Gloucester County 2017 Election and Voter Registration Information. It's not too late to registar.

Voter registration info 2017 from Kenneth Hogge Sr

Moon Beam Bagels, Stories From The Campfire

Tales from the Camp Fire

This is a fictional story for your reading enjoyment

This is the story of Moon Beam Bagels

Once upon a time there was a local civil servant named Dogwood that worked in a local office for the director answering phone calls and directing people to the correct office.  Dogwood was very unhappy with his job and everyone knew it. Dogwood's boss had a problem that Dogwood could help with.  They schemed and found a way to make Dogwood’s boss happy and Dogwood would get a fake injury and collect workers comp to be able to leave his job and open his own business “Moon Beam Bagels” where he could be his own boss and not have to answer the phone any more.

Dogwood found a vacant building in midtown and opened Moon Beam Bagels. Dogwood did not think everything through.  He was able to buy a Bagel machine that could make 50 bagels an hour and work four hours in a day and try as he might he was not able to make enough bagels to pay the rent and the staff and buy supplies.  Dogwood worried about this until he was offered a deal he could not refuse. We like your bagel business and we will give you money for you to claim as income to keep Moon Beam Bagels open you just have to make us silent partners and hire who we tell you to.  But I can only make 50 bagels an hour for four hours a day and this cannot be increased.  Not a problem just do as we instruct.  So Dogwood took the money added more space in the shop making it three times larger.  Hiring the extra staff not to work and kept on making bagels. The money kept on coming in and Dogwood was happy.  Dogwood even tried to expand the business to a new site.  If I can sell my 200 bagels faster each day I will not have to stay open but during the morning.

Did I mention Dogwood was not a good business man and had no experience in a commercial kitchen?  He was posting pictures on Face Book that showed that he did not understand the importance of using the right kitchen tools and keeping everything clean.  Someone shared this information with the Health Department.  Dogwood’s friend when dropping off some cash told Dogwood about the inspection. Dogwood closed Moon Beam Bagels on a holiday weekend to clean the shop so it would be spic and span for the inspection on Tuesday.  The inspection was done and Moon Beam Bagels passed with flying colors, with instructions to remove the pictures from the web site and to be careful what he posted in the future.

The last time the person telling the story around the camp fire was in the store the floors were dirty,  the place was understaffed, the bagels?  Okay at best.  The argument was given that they were busy and it was hard to keep the floors clean.  The response “I was the first customer of the day.”  There were no replies.

I hope you enjoyed this work of fiction.  If it reminds of any business in Gloucester, VA it is just a coincidence since this story is made up?

Sincerely,

Alexander James Jay

The Untold History of Public Education, Part 3

Although I am not in agreement with the author of this video as he seems to be against any form of Christian based education in any form, I am not posting this video to either argue that aspect for or against.  What is shown here is past, present and future plans of public education.  In the future, I will be showing and it has already been partially shown, the system is rigged in a way that it can not be fixed.  That is right, no matter what anyone does, the system is rigged so that it can not ever be fixed.

  So throw all the money you want at public or private education,   It will not get any better.  There is only one plan that will work.  A mass exiting of adults taking their children out of this insane system of pure indoctrination.  Sending your children to be with people you do not know, to be trained in areas you have no idea about, is insane.  Public schools are teaching a new religion and yes, they do call it a new religion, but not at the media level where you will be offended.  That is only at the highest level that it's called a new religion and it's designed to replace all other religions.  That new religion has a name and it's called humanism.  Yes, that is a new religion and you are sending your children to school to become a part of this new religion.  Evidence on this coming soon.

  Any teachers offended by any of this, not to worry, we are still working on a sensitivity program for you.  The same for our elected school board.  Folk's do not send your children back into this horrible public system of deceit and corruption.   Also, take the time and do your own research.  We have asked the local school board to look at all of this information and we invited them to a public dialogue.  So far, they refuse to respond.  I would love it if all of this could be refuted and proven either wrong or somehow not correct.  But their silence is proving the information we are covering scares them because it is true and shows the fraud they are part and partial to.

  But lets be fair.  Many of them have no clue about a lot of this.  Some should.  It may very well be that their eyes are now being open and they will soon learn that there is nothing they can do about it and except maintain the deception.  I would like to think that many of them are seeing the real issues now and are starting to look for answers.  Keep your fingers crossed and pray they are on our side.

Gloucester's Over Inflated Budgets?

If you listen to the present board of Supervisors and the present county administration, these folks are doing everything they can to keep taxes down.  Are they?

  Let's look at the facts.  On the one hand, I would say they are trying to keep present costs within control.  But they are not really doing anything to cut taxes by cutting out ridiculous government programs they like to tell us are services.  Zoning, not a service.  Planning, not a service, building and codes, not a service.  These departments should be cut and the money returned to the people.

  There is also too much fluff in many departments that one has to question if that many people are really needed to run them?  Present budget being presented to the board is maintaining present level so called government services that we simply do not need nor want.  The school board is the biggest factor in tremendous waste.  Way too many administration personnel that I would love to see fully justified and not with lip service that means little to nothing but sounds good.

  We have problems with department heads that earn in the neighborhood of one hundred thousand a year that could not and I will repeat, can NOT transfer those same skills to the private sector and earn even close to those wages.  Something is horribly wrong here.  I am not knocking the people in those jobs, most do a great job.  But when the same skills pay much lower in the private sector, then we have a major disparity going on in our government.

  We have people in government who are empire building and all at the expense of the taxpayer.  If you want to build an empire, great, I am all for it, in the private sector.  Not at the cost of the taxpayer.  The school board comes to mind here as these folks have been wasting taxpayer dollars to the tune of millions that we have shown over and over on this site.  Did I say education?  I meant indoctrination.  Schools no longer educate.  They indoctrinate the children who will never question.  They might ask questions when they do not understand the directive, but they are taught to not question the directive.  Indoctrination costs more than education.  We see this reflected in our taxes as they continue to skyrocket each year.

  I get tired of the lip service paid each month at the county meetings and it turns out to be nothing more than lip service with no real actions.  Charging people a fee to get a business license?  That means you do not have the right to start a business without government permission.  Not exactly what the framers of our Constitution had in mind.   That also means you are paying a tribute to the government for the privilege of allowing you to put your savings at risk.  That's pretty sad.

  Freedom is gone as long as you are forced to pay for starting a business, maintaining your business every year, what you can do with your land, how and what size signs the government is going to allow you to put up, and then you have to collect taxes for the government at your expense?  Really?  Really!  We are being fooled and robbed at every turn and there is no end in sight.

  Yet everyone thinks this is all normal.  No one studies history to see this is all only about 70 years old and grew very slowly.  Our government officials thinks these concepts are normal and have not looked into history to see that it is not.  Nor will they.  In fairness, our board is comprised of some great folks that are decent people and a good time to talk to.  As individuals, I have the utmost respect for them.  As a collective, they are thieves as long as they continue to perpetrate these frauds against the taxpayers and business owners.  They each need to go back through history and return to the principles of our founding fathers.

