I am a precinct election official, so this past Tuesday my team of officials sat in our polling place watching how few people bothered to come in to have their say as to who their party’s nominee would be in the fall. I can do several columns on how important the nominating process is when it comes to actually draining our governmental swamps, but that is not today’s topic.

Because our turnout was so low (only about 8 percent at my precinct), we election officials had lots of time to talk among ourselves. One of the officials, a Democrat, made the comment that she thought it was okay for people to have handguns to protect themselves, but she thought the country should ban all assault rifles because no one needs them. She said the word “assault” made her case. I didn’t want to leave that comment without a response so I asked her what “defend the Constitution… against all enemies, foreign and domestic” meant. She responded that we have an army to defend against foreign enemies and that we are a “first world” country so we don’t have to worry about domestic enemies. We talked a little further until another Democrat election worker wouldn’t let us continue. I don’t know whether the second lady thought we were arguing (we weren’t – it was a very civil conversation), or she didn’t like the topic of guns, or I was starting to make sense.

The crux of our all too brief conversation was my co-worker’s claim that as a “first world” country, we didn’t need to worry about defending ourselves from the government. That presumes that our governmental leaders are good, that no one in the government is trying to destroy our economy and turn us into a socialist country, that no one is trying to commit a backdoor coup against our legally elected president, that no one is leaving the back/Southern door to our country wide open so that thousands of people who have no respect for our laws can come in at will, and that no one in the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, or the Pentagon is willing to order out the military against the people who disagree with certain political philosophies. (That only happens with the IRS, right?) I think we have seen just how close we are to having those things happen. So to say that we have no need to protect ourselves from domestic enemies is naïve at best and criminal at worst.

The founders of our country did not want a large standing army. We were only to have a small army for immediate defense that would hold the line until the militias could enter the fight. We were doing pretty well until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. We had an immediate and huge buildup of federally controlled armed might – that has yet to reduce to its pre-World War II size. The military industrial complex has developed some massive weapons that could be used on those who don’t conform to the whims of a government gone rogue. So frankly, we need to go back to the idea of citizen soldiers. Those were the soldiers who came out of stores and factories and off of farms to fight for their homes and families during all of our armed conflicts up to and including World War II. They added the muscle that our small standing army needed to win the war. Then they went home, even though they were prepared to come back and fight another war if necessary. That is the model that we had for the first two centuries of this country, and we are leaving that model at our own peril.

The Second 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.” For starters “well regulated” in colonial times did not mean a “tightly governed” militia; it meant and therefore continues to legally mean that the people who might band together to form a militia must have adequate arms, ammunition and other supplies so that they are able to fight. Therefore, if the people who wish to defend themselves are to be “well regulated” then they need to possess whatever weapons are necessary to defend themselves against well-armed (well regulated) foes. If that means keeping “assault rifles” in their closets, then so be it. The Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment protects the individual’s private right to have arms for their own defense rather than the right of each state to maintain a militia. Some opponents then claimed that the Second Amendment only relates to federal infringement of the right to bear arms. But in 2010 the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from infringing on that same individual right to own weapons.

Not only do we need to know and exercise our rights, but we need to protect our rights under the Constitution. Never forget that the Second Amendment protects the other twenty-six amendments. Therefore, the Second Amendment is the one that we must at all costs protect from those who would diminish it to anything less than the right to maintain the full range of equipment necessary to defend ourselves, our families, our property, and our liberty.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

In the pure democracy of ancient Athens every citizen had to gather in the arena to vote on every governmental decision. In America, we elect representatives to go to the “arena” – Congress or the General Assembly – and make governmental decisions on our behalf – as our representatives. Unfortunately, over time, we began allowing political parties to control the nomination process so that the parties controlled who represents us rather than we the people reserving that control to ourselves. Voters failed to realize that the real effort to “drain the swamp” doesn’t happen in the general election in November; it happens in the nominating process.

The Sixth Congressional District Republican Committee recently won a case in both the US District Court in Harrisonburg and the US Court of Appeals in Richmond wherein Virginia’s “Incumbent Protection Act” (IPA) was ruled unconstitutional. The IPA said that an incumbent could determine the nomination process for his/her office. They generally chose primaries because their name recognition and their money made it easier for them to win reelection. With the IPA decision, it is now easier for citizens to choose conventions, mass meetings, or party canvasses as the method of nomination. However, some old guard politicians have managed to maintain primaries as the nominating process in their districts.

