Schilling Show Exclusive: Click to play Part of the 99 as sung by Ms. Murray’s 3^rd grade class

Initially, after becoming embroiled in a national school-indoctrination scandal, KPA along with Albemarle County School Administration insisted that the children in Ms. Murray’s third-grade classroom at Woodbrook Elementary wrote all of the lyrics to the controversial song themselves.

Phrases like, “Then the bubble burst” and “Though I lost my yacht and plane” raised suspicions that such lines likely were beyond the intellectual purview of contemporary eight-year-olds enrolled in a government school.

Still, in a January 3 Daily Progress story on the controversy, the group’s Executive Director, Pat Rogers said that KPA’s “sole mission has been and continues to be to inspire and empower children to work together to become creators of their own music.” [emphasis added]

Rogers also denied any political influence of children by KPA facilitators:

“Kid Pan Alley does not promote nor condone any personal or political agenda.”

In the same article, Albemarle County Schools’ spokesman Phil Giaramita stood by the apolitical claims of KPA:

“There’s no question in my mind that [Kid Pan Alley is] firmly committed to teaching kids, and they are not interested in a political agenda.”

The paper’s story continues with supportive remarks from Albemarle County School Board chair, Steve Koleszar, who confirmed his belief that the lyrics in dispute were, in fact, the sole composition of Woodbrook third graders:

“Sometimes, when kids are writing things, they say things that are controversial. I don’t think we need to be censoring what the kids are writing.”

And, in a January 3 Schilling Show debate with J. Christian Adams, Koleszar doubled down on his authorship claims:

“You have underestimate the breadth and knowledge of experience that children have these days when they have cable TV, uh, when they listen to the news, they are up on current events, you underestimate what our kids can do.” [sic]

Today’s KPA press release tells a different story.

In the dispatch, KPA’s Founder and Artistic Director, Paul Reisler, “takes full responsibility for the songwriting process that resulted in the song titled ‘Part of the 99.’”

The release confirms Reisler’s political and lyrical contributions to the song:

“Reisler acknowledges that he should have avoided the introduction of these phrases into the songwriting process.” [emphasis added]

And, KPA’s claim to be a politically unbiased organization has been debunked by newsbusters.org, who detail the left leaning politics of several “Alley” board members and leaders.

Aside from Koleszar, the majority of the board has been strangely silent on the Kid Pan Alley controversy, with the exception of newly elected Jason Buyaki, who during the Schilling Show debate called in to express his concern over the situation.

It remains to be seen when or if Albemarle County Schools’ administration will issue a statement acknowledging the falsehoods promulgated in previous communications regarding Kid Pan Alley vis a vis the charges of student indoctrination and songwriting process manipulation.

Read full transcription of lyrics from Kid Pan Alley’s “Part of the 99”

Some people have it all,
but they still don’t think that they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied
Yes-  they are the 1 percent

I used to be one of the 1 percent
I worked all the time
Never saw my family
Couldn’t make life rhyme
Then the bubble burst
It really, really hurt
I lost my money
I Lost my pride
I Lost my home
Now I’m part of the 99

Some people have it all,
but they still don’t think that they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied
Yes-  they are the 1 percentI used to be sad now I’m satisfied
Cause I really have enough
Though I lost my yacht and plane
Didn’t need that extra stuff
Could have been much worse
You don’t need to be first
I’ve got my friends
Here by my side
I don’t need it all
I’m happy to be part of the 99.

Some people have it all,
but they still don’t think that they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied
Yes-  they are the 1 percent
They’re the 1 percent
They’re the 1 percent

Herein lies a musical tribute (audio posted below) to four timid office-seekers, advised by Party bosses not to appear on The Schilling Show—with apologies to Dion DiMucci…

Listen to The Schilling Show Singers performing McIntosh, Galvin and Paul:

McIntosh, Galvin and Paul

Anybody here seen my old friend Peter McIntosh?
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
He sued a lot of people
In the Charlottesville court house
But invite him on the Schilling Show and he’s gone

Has anybody here seen my old friend Kathy Galvin?
Can you tell me where she’s gone?
She spent a lot of money
On the Charlottesville School Board
But invite her on the Schilling Show and she’s gone

Anybody here seen my old friend Paul Beyer?
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
He built a lot of houses
In that old Charlottesville
But invite him on the Schilling Show and he’s gone

Did you love anything they stood for?
Didn’t they try to buy some votes from you and me?
But they’re not free
Some day soon, maybe on the Schilling Show…

Anybody here seen my old friend Huja?
We he ever take my call?
He’s tricked a lot of people in old Charlottesville
With McIntosh, Galvin and Paul

In the first part of its June 8 work session, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (BOS) heard reports and comments from Staff and County Executive Thomas Foley. The BOS then followed by asking questions and, on a few occasions, TJPDC Executive Director Stephen Williams rose to offer answers. The BOS asked for clarification regarding the status of the 1998 Sustainability Accords—specifically, its relation to the HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant application and the Livable Communities Planning Project. In his answer, Mr. Williams called the Accords merely a “historic document” (echoing a phrase previously coined by Supervisor Dennis Rooker), and added that the Accords was submitted to HUD only as an “advisory” piece. I interpreted this statement to imply that, in current function and relevance, the Accords was an antiquated document bearing little to no consequence on current or future comprehensive plans.

I disagreed with this characterization because it is incongruous with the documentation of the grant application posted on the “Many Plans, One Community” web site (the informational hub for the Livable Communities Planning Project operated by the TJPDC itself). There, the Accords are NOT simply a “historic document” but identified on the first page of the application in the Application Abstract as follows:

“The existing Regional Plan for Sustainable Development in the Charlottesville/Albemarle metro area is the Sustainability Accords.” (http://1-community.org/PDF/application/1-Applicant%20Abstract.pdf)

The existing Regional Plan IS the Sustainability Accords.

Furthermore, as reported in an article written by Sean Tubbs in the November 24, 2010 edition of Charlottesville Tomorrow:

“Stephen Williams, the TJPDC’s executive director, said the money will be used to implement the Sustainability Accords which were developed by the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council and signed by regional governments in 1998.” (http://cvilletomorrow.typepad.com/charlottesville_tomorrow_/2010/11/mpo-november2010.html)

Stephen Williams said the money will be used to implement the Sustainability Accords.

So during the first break, I walked up to Mr. Williams in a cordial manner and extended my hand to shake his while introducing myself. We exchanged pleasantries—I told him I regretted not meeting him in person until now, and that I had heard him speak at a few of the BOS meetings I attended in the last few months. He acknowledged seeing me and listening to me there as well.

Then I proceeded to tell him what prompted me to approach him was the characterization of the Accords he gave to the BOS. I explained how the Accords is not just an “historic document” because it was clearly presented to HUD in the grant application as the existing plan…that the Accords along with the Charlottesville Regional Sustainability Implementation Plan (which employs ICLEI’s “Five Milestone Process”) were the foundational documents submitted to HUD as criteria to be judged in consideration for the grant request…and that HUD has every reason to expect that its $999,000.00 grant will be spent by the consortium to build upon and implement what was depicted in the foundational documents.

I said that many of the Jefferson Area Tea Party’s concerns for the Livable Communities Planning Project are rooted in the language in the Accords—especially regarding, but not limited to, human population—and what it commits our community to implementing per HUD’s expectations. In conclusion, I asked that if I prompted his recollection of the description of the Accords as the existing plan in the Application Abstract, would he please amend his previous statement to the BOS about its status after the break.

At this point, he conceded that I may be correct about the status of the Accords as stated in the Application Abstract (as referenced in the first sentence of the audio file transcript below)—but then he abruptly switched his argument in an effort to trump my contention by other means.

[Unbeknownst to me, a recording device belonging to a WCHV radio reporter picked up the next part of our conversation (see below for full audio clip). The following is a transcript of that audio file.  Italics and underlines are added in an effort to depict vocal emphasis]:

Williams: ….that may also be true, Ms. Thorpe.

Thorpe: Good.

Williams: But there is no legal standing for a Sustainability Plan because there is no legal requirement for one.

Thorpe: Perhaps not, sir,

Thorpe: but when you submitted that to the Federal government

Williams: It is simply advisory to these folks…

Thorpe: and said this is our current plan, this is what we want to implement or build on -

Williams: …advisory document

Thorpe:—that’s what you said to the Federal government.

Williams: …advisory document, Ms. Thorpe

Thorpe: Well, that’s your interpretation.

Williams: …advisory document only, it’s not my interpretation, that’s the LAW.

Thorpe: I know word for word what TG (a “G” that I incorrectly spoke for a “J” in TJPDC as I became flustered by his tone)—

Williams: I’m sorry that you don’t understand the law, Ms. Thorpe,

Thorpe: I’m reading the document that’s on your web site, sir.

Williams: and that’s been demonstrated on a number of the other things you’ve said (then unintelligible)

Thorpe: Well, I’m—no, I’m, I’m speaking about one specific item. It says it on your web site—that was sent to HUD. Folks, “this document is our current plan”, so HUD looks at it and says this is the current plan—very good, I guess this is what you’re wanting money to implement and build on…that’s why they, that’s why they’re cutting the million dollar check. Anyway…

Williams: No, I’m afraid that’s not true.