  Tear down the services that are not services but instead government theft with no value.  You do not attract business by demanding tributes be paid to the government before the government even thinks about what they will allow and what they will restrict you with.  I don't care every locality does it.  I don't care the state and federal government allows it.  That does not make it right.  In fact, the federal courts have said it is illegal when it comes to planning and zoning when planning and zoning goes outside the purview of government owned lands and properties.  The same has also been said about business licensing.  But who listens to the courts?

  Some will argue that some of the services like zoning are good and protect the rights of private property.  I disagree and there are plenty of market conditions that can easily be put in place that do not require government interference.  These so called services are nothing more than socialist programs.  Socialist programs are not du jur where one gets to pick and choose what programs they like and what programs they do not like.  Under socialism, you get it all like it or not.

Oration at Gloucester, July 4th, 1827 from Chuck Thompson

 

  I post this yet again for those who question any of the freedoms argued above.  Before you make one single argument, know your facts first.  The above starts to give you some of those facts.

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe's Ties To The Mafia And How He Got This Seat

Terry McAuliffe has ties to the Mafia and this information is straight from John Podesta.  In fact it's off his own email server and is up on wiki leaks for anyone to see.  But we are going to post one of the emails right here so you can read it for yourself and then you can check it live against the link to wiki leaks.

"

In Nevada, Clinton’s campaign manager faces his biggest test - The Washington Post

From:tflournoy11@gmail.com To: john.podesta@gmail.com  Date: 2016-02-19 23:46 Subject: In Nevada, Clinton’s campaign manager faces his biggest test - The Washington Post

> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-campaign-manager-faces-his-biggest-test/2016/02/19/baca26e2-d4ba-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html > > In Nevada, Clinton’s campaign manager faces his biggest test > > > Just as they did in 2008, Nevada’s Democratic caucuses Saturday arrive at a critical time for Hillary Clinton, following her resounding defeat in New Hampshire . And once again, the state will be a testing ground for her campaign manager, Robby Mook, and the faith he has in his data-driven battle plan. > > Eight years ago, it was Clinton’s humiliation in Iowa, not New Hampshire, that brought a gut-check moment to her struggling presidential campaign. The candidate and her husband huddled her high command at her Arlington, Va., headquarters to consider an urgent question: how hard to fight for Nevada? > > Clinton’s defeat in Iowa had left the campaign unsure of its ability to win a caucus state against Barack Obama. There were good arguments that her time and dwindling resources might be better spent elsewhere. > > Campaign 2016 Email Updates > > Get the best analysis of the presidential race. > > Campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe suggested, “Why don’t we just get Robby on the phone here?” Some in the room had never even met their man in Nevada, Robby Mook, then barely 29 years old. > > “He got on that call and said: ‘Here’s what we’re going to do. Let me tell you the metrics, and here’s how we’re going to win this thing,’ ” McAuliffe recalled. “The future of the campaign was on his shoulders — you talk about pressure.” > > Why Sanders might have an edge over Clinton with minority voters in Nevada > > Play Video3:21 > > Once considered a firewall for Hillary Clinton, Nevada has sharply turned into a tight and unpredictable contest for the former secretary of state as Sen. Bernie Sanders steadily gains support from critical voting blocs. (Alice Li/The Washington Post) > > Mook prevailed. Clinton carried the vote in Nevada, as her state director had promised she would, though Obama edged her out in delegates. Mook went on to run her winning operations in Ohio and Indiana. > > Those victories were not enough to get the Democratic nomination, but Mook had earned his spurs in Clinton World. McAuliffe hired him to run his own successful campaign for governor of Virginia in 2013. > > And when the former secretary of state decided to make another run at the White House, she tapped Mook as her manager for what they agreed would be a different kind of campaign, with a heavier emphasis on the kind of ground-level organizing that is Mook’s forte. > > [How Sanders caught fire in Iowa and turned the Clinton coronation into a real race ] > > Nevada, where Democrats will caucus Saturday, and South Carolina, which holds its Democratic primary Feb. 27, were until recently considered Clinton’s “firewall” against what is turning out to be a stiff nomination challenge from Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.). > > Lately, Clinton’s campaign has been working feverishly to lower expectations for how well she will do in Nevada. If she loses despite her built-in advantages with the state’s labor unions and Latino voters, it will be another blow to what’s left of her aura of invincibility. > > No drama, lots of praise > > Even in this difficult stretch, Mook is winning praise, both inside the campaign and among Clinton’s vast circle of second-guessers, for the airtight and drama-free campaign he has built. > > “He’s widely being viewed as the glue that is holding it together,” said one prominent Democrat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speculate about the state of the party front-runner’s campaign. > > What glue cannot fix is the candidate herself and the fact that Clinton may be an ill fit for this angry, anti-establishment political moment. > > “She has embraced a message of experience, but that by definition has her talking about herself and about the past,” said David Axelrod, who was Obama’s chief strategist in both of his presidential campaigns. Clinton, he added, needs to “bring down the rhapsodizing about all of her past achievements and find a way to frame it about the future.” > > Aides and advisers to Clinton say they recognize the problem. As its next big personnel move, the campaign is expected to install a high-level communications adviser to travel with the candidate. > > The culture of the Mook operation is a deliberate contrast from that of Clinton’s first presidential campaign. > > In 2008, the campaign’s highly paid consultants stayed at Las Vegas’s lavish Bellagio hotel while Mook’s Nevada team was being outgunned on the ground by Obama’s campaign and scrounging to pay for office supplies. > > Now, everyone lives under a tight budget; top campaign officials traveling to Iowa, for instance, were told to fly into Minneapolis or Moline, Ill., and drive, because the airline tickets were cheaper. Mook stays with supporters when he is on the road. > > “I’ve certainly made it a priority on this campaign that we’re going to make investments where they matter,” Mook said in an interview the morning of the Iowa caucuses. “We’ve made big investments in people, in organizers, not only in hiring really good people but hiring them early enough that they could build really good relationships.” > > Sanders got a later start, but he is catching up fast. In Nevada, he has spent twice as much as Clinton on television ads, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and he has moved more than 100 paid staffers into the state. > > [Democrats backing Clinton say she must sharpen her pitch to compete with Sanders ] > > Clinton’s team had sensed something similar going on in Iowa. In early January, the cash-flush Sanders campaign quietly doubled its number of organizers on the ground. > > Mook refused to alter his own plan. “He put together an approach in April, and that approach we didn’t deviate from,” said Michael Halle, who played a senior role in the Iowa operation. “Of course, there were people in Iowa who were anxious. We talked about it. We talked about a lot of options. But I think had we hired 100 more staffers, it would not have made a difference.” Clinton squeaked by with the narrowest of wins. > > Mook insisted that he, for one, has not been surprised by Sanders’s strength with the restive Democratic base. > > “I have always believed there was at least 40 percent, but probably closer to 45 percent, of the Democratic primary electorate that is going to be, at best, open to another candidate and, at worst, insistent on drifting over to another candidate,” he said. “I tried to make that clear to the senior staff repeatedly.” > > And as a Vermonter himself, Mook said, he has a special appreciation for Sanders’s political talent, as well as the perils of underestimating him. > > “I literally grew up watching Bernie Sanders. I was a political junkie at a very young age, and I saw him,” Mook said. > > In fact, Mook was all of 10 years old when he began sizing up his future nemesis. “It was that one congressional race in particular in 1990, where people just thought it wasn’t going to be possible for him to do this — that he could become the lefty mayor of Burlington, but there’s no way he would ever get into Congress,” Mook recalled. “And lo and behold, he did it.” > > Looking to March > > Now, the Clinton campaign is settling in for trench warfare. In a memo released as the polls were closing in New Hampshire, Mook argued for the long view, saying the real payoff to the campaign’s strategy would come in March. > > “It’s important to understand why the campaign is investing so much time, energy and resources in states with primaries and caucuses in March,” he wrote. “The reason is simple: while important, the first four states represent just 4% of the delegates needed to secure the nomination; the 28 states that vote (or caucus) in March will award 56% of the delegates needed to win.” > > One of Mook’s biggest challenges is managing the jitters of Clinton’s enormous circle of friends and supporters — and insulating the campaign from their influence. > > “In politics, when you have a bad stretch, and she’s having one, you get a lot of advice from your friends, and she’s got a lot of friends,” Axelrod said. > > So does her campaign manager, who has built a following of young operatives so loyal that they are known as the Mook Mafia. Preparing his team for a long haul, Mook has worked to keep up their morale and their sense of perspective about the ups and downs of a presidential campaign. > > He dispatched 150 staffers from the campaign’s Brooklyn headquarters to work in New Hampshire in the final days before the primary. When they returned after Clinton’s defeat there, it was to cheers from their colleagues and an office festooned with balloons and thank-you posters in their honor. Mook got up and spoke of how proud he was of their efforts. > > That, too, was a gesture reminiscent of his early days in Nevada. At a 2007 training session for his Silver State organizers, Mook handed out carabiners, the coupling links used by rock climbers to keep them safe if they fall. > > Brad Komar, now Clinton’s Colorado director, still keeps his on his key chain, “and I know dozens of folks from that training session who still have it on them.” > > It was a reminder not to lose faith in what they had built together. Or as Mook told them that day: “We’ll always be here to catch you.”

