in keeping both the Senate and the House in Republican hands.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth District issued a one-sentence ruling on October 10, 2018, that is good news for the voters of Virginia. That somewhat cryptic sentence reads, “Upon consideration of submissions relative to the motion for stay pending appeal and for expedited consideration of the appeal, the court denies the motion.”

That sentence might seem confusing at first glance, but it’s really pretty clear when you know the background. In early 2017, the Sixth Congressional District filed a suit against the Virginia State Board of Elections in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The suit claimed that enforcement of Section 24.2-509.B of the Code of Virginia, often called the “Incumbent Protection Act” (IPA), was unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth and other amendments.

To hear a blog in which the Sixth District’s attorney, Jeff Adams, gives his perspective on the case go to http://grassrootsheartbeatva.libsyn.com/gh5-liberation-from-the-incumbent-protection-act.

The trial took place in November 2017, and Chief District Judge Michael Urbanski ruled that the law was indeed unconstitutional. To read the article I wrote when the original ruling came out, go to http://www.votedoctroxel.com/doc-says/page/8/.

Virginia’s Attorney General filed an appeal that included a request that Judge Urbanski’s ruling be stayed (put on hold) until after the appeal had been heard. The Court of Appeals initially issued the stay in response to that request. Additionally, the defendants (as represented by the Attorney General’s Office) asked that the court give “expedited consideration” to the case. In effect, they were asking that Judge Urbanski’s ruling be thrown out for technical reasons that had nothing to do with the merits of the case.

A three-member panel of Federal Appeals Court judges has been assigned to hear the case. They have a combined 73 years of experience on the Appeals Court. Ronald Reagan appointed Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson in 1984, Bill Clinton appointed Judge Diana Gribbon Motz in 1994, and George W. Bush appointed Judge Allyson K. Duncan  in 2003. The ruling they issued on October 10was done “at the direction of Judge Duncan with the concurrence of Judge Wilkinson and Judge Motz.” In other words, it was a unanimous decision.

The stay to Judge Urbanski’s ruling, when it was in effect, meant that the IPA could still be enforced as law. The October 10 ruling, which removes the stay against Judge Urbanski’s ruling, says that the IPA cannot be enforced until and unless the Appeals Court overturns that ruling. So for now Virginia voters, through their respective committees, get to determine the method by which their candidates will be nominated – a constitutional right that the IPA has for decades denied them.

Also, the request for expedited consideration has been denied. That means there will be a trial at which time the merits of the case will be addressed. We are optimistic that the Appeals Court will agree with Judge Urbanski’s ruling that the IPA is in fact unconstitutional because we believe that we have the much stronger legal argument.

It is never wise to try to predict what a judge will decide, however, the signs are good for us. If, after studying the materials submitted by the two parties to the suit, the Court felt that the defendants had a strong case, they would probably have left the stay in place – at least based on precedent in other cases and in other courts. Likewise, if they did not believe the merits of the case were worth hearing, they probably would not have allowed the case to continue to follow its natural course. So while we certainly should not make any assumptions as to how the judges will finally rule on the appeal, the October 10 ruling causes us to be optimistic about our chances of returning to the voters the ability to nominate candidates in a way that does not unfairly favor incumbents..

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

This is the season of the year in which all Republican energies should be united in our efforts to elect Republican candidates. Unfortunately, not every Republican appears to agree. At least one fairly high placed Virginia Republican has spread dissension within the Sixth District by publicly claiming things that just aren’t so. I have a recording of a unit meeting at which this individual stated as fact the falsehood that the Sixth District Committee at our September 6^thmeeting changed the Sixth District bylaws as a means to attack the Chairman.

First, we didn’t change the bylaws. Our bylaws require a vote of three-fourths of the Committee (24 of 32 voting members) to change our bylaws. Additionally, no bylaw changes were planned nor were they, as is required in the bylaws, presented in the call that went out fourteen days in advance of the meeting nor were any introduced at the meeting. None of the requirements to change the bylaws were met (or even contemplated). So to state that we voted to change the bylaws is just wrong.

Second, some people seem to think that any vote taken by the District Committee that does not turn out exactly like the chair and her supporters want them to is somehow an attack on the chair. That’s not how a representative body works. The members of a representative body take a vote; the will of the majority of the members of that body prevails. The false narrative that the majority of the Committee is attacking the chairman is untrue, harmful, and toxic to Republican efforts to elect Republican candidates. This false narrative must stop.

We did address an issue concerning the bylaws at the September 6^thmeeting. The executive committee of the District Committee took some actions earlier in the summer that their interpretation of the District bylaws said they could take. The majority of the District Committee believe a different interpretation was intended. Robert’s Rules of Ordersays, “Each society decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws. [emphasis in the original] …The interpretation should be in accordance with the intention of the society at the time the bylaw was adopted, as far as this can be determined.” (Page 588, lines 25, 31-33).

