A lengthy piece detailing Catherine Crabill’s delusional, insane conspiracy theories.

You really need to read the whole thing, it’s long, but it does a great job detailing the amount of loons there are in this country:

In September 1994, word spread through Catron County New Mexico, that two FBI agents and a dozen National Guardsmen were combing the mountains north of Luna, a small town near the Arizona border. Officially, the men were searching for the body of an alleged drug dealer who had disappeared mysteriously a year earlier. But a buzz went around the county that they were really the advance party of a darker event: a pending firearms raid by U.S. government forces.

“The federal crime bill had just been passed, and the government had already conducted sweeps in several communities,” says Chris Crabill, a 43-year-old cabinetmaker who lives with his family in the nearby town of Reserve, the county seat. “Ruby Ridge and Waco were also on our minds.” On the night of September 7, Crabill gathered several guns and moved into the woods, hunkering down in view of his house so he could watch over his family while they slept.

The next morning someone called a right-wing radio talk show beamed deep into the Southwest from Bakersfield, California, and told the host that “5,000 National Guardsmen have invaded Catron County.” That night, prompted by the new rumor, Catherine Crabill piled her four kids into the family Wagoneer and drove them to her mother’s home in Corrales, in another county, so that “my husband could sleep in the house. We did not flee in terror as some have suggested. But I was scared.” About a dozen other locals also moved to “safer” houses for a day or two. The county’s phone lines hummed with forebodings of invasion.

There was no invasion, but eight months later, on May 3, 1995, the Crabills helped organize a community meeting in Reserve to discuss the creation of a militia. Some 250 residents showed up, roughly 10 percent of the county’s population. One by one, cowboys, loggers, and homemakers, folks who generally wave to strangers and keep their doors unlocked, stepped forward to describe a government assault that they clearly believed was imminent.

[…]

In the end, Catron County did not create a formal militia that night, mainly because the county commission, the previous August, had passed a resolution “encouraging” heads of households to own and carry guns at all times and to keep sufficient ammunition on hand. Before the meeting wound down, the point became abundantly clear: Plenty of people in the county already were armed and prepared to do battle with the federal government or other alien invaders. The citizens of Catron County didn’t need to form a militia. They were a militia.

[…]

Dripping sandwich in hand, I walk over to Main Street, site of the Independence Day parade, to see how Smokey Bear, official symbol of the hated U.S. Forest Service, will be treated when he appears amid the floats and bands. I’ve been told he might get hissed, booed, possibly pelted with eggs. But when Smokey rounds the corner onto the parade route, he waves, dances, and tosses candy to children. No hisses are heard. Today even Smokey, and everything he represents, gets a holiday.

Later, Catherine Crabill, who missed the parade this year, tells me that if she’d been in town, she might have hissed or booed. “I once revered Smokey as a symbol of all that was good,” she says. “But that was before cowboys were seen as the source of all that is evil–as land rapers.”

Obviously, the Crabills’ perceptions and philosophies have changed radically since they moved to Catron County in 1992. The last place they lived before that was Santa Fe; before that, Aspen, Colorado, [consistent with Catherine Crabill’s biography information on her employer’s website ((“Our Agents.” The Virginia Land & Real Estate Company. <http://www.valandco.com/agents.asp>.)) -ed.] where, Catherine says, “We were definitely part of the coffee-and-croissant crowd–committed environmentalists.” But soon after coming to Reserve, she says, “We began to see through the propaganda and lies of traditional environmentalism. We no longer believe, for example, that cattle are hurting the land. And we don’t trust the things we used to trust.” The startling about-face has everything to do with the Crabills’ immersion in the town of Reserve, the hotbed of Catron County conspiracy theorizing. Catherine believes, for example, that the State Department, at the UN’s behest, is pushing through a “three-stage plan” to disarm the world for its own dark purposes.

The dark tides surging in the minds of Chris and Catherine Crabill may sound comical, but they represent an unsettling new western attitude that places like Catron County can’t ignore. The old stereotype of New West settlers like the Crabills is that they’re people who’ve abandoned the swarm of prosperous urban centers to live a ranchette lifestyle. Often they’ve come to the West with very little sympathy for the deep desperation of people whose very worst fear is having to move to the cities that the newcomers have abandoned. Karl Hess calls this tension “the unforgiving reality of the urbanized West,” and he believes the county movement “is simply a momentary aberration, where proud men and women take their final bow” in a world that is changing too fast.