Thorpe: No, I’m afraid it is. I’m afraid it is. We can agree to disagree -

Williams: I’m afraid that’s YOUR interpretation, Ms. Thorpe

Thorpe: We can agree to disagree, and I’m looking at the documentation on your web site.

Williams: — and I’ve got to say, I understand this quite a bit better than you do.

Thorpe: Oh, really?

Williams: Yes.

Thorpe: Very good. Then why is it you said that ICLEI, you didn’t know anything about ICLEI, and yet this six—you know, these ”Products”—have you compared it to the “Five Milestone Plan” in ICLEI, sir?

Williams: Ah, you know, I looked at the “Five Milestones”

Thorpe: You don’t know where the language comes from, you don’t even know what you’re talking about, you don’t know where the language comes from. You keep (saying) – ICLEI never went to TJPDC

Williams: No.

Thorpe: But it’s language -

Williams: No.

Thorpe:—and the implementation of it’s “Five Milestone Process” is in the County document which has seeped into your grant application.

Williams: You know why that is, Ms. Thorpe? Because those are basic planning principles, any grad student in planning at any school from the country could tell you that stuff, that’s in the basic curriculum.

Thorpe: You can — sir, you can speak, you can try to demean and speak that way if you like. All I can tell you is what I see

Williams: Ms. Thorpe…

Thorpe: on your web site, what’s in those documents.

Williams: You…

[End of audio file]

Unfortunately, the audio file ends here because the WCHV reporter took the recording device away for the impending resumption of the meeting. During this exchange, Mr. Williams stepped in toward me, stood intrusively close (I estimate there were no more than eight inches of space between our torsos), and used his significant height advantage to bend over the top of me then lower his face only four or five inches from mine, positioning us nose to nose.

By anyone’s definition of physically “getting in one’s face”, that’s exactly what he did. It made me, as it would make anyone, extremely uncomfortable. But I held my ground there for quite a while, not wanting to concede to him the satisfaction of intimidating me.

However, as he continued speaking I eventually lifted my right hand up in between our faces with my palm facing (but not touching) him. I looked into his eyes over the tops of my fingertips and when he finished speaking, I told him he was making me uncomfortable and invading my personal space. I asked him to please step back, but he didn’t budge from his position and asked “Why?” in an intense, snide tone. I told him again he was invading my space and I asked him a second time to please step back. Mockingly, he said, ”Why should I do that? I like talking to you this way!” To break the physical stalemate, I took a big step backward then we resumed verbal sparring about the Accords as we backed away from each other towards our seats.

When I returned to my seat, I told some of the people sitting around me about the unprovoked, physical imposition I had just received from Mr. Williams. I then quieted down as the meeting resumed. During the next break, I told Supervisor Ken Boyd about the incident—and I was also prompted by one of my friends to tell it to Supervisor Rodney Thomas when he came over to speak to a group of us at the end of the meeting.

After 9:00 a.m. the next morning (Thursday), I received an e-mail from a member of the JATP steering committee who had left the meeting shortly following the end of the first break. She wrote to tell me her attention was drawn to Mr. Williams’ confrontation of me and she walked over to stand behind me about halfway through the incident and witnessed it from then to the end. While the confrontation was going on, I didn’t realize anyone I knew had come over to observe because in the heat of the moment, the only thing that had my attention was his face in mine. Later that afternoon, I called her to elaborate on what she witnessed without my input and she recounted the incident to me just as it happened.

Also early that morning, Rob Schilling called me in response to a mass E-mail I sent out a few hours earlier announcing the JATP victory in getting ICLEI kicked out of Albemarle County. He wanted more information about the meeting, knowing that I stated in my letter I had stayed there from beginning to end. Among everything else, I told him what happened with Mr. Williams. Rob offered to contact him to ask for his side of the story with an invitation to appear on his radio show with or without me to discuss it. I told Rob that I did not object to his inquiry.

Roughly an hour later, Rob advised me that Mr. Williams wrote him to deny my allegations. By doing so, Mr. Williams unfairly impugned my integrity by suggesting I was a liar. And as someone who is honest and has demonstrated her seriousness for responsible leadership of the JATP, I decided was not going to allow him to do this without my response.

On Friday, I proceeded to report this incident to the TJPDC Planning Commission Board. I left phone messages with Supervisors Ann Mallek and Dennis Rooker to call me because I could not locate contact information for the Chairman of the Board (they are both the BOS representatives on the Planning Commission Board). Supervisor Rooker called me back first and I told him what happened. He gave me the name and phone number of the TJPDC Board Chairman, with whom I spoke later that evening.

So why should all of this matter to anyone?

Of course, this incident is yet another example of the rude behavior displayed by Sustainability advocates towards Sustainability opponents at the BOS work session as I described in Part I of my Guest Editorial. And in honesty, I want to defend my honor and get the apology from Mr. Williams that I feel I deserve. But it is about substantially more than this. Mr. Williams’ position and responsibility as a public official elevates this incident to being one of potential interest and concern to the public and the TJPDC.

After consideration, I decided that both should be made aware of the disturbing behavior I experienced from Mr. Williams. I know that he does not have a positive opinion of me and the JATP because he told me so. We are a source of frustration for him because our continuing opposition to the Livable Communities Planning Project has not made his job any easier. That is understandable.

But during his disagreement with me, Mr. Williams went well beyond the standard voice raising and benign changes in posture (such as hands placed on hip or pointed fingers) that usually occurs when two people are engaged in a dispute. In my opinion, he grossly crossed the line of typical response when he deliberately and menacingly imposed his physical stature in a posture intended to demean, intimidate, and bully a woman. This is reprehensible and inexcusable behavior, which not only oversteps the bounds of civil discourse and common courtesy, but unforgivably breaches the professionalism we should all expect from a public official. While Mr. Williams may not have liked the information I brought to discuss with him, I brought it to him in a respectful manner and I did nothing to instigate nor merit what I consider his unconscionable treatment of me.

I am completely confident in my interpretation of his actions and his intent behind them. I cannot abide a bully and I believe the best way to discourage bullying behavior is to confront it and seek proper punishment for the offender. It is my intention to file a formal complaint with the Planning District Commission and bring this matter before the TJPDC at their next Board meeting in August. I will be seeking a public apology from Mr. Williams and ask the Planning Commission Board to take disciplinary action against Mr. Williams commensurate with the seriousness of his actions.

Listen to Carole Thorpe’s interaction with TJPDC Executive Director, Stephen Williams:

Kaine’s impromptu announcement, independently confirmed to Delany by two witnessing students, caused an Internet storm after the news was tweeted by political scientist, Larry Sabato.

Shortly after Delany’s initial call to The Schilling Show, in a broad media release the Democratic National Committee felt compelled to quash the “rumor” by characterizing Kaine as having said he’s “increasingly likely” to run:

“In response to a student’s question, Governor Kaine told his law school class today what is already widely known which is that he is increasingly likely to run. However, no final decision will be made or announced until the governor has had a final round of consultations with folks about how he can best serve the President, the people and the causes he cares about; he is assured that the Democratic Party will be in good hands should he choose to make the race and leave the DNC; he has the support that would be necessary to mount a successful campaign and he completes commitments for travel and fundraising he has made to the Party and the President through at least the end of the month.”

A Tuesday follow up call to The Schilling Show (audio below) confirmed the original story. Delany reiterated that Governor Kaine had responded to a student’s question on whether Kaine would run for the open Senate seat, and Kaine’s answer was definitive: “I’m going to give it a shot.”

Delany provided additional detail in the Tuesday call, stating Kaine told the small group of students who had gathered after class that he was going to announce his candidacy upon return from an impending trip to China.

Hear Gray Delany’s follow up call to The Schilling Show:

Dr. Helmbrecht appeared on WINA’s The Schilling Show approximately 19 times beginning in 2009, sharing his passion for constitutional government and his concern for the future of his profession. On December 22, 2010 Gary made his final visit to The Schilling Show, this time representing “Worth Your Wait,” encouraging abstinence as a healthy lifestyle choice for young people.

Donations in memory of Dr. Gary Helmbrecht may be made to:

Wesley T. Helmbrecht RTS Foundation
430 Foxdale Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22903

Listen to Rob Schilling’s on-air remembrance of Dr. Gary Helmbrecht:

Writer, Ray Reed, portrays Perriello as a loyal and steadfast foot soldier, marching in lock step with the Obama-Pelosi agenda:

Perriello, unlike at least three congressional Democrats in Virginia, refuses to break ranks with President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The writer goes on to describe Perriello’s “unflinching” appearance at a recent taxpayer funded town hall (campaign) event:

As a freshman congressman seeking re-election, Perriello faced both friendly and unfriendly voters in a town-hall meeting Monday that couldn’t officially be called a campaign event.

He talked unflinchingly for an hour and a half about health care, cap-and-trade, and his votes for them, and other issues supported by Democratic leaders in Washington.

Two-Faced Tom, confronted by a concerned supporter of the National (Periello-Pelosi-Obama) Democrat agenda, refused to deny his President:

When a woman asked Perriello at the Bedford town hall meeting whether his attack ads suggested he was abandoning his record and his base of support, the candidate didn’t back off.

Recent national media accounts have suggested that the Democrat establishment was preparing to throw Tom Perriello under the campaign bus, declaring his flailing re-election campaign a lost cause, but in Reed’s story, a Democrat party-boss refutes that allegation:

On Wednesday, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said, “Republican operatives want you to believe that Democratic congressional leaders have abandoned Tom Perriello. Nothing could be further from the truth.

