Catherine Crabill: Execute half a dozen Congressmen for treason as an example to the rest.

At this point, does this really surprise anyone?

I’m sure that Delegate Albert Pollard enjoyed posting that screenshot, especially after being personally insulted by her for nine straight months.

I bet Crabill will be alleging a pan-Episcopalian conspiracy in a few minutes…

Cross-posted at On The Right and Virginia Virtucon.

99th district: Make sure you write in Ham Sandwich for Delegate.

The 99th district is at an important milestone.

Will our district continue to support the tax-hiking policies of the current Delegate, Albert Pollard, or will we support a candidate that supports our conservative principles?

Will we vote for a “Republican” candidate, Catherine Crabill, who believes, amongst other things, that the federal government was responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing, or we will vote for a sane person to be Delegate?

Don’t embarrass our district tomorrow by voting for Pollard or Crabill.

Vote Ham Sandwich, a strong supporter of Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling, and Ken Cuccinelli and a true conservative for the 99th.

Cross-posted at Virginia Virtucon.

Victims and families of victims of the Appalachian School of Law and Virginia Tech shootings endorse Albert Pollard for delegate.

The Shad Plank (the Daily Press’s blog) has the details.

Interestingly, Pollard has also secured the endorsement of the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Ham Sandwich asks the National Rifle Association to reconsider their endorsement of Albert Pollard.

The campaign of Hamilton “Ham” Sandwich, Esq. released the following statement on the news of the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) endorsement of Delegate Albert Pollard:

“I disagree with the National Rifle Association’s endorsement of Delegate Albert Pollard. I have always been a strong advocate of the people’s right to keep and bear arms. While I do not own any firearms currently — nor do I have the physical ability to use a firearm — I believe that I would be a better advocate of Second Amendment rights in the Virginia General Assembly than either Delegate Pollard or Ms. Crabill,” said Ham.

When asked about Sandwich’s philosophy on gun control, Sandwich said: “It’s simple, I believe that noncriminals and noncrazies should be able to purchase and carry firearms. Criminals and crazies — on the other hand — shouldn’t have access to guns.”

“Ham personally filled out the candidate questionnaire but he accidentally left a mustard stain on the paper and the NRA said that the questionnaire was illegible,” said Sandwich’s campaign spokesman Timothy Watson.  “We’ve submitted another copy of the questionnaire and we feel confident that the NRA will recognize that Ham is a strong defender of the people’s right to keep and bear arms.”

Ham, a Virginia native, is running as a Republican write-in candidate in the 99th district. The district includes the counties of Lancaster, Northumberland, Richmond, Westmoreland, and King George, as well as the Port Royal and Bowling precincts in Caroline. He is a member of the Virginia Bar (Golden Phoenix division) and a partner in the law firm of Dill & Gallinger. He is married and lives with his wife and children in Bowling Green, Virginia.

You can learn more about Ham Sandwich by visiting his website at, which is in the process of being updated from his 2007 run for Commonwealth’s Attorney in Prince William County.

We finally have a real choice in the 99th: Ham Sandwich declares for Delegate in the 99th!!!



CAROLINE COUNTY, VA – Hamilton “Ham” Sandwich, Esq. today announced his campaign as a Republican write-in candidate for the 99th House of Delegates District on the popular local blog “I’m Surrounded By Idiots” run by Timothy Watson. Ham previously ran for Prince William County Commonwealth’s Attorney in 2007 as a write-in candidate and received more than 700 votes countywide with votes coming from every precinct in the county according to Prince William County Registrar Betty Weimer.

Mr. Sandwich’s 2007 campaign web site, located at, provides voters with background information on the candidate, his rationale for running in that race, a critique of his then-opponent’s record of failure in the job, information on the write-in process and a list of endorsements among other items. Plans are underway to update the site to reflect this latest run and the difficult issues that Virginians are facing today.

In keeping with his commitment to open government and his Jeffersonian conservative ideals, Sandwich is issuing a challenge to both Del. Albert Pollard (D) and Republican challenger Catherine Crabill to engage him in a series of debates and town hall meetings on the issues between now and Election Day – one each week.

Ham believes that it is unconscionable that Delegate Pollard’s campaign website is completely devoid of any issues save for two – “Responsible Governing” and “The Bay.”

In a statement, Ham Sandwich declared, “Why doesn’t Del. Pollard just declare that he is also for ‘Mom,’ ‘Apple Pie,’ and, well, at one time I would have said, ‘Chevrolet,’ but now must use the term, ‘Government Motors.’”

Likewise, Ham joins Republican gubernatorial nominee Bob McDonnell and his statewide ticketmates Bill Bolling and Ken Cuccinelli in condemning the candidacy of Ms. Crabill who has openly stated on her campaign web site that she believes the U.S. Government was responsible for the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.

Ham, a Virginia native, is a member of the Virginia Bar (Golden Phoenix division) and a partner in the law firm of Dill & Gallinger. He is married and lives with his wife and children in Bowling Green, Virginia.

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.

Catherine Crabill (Republican candidate in the 99th) on her way to victory with $865 raised and $765 on hand.

Meanwhile, in the same period, Albert Pollard (D) raised $8,405 and has $4,745.52 on hand.

I really am surprised that there are people stupid enough out there to actually contribute to her campaign…actually, I’m not. After all, there are people out there who voted her to be their party’s nominee.

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.