Our District bylaws were examined and revised in 2016 by a committee of four people. State Central Committee representative Anne Fitzgerald chaired that committee. Two lawyers who were not District Committee members sat on the bylaws committee, and I was the fourth member. Anne and I went through every word of the old bylaws and every word of the revisions to the bylaws many times and conferred with the two lawyers repeatedly as to meanings, intents, and wording. We presented the bylaws to the Committee ahead of time so they could offer their comments, and we answered at length any questions that were raised during the approval process. Anyone who wants to “determine” the original intent of the bylaws needs only to ask Anne or me. We really are in a position to know.

I might add that within the collegial atmosphere nurtured in the District Committee by the previous leadership, these types of ambiguities never arose. Everyone who voted on the bylaws knew what they meant. Issues have only arisen because, it would seem, at least one member of the current leadership team wants to twist words so that the minority can circumvent the will of the majority of the committee. That philosophy of circumvention is destructive to Republican efforts to elect candidates, and it must stop.

Robert’s(p.589, line 1) adds “…[W]here an ambiguity exists, a majority vote is all that is required to decide the question.” Since ambiguities demonstrably existed, the District Committee, at our September 6^thmeeting, approved a series of motions to remove the ambiguities by explaining the intent of the bylaws in question and stating what the proper interpretation of the bylaws should be. In our discussion of the motions to clarify, we very clearly – even quoting Robert’s– stated those reasons for presenting our motions to clarify the intent of the bylaws in question. It’s hard to believe that anyone who attended the meeting (which the individual mentioned in my first paragraph did) has a legitimate excuse for not understanding that.

The spread of false narratives is not good for the Party, is not good for our fellow citizens, and is not good for our country. These false narratives must stop.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

P.S. I don’t see any value in naming individuals referenced in this email. I’m not out to bash or condemn them personally and cause further dissension. My goal is to let my readers know the truth so that you can avoid being the victims of falsehood.

Every so often I run across something that says it better than I could. Here is one such letter (minus the picture of a very battered Nike hat).

* * *

Dear Nike,

I want to have a conversation about this hat. It’s over 13 years old. I don’t remember when I bought it exactly. I don’t remember where I bought it. But what I do remember is why I wore it.

On August 10, 2005, I was a newlywed with two young sons. My husband, Tim, and I had toasted our one month anniversary the night before, and I was enjoying a rare evening to myself, catching up on reading and relishing the quiet. Until there was a knock on my door. I had no way of knowing that the small act of turning a knob was about to shatter my life into a million pieces. I sat numb and in sheer disbelief as I was told that my husband, while in a foot pursuit and subsequent struggle with a suspect that ended up in the road, had been struck and killed by an oncoming vehicle. He took his last breath lying in the middle of the street.

What I lost in that moment is indescribable. I had to watch his mother be dealt the most agonizing blow a parent can face, and I couldn’t comfort her because I was in my own hell. I had to find a way to gut my own children in the gentlest way possible, and tell them that this man they had come to love, whom they looked up to, who cared for them as his own, would never walk through our door again.

I don’t know if you’ve ever attended a police funeral, but watching grown men who’ve seen the absolute worst things a civilian can imagine, break down and sob over the casket of their brother is an image that never leaves you. The bagpipes haunt my dreams to this day, but it was the faces of my children, the innocence that abandoned them at such a tender age that brought me to my knees.

I had no choice but to move on. We trudged zombie-like through our days for weeks and weeks on end. I never left the house except to drive the boys to school, or buy food we barely touched. I realized that I had to do something. I had to move my body, or I was going to crawl out of my own skin. So I put on the only cap I had, and I went for a run. It was short, it hurt, and it was ugly. But I felt, just for those few moments on that road, like a normal person. So I kept doing it. I put that hat on, and I ran every day. Sometimes I had to stop and sit down because I was sobbing so hard. Sometimes I was so angry I ran until I thought my heart would stop. Sometimes I would just scream over and over again, but it still felt better than doing nothing.

That black cap became a symbol to me. It is sweat stained, and it’s shape is gone. The buckle in the back barely closes, but that hat represents my family’s rise from the ashes. It stands for the strength and the sacrifice we made loving a man who had a job that we all knew could end his life, every time he walked out that door. And it did. And I accept that.

I still wear this hat. I wore it on my run this morning.

And then I heard about your new ad campaign.

Colin Kapernick has the absolute right to protest anything he d**n well pleases. I don’t dispute that for one second. My father, my husband, and many, many friends have all served this country and were willing to fight for his right to kneel.