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/56136

Fwd: ABC/RM Emails

From:cheryl.mills@gmail.com To: john.podesta@gmail.com  Date: 2014-11-14 13:39 Subject: Fwd: ABC/RM Emails

More re this cdm Begin forwarded message: > From: Heather Samuelson > Date: November 14, 2014 at 10:17:21 AM EST > To: Cheryl Mills > Subject: ABC/RM Emails > > http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclusive-read-secret-emails-men-run-hillary-clintons/story?id=26898758&singlePage=true > > EXCLUSIVE: Read the Secret Emails of the Men Who May Run Hillary Clinton's Campaign > Nov 14, 2014, 6:01 AM ET > By RICK KLEIN > RICK KLEINMore From Rick » > Political Director > via WORLD NEWS > Share > 139 > Share on email351 Comments > > Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton campaigns for U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) during the "Women with Mary Geaux Vote" event at the Sugar Mill, Nov. 1, 2014 in New Orleans.Stacy Revere/Getty Images > For the past five years, a prominent Democratic operative who is a leading contender to manage a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign has maintained a private email listserv for friends and associates that carries a provocative name: the “Mook Mafia.” > > The listserv, which one member said reaches more than 150 fellow campaign veterans, has been a means for Robby Mook and a close friend Marlon Marshall to stay connected with many of the operatives who would likely populate a Democratic presidential campaign in 2016. Mook and Marshall have both been mentioned as possible Hillary Clinton campaign managers. > > Emilys List/Flickr > PHOTO: DCCC's Robby Mook speaks with members of Emily's List in this Oct. 25, 2010 file photo. > Pete Souza/The White House/Flickr > President Obama receives an update on the Affordable Care Act in the Oval Office, April 1, 2014. With the President, from left, are: Phil Schiliro, Tara McGuinness, Marlon Marshall, Jeanne Lambrew, DKristie Canegallo and Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett. > Copies of a cache of the emails obtained by ABC News, and revealed publicly for the first time, show Mook and Marshall demonstrating an aggressive tone in rallying their friends behind political causes, in exchanges that are often self-mocking and sometimes border on being profane. > > They include rallying cries to, in Mook’s words, “smite Republicans mafia-style,” and, to quote Marshall, “punish those voters.” Mook sometimes calls himself “Deacon” in the emails, while Marshall, now a senior White House aide, refers to himself as “Reverend” in many of the exchanges. > > “This is even more exciting than walking through the back of the Bellagio.” > Their inside jokes sometimes come at the expense of fellow Democrats, including former President Bill Clinton. A November 2009 mock news release announcing the listserv in addition to a new website and an upcoming reunion for the “Mook Mafia” included a fabricated quote from the former president. > > “The Mafia has finally built a bridge to the 21st century,” Bill Clinton is jokingly quoted as having said in an email that appears to have been written by Marshall. “This is even more exciting than walking through the back of the Bellagio.” > > The private emails were provided to ABC News by a Democrat on the listserv who has worked alongside Mook and Marshall on previous campaigns. The person who provided the emails is, like the vast majority of those on the listserv, supportive of Hillary Clinton, but does not support the idea of Mook or Marshall holding leadership roles in a second presidential bid. They were provided on the condition of anonymity. > > That the emails are emerging publicly reflects the ferocious intra-battle to populate the top positions of an expected Clinton campaign. > > Neither Mook nor Marshall responded to requests for comment. ABC News first reached out to both men Thursday morning, by email and phone. > > "Crushing it mafia style." > On one level, the listserv is a testament to the loyalty Mook, 34, has inspired over a decade in national politics. His resume includes stints on Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign, running a series of state efforts for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid and managing Terry McAuliffe’s successful run for governor of Virginia last year. > > Marshall is also a veteran of Clinton’s 2008 campaign. He joined Obama’s field operation after the primaries, and he then served in top positions for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, often working alongside Mook along the way. He is now a special assistant to the president and serves as principal deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement. > > The exchanges provide a window into the clubby and pugnacious motivational styles of both Mook and Marshall, two stars of their party’s universe of field organizers and operatives. > > The two most-recent messages to the group came just last week, on Election Day. They included a reference to a team reunion that would likely be held in New York early next year. > > At least some recipients saw that reference as presuming that “Mook Mafia” members would be involved in running Clinton’s likely presidential candidacy. Clinton represented New York in the Senate and is said to be considering a campaign headquarters in Westchester County. > > “TEAM! I was just at the DCCC last night for the GOTV [get-out-the-vote] rally, where we were in the middle of GOTV calisthenics when Nancy Pelosi walked in and said we looked like the Village People. Some things you can’t make up,” Mook wrote at 2:59 pm on Election Day. > > Mook continued: “This has been a tough cycle -- midterms always are -- but what's been so amazing to me is how from the Senate to the House to Governor's races and beyond, we've been keeping the other side on defense. So many of you have played leadershp [sic] roles building field programs, managing campaigns, or running programs from allied groups. It's been incredibly insipiring [sic] to see.” > > Marshall had written the group earlier that day from Florida, where he was working – apparently in a volunteer capacity because he still works for the White House -- to elect Charlie Crist as governor. > > “I know many of you are out there on campaigns, crushing it mafia style,” Marshall wrote. “We unfortunately didn’t do a call this year, but Robby and I wanted to start a chain to acknowledge many in our great family who have been out there busting their tails for all that is right in the world. > > “We also wanted you to know that this years [sic] reunion will actually be held early next year, January or February, and likely in New York for a weekend. Apologies for the late notice and for not sending anything out on a reunion. Please believe there will be one. The planning committee has just been a tad busy!” > > The email was signed “MM,” with Marshall adding a hashtag: #mafia4life. > > "F U Republicans." > The existence of a “Mook Mafia” of friends and loyalists who extend through Mook’s previous campaign work has long been known. Scattered references to the informal group have appeared in favorable Mook profiles, and a Politico story last week referenced the possible New York reunion that was mentioned on the listserv. > > The emails themselves, though, have not been seen publicly before. Much of the email traffic on the listserv appears to have been mundane: announcing job openings and new assignments, advertising or seeking rooms for rent in battleground states and organizing reunions in places including Las Vegas and Columbus, Ohio. > > In the more substantive messages, though, Marshall emerges as the more aggressive of the duo. Writing in January 2010 to urge fellow “mafia” members to work hard on behalf of Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley, Marshall offered “an overall big thank you to everyone on this list who continues to fight the good fight.” > > “F U Republicans. Mafia till I die,” he wrote. “If you have just a few minutes, hop on that activate and punish those voters!” (“Activate” is an apparent reference to a software program allowing volunteers to contact targeted voters by phone from anywhere in the country.) > > "The Mafia never separates." > The following year, in confirming news that he would be taking a new job that would include a move to Chicago, Marshall offered special thanks to Mook. > > “First, the mafia never separates, it just continues to grow and expand and move into other states in order to destroy Republicans,” he wrote. “A special thanks to none other than the namesake himself, Deacon Robby Mook. Without him, there would be no mafia and I for sure know I would not have learned as much as I have in this business and have this opportunity.” > > Mook responded by announcing “mandatory” attendance at a goodbye party for Marshall at a Capitol Hill bar. > > “It's true: Marlon Marshall is leaving our fold. Today is the day the grownassman [sic] grows up and leaves for America's Second City. I know this prodical [sic] son will return to the mafia manger soon enough to smite Republicans mafia-style,” Mook wrote. > > “If you can't be here in person, join me in spirit by sending your words of love and encouragement to the Most High Grown Ass Reverend Marlon D as he embarks on his pilgrimage. Please believe and obey the beard.” > > Both Mook and Marshall have been discussed as potential Clinton campaign managers, should she run for president. Another top contender, Guy Cecil, may have seen his chances damaged by last week’s Republican rout because Cecil was running the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for this election cycle.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/55743

Now, they are the ones making the claims of mafia ties and that mook is mafia.  I have no reason to doubt that.  Hence, Terry McAuliffe's ties to the mob.  Not the Italian mafia like most people like to think, but still a brutish gang of gangsters none the less.  

Mobster McAuliffe Strikes Again, Vetoes House Bill 1470 Claiming Coal Tax Exemptions

Mobster Terry McAuliffe vetoes house bill 1470 claiming it gives a tax incentive to coal companies.  We don't see it, and if it does, so what?  They deserve tax credits considering what the socialist propagandists have done lying about the industry.

  Here is the statement from the mobster's office.



Governor McAuliffe Bill Reinstating Costly and Ineffective Coal Tax Credit without Meaningful Reform

Governor Terry McAuliffe today vetoed Senate Bill 1470, which would reinstate the coal employment and production incentive tax credit and extend the coalfield enhancement tax credit without meaningful reforms:

March 17, 2017

Pursuant to Article V, Section 6, of the Constitution of Virginia of Virginia, I veto Senate Bill 1470, which would reinstate the coal employment and production incentive tax credit and extend the allowance of the coalfield employment enhancement tax credit without meaningful reform.

As I stated last year when I vetoed similar legislation, I work tirelessly to build a new Virginia economy and ensure that the Commonwealth is the best place to live, work, and run a business. Making the most effective use of every dollar taxpayers entrust to their government is an essential part of that effort.

In January 2012, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) published its final report, Review of the Effectiveness of Virginia Tax Preferences, Senate Document No. 4. That report established that the coal tax credits were intended to slow the decline of coal production and employment. Instead, JLARC found that the decline of coal production and employment was the same or even faster than was predicted before the credits were created. JLARC's report concluded that the economic activity had not moved in the desired direction and that the credits had not achieved their goal.

Specifically, from 1988 until 2016, coal mine operators, electricity generators, and other coal-related companies have claimed over $637 million in tax credits. However, during the same period, the number of coal miners in Virginia has declined from 11,106 to 2,483. It would be unwise to spend additional taxpayer dollars on a tax credit that has fallen so short of its intended effectiveness.

Given the findings of the JLARC study and the lack of meaningful reform, including in this year’s legislative session, I believe it would be inappropriate to sign this legislation.

Accordingly, I veto this bill.

Sincerely,

Terence R. McAuliffe

Now let's look at the actual bill.  Can someone please show me where the tax incentive for coal companies are?  I may have overlooked them, but I don't think so.  

HOUSE BILL NO. 1470 Offered January 11, 2017 Prefiled December 9, 2016 A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 58.1-512 and 58.1-513 of the Code of Virginia, relating to land preservation tax credits; limitations. ---------- Patrons-- Ware, Aird, Hugo, Jones and Orrock ---------- Referred to Committee on Finance ----------

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That §§ 58.1-512 and 58.1-513 of the Code of Virginia are amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 58.1-512. Land preservation tax credits for individuals and corporations.

A. 1. For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2000, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax liability imposed by §§ 58.1-320 and 58.1-400, an amount equal to 50 percent of the fair market value of any land or interest in land located in Virginia which is conveyed for the purpose of agricultural and forestal use, open space, natural resource, and/or biodiversity conservation, or land, agricultural, watershed and/or historic preservation, as an unconditional donation by the landowner/taxpayer to a public or private conservation agency eligible to hold such land and interests therein for conservation or preservation purposes. For such conveyances made on or after January 1, 2007, the tax credit shall be 40 percent of the fair market value of the land or interest in land so conveyed.

2. For taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2017, the amount of credit issued under this article shall not exceed $2 million for each conveyance of land or interest in land.

3. For purposes of the limitation set forth in subdivision 2, the credits allowed under this article with respect to donations of any other portion of a recorded parcel of land within the preceding 11 years shall be aggregated with the credit requested for the current conveyance. This subdivision shall not apply if (i) all owners of the parcel who have been allowed credit for a qualified donation are not affiliated with the person or entity seeking credit for the current donation of a different portion of the parcel and (ii) in the case of an individual seeking credit, the individual has not previously made a qualified donation for any portion of the parcel and is not an immediate family member of any such owners.