“As head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, I’m here to tell you that we support Tom now more than ever,” Van Hollen said after House Democrats held their weekly meeting on Wednesday.

Van Hollen may well speak the truth, but both he and Ray Reed seem to have missed “Two-Faced Tom’s” remarkable ability to change colors depending on his surroundings. The boy congressman is a deceptively adept political chameleon, and in broad public venues, he’s running away from his Democrat “team” faster than Lot fled the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

In his first major radio campaign of this election cycle, Perriello has saturated the airwaves with a commercial (listen below) emphasizing Tom’s “independence” from the “Pelosi-Obama” agenda:

(Actor 1) So I was watching’ the news, and they were talking about congressmen who vote like independents.

(Actor 2) Really.

(Actor 1) And Tom Perriello’s name came up.

(Actor 2) Tom Perriello. What’s he ever done but vote in lock step with Obama and Pelosi?

The ad continues by referencing instances of minor (and ultimately inconsequential) votes taken by Perriello, which purport to show his independence from Pelosi’s tight leash.

But which of Two-faced Tom’s two faces is the real face of Tom Perriello?

• The independent Tom Perriello, who boldly has defied his party on many issues? or;
• The Pelosi lap-dog Tom Perriello, who proudly has voted time and again for his party and against the people—and will continue to do so if re-elected?

Conspicuously absent from the “independence” radio spot are two of Perriello’s most devastating, party-line “yes” votes—Cap and Trade, and Socialized Health Care—both of which provoked vociferous scorn from Perriello’s fifth district constituents, who overwhelmingly oppose the Marxist-themed legislation their “representative” supports.

Yet, in Reed’s story Perriello made a final vow to defend his highly unpopular “health care” vote in an upcoming television-advertising blitz:

Perriello promised that future TV ads would talk about positive aspects of the health care bill, which he said would preserve Medicare until 2030.

Confused yet? Well, don’t be.

In the end, as we weigh the evidence in favor of and against believing either of Two-faced Tom’s two contrasting faces, we are left without resolution as to where this Congressman stands, based on his statements.

But his actions are clear. Perriello’s robotic allegiance to the Pelosi-Obama machine and their catastrophic collectivist agenda is undisputed truth.

And in spite of his duplicitous wavering, what we can surmise is that Two-faced Tom Perriello is a mendacious, equivocal, untrustworthy and soulless politician who consistently betrays his constituents with a loving embrace followed by a quick, vicious stab in the back.

Beware!

Listen to Perriello’s cunningly contradictory radio ad:

While the anti-Clark invective was not itself recorded by The Schilling Show, it was witnessed potentially by up to 19 other people, as shown in the accompanying screen shot. The web site capture (see above) portrays Perriello’s panicked mystery-minion with the words, “20 viewers / On Air” evidenced below the live Internet stream picture.

In this Schilling Show exclusive audio recording, the bumbling blonde hireling is heard asking “Am I live-streaming on our web site?” And upon realization that her untoward comments had just been broadcast, she hysterically giggles, “Oh my god, I’m going to get fired now.”

An off-camera male accomplice first tries to assure his frantic friend that the camera was not “live,” and then both realize that they were potentially “caught on tape” in a “Macaca Moment!”

Hear The Schilling Show’s exclusive audio of two young Perriello-Marxists caught in a bind:

A mash-up of three different versions of “Takin’ it to the Streets” (Take 6, The Doobie Brothers, Quincy Jones), the show theme features WINA station callers and in-studio guests making humorous remarks over the song’s main lyric. One person, at least, did not find levity in the re-mix.

Exclusively online, hear the banned intro theme of the host who remains a “light in the darkness,” despite attempts to portray him otherwise.

Listeners may be frustrated by Tom’s elusiveness: using “stick and move” to avoid directly answering questions is a hallmark tactic of Congressman Perriello.

Despite the Congressman’s attempts to sidestep substance, though, the conversation was illuminating in myriad ways, most specifically as to the underlying Marxist principles by which Perriello  justifies his support of socialized medicine.

Is Tom down for the count? Was he saved by the bell? Read and/or listen to the interview, and then you score the round!

Click to listen to the interview via podcast:

Read the complete transcript:

Transcript of the Schilling Show interview with Tom Perriello and Michael Del Rosso:

Rob: [Music plays] Welcome.  Fellow citizens of the world, welcome to The Schilling Show, where the news is made.  And today is a news-making day, as in just a few moments, we will welcome back to the show after about an 18-month absence, the Congressman Tom Perriello along with Michael Del Rosso, talking about the healthcare bill today.  And I’m very, very pleased to have the listening audience that we do.  I know there are people tuning in from all over the place who have been anticipating this conversation.  So thank you so much.  We will begin in just a moment.

[00:00:41]

We have Michael Bisceglia holding it down for us today in master control and fielding your phone calls, and we’ve got a lot to talk about.  977-1070 is the phone number.  Let’s dispense with the formalities because we do have so much to say, and we’re going to set up kind of, I guess, in advance just a little bit of ground rules and an introduction to what we’re gonna talk about because we have such a limited amount of time with Congressman Perriello.

[00:01:10]

So let’s start out by saying that we wanna talk about the healthcare reform bill, its effect on the economy, where we go from here.  There have been so many questions about the Constitutionality of the bill.  And I think, really, that we’re at a crossroads in America right now, and our guests may agree or disagree with the statement, but I think both the Republicans and the Democrat administrations in the past have brought us to this place.

[00:01:29]

And we have to ask the question are we gonna become, I guess, what you would call a full blow European-style socialist state, or are we gonna return to limited government.  I don’t think this central ground is where we can stand for a long time.  And so, before we get started – because I know these terms are gonna come up in the conversation – I wanted to throw some definitions out there as well as we talk about socialism and communism because these words have been used in conjunction with people who disagree with the healthcare bill that was passed and are concerned about the ramifications of it.

[00:02:03]

Others may not agree with it at all, but I would like to put the definitions out for socialism and communism, just so we have a common ground of understanding.  The, uh, Merriam Webster Dictionary defines socialism as, “Any, uh, various economic and political theories advocating collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”  And a socialist is, “One who advocates the practices of socialism.”

[00:02:30]

All right.  Let’s talk about communism because some people have certainly said that’s where we’re headed.  And that is, uh, defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as, “A system of social organization in which goods are held in common, the opposite of a system of private property and a communalism, any theory or system of social organization involving common ownership of agents, of production, of industry.”  So I think those are important things.

[00:02:55]

And then, finally, because I know that we’ve been talking about this in our, um, American Principles 101 course that we’ve been doing over the past few weeks around The Schilling Show to kind of draw a contrast here, and then, we’re gonna open the conversation up.

[00:03:07]

The Declaration of Independence defines American Principles as a political philosophy where, number one, everyone is created equal.  Remember that we’re created equal and free, that we don’t need government to grant us rights because all of our rights come from the creator.  That would be God.  And they are inalienable rights.  That the, uh, sole purpose of governments are to secure the God-given rights and governments are deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

[00:03:34]

Now, we’re going to welcome to the program, uh, Congressman Tom Perriello.  Thanks so much for joining us today on The Schilling Show.

Tom: Hi.  Thanks.  It’s good to be back.

Rob: Well, it’s good to have you here, and you’re welcome here any time.  And I hope we can do this again and again in the coming months.  And Michael Del Rosso, thank you for joining us.

Michael: Hi, Rob.  Hi, Tom.

Tom: Hey.  How you doing, Mike?

Michael: Good.

Rob: So anyway, I would like to – because we have such a limited amount of time, I would like to see if we could keep our – our responses from all of us, from my questions, so the responses of Michael and Congressman Perriello to about a minute or so so that we can move quickly through this.

[00:04:04]

And uh, I would appreciate if we could work towards that very much.  And so, let’s just start out by talking about this – this concept of the town hall meetings.  And Tom, you have received a lot of praise, and I think rightfully so, for having the town hall meetings.  You held, I believe, 21 of them.  I was in attendance at two or three.  And uh, you talked to a lot of people.  And I know you heard a lot of opinions, and perhaps most of the opinions, at least at the town halls that I appeared at were opposed to the healthcare legislation.

[00:04:33]

But you stepped forward and voted for it anyway, so I wanted you to talk about that for a minute, about voting – I don’t know if you would agree that you voted against the will of your own constituents, and uh, why it was that you voted that way?

Tom: Well, I’ll try to do that in your 60-second, uh, guidelines.

Rob: Okay.

Tom: Um, first of all, I think the town hall meeting has a – a tremendous history in the United States, and – and one that is, uh, part of the civic republicanism at the core, um, of how this country got started.

[00:05:05]

But we also have a lot of technology now that we didn’t have then to be able to do, for example, uh, tele-town hall meetings to be able to communicate with people online and hear their opinions in all sorts of ways.  Um, and so, you know, for me over the period of many months and talking to thousands of constituents, I did hear the full range of opinions, and those opinions fluctuated with time.  And I think my responsibility, primarily, is to listen, um, to everybody and every opinion and then make the best judgment I can about what’s – uh, what’s right for my district and then go out and explain it.