The Sixth Congressional District has three Republican primaries of which I am aware. John Avioli and Dave Bourne both want the nomination for the 20^th House of Delegates District. I’ve met both gentlemen but I do not know them well enough to have a preference, although a friend of mine from Staunton tells me Bourne is the more conservative.

I live in the 23^rd House of Delegates District, and the incumbent, Scott Garrett, faced severe opposition from a number of very vocal citizens because he voted in favor of Medicaid expansion. Or perhaps he merely decided that ten years as our representative was enough. Regardless, three candidates are running to be the Republican nominee. One of them, Wendell Walker, as chairman of the Lynchburg Republican Committee worked the system to make sure the Republican nominee was selected by primary. I have known Wendell for over 30 years. We attend the same church. People there see him serve in many capacities. Yet I have also seen how he operates in the political back room, and I will not vote for him because of it. The other two candidates for the nomination are Turner Perrow, who has been my representative on Lynchburg’s City Council for a number of years, and Ron Burman, a Liberty University graduate whom I have also known for a number of years. Turner is more politically adept due to his long service on Council, while Ron is the most passionately conservative. I commend them both to the voters in the 23^rd.

The most important primary pits incumbent Emmett Hanger against Tina Freitas in the 24^th State Senate District. Emmett is another of these long serving incumbents who say one thing on their campaign literature and vote a totally different way in Richmond. Emmett says he is pro-gun yet his vote has killed several pro-gun rights bills in three straight sessions. He says he is pro-life, but Tina can show you videos of him urging senators to kill a prohibition in the state budget against state funding from being used for abortions. He often votes with Democrats when every other Republican votes against. That is not the kind of representation the strongly conservative 24^th Senate District voters want in Richmond.

Tina Freitas, on the other hand, is who she says she is. She votes the way she says she will. She has been endorsed by Morton Blackwell, Virginia’s revered representative to the Republican National Committee. Grassroots Republicans respect Morton and give heed to his opinions because of his faithfulness to conservative beliefs even in the face of overwhelming opposition. Republican State Senator David Sutterlein (Roanoke) recently endorsed Tina. This is notable because senators don’t usually weigh in on other senator’s races. But the importance of replacing Emmett Hanger in the Senate outweighs political protocol. And I attended a meeting last week of the Republican leadership of the Sixth Congressional District, and someone observed that almost every leader represented in the room supports Tina over Emmett. That includes both grassroots conservatives and old guard Republicans.

Tina is unequivocally pro-life. She has clear and valid reasons for supporting gun rights for women that won’t disappear when she gets to Richmond. She believes that the government is too big and too intrusive, and with three children she believes parents should control the educational system, not special interests. I urge 24^th Senate District voters to vote for Tina Freitas this Tuesday, June 11^th.

The nomination process is as crucial as the general election. Choose wisely.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

As one of the Sixth District’s elected representatives to the State Central Committee, I make a point to travel across the district talking to Republicans so that I can know the people I was elected to represent. As a result, I get to meet a lot of wonderful people who have unsuspected talents. One such individual is Mary Beth Swemba, a young grandmother from Augusta County. Mary Beth is modest about herself, but she has a degree in Russian history, culture, and politics. In fact, while she was in college she took every course Penn State offered on Russia including Russian language classes. Her father had some of the classic Russian novels in his library. She read Tolstoy and Puskin and Dostoyevsky as she was growing up. These panoramic stories of the Russian people generated in her a desire to learn as much as she could about the long, turbulent history of our one-time, Cold War enemy.

As she and I talked the last time I was in her neck of the woods, she gave me some insights about Socialism and Communism that I thought deserved an audience. I invited her to be a guest on the “Grassroots Heartbeat” podcast that Charlie Nave and I produce at frequent intervals. We recorded an interview with her this past week that should be posted next week. You will want to listen to the complete interview, but I noted a very interesting point on which I want to expand ahead of time. [Check out all of our podcasts at http://grassrootsheartbeatva.libsyn.com.]

Karl Marx, the founder of Communism, wrote his doctoral dissertation to show that “theology must yield to the superior wisdom of philosophy” [Wheen (2001) Karl Marx, ISBN 978-1-85702-637-5]. Yet despite – or perhaps because of – his own dissertation, Marx cherry-picked a short passage from the Bible and used that as a basis for his economic system. Unfortunately, he mis-used it and mis-applied it, and the world has been a sorrier place because he did so.

Acts 4:34-35 says: “Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.” Marx misappropriated that biblical example and decided that the rich should give what they have to the government so that the government could distribute what the government thinks we need. But that is not what God said to do. In Acts 4, the people knew each other. This was a local arrangement where everyone knew everyone else, and they knew that everyone was doing their part and that no one was unfairly getting something they didn’t actually need. Marxism calls for national government control of the process, which allows anyone to scam the system who has enough pull or enough guile. It happens all the time in our current welfare system.