B. The fair market value of qualified donations made under this section shall be determined in accordance with § 58.1-512.1 and substantiated by a "qualified appraisal" prepared by a "qualified appraiser," as those terms are defined under applicable federal law and regulations governing charitable contributions. The value of the donated interest in land that qualifies for credit under this section, as determined according to appropriate federal law and regulations, shall be subject to the limits established by United States Internal Revenue Code § 170(e). In order to qualify for a tax credit under this section, the qualified appraisal shall be signed by the qualified appraiser, who must be licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia as provided in § 54.1-2011, and a copy of the appraisal shall be submitted to the Department. In the event that any appraiser falsely or fraudulently overstates the value of the contributed property in an appraisal that the appraiser has signed, the Department may disallow further appraisals signed by the appraiser and shall refer the appraiser to the Real Estate Appraiser Board for appropriate disciplinary action pursuant to § 54.1-2013, which may include, but need not be limited to, revocation of the appraiser's license. Any appraisal that, upon audit by the Department, is determined to be false or fraudulent, may be disregarded by the Department in determining the fair market value of the property and the amount of tax credit to be allowed under this section.

C. 1. The amount of the credit that may be claimed by each taxpayer, including credit claimed by applying unused credits as provided under subsection C of § 58.1-513, shall not exceed $50,000 for 2000 taxable years; $75,000 for 2001 taxable years; $100,000 for each of 2002 through 2008 taxable years; $50,000 for each of 2009, 2010, and 2011 taxable years; $100,000 for each of 2012, 2013, and 2014 taxable years; and $20,000 for each of 2015 and 2016 taxable years; and $50,000 for 2017 taxable years and for each taxable year thereafter. However, the amount of the credit that may be claimed by each taxpayer, including credit claimed by applying unused credits as provided in subsection C of § 58.1-513, shall not exceed $100,000 for each taxable year for any fee simple donation of land conveyed to the Commonwealth on or and after January 1, 2015, the amount of the credit claimed shall not exceed $100,000 for each taxable year but before January 1, 2017, and shall not exceed $50,000 for each taxable year for any fee simple donation of land conveyed to the Commonwealth on and after January 1, 2017, provided that no part of the charitable contributions deduction under § 170 of the Internal Revenue Code related to such fee simple donation is allowable by reason of a sale or exchange of property. In addition, for each taxpayer, in any one taxable year the credit used may not exceed the amount of individual, fiduciary or corporate income tax otherwise due. Any portion of the credit that is unused in any one taxable year may be carried over for a maximum of 10 consecutive taxable years following the taxable year in which the credit originated until fully expended. A credit shall not be reduced by the amount of unused credit that could have been claimed in a prior year by the taxpayer but was unclaimed. For taxpayers affected by the credit reduction for taxable years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2015 and thereafter, any portion of the credit that is unused in any one taxable year may be carried over for a maximum of 13 consecutive taxable years following the taxable year in which the credit originated until fully expended.

2. Qualified donations shall include the conveyance of a fee interest in real property or the conveyance in perpetuity of a less-than-fee interest in real property, such as a conservation restriction, preservation restriction, agricultural preservation restriction, or watershed preservation restriction, provided that such less-than-fee interest qualifies as a charitable deduction under § 170(h) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

The Department of Conservation and Recreation shall compile an annual report on qualified donations of less-than-fee interests accepted by any public or private conservation agency in the respective calendar year and shall submit the report by December 1 of each year to the Chairmen of the House Committee on Appropriations, House Committee on Finance, and the Senate Committee on Finance. In preparing such report, the Department of Conservation and Recreation shall consult and coordinate with the Department of Taxation and the Departments of Forestry and Agriculture and Consumer Services to provide an estimate of the number of acres of land currently being used for "production agriculture and silviculture" as defined in § 3.2-300 that have been protected by qualified donations of less-than-fee interests. This report shall include information, when available, on land qualifying for credits being used for "production agriculture and silviculture" that have onsite operational best management practices, which are designed to reduce the amount of nutrients and sediment entering public waters. In addition, the report shall include information, when available, on riparian buffers, both vegetated/forested buffers and no-plow buffers, required by deed restriction on land qualifying for credits in order to protect water quality. This information shall be reported in summary fashion as appropriate to preserve confidentiality of information. Qualified donations shall not include the conveyance of a fee interest, or a less-than-fee interest, in real property by a charitable organization that (i) meets the definition of "holder" in § 10.1-1009 and (ii) holds one or more conservation easements acquired pursuant to the authority conferred on a "holder" by § 10.1-1010.

3. Any fee interest, or a less-than-fee interest, in real property that has been dedicated as open space within, or as part of, a residential subdivision or any other type of residential or commercial development; dedicated as open space in, or as part of, any real estate development plan; or dedicated for the purpose of fulfilling density requirements to obtain approvals for zoning, subdivision, site plan, or building permits shall not be a qualified donation under this article.

4. Qualified donations shall be eligible for the tax credit herein described if such donations are made to the Commonwealth of Virginia, an instrumentality thereof, or a charitable organization described in § 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, if such charitable organization (i) meets the requirements of § 509(a)(2) or (ii) meets the requirements of § 509(a)(3) and is controlled by an organization described in § 509(a)(2).

5. The preservation, agricultural preservation, historic preservation or similar use and purpose of such property shall be assured in perpetuity. In the case of conveyances of a fee interest to a charitable organization that is a "holder" as defined in § 10.1-1009, the credit shall not be allowed until the charitable organization agrees that subsequent conveyances of the fee interest in the property will be (i) subject to a previous conveyance in perpetuity of a conservation easement, as that term is defined in § 10.1-1009, or subject to the conveyance in perpetuity of an open-space easement, as that term is defined in § 10.1-1700, or (ii) conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia or to a federal conservation agency. No credit shall be allowed with respect to any subsequent conveyances by the charitable organization.

D. The issuance of tax credits under this article for donations made on and after January 1, 2007, shall be in accordance with procedures and deadlines established by the Department and shall be administered under the following conditions:

1. The taxpayer shall apply for a credit after completing the donation by submitting a form or forms prescribed by the Department in consultation with the Department of Conservation and Recreation. If the application requests a credit of $1 million or more or if the donation meets the conditions of subdivision 3 c, then a copy of the application shall also be filed with the Department of Conservation and Recreation by the taxpayer. The application shall include, but not be limited to:

a. A description of the conservation purpose or purposes being served by the donation;

b. The fair market value of land being donated in the absence of any easement or other restriction;

c. The public benefit derived from the donation;

d. The extent to which water quality best management practices will be implemented on the property; and

e. Whether the property is fully or partially forested and a forest management plan is included in the terms of the donation.