The Crabills are coming from somewhere else entirely: They think the “final bow” should be one not of forbearance, but of rage, and their far-right ideas have managed to shake up even thick-skinned men like Hugh McKeen. The county movement, however, probably shouldn’t be allowed to cry innocent about people like the Crabills. Behind its own battle cries lurks the dark side of populism, whipped to a frenzy by people whom Bruce Babbitt describes as being “out to divest the public of their lands.”

As a lawyer, Jim Catron may be content to peacefully test his interpretation of county sovereignty against the government’s. Still, deep down, he must know that the movement he helped create reflects nostalgia for a time when, as he puts it, “Someone causing pain to a community was simply shot.” Whatever becomes of the strange revolution that Catron County has set in motion, it’s already created a frightening possibility: One angry man or woman acting on that nostalgia could place a bloody stain on the legacy of the modern West. ((Mark Dowie. “The Wayward West: With Liberty and Firepower for All.” Outside Magazine. Nov 1995. <http://outside.away.com/outside/magazine/1195/11f_lib.html>.))

Now it looks like Catherine Crabill wants to place a bloody stain on the legacy of the Northern Neck and the Republican Party of Virginia.

And, for the record, Catherine Crabill sent a letter to the High Country News complaining about the way she was portrayed in this article. But the best part about that letter is that she details her delusional, insane conspiracy theories in her own words. Check back on Monday for that!

Does Catherine Crabill (Republican candidate in the 99th district) still think the federal government was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing?

A serious and relevant question that I’m forced to ask, unfortunately, after reading the following from an April 1995 article in The Washington Times:

Citizen militia groups in Montana, Florida and New Mexico say they condemn the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City and charge that the federal government, not anyone in their movement, was likely responsible.

“If any militia group is truly responsible for the murderous bombing in Oklahoma City, then I say, ‘Hangin’s too good for ’em,’ ” said Catherine Crabill of Aragon, N.M., who belongs to a group called New Mexico Citizens Action Association.

But Mrs. Crabill said it’s her belief “this heinous act of violence was the work of our government,” which will “use it as an excuse to aggressively attack the growing militia movement across the country.” ((Joyce Price. “Militia groups denounce bombing: Say government is behind blast.” The Washington Times, 23 Apr 1995: A15.))

How do I know that Catherine Crabill of Aragon, New Mexico is the same Catherine Crabill currently residing in Irvington, Virginia (Lancaster County) and pursuing the Republican nomination for the 99th district? Three reasons:

1.) On the 99th district committee’s website, ((Catherine Crabill. “Virginia State Elections 2009.” 99th Legislative District Republican Committee. <http://www.northernneckrepublicans.org/election2009.asp>.)) as well on her own campaign site, ((Catherine Crabill. “About me…” Catherine Crabill for Delegate. <http://www.catherinecrabill.com/catherine_crabill_for_del/about-me/>.)) her biography notes that she currently has a realtor’s license. On her employer’s website, The Virginia Land & Real Estate Company, it notes in her biography that she is former resident of Santa Fe, New Mexico, amongst other places. ((“Our Agents.” The Virginia Land & Real Estate Company. <http://www.valandco.com/agents.asp>.)) Another article from 1995 — that I will be posting over the coming days — chronicles Ms. Crabill’s delusional conspiracy theories. In the article, it notes that Catherine and Chris Crabill, formerly of Santa Fe, moved to Aragon, New Mexico in 1992. ((Mark Dowie. “The Wayward West: With Liberty and Firepower for All.” Outside Magazine. Nov 1995. <http://outside.away.com/outside/magazine/1195/11f_lib.html>.))

2.) In the same article, it notes that Catherine Crabill’s (the one from Aragon) husband’s name is Chris Crabill, and he is a “cabinetmaker”. ((Mark Dowie. “The Wayward West: With Liberty and Firepower for All.” Outside Magazine. Nov 1995. <http://outside.away.com/outside/magazine/1195/11f_lib.html>.)) According to Catherine Crabill’s own candidate website, she states the occupation of her husband — also named Chris — as a “custom cabinet maker and fine woodworker”. ((Catherine Crabill. “About me…” Catherine Crabill for Delegate. <http://www.catherinecrabill.com/catherine_crabill_for_del/about-me/>.))

3.) According to a handy search engine called “People Search Now”, a Catherine Crabill, currently 51 years of age and residing in Irvington, VA, used to live in Aragon, NM. ((“Results of Catherine Crabill.” People Search Now. <http://www.peoplesearchnow.com/summary.asp?fn=Catherine&mn=&ln=Crabill&state=&x=0&y=0&vw=people&Input=name>.))

There is little to no possibility that there could be more than one couple by the names of Catherine and Chris Crabill who happened to live in the exact same town in New Mexico, especially when the county they resided in (Catron County) only had a population of 3,543 people in 2000 according to the United States Census Bureau. ((“Catron County, New Mexico – Fact Sheet.” United States Census Bureau. <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=Catron+County&_cityTown=Catron+County&_state=04000US35&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&show_2003_tab=&redirect=Y>.))

Okay, now that I’ve proven that Catherine Crabill was quoted as saying that the United States government was responsible for bombing the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, do I really have to explain how insane that makes her?

And this woman is running for political office?

Can we get a single Republican candidate in the 99th district that knows anything about the law?

Evidently not. Last year, we had Lee Anne Washington talking about how she was going to end in-state college tuition for illegal aliens, when illegals don’t receive in-state tuition to begin with.

This year, we have Catherine Crabill, who’s running for the Republican nomination for the 99th district versus Lee Anne Washington, talking about nonexistent “hate crime” laws. A couple quotes from her website [emphasis mine]:

Homosexual Hate Crimes Legislation:

First of all, some of the dearest people I know are homosexual. I treasure these friendships and I am grieved that my position on this matters may fracture these relationships. My grievance is not against those whose personal life is kept private, as is mine. My grievance is against the insidious legal maneuvers that have had the desired chilling effect on those who would dare to oppose their public, societal-redefinement agenda. To elevate a class of citizens defined by their particular sexual “expression” is clearly unconstitutional through the provisions of equal protection under the law. Peaceful protestors at such events as “Gay Pride” parades are threatened with fines and imprisonment. Those of us who take a stand against this aggressive agenda risk the loss of our freedom of thought, speech, and religion. The danger of these laws cannot be exaggerated. Further, the indoctrination of our children and many corporate employees through mandatory “sensitivity training” is clearly an assualt [sic] on personal moral convictions. ((Catherine Crabill. “Current Concerns.” Catherine Crabill for Delegate. Catherine Crabill for Delegate. 4 Apr. 2009 <http://www.catherinecrabill.com/catherine_crabill_for_del/2009/02/homosexual-issues.html>.))

And [again, emphasis mine]:

I will stand against the Homosexual Agenda that threatens our very freedoms of thought, speech, and religion as embodied in the “Hate Crimes” Legislation. ((Catherine Crabill. “Welcome.” Catherine Crabill for Delegate. Catherine Crabill for Delegate. 4 Apr. 2009 <http://www.catherinecrabill.com/catherine_crabill_for_del/2009/02/welcome.html >.))

First, there are no “hate crime” laws in the Code of Virginia which afford additional protections to people that victimized due to their sexual orientation:

Va. Code § 18.2-57(A) states:

Any person who commits a simple assault or assault and battery shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor, and if the person intentionally selects the person against whom a simple assault is committed because of his [the victim’s] race, religious conviction, color or national origin, the penalty upon conviction shall include a term of confinement of at least six months, 30 days of which shall be a mandatory minimum term of confinement.

Va. Code § 18.2-57(B) provides that:

[I]f a person intentionally selects the person against whom an assault and battery resulting in bodily injury is committed because of his [the victim’s] race, religious conviction, color or national origin, the person shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, and the penalty upon conviction shall include a term of confinement of at least six months, 30 days of which shall be a mandatory minimum term of confinement.

Va. Code § 18.2-121 makes it a crime to enter someone else’s property for the purpose of damaging it and:

[I]f a person intentionally selects the property entered because of the race, religious conviction, color or national origin of the owner, user or occupant of the property, the person shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, and the penalty upon conviction shall include a term of confinement of at least six months, 30 days of which shall be a mandatory minimum term of confinement.