[00:05:35]

Rob: So I – I just wanna see if your – if you think what a lot of people have expressed on this show and – and certainly, you weren’t here to hear them, so I’ll ask the – the question that they’ve asked was did you vote against the majority will of the 5^th district citizens in – in, uh, voting for this healthcare bill?

Tom: No.  I think it depends how you ask the question, and you know that that’s, uh – and when you ask the question.  Certainly, when you pass – when we passed the House bill, for example, I think the, uh, the support for the bill was stronger.

[00:06:02]

Um, but it’s also something where when you actually talk about what’s in the bill, people like that overwhelmingly in the district.  I think it’s also a matter of understanding what some of the particular challenges in areas like central and southern Virginia are and why some of these reforms are even more urgently needed, uh, in those areas.  Um, so I don’t think that there – you know, it’s easy to take a snapshot at any one moment and say what the majority says.  What the majority said was they don’t like insurance companies being able to kick them off the insurance when they get sick.

[00:06:30]

They don’t like the idea of government-run healthcare.  So there’s no public option.  There’s no government-run option, uh, in the plan, which was something people wanted.  There is, uh – uh health insurance accountability in the plan, which people wanted.  So I think, uh, you know, if you just ask the question, um, you know, it really depends a lot on how you ask it.  If you get into, hey, are these the things the people of the 5^th District wanted, then I think in – in a very real way, they were.

Rob: Michael Del Rosso, do you share, uh, Tom’s opinion in – in how he’s looking at this?  Because I know you’ve had some concerns that this vote did not represent the 5^th District.

[00:07:00]

Michael: Well, he – he said it’s important when you ask the question.  Well, there was a CNN poll taken over three days, the last of which was the day Obamacare passed the House, courtesy of Tom’s vote.  And they found that 59 percent of those surveyed opposed the bill and only 39 percent favored it.  So almost two-thirds – if that’s a sampling, I would think, represents our district as well – opposed the legislation, but the vote for it was a very brave vote but against such opposition.  So it’s – it’s a matter of was Tom being brave defending the will of our constituents or is he being brave in defying them?

[00:07:32]

Because what I really wanna know is, uh, why does he and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and everyone think they know better than each of us of what’s best for us?  And why doesn’t every American have the right to be left alone by government so that we can go take care of our own health?  85 percent of Americans have health insurance.  The large majority are happy with it.  Uh, there – there’s surely better ways than a 2,300-page bill to cover 15 percent of Americans.  And by the way, the things that are wrong with healthcare are further intrusions of government federal law that shouldn’t even be on the books.

[00:08:03]

Rob: So Tom, do you think that, uh, that Michael Del Rosso has a point here and that, uh, people know better for themselves what’s good for themselves than government does?

Tom: Well, I think that, uh, generally speaking, yes.  And I think in this bill what people said was when you pay your hard earned dollars to your insurance company, um, so that you’ll be covered when something horrible happens to your family, and then, when that happens, they kick you off your insurance, I think people overwhelmingly, uh, object to that.

[00:08:32]

I mean, what – the – the principle behind this bill is actually not one based on government takeover.  I know Heritage is trying to distance itself from it, but it’s a basic deal from a conservative think tank that says we think individuals have to take some personal responsibility, and in exchange, we’re gonna make sure that insurance companies follow basic standards of decency, accountability, and competition.  And I think when you get into that level of it, it’s – it’s, uh – um, you know, that – that – that’s the deal that was, uh, there for – for the American people.

[00:09:00]

Rob: Michael Del Rosso?

Michael: Well, you know, insurance companies are – are, uh, state chartered organizations.  And in fact, if there wasn’t, uh – uh regulations that prevent, uh – uh – insurance companies from operating across states, we could have what the founders envisioned, which was an experiment amongst the several states where we get to choose the states we like best.  So rather than 2,300 pages of legislation to have actually, um – uh – uh – uh remove the impediments to let – to let, uh, states that wanna give, uh, free reign to, uh, free market solutions of insurance that don’t mandate, uh – uh everything under the sun have to be incorporated in a policy.

[00:09:37]

A lot of policies are, uh, unaffordable because they have things that people don’t need.  They don’t want drug health – they don’t want mental health insurance.  They don’t want abortion.  But they do want to be covered if they have a catastrophic cancer or something.  And – and uh more and more government intrusion prevents that from happening, so you know, I – I have a couple of questions for – for Tom.  I mean, is it possible for you to pass a Constitutional law to require me to buy a General Motors automobile?

[00:10:00]

And if – if not, then how is it possible for you to pass a Constitutional law to require me to buy healthcare?  The last I saw, refusing to buy something can’t possibly be interstate commerce, so explain yourself, please.

Tom: Is that going for you, Rob?  Or is that coming back to me?

[Crosstalk]

Rob: Yeah.  No.  Go right ahead, Tom.

Tom: All right.  Um, a few things on that.  I mean, and first of all, I think, you know, I’ve tried to work, uh, up here across the aisle on the idea of buying across state lines.  And um, you know, the Republicans really didn’t wanna do it in any way other than [inaudible] at the bottom, which I think is not the right solution.

[00:10:30]

I think what we were trying to create was a more competitive market, including, uh, across state lines in terms of where it could go from there.  And I think in terms of looking at the system right now, small businesses pay 18 percent more than big businesses for the exact same product, um, individuals – individual contractors, etc., out there trying to buy in the open market.  So the basic principle here was that this system has worked for big companies that have a lot of employees, um, but it’s really been at the expense of small business.

[00:10:58]

It’s also been something where people who have private insurance, the people who are happy with their relationship with their doctor, are paying $1,500.00 or more extra every year, uh, to cover the hidden cost of the uninsured.  And what we’re actually saying, ironically, is that people should be taking more responsibility for that instead of dumping it on the people, uh, that have private insurance.  So I actually think, you know, even within the context of what you’re saying, um, we’re – we’re moving to a system that – that, uh, that isn’t just a balloon where you squeeze here and it goes over there, but tries to get people into the system so that we can actually have folks, uh – um in a system that makes sense.

[00:11:32]

You know, particularly, again in – in areas like my district, where many of our hospitals have a disproportionately high level of the uninsured, that means the rates have to go up and up more on the smaller percent that do have insurance.  And I think we’ve just pushed too hard on those middle class families and small businesses that have been doing right and playing by the rules so far.

Rob: So I think, though, that we – we kind missed the point of the question was can the government mandate us to buy a car from General Motors?  And how do you differentiate a – a health insurance mandate from any other sort of mandate?

[00:12:01]

Tom: Well, uh, I mean, it’s – it’s not a mandate.  It’s an option.  Right?  You can either get insurance or you can pay, uh, some of the costs that you impose by not having insurance.  And both are those well – are well within, you know, the constructs of what, uh, has happened before.  We mandate Social Security and Medicare, flood insurance and other things.  Um, and you know, the fact is that, um, my freedom to move my fist ends at the tip of your nose.  And there – there are costs imposed by – by not having insurance and you can choose to keep not having insurance, but uh, there is gonna be some, uh – uh [inaudible] to contribute for the costs that that imposes.

[00:12:34]

Rob: Michael Del Rosso?

Michael: Uh, that’s an absurd concept.  I don’t oppose any costs by not having insurance.  In fact, you know, I’ve run large corporations where we [inaudible] –

[Crosstalk]

Tom: That’s just not true, Michael.

Michael: It is true.  The reason why a hospital has to pay some, you know, indigent person or illegal alien’s, uh, emergency, uh, bill, is because you have a federal law on the books that makes it illegal for them not to cover them.  And once you have a law – again, government forcing a private entity to do something against their will, taking wealth or service from someone –

[00:13:01] [Crosstalk]

Tom: That can happen through you or your company going bankrupt either, Mike.

[Crosstalk]

Michael: [Inaudible]

Tom: I mean, you know – you – you can’t –

Michael: No, no, no, no, no.

[Crosstalk]

Tom: I mean, it’s all well and good when you’re healthy, but when you incur a cost that adds millions and millions of dollars –

[Crosstalk]

Michael: The law – the reason why – the reason why you have these – these billions of dollars [inaudible] – hey, I’d like to finish, Tom.  Hang on.

Tom: Sorry.

Michael: The reason why there’s billions of dollars of – of uncompensated health services going out is because there’s federal laws that make it have to happen, and they shouldn’t be on the books either.  And – and if you eliminated all of those – I mean, you – you were at a town hall meeting.  You once said it’s because the Hippocratic Oath we have all these expenses.  The Hippocratic Oath doesn’t sell – tell an emergency room to go steal my money to go pay for someone else’s.

[00:13:33]

Now, are we our brother’s keeper?  Sure we are.  But is the government?  No, it’s not.  And that’s – that’s the fundamental difference in government and – and the – the – the things that you advocate from each according to his capabilities, to each according to his needs, are not American principles.  They’re just clearly not.  And – and this legislation and legislation that’s been passed by Republican administrations as well has been stacked up.  And we’re – we’re – we’re at a point right now where we’re heading to having the majority of the economy of the United States is – is soon to be controlled by federal regulation.

[00:14:04]

And that is not at all what the founders envisioned.  And it’s not at all what the Constitution permits.

