Category Archives: personal

PSA: Give Rand Paul a Pass on Cruz Attacks

Much ado has been made throughout the day about Rand Paul going after Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz supporters are understandably upset and disappointed. However, we really ought to stay focused on the nature of primaries and understand that for Rand Paul to win the nomination, he has to beat Ted Cruz. Where do you think all this birther nonsense is coming? It’s coming from the Paul Campaign. Most of the anti-Cruz talking points I’ve heard over the last few weeks are coming out of the Paul Campaign. So what?

tedpaulIt’s a campaign. Rand Paul wants to be President as much as anyone else running for the highest office in the land. He’s paying a staff to help get him elected. They have got to be telling him that if he wants to win the nomination, he’s got to put some distance between himself and Cruz and he’s got to pry a great deal of Cruz supporters away and claim them as his own.

That’s the nature of a campaign. Rand Paul hasn’t abandoned the cause, hasn’t become a political hack, or anything nefarious of the kind. In elections, our candidates and ourselves must have thick skin. We must be able to accept that our friends will try to beat us. That’s just the nature of the beast. I just listened to Mark Levin rail against Rand Paul as if Paul had become the devil. He hasn’t.

My request of Ted Cruz supporters is simple: take the high road. Let Rand Paul run his campaign as he sees fit. Paul is simply trying to demonstrate the difference between himself and Ted Cruz.

Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday said fellow Republican presidential candidate Ted. Cruz is “done for” in the Senate.
“Ted has chosen to make this really personal and chosen to call people dishonest in leadership and call them names, which really goes against the decorum and also against the rules of the Senate, and as a consequence, he can’t get anything done legislatively,” Paul told Fox News Radio. “He is pretty much done for and stifled and it’s really because of personal relationships, or lack of personal relationships, and it is a problem.” – MSNBC

Ted Cruz has on numerous occasions gone after Mitch McConnell by name. Rand Paul is very close to Mitch McConnell, he supported him in his campaign, and he doesn’t have to stay silent when Cruz goes after the Senior Senator from Paul’s own state. Paul is merely making it clear where he stands and how he differs from Cruz. Let him make these distinctions without feeling the need to get defensive.

It’s an election. Give Paul a pass.

Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker

Give Me Chickens, or Give Me Death!

baby-chickenBy Patrick Jett – Mechanicsville District

Did you know it is illegal to own chickens in residential areas of Hanover County?  This simple property use is a protected freedom in the communities all around us.  Henrico County, Chesterfield County, the Town of Ashland and even the City of Richmond allow their property owners the simple freedom to raise hens and enjoy their benefits.

While the title of this article exaggerates the issue, I never imagined, as a lifelong resident of Hanover County, that our personal freedom to own Backyard Chickens would be denied by the same government which promotes rural celebrations such as the Tomato Festival, the Strawberry Festival and Beaverdam Heritage Days.  Hanover County is proud of its most famous son, Patrick Henry.  His historic stature delivers tourism revenue to the county coffers each year with historical tours of Scotchtown and its courthouse.  However, do the government officials, elected and unelected, embrace the true meaning of their founding father’s most famous speech?

I repeat my question from above – Did you know that keeping a few egg-laying hens is illegal in Hanover?  I understand some neighborhoods would choose to not allow keeping chickens.  These Planned Urban Development subdivisions with their homeowners associations and bylaws can restrict backyard chickens.

Why is it that Hanover County through its Municipal Code feels the need to impose this restriction of property rights on all of its tax paying residential landowners?  This is a simple example of government overreach.

The Hanover zoning ordinance permits “keeping of small animals, insects, reptiles, fish or birds, but only for personal enjoyment or household use, and not as a business”, yet keeping even a single egg-laying hen is forbidden.  We’re not talking about running a commercial poultry operation out of a backyard.  We are talking about keeping a few hens for enjoyment, education and an option for a safe source of non-GMO food.  Why, as a tax paying landowner with approving neighbors, would I be legally forbidden from keeping a few hens?