Va. Code § 18.2-423 makes it a Class 6 felony to place a swastika on a religious structure “with the intent of intimidating another person or group of persons”. Va. Code § 18.2-423.1 makes it a Class 6 felony “for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place.”

Note that in both § 18.2-423 and 18.2-423.1, the victims do not have to be a particular race, ethnic group, or religion; the state simply has to prove that the intent of the perpetrator was to intimidate the victim.

Va. Code § 18.2-423 also makes it Class 4 felony to conspire with someone else to incite one race in violence or war against another race.

As a side note, there’s Va. Code § 8.01-42.1 which allows a person who’s “subjected to acts of (i) intimidation or harassment or (ii) violence directed against his person; or (iii) vandalism directed against his real or personal property, where such acts are motivated by racial, religious, or ethnic animosity” to seek injunctive relief and/or civil damages.

As you can note in all those code sections, there is no mention of additional penalties due to the victim’s sexual orientation or “gender identity”. In addition, I can’t find a bill in the General Assembly that made it pass a committee that would have expanded the definition of a “hate crime” under those statutes.

Second, Ms. Crabill claims that such legislation is “clearly” unconstitutional. ((Catherine Crabill. “Current Concerns.” Catherine Crabill for Delegate. Catherine Crabill for Delegate. 4 Apr. 2009 <http://www.catherinecrabill.com/catherine_crabill_for_del/2009/02/homosexual-issues.html>.)) As the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) noted unanimously in 1993 (as a reminder, the court included, at the time, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Associate Justices Scalia and Thomas) in Wisconsin v. Mitchell:

[T]he Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias-inspired conduct because this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm. For example, according to the State and its amici, bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. [citations omitted] The State’s desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders’ beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, “it is but reasonable that among crimes of different natures those should be most severely punished, which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness.”

Third, Ms. Crabill claims that such legislation would infringe on her freedoms of speech and religion. ((Catherine Crabill. “Current Concerns.” Catherine Crabill for Delegate. Catherine Crabill for Delegate. 4 Apr. 2009 <http://www.catherinecrabill.com/catherine_crabill_for_del/2009/02/homosexual-issues.html>.)) ((Catherine Crabill. “Welcome.” Catherine Crabill for Delegate. Catherine Crabill for Delegate. 4 Apr. 2009 <http://www.catherinecrabill.com/catherine_crabill_for_del/2009/02/welcome.html >.)) Such hate crime legislation as enacted by the General Assembly does not criminalize speech, it just proscribes additional penalties when the intent of the perpetrator is to cause harm to someone or his property due to the victim’s race, nationality, ethnic group, or religion. Does Ms. Crabill believe that assault and battery and vandalism are protected forms of speech? Further, how would such legislation infringe on her freedom of religion? Does her religion mandate that she assault and batter homosexuals and vandalize their property?

Fourth, if Ms. Crabill thought it was wrong for such legislation to be enacted because it was criminalizing a “thought crime”, then she would condemn all hate crime legislation, not just (nonexistent) legislation designed to protect people due to their sexual orientation.

Fifth and finally, Ms. Crabill complains about “sensitivity training” classes required by certain businesses and corporations. ((Catherine Crabill. “Current Concerns.” Catherine Crabill for Delegate. Catherine Crabill for Delegate. 4 Apr. 2009 <http://www.catherinecrabill.com/catherine_crabill_for_del/2009/02/homosexual-issues.html>.)) Is Ms. Crabill saying that she would support legislation that would outlaw such classes? Should it be her job as an elected representative of the people to determine what’s proper training for employees of businesses and corporations, as opposed to the actual business or corporation determining for itself what is appropriate? If an employee doesn’t want to take such “sensitivity training” classes, then the employee can simply choose to not continue working at the business.

Now, I’m not agreeing with this type of legislation on moral grounds, I’m simply pointing out that the SCOTUS has ruled that such legislation is constitutional. There’s a difference between what has been determined to be a constitutional and what you could argue is moral or not. If a candidate wants to make an argument that it isn’t morally right to provide a certain group of people with more protections than someone else, then they can knock themselves out.

I’m also pointing out that, once again, we have a Republican candidate in the 99th district that doesn’t know jack about laws that she will be responsible for drafting, passing, and amending.