Tom: Look.  I mean, as – as Ron Paul has said, there’s a much better argument against this bill as being corporatist than being socialist.  I mean, this is an expansion of the private insurance market, not the government insurance market.  It’s just not true that it’s an expansion of the government insurance market more than the private market.  And Ron Paul was saying, “Look, if anything, this idea is handing over more power to the corporations.”

[00:14:31]

Now, I think we have that balance by having accountability in there for those things, but the idea that this is some massive march in the other direction, I – I just – I just – I disagree with on the facts.  And I think that’s why, again, conservatives like the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney and others who don’t – who wanna distance themselves from it now, they reached this conclusion as an alternative to the liberal approach of a public option or single payers to say, “Look, why don’t we simply expand the private market, but expand some of the accountability rules?”  And that’s basically the – the path we walked down.

[00:15:02]

Michael: Well, you hit the – you hit the – the nail on the head with corporatism.  That’s a termed coin by Mussolini, and in fact, whereas, socialism really sought to totally control the economic process, you know, uh, fascism is more where it’s a collaboration where the state picks the winners and the losers.  And that’s exactly what this legislation is doing.  And if you think that it’s not designed to go – if you think – if you think that’s it not –

[Crosstalk]

Tom: Why?  Why does this chose – which companies does this choose?

Michael: – designed to go and stop, uh – uh private healthcare and to impose a single payer system, you – you know, we have Obama saying, “I happen to be a proponent of single payer universal healthcare.

[00:15:32]

You know, his – his – uh, Jacob Hacker, well, I think the insurance industry will be very opposed because it’s gonna eliminate it.  You know, your – your colleague, Jan Schakowsky –

[Crosstalk]

Tom: But those were about [inaudible] – Mike, come on.  Those were about drafts that were like never even – I mean, first of all [inaudible] considered an earlier draft.

[Crosstalk]

Michael: No.  These are – every one of them said that these are steps toward – uh, toward single payer, a – you know, Barney Frank, he – there’s a famous clip on YouTube – Barney Frank saying that, uh, that you can’t do – I’m with single payer but we’re gonna do it incrementally in steps.  And everyone knows that that’s what’s going on here.

[00:16:00]

Tom: Come on, Mike.  Argue about the bill that’s there, not about some YouTube clip that’s out there.  The bill that’s there isn’t that.  It’s not that bill.  It just isn’t.

[Crosstalk]

Michael: Well, but Max – Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he admitted during the Senate – Senate – Senate reconciliation debate that, quote, this is also an income shift.

[Crosstalk]

Tom: Show me.  Show me where there’s a government option in this bill.

Michael: This legislation will have the effect of addressing maldistribution of income in America.  When – when is –

[Crosstalk]

Tom: Mike, show me where in the bill there’s a new government option.  There isn’t.

Michael: No, no, no.

[Crosstalk]

Tom: It’s not there.

[Crosstalk]

Michael: This is a – I said every one of these people said it’s a stepping stone because the second you go in at the end of the day you’re gonna end up with a few insurance companies left that are basically reconciliation houses.

[00:16:33]

And you have – you have Max Baucus saying that this is – this bill is – is addressing the maldistribution of income in America.  You had John Dingell saying, “Hey, it’s hard to craft this kind of legislation where – because you gotta get it just right because we’re gonna control people,” your colleague, John Dingell, saying that.  You had – you had Tom Harkins saying that this – now we’ve taken the step where we’re granting you the right to healthcare.  And like all rights Congress gives us, we’re gonna go and – and – and modify this right as we go along.

[00:16:58]

Well, you know what?  In America, people – tyrants don’t give citizens rights.  They come from God, and your only job is to protect them.  So you don’t – you – you – government – these things that you’re mandating, you’re gonna give someone this and take from someone from – something from someone else to give it to ‘em.  That’s not the role of government.  Your – your – your role of government is to make sure I’m secure in the natural rights I have in the natural state, not – not to give me anything.  And it’s surely – surely not to take anything away.

And I think you got the entire concept of American principles wrong.  And I – and I’d love to work with you, recommend some books to you, to – to get it right.

[00:17:30]

But you can’t possibly be faithfully carrying out your oath when you – when you think – when you pass 2,300 pages of legislation that – that’s focused on redistributing wealth.

Tom: Mike, let me – let me just say, first of all, you gotta argue from the bill that we passed.  You can’t argue based on some things that other people thought they might have wanted.  We’ve gotta argue with the healthcare bill we have, which is an expansion of –

[Crosstalk]

Michael: Well, all right, how is this gonna [inaudible] –

Tom: Wait.  I let you finish.  I let you finish.

Michael: Go ahead.  Go ahead.

Tom: So we’re talking about an expansion of the private insurance market.  We’re talking about more competition, not less.  We’re talking about people have to take personal responsibility, which I think on some level is, uh, an American principle.

[00:18:06]

And we are talking about the US Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation.  Most of the points you’re making about the Constitution are based on the Articles of Confederation that fell apart.  They didn’t have the tax and spends.  They didn’t have the general principles.  Those –

[Crosstalk]

Michael: I didn’t make a single point – I – I have the Constitution in my pocket, and – and nothing had to do with the Articles of Confederation.

Tom: It – it is because they’ve rejected the theory that you’re offering of a totally anemic state.  It was a pragmatic document.  Then the confederate states of America tried a similar Constitution that also didn’t have those.

[00:18:33]

It once again lost.  We have a pragmatic Constitution that talks about a – a balance of local, federal, and state of individuals’ liberties, and we believe those are there.  And we believe that sometimes those rights and freedoms have to be, uh, protected.  That’s the oath.  That’s the US Constitution [inaudible] that private market.

[Crosstalk]

Michael: No.  All the time the rights have to be protected.  It’s in the concept that the enumerated powers you have in the Constitution.  The sole purpose of any one of them that could be deconstructed as being something that protects me.

[00:19:02]

Now, of course, you know, raising military and things like that, uh – uh – or – or, uh, or dealing with interstate commerce issues, those – those all have the solitary effect of letting me better, uh, experience my rights without being interfered by from others.  But –

Tom: You’re gonna say something that’s 20 percent of the economy doesn’t have interstate commerce implications?  And you –

Michael: Not –

Tom: And you can’t say that, well, my lack of buying it isn’t either because even Scalia joined onto the decision in the Ratia case saying, actually no, an absence of commerce can be [inaudible].

[00:19:30]

That was the same thing with the desegregation cases.  They made the same argument.  Right?  Well, I’m not letting them in my hotel, so it’s a lack of commerce, and the courts rejected that, too.  So this is 20 percent of the economy [inaudible].

[Crosstalk]

Michael: No, no.  Congress at the time was specifically trade.  I mean, if you – if you look at Lopez, uh, versus United States and Justice Thomas’ concurrent opinion, it was very clear that, uh, commerce is just trade.  It’s not like manufacturing auto – automobiles.  It’s – and it’s surely not, uh, being forced to buy something.

[00:19:58]

And – and [inaudible] –

[Crosstalk]

Tom: Well, look at – look at Scalia and the Gonzalez decision, and I agree – you know, Lopez is fine.  I’m more than happy to carve out and say here was a combination of education and crime, which are traditional state levels.  And let’s face it.  Congress likes to get lots of points for looking tough on crime, when often, we’re just adding on top of existing state laws, and it’s not that helpful, so those are useful.

[Crosstalk]

Michael: And the police function are truly in the state.  But here, let’s go back – how about – how about this.  You can – you can illuminate me.  This healthcare bill requires unfunded mandates – mandates that the states have to make up.  Do you have any advice for Governor McDonald on how he’s gonna pay for the unfunded mandates that you voted for?

[00:20:30]

Tom: Well, the states – Virginia does, uh – uh, is very low on the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates, and we actually do a tremendous amount to help the states afford the cost of healthcare, uh, in this situation.  And there’s a federalist deal, which is they get to set up the exchanges that, uh, they want at the state level.  And we’ll see – we’ll see what they do in that regard.

[Crosstalk]

Michael: So your – your fellow Democrat, a governor from a neighboring state, Phil Bredesen, now, he’s an healthcare expert.  And he says that this legislation will be quote, unquote, a disaster for the state of Tennessee.  Now, what do you know that Governor Bredesen, who created a large publicly traded healthcare management company knows that – that the government doesn’t – Governor Bredesen doesn’t know?

[00:21:05]

Tom: The biggest costs in this bill are tax cuts to small businesses for providing the insurance they already provide and to middle class families.  Uh, that’s the group that’s getting pitched in the middle on this, and so, the expenses that we’re talking about here are mostly tax cuts and credits, which again, I think is a – a decent idea when if you’re really poor or really rich, you’re probably covered in the system but the people in the middle are – are getting pinched.

Rob: Tom – Tom Perriello, we’re running out of time.  And I appreciate you being with us, sir.

[00:21:31] [Crosstalk]

Tom: You’re out of time.

Rob: Uh, let’s talk about, uh, very quickly, uh, Ken Cuccinelli, the attorney general’s, uh – uh lawsuit in Washington, DC, and uh, the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act.  Do you support Ken Cuccinelli in defending Virginia law against the federal government mandate?

Tom: I support his right to bring the case.  I think that’s exactly how this should play out.

[Crosstalk]

Rob: Do you support him?  No.

Tom: No.  I don’t think – I think the history of state nullification laws are incredibly problematic, but again, that’s why we have an independent branch, um, and that’s why we should let these things play out.  And if the Supreme Court says, uh, any – uh, agrees with Mike and not me, then we’ll, uh, adjust to that, and that’s the way the system should work.