But that right goes both ways. I also have a right to express my disgust at your decision to portray him as some kind of hero. What, exactly has Colin Kapernick sacrificed? His multi-million dollar paycheck…? Nope, you already gave him one of those. His reputation? No, he’s been fawned over by celebrities and media alike. Funny – Tim Tebow was never called courageous when he knelt.

This man, whose contempt for law enforcement fits him like a…sock, has promoted an agenda that has been proven false time and time again, in study after study. But facts don’t seem to matter anymore. This man has thrown his support behind divisive anti-police groups and donated money directly to a fugitive from justice who escaped prison after killing a police officer. I question the judgment of anyone who would put someone this controversial and divisive at the head of an advertising campaign, but it isn’t my company to run.

I don’t know if I’ll have the heart to ever get rid of this cap, but I will tell you this, I’ll never purchase another Nike product as long as I live. You got this one wrong Nike, terribly, terribly wrong.

Sherry Graham-Potter, surviving spouse of Pima County (AZ) Sheriff’s Deputy Tim Graham

* * *

This letter has been posted on a number of websites by people, like me, who agree with her, so feel free to share, forward, repost, and otherwise explain the difference between an underpaid hero (who died trying to save a life) and an overpaid crybaby (in my humble opinion).

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel

 

The circus that is a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on a Supreme Court justice is back in town. The Democrats are desperate to keep Brett Kavanaugh, another respecter of the Constitution, from joining Neil Gorsuch on the high court. Those Dems who still have a reputation worth risking are putting said reputations at risk to back the claims of a blatant, anti-Trump, liberal college professor who claims “something” happened 36 years ago, except she can’t remember exactly when or where. But she only had one beer. Based on the inconsistencies in her story so far, we should be less concerned about what she was drinking and more concerned about what she is currently smoking.

But “something” did happen 27 years ago, and it happened in a U.S. Senate committee room. U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Clarence Thomas, another respecter of the Constitution who had been nominated to the high court, was accused of sexually harassing former staffer Anita Hill. The claims she made were filled with a similar number of inconsistencies. It didn’t work for the Dems then, but they love to keep pushing failed policies.

On October 11, 1991, then-Senator Joe Biden, the committee’s chairman, asked if Justice Thomas had anything to say about the allegations. Thomas’ entire answer can be found here, but a few statements hold particular interest. After categorically and unequivocally denying “each and every allegation,” Justice Thomas said,

“I think that this today is a travesty. I think that it is disgusting. I think that this hearing should never occur in America. This is a case in which this sleaze, this dirt, was searched for by staffers of members of this committee, was then leaked to the media, and this committee and this body validated it and displayed it at prime time over our entire nation. How would any member on this committee, any person in this room, or any person in this country [feel if sleeze like this was] said about him or her in this fashion? Or this dirt dredged up and this gossip and these lies displayed in this manner? How would any person like it?”

“The Supreme Court is not worth it. No job is worth it. I am not here for that. I am here for my name, my family, my life, and my integrity. I think something is dreadfully wrong with this country when any person, any person in this free country would be subjected to this…. This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace.”

“And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I’m concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you.”

Senator Orin Hatch (R – Utah) at a different point in the hearing asked Justice Thomas what it was like to be unjustly accused of sexual misdeeds. Thomas replied that it is “a living hell.” He added, “The person you knew died. It is an injustice to me; it is an injustice to this country.” Senator Hatch then asked him to address rumors that he planned to withdraw his nomination. Thomas replied, “I would rather die than withdraw.” He wasn’t staying in the process because of the nomination. He had not asked for it, and if he had known when he was nominated what he would have to go through in the hearing process, he would have said NO. He chose to fight the unjust allegations that were made solely “…for the purpose of driving me from this process. I’ve never run from bullies.”

Senator Hatch made the comment that the groups who were trying to get rid of Justice Thomas had “taken over the process. And in the process their ideology becomes more important than truth, it becomes more important than integrity, it becomes more important than ethics, it becomes more important than preserving people’s reputations, it becomes more important than simple basic decency to human beings.”  Then Hatch quoted from an editorial by liberal commentator Juan Williams: “Here is indiscriminate, mean-spirited mudslinging supported by the so-called ‘champions of fairness.’” Hatch read a further comment from the editorial. “This slimy exercise, orchestrated in the form of leaks of an affidavit to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, is an abuse of the Senate confirmation process, an abuse of Senate rules, and an unforgiveable abuse of a human being named Clarence Thomas.”

I hope that you will watch both these video clips, but when you do, instead of Anita Hill think Christine Blasey Ford, and whenever you hear the name Clarence Thomas, think Brett Kavanaugh.

Yes, the circus is back in town, and the clowns are the Democrats who put political ideology ahead of decency and who would lynch a man’s reputation simply because he doesn’t fit their agenda. But it isn’t Judge Kavanaugh’s reputation that is at risk any more. It’s theirs.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.