Pointing out lies and inaccuracies from everyone, including the 99th Legislative District Republican Committee’s dishonest attacks on Albert Pollard.

I should probably preface this post by stating that I will point out inaccuracies by anyone, be them Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. I did support and vote for Albert Pollard in the special election that returned him to the House of Delegates in February 2008. One reason that I voted for him was the Republican candidate that ran against him, Lee Anne Washington, claimed that, amongst other things, that illegal aliens received in-state tuition: they don’t and they never have!

On the 99th Legislative District Republican Committee’s website there’s a web page that attempts to document Albert Pollard’s voting record. I say “attempts” because the majority of the links don’t even go to the correct bill on the General Assembly’s website. And if it isn’t the terrible web-masterly, it’s the factually incorrect statements and just asinine opinions and statements expressed on the web page. I don’t mind disagreeing with someone on policy grounds — I disagree with Pollard on certain subjects — but most of this stuff is just absurd.

To start us off, consider this claim [I’ve fixed any messed up links and formatting in the quoted material]:

Albert wanted to de-regulate farming in the Westmoreland debate but his own bill in 2005, HB 2903 regulates the sales of agricultural products by a farmer on his own farm, with a number of restrictions including prior notification to the Department of Agriculture.

The bill that Pollard submitted was done in an attempt to override over 106 pages of regulations that had been placed on farmers, as detailed in a news story from the Capital News Service at VCU (Google Cache link):

The Virginia House of Delegates had something to say about new state regulations on the production of raw milk and unpasteurized cheese from sheep, goats and other family-farm animals:

“Bah, humbug!” Or rather, “Baaaa, humbug!”

On a 57-39 vote, the House approved a bill to effectively override the regulations, which small farmers said would make it prohibitively expensive for them to make milk and cheese.

House Bill 2903, proposed by Delegate Albert C. Pollard, D-White Stone, is now before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources.

HB 2903 would allow farmers to avoid regulations implemented in January by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

[…]

Under the rules, farmers can make milk and cheese only if they get a permit. The 106 pages of regulations spell out what they must do to qualify for a permit – including installing pasteurizers and other equipment and keeping meticulous records on each batch of cheese.

Small farmers like Carol Baker of Louisa County say the regulations benefit big farms that can afford the required equipment and meet other stipulations. They estimate that it would cost $50,000 to comply with the rules.

If the authors of the committee’s website had bothered to check out the vote tallies they would have seen that Delegate and current Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Jeff Frederick, Delegate Bob Marshall, then-Delegate and now-Senator Ryan McDougle all voted in favor of the bill on the House side. And current Republican Attorney General candidate Ken Cuccinelli and then-Senator for the Northern Neck John Chichester also voted in favor of the bill in committee on the Senate side. The bill did, however, fail to pass the Senate committee 6–9.

Back to the committee’s terrible website:

2004 HB1015 YES vote to allow Family Life Education curriculums to teach certain information to avoid sexual assault and the need to seek medical attention in the event of an assault . This from the man who doesn’t want the ten commandments displayed because he doesn’t want his daughter to ask him what adultery is!!

I seriously can’t believe that a political organization is condemning someone for voting to educate students on how to avoid sexual assault, and if they have been sexually assaulted, to seek medical attention. This is a bill that unanimously passed in the Senate! Can someone explain to me what the heck is wrong with these people? Not to mention that parents can opt their children out of the Family Life Education program in schools, if they choose.

And here’s something stated under the header “Illegal Immigration”:

During the 28th Senate Race Albert proposed a database for employers to take the thumbprint of all prospective employees yet he voted NO to SB62, requiring thumbprints on licenses. (not arguing for thumbprints, just pointing out his flip flop)

Do I really have to explain the difference between requiring prospective employees to submit a thumbprint for employment, versus the government placing biometric information on all government identification cards? Heck, one of the leading opponents of illegal immigration in the House, Bob Marshall, is also one of the leading opponents of government biometric identification cards (see, for example, HB 1587 of this session). There’s also the fact that for this bill (SB 62), the programming costs for implementation alone were estimated to be $2,200,000 and the Department of Planning and Budget couldn’t estimate what the final costs for the whole bill would be (Fiscal Impact Statement [PDF]).