[00:22:05]

Rob: Are you supportive of the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act, that is, Virginia law that was signed by the governor?

Tom: The – if – if it’s the state nullification one, then I – I – I am not generally supportive of that, so.

Rob: Okay.  But it is law, so you do support the law that we have in the state right now?

Tom: Well, we have a – I mean, this is what happens between state and federal, right, is that there is supremacy clause and you bring the case and one side’s right and then you go from there.

[Crosstalk]

Rob: Yeah.

Tom: That’s why you have an independent judiciary.

[00:22:29]

Rob: Michael Del Rosso, Tom Perriello, I wanna thank you very much for joining us today on the program.  It has been a fascinating discussion.  And Tom, I hope you’ll come back and join us again very soon.

Tom: Thanks to both of you.  Look forward to it.

Michael: Thanks, Tom.  Bye-bye.

Rob: Yeah.  Thanks very much.  All righty.  We’re gonna head into a break here, and when we return, we’re going to be, uh, continuing with Michael Del Rosso, and also your calls at 977-1070.  [Music plays]

It’s rare that we get a chance to talk to Tom Perriello.  I’d like to hear what you thought about it, and we will open up the phone lines right after the news.  Stand by for more of The Schilling Show.

[00:23:00]

And boy, that was wild.  977-1070 is the phone number if you have comments or questions.  Michael Del Rosso stays with us to kind of break down what just happened in this last, uh, half an hour with Congressman Tom Perriello making his first appearance on The Schilling Show in about 18 months.  And we do have callers on the line, and uh, let’s go to Michael real quickly before we get to the callers for, uh, just a quick, um, wrap up of what you heard happen in that previous half hour.

[00:23:36]

Michael, go right ahead.  What did you, uh, what did you take from that last half an hour?

Michael: Well, you know, I was sorry that the – it – it diverted into, uh, you know, rattling off corporate – or Supreme Court decisions because, in fact, America is much simpler than – than uh a bunch of, uh – uh, legal decisions.

Rob: Yes.

Michael: You know, and the – the definitions of what we’re dealing with, he brought up corporatism.

[00:24:01]

Well, corporatism was a word coined by Mussolini, and you cannot have, uh, corporatism if you don’t have state intervention to direct corporatist policies.  Period.

Rob: Uh huh.

Michael: So you know, you – you read – those definitions you read of socialism, communism, and American principles –

Rob: Yes.

Michael: – let’s add one from the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, which we – we’ve mentioned before.  And this is a contrast between socialism – because he said it’s not really socialism.  What we’re doing is corporatism.  That’s what Tom just said.

Rob: Yes.

[00:24:29]

Michael: Right?  Well, that – corporatism is fascism.  And here’s from, uh – uh, Dr. David Henderson, quote, where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly through domination of nominally private owners.  Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly by requiring owners to use their property in the national interest.  That is as the autocratic authority conceived it.  That would be Tom and his colleagues.

[00:25:03]

Rob: Uh huh.

Michael: Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.  Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities.  Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.  In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace, entrepreneurship was abolished, state ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions, end quote.

[00:25:37]

Rob: And this is exactly what’s happening right now.  We can see it.  And yet, you know what Tom used to defend it was very interesting, and I’ve seen him do this before, he picks out – he cherry picks a, uh, comment from Ron Paul and then tries to act like he’s on the same side as Ron Paul.  Did you find that as disingenuous as I did?

Michael: Completely.  And – and I in fact, again, if you get back to – he goes debate the bill.  Well, you know what, I really – we didn’t have time, but you know, debate the bill?

[00:26:01]

It’s 2,300 pages.  I mean, I – I wanted to ask Tom does he consider himself a gifted speed reader?  Because he only had 72 hours, not only to read that bill, you know –

Rob: Yes.

Michael: – but also how did he actually analyze it?  How did he know what the unintended consequences are in a 2,300-page legal document that he had 72 hours to look at?  And as Nancy Pelosi – I mean, if you go to Nancy Pelosi’s website, in her press releases, right now, just look on March 9^th, she has, quote, unquote, we have to past his bill before we know what’s in it.

[00:26:32]

Rob: Hmm.

Michael: That’s – I mean, she’s got it on her own website in one of her press releases, and that’s exactly what he did.  And that is absolutely irresponsible.  That is – that would be professional malpractice if my attorney told me to go sign a document and he never read it.

Rob: Yes.  Uh, absolutely, it is.  And you know what’s interesting, and we’ve called this out on The Schilling Show blog in the past, because Congressman Perriello made a big stink in the one of the previous bills that he said, you know, he’s calling on Nancy Pelosi to let the public see it for 72 hours.

[00:27:03]

She said no, and he voted for it anyway.  So I don’t believe he really cares about that one way or the other, and I don’t believe that he read the entire bill or that he really cares what’s in it.

Michael: No.  And – and we only had a limited amount of time, but you know, I really wanted to ask Tom if the Democrats retain a majority, is he gonna be voting for Nancy Pelosi again?  I mean, most people don’t realize this, the very first vote that Tom Perriello cast in the United States House of Representatives was to vote for Nancy Pelosi, who is a wide-eyed, uh, coast, uh, socialist, to be Speaker of the House.

[00:27:33]

And – and out of 434 other colleagues, he’s telling me that that was the only person he could go with that – so essentially, he’s saying that he thinks Pelosi represents the interests of the 5^th District of Virginia.  Because he put her in a position to completely guide the entire legislative directive of a majority, uh – of both houses and the – and the – and the White – Executive Branch.  And he voted along with everything that she proposed.

Rob: Let’s go to the phones because we have people who have been waiting a long time and like to get in here.

[00:28:01]

977-1070 is the phone number.  Michael Del Rosso joins us as we break down the previous half hour with Congressman Tom Perriello.  Greg, thanks for calling The Schilling Show.

Greg: Uh –

Rob: Hey.  You’re on, Greg.  Go right ahead.

Greg: Hey.  This is Greg.  How are you?

Rob: Fine.

Greg: Um, I’m gonna make three points.  Um, one is I’ve talked to Tom several times in the coffee houses, and you know, I feel like he’s a decent person inside, but I think he’s a bit naïve as to the people that he’s – lets surround him and influence him.

[00:28:30]

And that being said, I’m gonna talk about [inaudible] aspect of the, uh, healthcare bill, and that is it’s once this thing’s in place, uh, a lot of people will fall down to the rolls where they can qualify for Medicaid, state Medicaid.  Because they won’t have the money where the – the mandate would be required of $1,900.00 because they wouldn’t have the income to require that.  So then, they would be pushed down to state Medicaid.  Then, uh, once – once that goes in place, uh, the commonwealth of Virginia will – it’s budget will burst at the seams.

[00:29:03]

They won’t have as much money.  And then, that will be rolled on down into put on a localities where property taxes would eventually go up.  And the third thing is I would like to see this whole thing changed and be a bottom-up government where we collect all our revenues, federal and state and local, at the local level and disperse them upwards as we see fit here at the locality.  And then, I’ll let ya’ll comment on that.

Rob: Yeah.  Greg, thanks very much, and there’s a line open at 977-1070.

[00:29:30]

So what do you think about Greg’s point, and particularly, that this is going to bankrupt the states, which I believe he’s right on target?

Michael: Well, I know it’s going to.  In fact, he – he didn’t answer the – my question if he had any advice for Governor McDonald.

Rob: No, he did not.

Michael: And in fact, you know, you have to ask himself, you know, how could he justify trillions of dollars of deficit – deficit spending?  Because right now, I mean, if you asked him would you favor to have, uh, Virginia, uh, who’s blessed with considerable offshore oil resources, support taking that – those billions of dollars from Virginians to pay for deficits that are expanding?

[00:30:02]

And the – and – and – well, just yesterday on Neil Cavuto, one of his Democratic colleagues, Senator Byron Dorgan, he said exactly that.  He said any money that comes from Virginia offshore oil should go directly to the federal government to pay off –

Rob: Wow.

Michael: – the massive deficits that Dorgan and Perriello and all their colleagues are voting for.

Rob: John is on Line Number 3.  John, welcome to The Schilling Show.  You’re on with Michael Del Rosso.

John: Okay.  How ya’ll doin’ this afternoon?

Rob: Hey.  We’re doing very well.

[Crosstalk]

Michael: Just great

Rob: Thanks for calling.

[Crosstalk]

John: Okay.  Hey, Rob, I’m glad that you – you – you got Tom on there to answer these questions.

[00:30:31]

Rob: Yes.

John: And I got a – a [inaudible] from his office in Washington, DC, all that they was telling about the healthcare, you know, like he read everything.

Rob: Yes.

John: And then, he’ll – and then, down at the bottom, it’s – you know, it’s [inaudible], um, papers in there, too, about – about healthcare reform, what they – what they not gonna cut.  And they said that they not gonna cut Medicare benefits for the seniors, but Rob, they already done cutting Medicare benefits for the seniors.

Rob: Michael, would you like to comment on John’s query?

Michael: Yeah.  Not only is it being cut, but what’s he gonna do?

[00:30:59]

There was a New England Journal of Medicine survey just a couple of months ago, where over 46 percent of primary care physicians feel that the passing of this health reform legislation will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.  And over 62 percent of the physicians feel that, yeah, we need some health reform, but that a – a – a targeted, gradual way as opposed to this legislation.  So over 60 percent of physicians were against this, and when you have – if you have 46 percent of physicians actually follow through and leave the profession, how are you gonna cover more people with almost half the number of physicians?

[00:31:34]
I – you’re – you’re right.  You’re gonna get – you’re gonna get rationing and you’re gonna get a lot of other un- – adverse, uh, consequences.  And you know, people should look to states that already have this.  Well, for instance, Oregon, they already have government healthcare.  Right?  And Oregon also already has, um – uh physician assisted suicide.  So right now, uh, in Oregon, uh, the last couple of years there’s people that are dying of cancer and they’re denied treatment because it would bust their budget.

[00:32:01]

And they have to contain the budget, but they are offered the option of being – having the state pay for physician-assisted suicide.  And – and those are documented cases.  You can find them, uh – uh, from, uh – in – in the mainstream media reporting them.

Rob: 977-1070 is the phone number.  We’re running a little bit late for the break.  And John, thank you so much for the call.  It’s always good to hear from you.  And when we get back, I wanna continue this conversation.  We will take more of your calls at 977-1070, breaking down the discussion that we just had with Congressman Tom Perriello as Michael Del Rosso stays with us for the remainder of the hour.

[00:32:32]

The Schilling Show returns in just a moment.  [Advertisement plays]

[00:33:00]

[Advertisement plays]

[00:33:30]

[Advertisement plays]

[00:34:00]

[Advertisement plays]

[00:34:30]

[Advertisement plays]  [Music plays] And Bessegly is standing by for your calls at 977-1070, continuing our conversation with Michael Del Rosso and breaking down the previous half hour of the program with Congressman Tom Perriello.  And I heard – I heard him – there’s a few things I wanna bring to you, Michael.

[00:35:02]

Number one was he said that he does not support the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act.  And the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act basically said that Virginians shall not be compelled to, uh, participate in this program and shall not be fined if they do not.  And it was astounding to me that our own Congressman, who’s supposed to represent us is telling us we don’t have the right to say no.  Did you find that to be astounding and also disturbing?

Michael: It – it’s un-American.

[Crosstalk]

Rob: Absolutely.

Michael: And he went on blathering about Articles of Confederation and the Confederate, uh, Constitution.

[00:35:31]

And – and at the end of the day, none of that really matters because American principles are very clearly laid out, as you did at the beginning of the show in the Declaration.  And any Constitution we have is really, uh, just a tradeoff, of – of those principles.  Right?  They’re – they’re – they’re compromises.  Some – some are – some are, uh, principled, and some are unprincipled.  So for instance, we had a Constitution that said slavery was legal when we first founded this nation.  And that was an unprincipled compromise.

[00:36:00]

Because as everyone knows from the Declaration, slavery is wrong because all men are created equal.  And so, likewise, if he – if he – if he – he’s basically disagreeing with the fact that our rights come from God and the – and the government’s, uh, purpose is to secure them.  So if there’s something in the Constitution that says otherwise, like slavery, then the Constitution has to be fixed, not that that says he’s supposed to pass laws that, uh, you know, give, uh – uh recovery of slaves from northern states or whatever might the situation be.  You know?

[00:36:30]

Rob: Yes, indeed.  And there was another thing that he brought up that we didn’t get a chance to address, but I’ve heard this before coming from people on the left side of the spectrum that, well, we have all sorts of mandates and we’ve done them for years, like the Social Security mandate.  How do you respond to that?

Michael: Well, you know, don’t get me started.

Rob: [Laughs]

Michael: Social Security you would go to jail because it’s a ponzi scheme and the reason why you would go to jail and what a ponzi scheme is a pyramid scheme is because it’s mathematically provable to be unsustainable.

[00:36:58]

Yet, government, uh, has – has proffered such a system and at the point of the gun forced us to pay into it and then took the money that was supposed to be in our, quote, trust fund, and spent it on everything under the sun.  So right now, they thought Social Security was supposed to be bankrupt in six years.  It’s bankrupt this year.

And – and – and uh, in 2006, you had 34 percent of Americans not paying federal income tax.  This year it’s 50 percent.  So essentially, you’re at 50/50 state.  So if people are gonna get healthcare, and they’re gonna get it from trillions of dollars being raised by taxes by the federal government, then, only half the people are paying for that – those taxes, and the other half are receiving them.

[00:37:35]

Rob: You know, we have – we have, uh, deconstructed the Social Security myth here on the program a great deal with, uh – um – in great depth with David Morada, who appeared and wrote an excellent column, saying exactly what you said, that this is a ponzi scheme.  And yet, we have people like Tom Perriello who are coming forward and basically saying, well, that’s a great thing.  And uh, we need to do this because of how great that is.  You know, do you think he knows this and just doesn’t wanna tell the truth?

[00:38:00]

Michael: I don’t – I don’t – you know, what experience does he have?  I don’t know that he – you know, the jobs he had are really, you know, George Soros funded, uh – uh, you know, Marxist community agitator kinda jobs.  I don’t think he’s ever made a payroll.

But if you wanna get down to – you know, Social Security’s a very easy problem to fix.  Here’s the – here it is.  Uh, when – when – when contested about – when the government was challenged in the ‘30s about collecting money for the Social Security trust fund, that it’s not in the Constitution, you know what they said?  You’re right.  There isn’t anything.  Social Security is just, uh, income tax.  And then, when you look at the Constitutional authority to spend money and to force me to give you money to be – well – again, it’s income tax.

[00:38:33]

But to spend it on retirement or – or medical purposes like Medicare and Medicaid, there’s no provision there.  So essentially, the federal government committed fraud for the last 75 years.  And the easy answer is to say, look, you know, God bless anybody that’s – that’s gonna rely on this that really needs it.  You means test it, and say, look, you’re – you’re – we’re not gonna leave you on – on the doorstep, not because the federal government has a responsibility for charity, because that’s not the government’s role –

Rob: That’s right.

Michael: – but because the government committed fraud to let you think that you’re supposed to be – uh, you were gonna be taken care of.

[00:39:02]

So we’ll take care of you people, but everybody else – I mean, I’m 53.  There won’t be a penny in it for me because it’s bankrupt today.  And it would be absolutely immoral for me to expect my children to pay for me.  So the quicker we cut this charade out and just say, look, if you’re really stuck because we committed fraud as the government, we’ll take care of those people that are really indigent, but everybody else, hey, all bets are off.

You know, we got – we gotta cut the whole charade of Social Security.  You’re gonna pay taxes because we’re gonna have to pay for the indigent people, but you better make other plans for your retirement.

[00:39:32]

Rob: I think there was another, uh, fraud that was perpetuated in the last half an hour.  And uh, he said that this was, uh, a good thing.  This healthcare bill was a good thing because it’s going to create competition and how great that is and that he – he made a claim, although, he, uh, he said it very carefully that, uh, he tried to bring intrastate – uh, interstate competition to the insurance market and the Republicans didn’t wanna do it.

Michael: Uh, that’s – that’s a totally specious argument.  He – he’s part and parcel with the people that passed this.

[00:40:02]

And every one that’s passed it – we could spend a whole show doing nothing but a sound board of people like Representative Chan Zyskowski, Ron Bloom, uh, the Manufacturing Czar, uh – uh – uh – uh – uh, Tom Harkins.  We got a couple of good clips we should play anyway that are short ones, but every one of them say that these are just a stepping stone to eliminating the private insurance market, and – and – and imposing single payer.  You know, Barney Frank said, “Look, don’t be stupid.  We have to do it incrementally.”  So everybody says that this is what we’re doing and that everyone – and – and there’s even quotes that say – or you know, everyone knows that this is where we’re going.

[00:40:35]

And – and they’ll tell their own faithful – you know, uh – um – uh socialists that this is exactly what they’re doing.  And Tom knows this because he’s in those crowds, but he doesn’t wanna admit it on the radio because it doesn’t sound good.

Rob: Exactly right.  977-1070 is the phone number.  Hank is on the line, and Hank, you’re on The Schilling Show with Michael Del Rosso.

Hank: Michael, I – you’re – my compliments to you.  Excellent job.  If ignorance is bliss, then Perriello is euphoric right now.

[00:41:00]

Rob: [Laughs]

Hank: Um, and the other thing I can say is –

Michael: Well, I’ll let you go, but you know, really, Tom’s a very bright guy, and he’s not ignorant.  It’s just that so much of what he knows is not true.  He’s the victim of a liberal education because he believes things that aren’t American and the thinks that – he thinks that’s the right term he’s supposed to use for them.  I’m sorry.  Go ahead.

Hank: But – but you kept bringing up the fact that we – any – anybody with common sense as an American citizen understands the slippery slope effect, and you kept throwing to him that this is as stepping stone.  This is a stepping stone.

[00:41:30]

Well, you can choose to ignore this and 15 years from now, or if it even takes that long when we’re all tyrannized by the slavery that this thing’s gonna bring about, we can – he can remember.  But then, of course, it’s too late to take back your vote.

Michael: Oh, it’s totally too late.

[Crosstalk]

Hank: My compliments to you.

Michael: Well, thank you very much.  Well, I tell you, you know, if you just look at the facts, uh –

Rob: Go ahead.