2. Applications for otherwise qualified donations of a less-than-fee interest shall be accompanied by an affidavit describing how the donated interest in land meets the requirements of § 170(h) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations adopted thereunder. The application with accompanying affidavit shall be submitted to the Department of Taxation, with a copy also provided to the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

3. a. No credit in the amount of $1 million or more shall be issued with respect to a donation unless the conservation value of the donation has been verified by the Director of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, based on the criteria adopted by the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation for this purpose. Such criteria and subsequent amendments shall be exempt from the Administrative Process Act (§ 2.2-4000 et seq.), but the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation shall provide for adequate public participation, including adequate notice and opportunity to provide comments on the proposed criteria. The Director shall act on applications within 90 days of his receipt of a complete application and shall notify the taxpayer and the Department of Taxation of his action.

b. For purposes of determining whether a credit requires verification of the conservation value, the credits allowed under this article with respect to donations of any other portion of a recorded parcel of land within the preceding 11 years shall be aggregated with the credit claimed for the current donation. This subdivision shall not apply if (i) all owners of the parcel who have been allowed credit for a qualified donation are not affiliated with the person or entity seeking credit for the current donation of a different portion of the parcel and (ii) in the case of an individual seeking credit, the individual has not previously made a qualified donation for any portion of the parcel and is not an immediate family member of any such owners.

c. If (i) the real property that is the subject of the donation was partitioned from or part of another parcel of land and any other portion of such parcel, or any land partitioned from such parcel of land, has been allowed a tax credit under this article (or an application for tax credit is pending) within three years of such donation and (ii) the tax credit that would otherwise be allowed to the donor for such donation is at least $250,000, then no credit under this article shall be issued with respect to such donation described in clause (i) unless the conservation value of the donation has been verified by the Director of the Department of Conservation and Recreation. The Director shall act on applications within 90 days of his receipt of a complete application and shall notify the taxpayer and the Department of Taxation of his action. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed or interpreted (a) as allowing additional tax credit for any land or interest in land previously conveyed for which tax credit has already been allowed under this article or (b) affecting the validity of any tax credit allowed under this article for a prior conveyance of any land or interest in land.

4. a. Tax credits shall be issued on a calendar year basis, and in no case shall the Department issue more than the maximum allowed for the calendar year. The maximum amount of credits that may be issued in a calendar year shall be $100 million plus any credits previously issued under this article but subsequently disallowed or invalidated by the Department. Credits previously issued but subsequently disallowed or invalidated shall be reissued in a subsequent calendar year. All credits shall be issued in the order that each complete application is filed. For filings by mail or a recognized commercial delivery service, the postmark or confirmation of shipment shall determine the date of filing. If within 30 days after an application for credits has been filed the Tax Commissioner provides written notice to the donor that he has determined that the preparation of a second qualified appraisal is warranted, the application shall not be deemed complete until the fair market value of the donation has been finally determined by the Tax Commissioner. The Tax Commissioner shall make a final determination within 180 days of notifying the donor, unless the donor has filed an appeal. The donor shall have the right to appeal any decision of the Department in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18 (§ 58.1-1800 et seq.). If more than one complete application is filed at the same time, the credits with respect to those applications shall be issued in the order that the conveyances were recorded in the appropriate circuit court of the Commonwealth. In the event that a credit requires verification of the conservation value by the Department of Conservation and Recreation and such verification has not been received at the time the maximum $100 million allowed is reached for the calendar year of the donation, such credit shall not be issued for that calendar year but shall be issued in the calendar year that the conservation value of the credit is verified by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

No credit shall be allowed for any land or interest in land conveyed on or after July 1, 2015, unless a complete application for tax credit with regard to the conveyance has been filed with the Department by December 31 of the year following the calendar year of the conveyance. For filings by mail or a recognized commercial delivery service, the postmark or confirmation of shipment shall determine the date of filing. Solely for purposes of this condition, any application for which the Tax Commissioner has given written notice to the donor that the preparation of a second qualified appraisal is warranted shall be deemed timely filed, provided that the application was otherwise complete as of such filing deadline.

b. Beginning with calendar year 2008, the $100 million amount contained in subdivision 4 a shall be increased by an amount equal to $100 million multiplied by the percentage by which the consumer price index for all-urban consumers published by the United States Department of Labor (CPI-U) for the 12-month period ending August 31 of the preceding year exceeds the CPI-U for the 12-month period ending August 31, 2006.

c. Beginning with calendar year 2015 and ending December 31, 2016, the maximum amount of credits that may be issued in a calendar year shall not exceed $75 million. Beginning with calendar year 2017, the maximum amount of credits that may be issued in a calendar year shall not exceed $50 million. In no case shall the Department issue any tax credit for a donation from any allocation or pool of tax credits attributable to a calendar year prior to the year in which the complete tax credit application for the donation was filed.

Beginning with the submission due on or before December 20, 2015, and in each year thereafter, the Governor shall include in "The Budget Bill" submitted pursuant to subsection A of § 2.2-1509 or in his amendments to the general appropriation act in effect submitted pursuant to subsection E of § 2.2-1509 a recommended appropriation from the general fund equal to the difference between the amount calculated pursuant to subdivision b and $75 million for calendar years 2015 and 2016 or $50 million for calendar year 2017 and each year thereafter, but not more than $20 million, to be allocated as follows: 80 percent to the Virginia Land Conservation Fund to be used in accordance with § 10.1-1020, with no less than 50 percent of such appropriation to be used for fee simple acquisitions with public access or acquisitions of easements with public access; 10 percent to the Virginia Battlefield Preservation Fund to be used in accordance with § 10.1-2202.4; and 10 percent to the Virginia Farmland Preservation Fund to be used in accordance with § 3.2-201.

5. a. Any taxpayer that has been issued a tax credit by the Department shall be allowed to use such credit for his or its taxable year that begins in the calendar year for which such credit was issued and for succeeding taxable years in accordance with the 10 consecutive taxable year carryforward provisions of this article, except for any taxpayer affected by the credit limitation for taxable years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2015 and taxable years thereafter. Such a taxpayer shall be allowed to use such credit for his or its taxable year that begins in the calendar year for which such credit was issued and for succeeding taxable years in accordance with the 13 consecutive taxable year carryforward provisions of this article.

b. Any taxpayer to whom a credit has been transferred may use such credit for the taxable year in which the transfer occurred and unused amounts may be carried forward to succeeding taxable years, but in no event may such transferred credit be used more than 11 years after it was originally issued by the Department or in any taxable year of such taxpayer that ended prior to the date of transfer, except for any taxpayer affected by the credit limitation for taxable years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2015 and taxable years thereafter. Such a taxpayer may use such credit for the taxable year in which the transfer occurred and unused amounts may be carried forward to succeeding taxable years, but in no event may such transferred credit be used more than 14 years after it was originally issued by the Department or in any taxable year of such taxpayer that ended prior to the date of transfer.

6. Neither the verification of conservation value by the Department of Conservation and Recreation nor the issuance of a credit by the Department of Taxation shall in any way be construed or interpreted as prohibiting the Department of Taxation or the Tax Commissioner from auditing any credit claimed pursuant to the provisions of this article or from assessing tax relating to the claiming of any credit under this article.

E. In any review or appeal before the Tax Commissioner or in any court in the Commonwealth the burden of proof shall be on the taxpayer to show that the fair market value and conservation value at the time of the qualified donation is consistent with this section and that all requirements of this article have been satisfied.

§ 58.1-513. Limitations; transfer of credit; gain or loss from tax credit.