This issue has been brought before the Board of Supervisors numerous times over the last few years.  We continue to see huge areas of a once-agricultural county converted into high-density residential subdivisions.  How can a county that repeatedly claims to support the preservation our rural quality of life continue to asphalt the county and not even yield a compromise at enjoying a bit of rural living?

Demanding either chickens or death is a purposeful exaggeration.  These days, however, I find myself wondering if the people of Hanover County aren’t anxious to relish in our historic cries for Liberty and demand a few Backyard Chickens. (And for clarity, I am not including roosters in this request. They can be noisy!)

Please contact your supervisor to let them know you support Backyard Chickens as a property owner freedom.

South Anna District – Mr. Wayne Hazzard –

Beaverdam District – Mr. Aubrey Stanley –

Henry District – Mr. Sean Davis –

Chickahominy District – Ms. Angela Kelly-Wiecek –

Ashland District – Mr. Ed Via –

Mechanicsville District – Mr. Canova Peterson IV –

Cold Harbor District – Mr. Elton Wade, Sr. –

Don’t know your district?  Please find it @:

To learn more, check us out on Facebook @:

Article written by: Tom White

A New Day in America: A Whole New Level of Stupidity

Over the last few days, the Supreme Court has, again, rewritten the Affordable Care Act, legalized gay marriage, and upheld the Obama Administrations application of the Fair Housing Act.

So, my personal reaction to these three rulings.

First, on the upholding of the ACA: I cannot imagine a circumstance in which I’ll be able to afford health insurance. I lost my health insurance when the Obama Administration and the Democrat Party outlawed my policy just a few years ago. No matter how much they tax me for refusing to purchase a product at the point of the gun, such a purchase doesn’t make financial sense. Why would I pay $6,000 to $12,000 a year for a health insurance plan that won’t cover my expenses until after I incurred $6,000 to $12,000 in expenditures? Essentially, I’m looking at an $12,000 to $24,000 annual health insurance cost. In either scenario, the benefits fail to justify the costs.

Furthermore, apparently I have a right to force doctors to save my life in the event of a serious illness, which will be partially subsided by the few Americans who actually pay taxes (a sorry class of citizen to which I belong). Therefore, whatever they tax me, it makes more sense to incur personal and national debt than to pay into a system from which I would gain nothing. Unless they start taxing me $12,000 to $24,000 a year for refusing to participate, I have no reason to participate.

And with this economy and no hope of ever retiring, I guess the best I can hope for is that our government eventually imposes forced euthanasia on citizens costing the government more than some arbitrary amount in expenses.

Secondly, on gay marriage. Firstly, I don’t understand why there is one marriage law and essentially one marriage contract that covers every domestic partnership in this country. While I completely understand religious marital commitments, and support religious marriage, I don’t understand why domestic laws are one size fits all. If your church agrees to marry you and your significant other, in accordance with their faith, that’s fine. When it comes to the federal government, however, why aren’t there a thousand optional, customized domestic partnership options that fit the needs and desires of the couple residing together? Secondly, I do not believe that this current, politically motivated marriage system has a right to discriminate against homosexuals.

But I don’t care about the word marriage. What did homosexuals just get today? They got a big ole tax break, that’s what. Why are “married couples” getting tax breaks for being married, or for having kids, or for anything related to their own private, personal decisions? Essentially, our government is saying that if you are a single, employed American, you deserve to pick up an arbitrarily high portion of our countries tax responsibilities. What’s that about? Even married couples that fail to procreate get their legs cut out from under them.

Frankly, I think I should be given a medal for paying taxes to schools that I don’t have any children attending.

Third, the upholding of the Obama Administrations application of the Fair Housing Act: this is insane. They just removed objective discrimination from being evaluated by the law. Instead, mere statistical analysis defines de facto discrimination. No society can survive this kind of political ridiculousness. I guess if I ever need work with the Democrat Party, I could survey my neighborhood in Ladysmith to discover just how much statistical discrimination there is here. Then maybe we can kick some of these white jerks out of the community and just give their homes to some homosexual mix-raced (but not white) family who pays 50% less in taxes than I do because they fit some socially engineered designation that I’m incapable of fitting into. Joy.

Our country is losing its collective groupthinking mind.

Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker