Posts belonging to Category 1st Congressional District



Rob Wittman to hold telephone town hall meeting Wednesday night.

Washington, D.C. Tomorrow, Congressman Rob Wittman will host a live telephone-town hall to hear directly from constituents about their concerns as the first session of the 111th Congress comes to a close.

Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Time: 7:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.

Call in Number: 877-229-8493

Log in Pin: 13327

To be placed on the call list to receive future calls, please visit Congressman Wittman’s website: http://wittman.house.gov/

My agnosticism towards the tea party movement validated once again.

Does anyone consider this rhetoric attractive? (The Free Lance–Star):

Members of the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party and questions about health care greeted Rep. Robert J. Wittman (R-Montross) at a gathering Tuesday night in his hometown.

“Where in the Constitution is government charged with protecting people’s health?” asked Catherine T. Crabill, a maverick Republican who, despite being shunned by Wittman and state GOP leaders, came close last month to winning the seat Wittman once held in the House of Delegates.

“My frustration is that we don’t want any government-run health care. The Constitution is the only thing that will save us from this death spiral that the country is in,” Crabill said.

“Some elected officials are committing treason by not upholding their sacred oaths. Do you intend to uphold your oath of office and fight to make sure that your elected colleagues uphold theirs?” she asked Wittman, who promised he would.

I’m still laughing about how the constitutional scholar, Catherine Crabill, is making comments about what’s in the United States Constitution when she’s apparently unfamiliar with the Article III, where the founders went to the trouble of specifically defining the crime of treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

And why did Madison et al. decide to be that specific regarding the crime of treason? Consult Federalist No. 43:

As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.

But that nut Catherine Crabill wants to prosecute people for political disagreements (and probably execute them). This is the same thing that the crazies on the left wanted to do for George Bush et al. for the Iraq War and the USA PATRIOT Act.

And then we have this one:

“The federal government is gang-raping the people,” said Mark Carpenter of Acorn, a Westmoreland County community–not the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

Do I need to expand how absurd, vulgar, and bordering on obscene that comment is? Does this idiot need someone to explain to him what the crime of rape is, much less the crime of gang-rape?

UPDATED: What the heck is the First Congressional District Republican Committee smoking?

UPDATE: Chairman Tom Foley of the First Congressional District Republican Committee had this to say in an e-mail:

Dear Mr. Watson,

At its June meeting the committee authorized $1,500.00 to each of the three challengers running  either against an incumbent or for an open seat in the district.

The 3,000.00 you cite is not correct.  I looked up the SBE report, and upon inquiry have been told that campaign staff filed that report with SBE in person and were instructed to show the single contribution in two places. It is now being corrected.

Okay, but this raises an even bigger issue: If Catherine Crabill received only $1,500 from the committee and not $3,000, that means her campaign committee currently has a balanced of -$480.61, which isn’t possible either logically (since she discloses no debts) or under state law.

CORRECTION: The math actually works out correctly with the removal of the second $1,500 contribution from the committee.

The campaign finance disclosure reports covering July 1 through August 31 for most candidates were released today by the State Board of Elections and there were some surprises in Catherine Crabill’s report.

On July 13, 2009, the First Congressional District Committee contributed $1,500 to Crabill’s campaign. On August 24, 2009, ten days after Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling, Ken Cuccinelli, and Pat Mullins publicly repudiated Crabill and her campaign, the First Congressional District Republican Committee contributed another $1,500 to her campaign.

There are so many things wrong with this I don’t know where to start: First, the committee contributed money to a candidacy of someone that’s obviously insane and believes that the United States government was responsible for, inter alia, the murder of 168 people, including 19 children, in the Oklahoma City bombing. Do I need to stay more? Do the values expressed by Crabill match those held by members and chairman of the First District Committee?

Second, why is the committee contributing money to the candidacy of someone that doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning? As a sidenote on point two, doesn’t incumbent Rob Wittman have two Democratic challengers running against him in 2010? Am I the only person that thinks they could find a better use for this money they’re blowing on Crabill’s campaign?

Third, why is the committee supporting this Crabill which serves to hurt the candidacy of McDonnell et al.? Are they blind to that fact or do they just not care?

All told, Crabill raised $4,538.95 during the reporting period and has $1,019.39 on-hand. Meanwhile, Delegate Albert Pollard raised $14,101 and has $16,301.36 on-hand.

Cross-posted at Virginia Virtucon.

Video: Participants at Rob Wittman’s Fredericksburg town hall meeting refuse to “fall in line”.

Nicely handled by Rep. Wittman too:

Cross-posted at Virginia Virtucon.

The Free Lance–Star gets the location of Representative Rob Wittman’s (R-1st) Fredericksburg town hall meeting wrong.

UPDATE: The Free Lance–Star has since updated its story and now shows the correct location of the meeting.

The Free Lance–Star is reporting in today’s edition that Representative Rob Wittman’s (R-1st) town hall meeting for the Fredericksburg area will be held in the Sealy Auditorium at Germanna Community College.

WRONG.

While the town hall meeting was originally scheduled for GCC, Wittman’s website now notes the location as the following:

Date: Tuesday, September 1st

Times: 6:00PM to 8:00PM*

Location:

Univeristy of Mary Washington

Dodd Auditorium

1301 College Avenue

Fredericksburg, VA 22401

*Please continue to check the website for updates as these meeting times, dates and locations may be updated.

I previously noted the location changed on my own blog on August 21st, but apparently The Free Lance–Star didn’t notice the change.

And as a precaution, if you’re of those folks that likes to bring a firearm to town hall meetings, you best leave it in your car (which better not be parked on University of Mary Washington property) unless you want to be spending the night in jail since the event is on University property.

Cross-posted at Virginia Virtucon.

Can Rob Wittman (R-1st) tell us where in the United States Constitution it mentions youth crime and gang prevention?

I asked that question in a previous post regarding Bobby Scott’s youth crime and gang prevention bill that Rob Wittman is a cosponsor of. It was an admittedly snarky argument since 99.99% of the stuff Congress does has no authorization in the United States Constitution.

However, as I was browsing the legislation that Wittman is currently cosponsoring I came across H.R. 450. H.R. 450 would “require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws”. The text of the bill reads:

Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief.

So Wittman is cosponsoring legislation that would require people that introduce legislation in Congress to enumerate where in the Constitution it says that Congress has such authority to enact the legislation while simultaneously cosponsoring legislation that Congress has no authority in the Constitution to enact. Unless, of course, I missed a mention to youth crime and gang prevention in the Constitution. It wasn’t in the edition I have, but who knows, right?

While H.R. 450 hasn’t been passed — and never will be — Rob Wittman is supposed to be a leader, correct? One of 435 special people elected due to the their perceived unique abilities by the public, including their leadership ability. Now, if Rob Wittman was a leader, shouldn’t he be following this resolution before it was even pass and ensuring that every piece of legislation that he sponsored or cosponsored specified where in the Constitution it was permitted and authorized?

Big government Rob Wittman (R-1st) wants to baby gang members.

From The Hill:

Legislation aimed at curtailing crime through preventive measures is attracting broad bipartisan support in the House.

If enacted, the Youth Promise Act would mark a historic change in the direction in juvenile justice and gang-related crime policy. It also would be the first such bill of its kind to pass in a decade.

[…]

The bill seeks to fund evidence- and research-based crime-prevention programs and would allocate $1.2 billion over five years to bring together law enforcement, schools and community organizations in an effort to prevent gang crime. The focus on prevention rather than the traditional “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” approach would represent a dramatic shift in dealing with crime and the costs associated with it.

[…]

The Scott-Castle bill’s focus on prevention rather than punishment is driving much of the GOP backing, with Republicans noting the potential for cost savings by avoiding some costly incarcerations.

The Congressional Budget Office has not yet scored the legislation.

[…]

Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.), who is a co-sponsor, said, “I think if you look at the investments we are making on the correctional side of things I get concerned with the number of folks going into correctional institutions. If we are going to stem the flow we’d better look at programs up front.”

Okay, so let’s stop putting people in correctional institutions then Rob. Heck, who doesn’t want murderers, rapists, and other criminals in their neighborhoods? After all, they didn’t do anything wrong. Those scumbags from MS-13 responsible for killing people in Stafford and Prince William Counties? Good folks. Those people from different “groups” in Caroline County that resulted in one kid’s death? Oh, that’s nothing, they were just horseplaying. Those miscellaneous other scumbags in Hampton and Newport News? Oh, they just hung out with the wrong crowd. It’s not their fault.

And just like any “problem” out there in the country, what’s the solution? Federal money of course! And just like any other federal program (e.g., Social Security or Medicare), 60% of the appropriations will be spent on “administration” of the program. And here we have a Representative (Wittman) that constantly talks and complains about how bad government spending is and how those big mean Democrats won’t let him do anything to reduce spending. So, what’s his solution? He supports a $1,200,000,000 government handout program.

Does he go out there and say “no” to every spending bill? Nope. Does he want the citizens to have more money instead of the federal bureaucracy? Apparently not. Maybe if citizens had more money (instead of the government having it) there would be more community and religious programs out there since more people would have more money to contribute to them. But, of course, them as elected politicians are more capable of spending your money than you are.

And you know the best thing about spending money on “prevention” is? There’s no way to prove that money spent actually prevented something from happening.

You know, I just looked through my copy of the United States Constitution and sure enough I didn’t see a single thing in that document about youth crime and gang prevention. I see stuff about treason and regulating interstate commerce but there sure isn’t anything about youth crime and gang prevention. Does Representative Wittman have a different version than the one I have? I’m sure the folks at Black’s Law Dictionary would make sure the proper version was included in their printing.

No word in that story on whether “nationally recognized anti-gang leader” Alex Sanchez, who was recently indicted for conspiracy to commit murder, will be receiving any of this money.

Representative Rob Wittman (R-1st) blocks yours truly from following him on Twitter.

I just noticed today that I was no longer a “follower” of Representative Rob Wittman and when I tried to “follow” him I got the following message:

fireshot-capture-47-rep_-rob-wittman-robwittman-on-twitter-twitter_com_robwittman

I’m going to have to guess it has something to do with this exchange:

Rob Wittman at 9:51 AM May 29th: “Taxpayers owe an additional $55,000 a household for the Gov’s spending in the last year, which is a 12% increase. #TCOT”

I replied at 10:06 AM May 29th with: “@RobWittman Didn’t you vote for that $290,000,000,000 farm bill in 2008? How much did that cost per household?”

My Lord, that man is a baby. I make one sarcastic, yet truthful, comment and he runs and hides. Folks, this is the man that we have fighting for your interests in Washington, D.C; a man that runs from an “insignificant” “leftist” “hate-blogger”.

Not to mention that it doesn’t prevent me reading what he posts on Twitter, after all I have a RSS subscription to his feed already.

99th House of Delegates Mass Meeting: Video: Rob Wittman (R-1st) takes the money and runs…

NOTE: I just noticed that the audio on the video is out of sync. I’m working on figuring out why. It’s fine on my original that I uploaded but YouTube apparently did something that caused it to be out of sync. It’s fixed now I think.

To paraphrase the Steve Miller Band.

Sorry about the poor quality of the recording but it’s a Sony Handycam with no tripod so you get what you pay for:

Anyone else think he didn’t want to be in that room any longer than he had to be? I don’t blame him of course, I felt like I was going to throw up by the end of the meeting. A relative of mine and I managed to be the first people out the door thankfully.

And here’s the full speech if anyone wants to watch it:

I don’t have video of the comments made by Terry Beatley but I’ll still go over those in a later post.

Let’s review Rob Wittman’s previous comments and actions regarding earmarks.

On February 7, 2008, Rob Wittman voted for a moratorium on the submission of earmark requests in the House of Representatives; the moratorium, however, failed to pass. The same day, he issued a press release condemning Speaker Nancy Pelosi for opposing the moratorium.

By the end of April 2008, Wittman had submitted $132,500,000 in earmark requests. Included in that amount were three earmark requests totaling $3,125,000 designated to the organization of a major campaign contributor.

By February 2009, several of those earmarks had survived the committee process and had become part of H.R. 1105 (the Omnibus Spending Bill). By the time it came up for an up-or-down vote on H.R. 1105, there were 15 earmarks with Wittman’s name on them totaling $37,661,500, including one for $95,000 for the organization of that campaign contributor. In the end, Wittman voted against the appropriates bill. Here’s a press release that Wittman posted on his website regarding H.R. 1105:

Today, Congressman Rob Wittman voted against H.R. 1105: the Consolidated Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2009 or “omnibus” spending bill. To date, only three of the twelve bills funding the government have been approved. Consequently, all domestic functions of the government are being funded through a continuing resolution that expires on March 6, 2009. Wittman has advocated maintaining vital programs included in the bill by freezing current spending rates at Fiscal Year 2008 levels. The spending increases in the bill would grow the budget deficit by $1.4 trillion in Fiscal Year 2009, and the bill is project to result in a deficit of $8.7 trillion in ten years.

“At a time when American families are tightening their belts, the government should be doing the same. We shouldn’t be irresponsibly placing more debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren,” said Wittman.

[…]

“There has been no oversight of the over 8,000 earmarks the bill funds and no opportunity to offer amendments to cut spending. The committee process has been circumvented allowing no review by elected Members of Congress and certainly no transparency for American citizens who want to know where their hard earned dollars are going to,” added Wittman.

[…]

The Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009 ultimately passed the House by a vote of 245-178.

He even posted a video on his YouTube channel complaining about the earmarks:

And now he’s requested another $94,676,000 in earmarks.

Can someone explain to me if Wittman thinks the system for earmarks is so broken, why is he so willing to submit and have his name on earmarks that will be approved through that process? Is it because his earmarks are so great and everyone else’s are so bad?

Isn’t that the definition of hypocrisy?


Warning: Unknown: open(/home/content/36/5675336/tmp/sess_brqsihu00pn5gtcu7haenvrdu4, O_RDWR) failed: No such file or directory (2) in Unknown on line 0

Warning: Unknown: Failed to write session data (files). Please verify that the current setting of session.save_path is correct () in Unknown on line 0