Category: Catherine Crabill

You know, I’m starting to get annoyed with attacks on my “leftist” blog “that is used almost exclusively to support the Democrat Party”.

Seriously, two people made those comments.

The “leftist” comment comes from OKC Truther Catherine Crabill in an e-mail which was posted in a previous thread:

Feel free to share this with anyone who cares. I will not be bullied by a leftist blog who wouldn’t understand the truth or rightousness or freedom if it bit him you-know-where.

And then you have Allen Webb attacking someone for expressing his concern about the fact that there’s an OKC Truther who’s the presumptive nominee for the state’s legislative body:

To peddle a “quote”, opinion or analysis from a blog that is used almost exclusively to support the Democrat Party, which was motivated by a person who has expressly stated that he has (and still) supports Albert Pollard (the liberal Democrat incumbent whom this candidate will face), is reprehensible.

Holy cow, when did Bill Bolling, Ken Cuccinelli, and DJ McGuire (see right sidebar) become Democrats? I swore I was supporting them due to their impeccable conservative credentials, but alas, it must be because they’re Democrats.

I’m sure former Caroline County Supervisor Calvin Taylor, former Commonwealth’s Attorney Harvey Latney, and former Sheriff Homer Johnson (all Democrats) would get a good laugh out of that diatribe for sure.

Webb’s comments boils down to the fact that he has absolutely no defense to the fact that he’s supporting a candidate that has gone on the record several times saying that the federal government was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, so he has to result to ad hominem attacks. “Oh, he just supports Democrats, ipso facto, he’s lying!” I guess The Washington Times, Outside Magazine, High County News, and Catherine Crabill herself must also support Democrats “exclusively” as well, since they’re the ones responsible for the quotations.

For crying out loud, this woman has stated herself, both on blogs and e-mails to Allen Webb, that the federal government was responsible for this:

But don’t believe your lying eyes, after all, this is a “leftist” blog “that is used almost exclusively to support the Democrat Party”.

Catherine Crabill’s insanity demonstrated in her own words.

From the High Country News:

Catherine Crabill of Aragon, N.M., in Catron County, is furious at Outside magazine’s November article, “War for the West.” She writes in a letter to Outside published in the Hatch, N.M., Courier: “By golly, I never would have recognized my husband or myself in your “article” had it not had our names attached to it! What drivel!’

To correct the impression Outside gave that she and her husband were off the wall, Crabill describes her real views: “That as a result of Presidential Executive Order, the Sec. of the Treasury holds all the power of the Executive Branch and answers to the globalist elite. That there is an agenda that is in our Public Law to surrender our country to the United Nations, and that we are on the verge of having our economy pulled out from under us by all of the above. I mean, it just goes on and on! And these globalists just love you greenies for helping their program along.”

But Crabill confesses to a shameful earlier period when she “sat with you people for years in places like Aspen’s Pour La France quaffing croissants and cappuccinos, talking custom Italian racing bicycles (All campy, of course …) and gear ratios. I’ve hung with you people on the sundeck of Aspen Mountain, skiing out of bounds …”

“… on behalf of myself and my family, I thank all of my dear friends and neighbors in Catron Country for teaching us what it means to be dear friends and neighbors, and forgiving me for having been one of you-people in a former life.” ((Ed Marston. “Heard Around the West.” High Country News. 11 Dec 1995. <http://www.hcn.org/issues/49/1510>.))

Gotta love how she’s smashing environmentalists when the chairman of the 99th Legislative District Republican Committee, Allen Webb, was attacking Delegate Pollard for supposedly failing to bring “‘green’ businesses” to the area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this woman is running for political office?

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

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

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

Homosexual Hate Crimes Legislation:

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

And [again, emphasis mine]:

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

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

Va. Code § 18.2-57(A) states:

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

Va. Code § 18.2-57(B) provides that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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