Michael: – Tom and his party increased the deficit more in one year than Bush did in the last six.  Now, I’m a – I’ve never been a big Bush fan.  And in fact, I was critical of him constantly.

[00:42:00]

I remember I was at a – at a anti-Bush rally and people wanted to impeach him, and they – and I was just there to show support for the troops.  And I said, “You have no idea,” uh, you know, they – they thought I was, you know, uh, diametrically opposed to him.  I said, “No.  I have more reasons to impeach Bush than you can name right now.”

Rob: Uh huh.

Michael: Right?  But – but when is Tom gonna accept responsibility for this massive deficit?  How does he – how does he – how does he justify, uh – uh – uh – uh voting for something without paying for it?  And if you look at what they legislated, this is – so far, this administrated has legislated over $600 billion in tax increases with 14 of them affecting people making under $250,000.00.

[00:42:35]

And they have another 1.8 trillion dollars of new taxes, uh, working its way through the process right now.  How can this make any sense when America is so economically fragile and there is such widespread unemployment?  I have no idea, but that’s what Tom votes for every day.

Rob: You know, it’s just amazing that he was – he was on this argument.

[00:42:53]

Let’s talk about the – the bill that we voted for and not thinking about what are the ramifications of that bill and what people have said they intend to do, including the President of the United States once this bill gets going and starts having its intended effect of, uh, destroying the, uh, private medical system that we have in America right now.  I mean, it’s just amazing to me that he’s saying, “I’m only gonna take a snapshot of this moment and everything else doesn’t matter.”

Michael: Well, the CNO – CNN poll, the snapshot the day he voted for it, but let’s – let’s look at this bill.  All right.  I was a C Level executive of a – at a number of large, uh, public companies.  And you have security exchange reporting requirements.

[00:43:28]

And amongst them, when all these, uh – uh, you know, you had, uh, right now heavy equipment makers, Caterpillar and John Deere reported that this new law will cost them 100 million and 150 million, respectively in the coming year.  How is that good for a nation reeling with economic shocks?  And the reason they reported it is because they’re – they’re responsible to the SEC to tell their shareholders when something happens that is gonna adversely affect their economic output.  And major corporations, ATT – AT&T and others all had to go make statements that this is racking billions of dollars of expenses that they never planned on that the shareholders are holding in stock.

[00:44:03]

And all of a sudden, you pass a law and you just caused billions of dollars of what should be my equity in a corporation because I – I’m running on my, uh – uh, my stockholdings for my retirement because you squandered the Social Security money.  And – and you pass a law that just squanders billions.  And it’s – these are real numbers on this bill because they read the – these corporations read that bill and said, “Uh oh.  We have to report that it’s gonna make us do this, and this is gonna cost us billions.”

So – so that is the real bill, Tom.  These companies, they – in real time, they responded to your legislation.

[00:44:32]

Rob: Michael Del Rosso, it has been an illuminating hour and this will be podcast later on today.  And I want people to listen to it and share it with their friends.  And I wanna thank you for joining us and, uh, presenting American principles versus whatever principles Tom was presenting.  They certainly weren’t [inaudible] –

[Crosstalk]

Michael: Oh, corporatist fascist principles.  He – he admitted that that’s what he voted for, a corporatist, uh, system.

Rob: Absolutely.

[Crosstalk]

Michael: Because that’s what – that’s what he said we have now.

Rob: Absolutely.  Thank you so much.  We look forward to our next visit.

Michael: Thank you.  Bye-bye.

Rob: All right.  And I just wanna reiterate that, um, [music plays] you know, American principles, what are they?

[00:45:02]

Well, let’s go back again to the Declaration of Independence and the definition.  Everyone is created equal and free.  That would be free from a government mandate, Tom, or free from having to pay a fine.  You think that’s not a lack of freedom and taking away our freedom?  That we don’t need the government to grant us rights.  And Tom, you’re not granting us a right as healthcare because all of our rights come from the Creator.  That would be God.  And they are inalienable.

[00:45:27]

The only purpose of government is to secure God-given rights to us and that governments derive their just – just powers from the consent of the governed.  Boy, I wish he was paying attention when they taught that, or maybe they just didn’t teach that.  Unbelievable.  The Schilling Show will be back after the news at the top of the hour.  Stand by for more.  [Advertisement plays]

[End of audio]

Duration:  46 minutes

Hypocrisy is rich in American politics these days, but Democrat Congressman Tom Perriello has driven duplicity to new heights.

Recall that during his 2008 campaign for Virginia’s 5^th District Congressional seat, candidate Perriello in a smarmy radio commercial (audio file below), ridiculed then incumbent Congressman Virgil Goode for squandering his Congressional efforts on such “trivial” acts as “naming a building after someone” (the possible “someones” being Dr. Pamela D. Gwin of NGIC, and Corporal Bradley T. Arms USMC, both of whom died while in service to their country.)

Of course, the implication was, that if elected, Congressman Perriello would focus his efforts on formidable and consequential issues, eschewing the trifling in favor of the preeminent.

Perhaps the boy-Congressman has a short memory; more likely Perriello authorized those radio words in prevarication, as his official spokesman, Jessica Barba, recently released the following:

Perriello Introduces Resolution Congratulating University of Virginia Soccer Team on its National Championship

Washington, DC – Today, Congressman Tom Perriello congratulated the University of Virginia Cavaliers soccer team on their victory over the University of Akron in the NCAA Division I College Cup Final. He is sponsoring a resolution to have Congress officially honor the squad’s accomplishment.

“The Cavaliers showed why the phrase ‘defense wins championships’ is true with their performance this season. These players and their coaches worked incredibly hard and were rewarded for their tireless effort. I look forward to having the entire U.S. Congress honor the team by passing my resolution. Hopefully, my colleague Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio won’t be tempted to vote ‘present.’”

Following 120 minutes of regulation and overtime play, the second-ranked Cavaliers and the top-ranked Zips were tied at zero, necessitating a penalty-kick shootout which UVA won 3-2. Head coach George Gelnovatch directed the team to its sixth national title in Division I soccer, its first since 1994, and the school’s 19th overall in all NCAA competitions. Jonathan Villanueva, a senior midfielder for the Cavaliers, was named the tournament’s offensive most valuable player while the squad’s goalkeeper, junior Diego Restrepo, was honored as the defensive most valuable player.

The Cavaliers concluded the season with a 19-3-3 record, finishing on a 16-game unbeaten streak.  Impressively, the team allowed just eight goals during the season in 25 games, giving it one of the lowest goals-against averages in NCAA history.

Please find attached Congressman Perriello’s resolution

With its Constitutional foundations crumbling and America on the verge of socialist inundation, “two-faced Tom” Perriello has chosen to “while away the hours” pursuing minutiae via taxpayer funded press releases. Undoubtedly, a far greater transgression than that Perriello attributed to predecessor Goode.

When you promised to work a “double shift” in Washington, Tom, we thought you meant working to bring jobs to Virginia’s southside. If this is how you intend to fritter away the remainder of your term and to dispose of our hard-earned tax dollars (have you forgotten that we pay your expenses?), will you please consider following Tim Kaine’s lead and reverting to “part time” status?

Listen to Tom Perriello’s hypocritical radio commercial:

Here, for your listening pleasure, is an exclusive, special production of The Schilling Show: The Ballad of Norrishood and Szakos.

The song chronicles the political chicanery employed by Dave Norris, Kristin “let them eat pizza” Szakos (aka the Moat Monster) and scores of Charlottesville Democrat predecessors in their quest for political power. Click below to listen:

Norrishood and Szakos
Runnin’ through the city
Laughin’ back and forth about
how to buy some votes

Takin’ from the middle class
And giving to the rich class
Oo-de-lally, Oo-de-lally
Golly, what a hoax

Never ever thinkin’ bout that takin’ money’s stealin’
They were cookin’ up another charade
Never dreamin’ that a schemin’ talk host and his posse
Were a watchin’ every move that they made

Norrishood and Szakos
Runnin’ through the city
Jumping up and down and droppin’
hundred dollar bills

Contemplatin’ nothin’
but just getting reelected
Oo-de-lally, Oo-de-lally
Golly, what a thrill
Oo-de-lally, Oo-de-lally
Golly what a thrill

Here are additional, detailed photos of Albemarle High School’s educational “refuse:”

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

But, the elements displayed above were not the only concerns lingering in an open dumpster for any and all to peruse. Scores of handwritten student journals resided there as well, many of them containing racially, sexually, socially, criminally, and personally sensitive information—stories that in the wrong hands, could be detrimental to a student’s reputation, personal safety, or future endeavors.

For ancillary dimension, included are several dubious instructor remarks regarding the students’ “essays,” as presented in the journals: the seemingly obligatory (for liberal, government-school educators) derogatory “George W. Bush” commentary; a nod toward legalized marijuana; and flippant dismissal of a student’s elucidated church encounter with the Holy Spirit.

In order to protect identities, the names of  journal authors, specific classes, teachers, and referenced students have been expunged.

In reviewing these highly personal student writings, however, one might ponder: Does Albemarle County Public Schools have a privacy policy regarding the disposition of student writings, and if so, was policy followed in this case? If no such policy exists, then perhaps its time has come.

Albemarle County School Board, may we suggest a supernumerary agenda item for your next meeting?

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]