2000 HB 425 NO vote to showing voter identification at the polls (Before he voted yes)

The version of the bill that Pollard voted against did not consider a Virginia driver’s license to be a valid form of identification for a voter who was challenged at the polls under § 24.2-651.1, the version that Pollard did vote for had been amended by the Senate and included a provision allowing the use of a driver’s license.

And finally:

2005 HB 2056 NO vote to only allowing medical benefits to illegals and denying other benefits under Workman’s Compensation.

Can someone explain to me how not requiring a business to pay workers’ comp to illegal aliens is going to stop businesses from employing illegals? If anything, businesses would employ more illegals than ever since they wouldn’t have to shell out as much money if an employee gets injured on the job.

99th HoD (House of Delegates) Watch: Lee Anne Washington still has an open candidate committee.

At the end of the February 20th – June 30th reporting period, Lee Anne Washington — who lost 42.39% to 57.58% against Albert Pollard in the February 19th special election to fill now-Congressman Rob Wittman’s former seat — still had an open campaign committee with a $292.68 balance.

Of course, she also has $761.38 in debt for advertising from the Lakeway Publishers of Virginia (publisher of The Caroline Progress amongst others), Northern Neck Buyers Guide (one of those real estate listing publications, I believe), and The Journal Press Inc. (owner of the King George-based The Journal).

Since when did newspapers set up payment plans for advertising, out of curiosity?

It should be noted that just because someone still has an open campaign committee isn’t necessary an indicator that they plan on running for a seat. Right now, Rob Wittman’s House of Delegates campaign committee is still open and has a $19,876.94 balance as of June 30th.

It’s also interesting that Wittman didn’t bother donating any money to Lee Anne Washington’s campaign as well when he has a $19,876.94 balance on a committee he has no need for; especially when the money can’t legally be used on his Congressional race…

Is Ronald Webb planning a run against Albert Pollard next year in the 99th District?

Albert Pollard (D) won the special election for the 99th House of Delegates District in February against Lee Anne Washington (R).

Rob Wittman (R) had previously represented the 99th District until he won a special election to replace the late Jo Ann Davis for the 1st Congressional District in December 2007.

Ronald Webb (R) previously ran against Albert Pollard for the 99th District in 2001, losing 38.47% to 61.49%.

From April to July 2008, Webb received $7,138.91 in contributions, including $4,763.91 from the First Congressional District of Virginia Republican Committee and a $1,225 contribution from himself.

In that same period, Webb spent $1,225 for a “campaign manager”, $895 on “political flyers”, and $2,128.20 on “political signs”.

Webb has also been sending letters to The Caroline Progress constantly attacking Albert Pollard.

So, is he considering a run next year?

Why can’t Albert Pollard be my representative to Congress?

His thoughts on the bailout deal in his weekly column (DOC file):

While the leaders of this nation negotiated a new bailout deal over the weekend, things seemed pretty normal on the Northern Neck. I got a chance to see some bald eagles that were on “The Cliffs” of Richmond County, geese were moving South and the weather forced farmers to take a break from long harvest days.

I rarely delve into national policy, but while the bailout deal won’t change whether there is rockfish migration this fall, it will change just about every aspect of American Capitalism.

As I am writing on deadline, I do not pretend to know everything in the 110 page bailout plan, nor do I know if it will even pass in the House of Representatives today. However, there are some things that I do know.

Free markets depend upon risk, reward and failure so that they can make long term efficient decisions. Indeed, the very efficiencies of big picture economic decision making means that – to avoid a future crisis — there must be some losers on Wall Street and in the investment community.

If the bailout bill insures that the people who should lose big do lose big, then it is probably acceptable and deserves passage.

Those people who take the biggest risk of time, talent and capital in the free market deserve to get the biggest return. However, everybody who has ever opened a lemonade stand knows that those who risk the reward also risk getting stuck with some lemons.

It is a firm understatement of fact that $700,000,000,000 (700 Billion dollars) is a lot of money – even judged by federal government standards. And, it is also true that the markets need help – I am not so Pollyannaish as to say that we should let complete economic meltdown occur without any action.

However, those who buy too many lemons – whether for loans or for a lemonade stand – should bear the responsibility they took with that risk. It is not the responsibility of the American taxpayer to reward bad economic decisions – and that is what this bailout deal appears to be, a reward of bad economic decisions.