A. Any taxpayer claiming a tax credit under this article shall not claim a credit under any similar Virginia law for costs related to the same project. To the extent a credit is taken in accordance with this article, no subtraction allowed for the gain on the sale of (i) land dedicated to open-space use or (ii) an easement dedicated to open-space use under subsection C of § 58.1-322 shall be allowed for three years following the year in which the credit is taken. Any building which serves as the basis, in whole or in part, of a tax credit under this article shall not serve as the basis of the tax credit allowed under § 58.1-339.2 for a period of five years following the donation on which the credit is based; and any building which serves as the basis for the tax credit allowed under § 58.1-339.2 shall not serve as the basis, in whole or in part, for a tax credit under this article for a period of five years following the completion of the rehabilitation project on which the credit is based.

B. Any tax credits that arise under this article from the donation of land or an interest in land made by a pass-through tax entity such as a trust, estate, partnership, limited liability company or partnership, limited partnership, subchapter S corporation or other fiduciary shall be used either by such entity if it is the taxpayer on behalf of such entity or by the member, manager, partner, shareholder or beneficiary, as the case may be, in proportion to their interest in such entity in the event that income, deductions and tax liability pass through such entity to such member, manager, partner, shareholder or beneficiary or as set forth in the agreement of said entity. Such tax credits shall not be claimed by both the entity and the member, manager, partner, shareholder or beneficiary for the same donation.

C. 1. Any taxpayer holding a credit under this article may transfer unused but otherwise allowable credit for use by another taxpayer on Virginia income tax returns. A taxpayer who transfers any amount of credit under this article shall file a notification of such transfer to the Department in accordance with procedures and forms prescribed by the Tax Commissioner.

2. A fee of two 2.5 percent of the value of the donated interest shall be imposed upon any transfer arising from the sale by any taxpayer of credits under this article and upon the distribution of a portion of credits under this article to a member, manager, partner, shareholder or beneficiary pursuant to subsection B. Revenues generated by such fees first shall be used by the Department of Taxation and the Department of Conservation and Recreation for their costs in implementing this article but in no event shall such amount exceed 50 percent of the total revenue generated by the fee on an annual basis. The remainder of such revenues shall be transferred to the Virginia Land Conservation Fund for distribution to the public or private conservation agencies or organizations, excluding federal governmental entities, that are responsible for enforcing the conservation and preservation purposes of the donated interests. Distribution of such revenues shall be made annually by the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation proportionally based on a three-year average of the number of donated interests accepted by the public or private conservation agencies or organizations, excluding federal governmental entities, during the immediately preceding three-year period.

D. To the extent included in and not otherwise subtracted from federal adjusted gross income pursuant to § 58.1-322 or federal taxable income pursuant to § 58.1-402, there shall be subtracted any amount of gain or income recognized by a taxpayer on the application of a tax credit under this article against a Virginia income tax liability.

E. The transfer of the credit and its application against a tax liability shall not create gain or loss for the transferor or the transferee of such credit.

F. A pass-through tax entity, such as a partnership, limited liability company or Subchapter S corporation, may appoint a tax matters representative, who shall be a general partner, member/manager or shareholder, and register that representative with the Tax Commissioner. The Tax Commissioner shall be entitled to deal with the tax matters representative as representative of the taxpayers to whom credits have been allocated or transferred by the entity under this article with respect to those credits. In the event a pass-through tax entity allocates or transfers tax credits arising under this article to its partners, members or shareholders and the allocated or transferred credits shall be disallowed, in whole or in part, such that an assessment of additional tax against a taxpayer shall be made, the Tax Commissioner shall first make written demand for payment of any additional tax, together with interest and penalties, from the tax matters representative. In the event such payment demand is not satisfied, the Tax Commissioner shall proceed to collection against the taxpayers in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18 (§ 58.1-1800 et seq.).

Looking at the above code, I am happy this was vetoed.  It's government taking good land away from ever being sold or used again by anyone other than the government.  That is a very bad deal for everyone.  Even though you are the one's ultimately paying for this government land grab, it works against the people and for the government.  Once it's off the market, it stays off the market forever and can not be used.  Very bad idea.  This is just more theft by your government for the government and against the people and at your expense.  Ya gotta thank these mobsters.  

  So you are wondering why we are now calling Terry McAuliffe a mobster?  That is coming in an article very soon showing his ties to the mob whom he hired to gain his seat in the highest office in Virginia.  And it comes from his good friend, John Podesta. 

McAuliffe Vetoes Senate Bill 1105 Claiming VA Constitution Violations; We Don't See It

The more we research this guy, the more we think he is a dishonest prick lying to the people of Virginia to push his own communist agenda.  His latest move?  He claims to have vetoed Senate Bill 1105, 2017 session, because it violated the Virginia Constitution.  Really Terry?  Can you please show us where?  dId you even read the bill?  Of course you did, and that is why you vetoed it.  It works for rigging elections by vetoing the bill.

  What a dishonest jerk this guy is.  So let's look at the facts.



Governor McAuliffe Vetoes Bill Requiring Investigations into Virginia Voters



Today Governor Terry McAuliffe vetoed Senate Bill 1105, which would require local election officials to investigate Virginia voters without a clear standard for when and how such investigations should be undertaken. The Governor’s full veto statement is below:

February 23, 2017

Pursuant to Article V, Section 6, of the Constitution of Virginia, I veto Senate Bill 1105, which would require local election officials to investigate voters under certain circumstances and provide a report to the State Board of Elections.



By requiring 133 individual general registrars to conduct an investigation of voters under undefined standards, this bill raises serious constitutional questions. It could expose eligible and properly registered Virginians to the risk of improper disenfranchisement.



Further, Senate Bill 1105 would increase the administrative burden on local election officials. Rather than imposing unnecessary investigative requirements on those officials, we should focus attention and resources on the Commonwealth’s proven and efficient methods of list maintenance, which serve as a national model.



Accordingly, I veto this bill.



Sincerely,



Terence R. McAuliffe

The above is a press release from his office.  Now let's look at the actual bill.

SB 1105 Registered voters and persons voting; reports of persons voting at elections.

Introduced by: Mark D. Obenshain | all patrons ... notes | add to my profiles
SUMMARY AS PASSED SENATE: (all summaries)

Reports of registered voters and persons voting at elections. Requires the local electoral boards to direct the general registrars to investigate the list of registered voters whenever the number of registered voters in a county or city exceeds the population of persons age 18 years or older, based on the most recent population estimate of the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service of the University of Virginia. The bill also requires the local electoral boards to direct the general registrars to investigate the list of persons voting at an election whenever the number of persons voting at any election in a county or city exceeds the number of persons registered to vote in that county or city. The Department of Elections is required to provide certain data to any general registrar conducting such an investigation for the registrar's use during the investigation. The local electoral boards are required to make reports of the findings to the State Board. These reports are public documents.