Also, the community of people in Acts gave voluntarily. They gave because they wanted to, not because they were forced to do so. Under Socialism/Communism, no one has a choice. The government takes what they want whether you like it or not. That’s stealing. And the Bible is very clear as to what God thinks about that. Exodus 20:15 says, “You shall not steal.” That is the eighth of God’s Ten Commandments.

The community in Acts was united in common purpose because they all believed the same things. They were of the same mind in their priorities. Marx didn’t care what anyone’s priorities were other than his own. He argued that any means were acceptable in order to force his ideas on everyone else.

Finally, the community in Acts trusted the people to whom they entrusted their gifts to the community. I don’t need to go into detail about how much lack of trust people have in our government. Under Socialism, things would only get worse.

The Bible is full of capitalistic concepts. The Bible instructs us not to move property markers in order to deprive children of their inheritance. God says that a man who does not provide for his family is worse than a heathen. The Bible presumes in its instructions that families will make profit and will benefit themselves by it. It also says not to keep all of our profits for ourselves, but rather to store up treasure in Heaven by wisely investing our wealth in the things that bring glory to God on earth. Yet God wants us to decide on our own to do good with our profits. And when our giving to others comes because we want to give, then that is not theft – unlike the process of Socialism.

The Bible explains to us the source of our liberty. Karl Marx misquotes the Bible in order to take away our liberty. Be wise. Know the truth so you can counter the lies.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

Her name was Noma, although people kept trying to call her Norma. After her husband’s brother married an actual Norma, Noma would just say, “No. Norma is my sister-in-law.” One time, both ladies ended up in the same hospital at the same time – but they both survived the experience.

Her parents, Edward and Georgia, moved as newlyweds from Alabama to Oklahoma when fields were fertile and opportunity seemed unlimited for farmers. They had little more than the clothes on their back, a pot for soup, and hope. Then the drought hit, and the Grapes of Wrath Dust Bowl became a reality.

Noma was born in 1927 near Konowa in southeastern Oklahoma. She was the sixth child of the family. She had three older brothers, two older sisters, and one younger sister. Black Friday and the Great Depression would not hammer the rest of the country for another two and a half years, but the drought was already devastating family farms. No rain meant no crops, which meant no money, which meant no way for farmers to pay their mortgages. Banks couldn’t afford to carry those debts unpaid year after year, so lots of farmers lost their land.

Edward tried to buy farms two different times, but lost both of them. At one time things were so bad, Edward and his boys dug into the side of a hill, roofed the dugout with tree limbs and sod, hung a blanket across the front, and that was home. Back then you relied on yourself, did the best you could with what you had, and made it work.

Noma’s family was poor, but they were no worse off than a lot of other people of the day. Unlike today’s children, they didn’t need cell phones or video game for entertainment. Children were never bored. There was always work to do to help the family survive. When they played, they used their imaginations to create games with what they had. And they didn’t need organized sports leagues. When they wanted to play, the kids organized the games themselves and made up their own rules as needed. It was an early lesson in problem solving, negotiating, and getting along with people. The family not only survived, they thrived. And they did it without welfare or food stamps or Medicaid. When they had extra, they shared with those who didn’t have enough. They knew the difference between freeloaders and those truly in need of a helping hand.

Noma picked cotton in summer. She sewed her own clothes. She could turn a famine of ingredients into a feast of a meal. She won poetry contests and wrote short stories. She graduated as salutatorian of her high school class. She stepped up to do what needed to be done at home while her brothers served in the military during World War II.

After high school, she moved to Oklahoma City to work. In 1946, her boss embarrassed her when he tricked a returning service man into taking her out to dinner. She got over it. She and Richard celebrated their 68^th wedding anniversary three days before she died at the age of 87. When a wartime ailment caught up with Richard and put him in the hospital for three months followed by more months of rehabilitation, she went out and got a job that she worked for 28 years. When Richard was finally able to return to work they worked hard to pay off their mortgage early and put their children through college without any debt. They weren’t rich; they were wise with money.

In addition to formal education, they taught their children life lessons. Work hard. Love God. Take care of family. Be good to your friends. Neither they nor their children were perfect, but they tried to live life as Jesus taught us to live it. Noma was appalled by the “snowflake” mentality of today. She had no respect for anyone who thought they had a “right” to something for nothing. She would rare up and declare, “The only right to stuff they have is the right to work for it. Those lazy bums need to get off their lazy bums and get a job. And get fired if they don’t do it well enough to earn the pay they get for it.”

Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr., recently said that the Republican Party is working to repeal the 20^thcentury. Noma, who grew up as a Democrat but became a Republican when the Democrats lost their senses, would say we need to repeal the second half of the 20^thcentury and go back to the morals and ethics that helped the nation survive the Dust Bowl, the Great Depression, and two world wars. She would tell you that we had real men back then, and most of what we have now are snowflakes who can’t stand the heat. Yes. Noma was a feisty woman. She loved her children, her ten grandchildren, and her 25 great-grandchildren. And she taught them by example what it means to be an American.

I can’t visit Noma’s grave in Oklahoma this Memorial Day, but I can write this column to say “Thanks, Mom.”

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

In medieval times – before YouTube, Netflix, television, or even “talking pictures” – kings would hire a jester to entertain the members of their court with silly songs, inane stories, and irresponsible jokes. This is where we get the expression “he played the fool.” Court jesters came to mind when a friend of mine, a retired U.S. Navy Captain, sent me a note about one of his areas of expertise: climate change. His facts make a mockery of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), the congressional clown, and her silly, inane, and irresponsible Green New Deal (GND).

The GND is not a proposed law. It is actually House Resolution 109. And it contains a number of silly, inane, and irresponsible statements. After she states every “Whereas” imaginable, she begins her “Resolved” with a factual error. “Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that (1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal…” Stop right there.

Amendment 10 – part of the Bill of Rights, which had to be added in order to get all the states to sign off on the Constitution – says (in its entirety), “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” If you look very carefully at all seven articles and 27 amendments that currently make up our Constitution you will find nowhere that the federal government has a duty – or for that matter even the legal authority – to create a Green New Deal. So AOC’s whole resolution is based on her ignorance of the law she supposedly swore to uphold when she took office.

Here’s another funny from the congressional clown. AOC says the federal government is supposed to “create millions of good, high-wage [union] jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.” Frankly, we already have too many people in government jobs. And the best thing the feds can do for private sector jobs is reduce regulations and get out of the way of the greatest economic engine the world has ever known. But these socialists in our government, like AOC, don’t want that because they want control of every aspect of our lives. They crave power, so they want to control our jobs, our health care, our education, our very lives. By the way, the government cannot “ensure prosperity and economic security.” God and our Constitution only provide opportunity. People must choose what to do with that opportunity as the determining factor in their prosperity.

Here’s another irresponsible joke from HR 109: within 10 years, we should meet “100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources…” AOC tries to put all the responsibility on the U.S., yet China consumes 62 percent more electricity than does the U.S. In fact, the U.S. is not even in the top ten countries in power used per capita. [Iceland, Liechtenstein, Canada, Sweden, Norway, United Arab Emirates, Finland, Qatar, Bahrain, and Finland make up the top ten.]

AOC must be trying to bankrupt the country, We in America use 3,911,000,000,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. Each commercial wind turbine generates about two megawatts (2000 kilowatts) of electricity. Each turbine costs roughly $4 million. Do the math. We would need 1,955,500 wind turbines installed over the next ten years to meet GND goals. This would cost the country $7,822,000,000,000. That’s over 7.8 quadrillion dollars – just to replace what we already have. And solar generators cost even more than that.

AOC will claim that we shouldn’t spare the expense because we have to combat “greenhouse gasses.” The resolution does not mention that most of “greenhouse gas” is carbon dioxide. We have 219 times as much CO²as we have of the second most common greenhouse gas. Apparently, AOC has about as much knowledge of photosynthesis as she does of garbage disposals. (She had never seen one before moving to Washington.) Plants need carbon dioxide like people need oxygen. In fact, plants turn carbon dioxide into oxygen. So to get lower levels of greenhouse gasses, we just need to plant more trees. You can get a whole lot more trees for $4 million than you can get wind turbines.

HR 109 also mentions “zero-emission vehicle infrastructure.” AOC’s 14^thCongressional District is geographically small. Fully half of it is green space (including a marsh and a golf course), the East River, Rikers Island (New York City’s main jail facility), and LaGuardia Airport. She has no concept of the size of the rest of the country, the real America. Doing away with private cars and airplanes in favor of public transportation might work in the Bronx, Jackson Heights, and Rikers Island, but it will not work for the rest of us. Distances are just too great. She doesn’t “get it” because she is ignorant. That makes her ideas silly at best, devastating at worst. May God preserve us from Congressmen and Congresswomen who play the fool.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.