Meanwhile, the earth as God designed it will move on. Fish will start their fall run, deer will start their rut, and the fields will dry up enough to finishing harvesting the crop. And, depending upon the action of Congress, there may be some extra lemons to go around.

I’m sure as heck aren’t going to get this from my current representative to Congress (Rob Wittman).

Election Results for the 99th HOD — Pollard wins!

7:32 p.m.: Pollard is up 65.81% to 34.19% with Richmond and Westmoreland Counties reporting!

So far, he’s gotten a majority in every precinct!

7:48 p.m.: 64.06% to 35.94% with Richmond, Westmoreland, and parts of King George and Northumberland reporting. Still has a majority in every precinct.

8:08 p.m.: 63.20% to 36.78% (1,495 vote spread) with more of King George and Northumberland reporting in. Has a majority in every precinct except Shiloh (King George County).

8:32 p.m.: 59.45% to 40.50% (1,777 vote spread) with all but one a couple precincts (Monroe in King George County, and 3A, 4A, 5A in Northumberland County) reporting.

8:48 p.m.: Either way, I’m calling this (which I could have done at 7:00 p.m. — or a month ago); meet the new Delegate for the 99th District, Albert Pollard:

[Photo Credit: Fred2Blue]

Thanks to the voters of the 99th District for not electing that fear-mongering demagogue George Lee Anne Washington!

Looks like Robby Wittman found a great replacement for himself!

9:02 p.m.: 3A and 5A precincts in Northumberland County have reported (leaving only Monroe in King George County and 4A in Northumberland County to report): 59.55% Pollard, 40.40% Washington.

02/19/2008, 9:33 p.m.: ALL PRECINCTS ARE IN (I think): 57.57% Pollard, 42.39% Washington, 0.04% Write in.

02/20/2008, 5:41 p.m.: FINAL NUMBERS: Albert Pollard (D), 6,908 votes, 57.58%; Lee Anne Washington (R), 5,086 votes, 42.39%, Write in, 3 votes, 0.03%.

Link for election numbers.

Is The Caroline Progress outsourcing letter writing?

In the January 30th edition of The Caroline Progress, there were two letters in support of Lee Anne Washington (R). The first was from a Howard Yarus of King George. King George is in (obviously) King George County, and is 20.95 miles away from Bowling Green (both the town seat of Caroline County and the location of The Caroline Progress‘s office).

The second letter in support of Lee Anne Washington (R), that was in the January 30th edition, was from Robert Fountain of Montross, Virginia. Robert Fountain is the Chairman of the Westmoreland County Republican Committee and is on First Congressional District Republican Committee. Montross is in Westmoreland County, and is 40.99 miles away from Bowling Green. This same letter also appeared in the February 6th edition of the Northern Neck News, which is owned by Lakeway Publishers, Inc., the same company that owns The Caroline Progress.

Another letter in support of Lee Anne Washington (R), appearing in the February 6th edition, was written by Terry Beatley from Lancaster, Virginia. Lancaster is in (again, obviously) Lancaster County, and is 68.31 miles away from Bowling Green.

The sole letter in support of Albert Pollard (D) appearing in any edition was in the February 6th edition. It was written by Rose West (who, admittedly, is the Secretary of the Caroline County Democratic Committee) who lives in Milford. Milford is 3.75 miles away from Bowling Green.

Yet another letter supporting Lee Anne Washington (R) written by Ron Herring of Heathsville, Virginia appeared in the February 13th edition. Heathsville is in Northumberland County and is 63.85 miles away from Bowling Green.

This is the same paper that in its December 5, 2007, edition printed a letter from the sheriff of Poquoson and York County in support of Rob Wittman (R). Yorktown is 100.57 miles away from Bowling Green!

Does anyone else see a problem with a 4–1 ratio of letters in support of one candidate (and if you include the letter in support of Wittman, a 5–1 ratio for one party)? Especially when the four letters (five, including Wittman’s) are from people not even in Caroline County? Especially times two, when the letters are being published in other newspapers owned by the same company?

It wouldn’t be a problem with using letters from their sister publications if they were done in a fair and balance manner!

Wait a second…I’m expecting them to do their jobs — how foolish of me…