Final document from the Senate:

2017 SESSION ENROLLED 1 VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY –– CHAPTER 2 An Act to amend and reenact § 24.2-404.4 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia 3 by adding sections numbered 24.2-405.1 and 24.2-406.1, relating to investigations and reports of 4 registered voters and persons voting at elections. 5 [S 1105] 6 Approved 7 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 8 1. That § 24.2-404.4 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted and that the Code of 9 Virginia is amended by adding sections numbered 24.2-405.1 and 24.2-406.1 as follows: 10 § 24.2-404.4. Exchange of registered voter lists with other states. 11 A. Pursuant to its authority under subsection A of § 24.2-405 and subsections B and C of § 24.2-406, 12 the Department of Elections shall request voter registration information and lists of persons voting at 13 primaries and elections, if available, from the states bordering the Commonwealth to identify duplicate 14 registrations, voters who no longer reside in the Commonwealth, and other persons who are no longer 15 entitled to be registered in order to maintain the overall accuracy of the voter registration system. 16 B. Pursuant to its authority under subdivision A 10 of § 24.2-404, the Department of Elections shall 17 utilize data regarding voter registration and lists of persons voting at primaries and elections received 18 through list comparisons and data-matching exchanges with other states to identify duplicate 19 registrations, voters who no longer reside in the Commonwealth, and other persons who are no longer 20 entitled to be registered in order to maintain the overall accuracy of the voter registration system. 21 C. The Department shall compare the data received pursuant to subsections A and B with the state 22 voter registration list and initiate list maintenance procedures under applicable state and federal law. The 23 Department shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Privileges and Elections annually on 24 the progress of activities conducted under this section, including the number of duplicate registrations 25 found to exist and the procedures that the Department and general registrars are following to eliminate 26 duplicate registrations from the Virginia registered voter lists. All annual reports required to be filed by 27 the Department shall be governed by the provisions of § 2.2-608. 28 § 24.2-405.1. Registered voters; reports when exceeding age eligible population. 29 Whenever the number of registered voters in a county or city exceeds the population of persons age 30 18 years or older, based on the most recent population estimate of the Weldon Cooper Center for 31 Public Service of the University of Virginia, the local electoral board shall direct the general registrar 32 to investigate the list of registered voters in order to determine the cause of the inflated number of 33 registered voters, including identifying persons who may be improperly registered. The Department of 34 Elections shall provide to any general registrar conducting such an investigation the data received by it 35 pursuant to § 24.2-404.4 regarding voters registered in the registrar's locality, and the general registrar 36 shall use such data during the course of the investigation. 37 The local electoral board shall make a report of the findings to the State Board, and this report 38 shall be a public document. 39 § 24.2-406.1. Persons voting at elections; reports when exceeding number of registered voters. 40 Whenever the number of persons voting at any election in a county or city exceeds the number of 41 persons registered to vote in that county or city, the local electoral board shall direct the general 42 registrar to investigate the list of persons voting at that election in order to determine the cause of the 43 inflated turnout, including identifying persons who may not be eligible to vote. The Department of 44 Elections shall provide to any general registrar conducting such an investigation the data received by it 45 pursuant to § 24.2-404.4 regarding voters registered in the registrar's locality, and the general registrar 46 shall use such data during the course of the investigation. 47 The local electoral board shall make a report of the findings to the State Board, and this report 48 shall be a public document. ENROLLED SB1105ER

Okay Governor, where exactly is the violation to the Virginia Constitution you are claiming?  If you make the claim, you need to back that up with solid legal documentation.  Where is that documentation?  The above proposed laws in my own opinion are too weak.  But they are a step in the right direction.  Wait, I have to remember that you are a democrat and we now all know that democrats are the party of lies these days.  Virginians are not interested in your communist agenda Terry.  We can't wait until you are gone and hopefully in jail.

People of Virginia!! Tell Our Attorney General to Stop Interfering With The Swamp Draining

Call A.G. Mark Herring and Demand He Stop His Lawsuit Against President Trump’s Travel Ban Executive Order.

Here is his number: (804) 786-2071

Draining The Local Government Swamp

Draining The Local Government Swamp

Our new President promised that if he were elected he would drain the federal government swamp and return power to We The People. So far President Trump appears to be living up to his promise, but he cannot do it alone and our federal government is not the only place where the government swamp needs to be drained. Our Commonwealth government (I emphasize “Common”), needs some draining and so does our local government and many other local government’s throughout Virginia.

One of the biggest issues of government overreach in Gloucester County, Virginia is land use zoning. Gloucester has been driven onto the path of the local government telling land owners what they may or may not do with their property. That is not the Gloucester I and many others grew up in. Our local government and elected representatives have passed local laws and adopted policies that require land owners to comply with “their” restrictive zoning requirements. In fact, our current Board of Supervisors has passed local law prohibiting certain styles of buildings because they do not like how they look. Further appalling is the fact that one of our elected Supervisors has publicly stated during a Board of Supervisors meeting that he believes they sometimes need to tell land owners what they may or may not do with their property. In my opinion Gloucester County “is” the definition of United Nations Agenda 21 micro-zoning.

Several years ago our local government began to implement what they refer to as the “Village Plans”. These plans constrict growth within the Hayes/Gloucester Point and Courthouse areas. They want retail and other business, medium to high density housing and other such growth restricted primarily to these areas and are making a concerted effort to develop every space possible. 

Recently our Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning request so a developer can build an apartment complex next to the York River Crossing Shopping Center. This complex will contain around 120 apartment units and will share parking with the shopping center. The apartments will also share the existing entrances to the shopping center, as there are no plans to construct additional entrances. In this instance our local government made exceptions to their zoning restrictions in order to accommodate the developer even though, People spoke against the apartments at the Public Hearing and there will be traffic and other impacts that will negatively affect a significant number of us. Yet, they would not approve a small developers request for an exception to their zoning rules so he could build a single duplex apartment unit in a Courthouse area neighborhood.

About three years ago our local government approved a developers request to rezone land behind the American Legion Hall so they can build around 260 apartment units. This land is well outside of their Village Plan development area, but the rezoning request was still approved. Recently a developer requested our local government to rezone five and half acres of land so he can build five, four unit, apartment buildings; for a total of 20 apartments. This developers rezoning request was denied.

Recently a Gloucester land owner spoke publicly at a Board of Supervisor meeting about his dismay at not being able to rent out a house located along Route 17 because the house had not been occupied for two years or more. As it turns out, some years ago our local government implemented a local law that rezones residential property within the Development District to commercial property if the residence remains uninhabited for two years or more.

Our local government would like us to think they are taking steps to accommodate growth in Gloucester, when in reality they are just hand selecting what they want to see in Gloucester and continuing to follow the United Nations micro-zoning path created by their predecessors back in the 90’s. I believe the village plans and other constrictive zoning and zoning associated laws and policies should be scrapped. I believe land owners should be given their property rights back. If it does not pertain to health, safety or security, our local government should refrain from interfering in what landowners do with their land. Getting rid of micro-zoning practices will save a lot of tax dollars and will also generate additional revenue from growth.

Do you agree or disagree?

Comments about articles and submissions for publication on GVLN may be emailed to: Kennysr61@gmail.com

Let your voice be heard on any topic pertaining to our community.

We will publish many opinions the newspapers will not.

Kenny Hogge, Sr.

Gloucester Point, Virginia

Kennysr61@gmail.com