In this post we will complete our examination of Part 1 of Robert G. “Delegate Bob” Marshall new book, Reclaiming the Republic: How Christians and Other Conservatives Can Win Back America. Here is our progress thus far.

  • First Post: We introduced the book.
  • Second Post: We reviewed the prefatory material.
  • Third Post: We summarized the first two chapters of Part 1 of Marshall’s book, Think Like the Founders.

In this post we will summarize the content of the last three chapters of Part 1 of Marshall’s book. Why group these three chapters together? They all relate to the subject of “tolerance.”

Chapter 3 – Judges Are Human Too Or Bigotry From The Bench

What is thinking like the Founders? Marshall never provides a succinct description. Instead, chapters 1 and two of Part 1 describes the checks and balances the Constitution places on the Federal Government’s judiciary branch. Why? Marshall begins chapter 3 with this title:  “Judges Are Human Too Or Bigotry From The Bench.” People, even judges, abuse power.

Marshall illustrates the problem of human fallibility, the need for constitutional checks and balances, by focusing on Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Hugo Black, a one-time member of the KKK. In chapter 3 Marshall argues that because of his bigotry Black incorrectly argued for an interpretation of the First Amendment that has enable the Federal Government to wrongfully interfere with the free exercise of religion.

Chapter 4 – A Note About Tolerance Or The Stick With Which They Beat Us

In chapter 4, Marshall examines tolerance, that is, the behavior we exercise to avoid bigotry. What is a bigot?

Definition of bigot

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

The definition suggests it is wrong to be inappropriately intolerant. What does appropriate tolerance looks like? What is appropriate tolerance? Marshall quotes Bishop Fulton J. Sheen.

Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil, and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. But what is the important than the definition is the field of its application. The important thing here is this: Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring. Intolerance to the error.

In Chapter 4 Marshall explains how advocates for the homosexual agenda confuse the tolerance of bad ideas and the intolerance of persons. As a result advocates for the homosexual agenda end up characterizing the tolerant as bigots because they are only willing to tolerate homosexuals, not affirm their behavior.

Chapter 5 – The Intolerance Of Those Advocating “Tolerance” Or Religious Freedom Slipping Away

In a relatively short time homosexual rights advocates have elevated same-sex “marriage” to a protected “right”. How did this happen? Using Madison Avenue tactics, Marshall argues that the homosexual lobby has convinced much of the American public that gay rights follow naturally upon the legitimate civil rights movement of the 1960s. The homosexual lobby has succeeded in selling the idea that homosexuality is like race, an immutable condition, not a behavioral choice.

What is at stake? Religious freedoms currently protected by the First Amendment.  If the Federal Government elevates those engaging in LGBTQ behaviors to protected class like a racial minority, then the law will require Christians to affirm behavior that is in direct conflict with Biblical teachings.

Posted in Book Review, Citizen Responsibilities, Constitutional Government | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment


Bob Marshall presented the keynote speech at the  Prince William  & Manassas Family Alliance’s Spring Fundraiser on April 6, 2019 at the City Tavern in Manassas, Virginia. The title of his speech was “Reclaiming the Republic: How Christians and Other Conservatives Can Win Back America”. Here is a video of his presentation.

Hopefully, you will find Marshall’s speech inspiring and desire to take action. What should you do? We suggest reading Marshall new book, Reclaiming the Republic: How Christians and Other Conservatives Can Win Back America.

Posted in Book Review, Citizen Responsibilities, Constitutional Government | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment


Here we continue with a review of Robert G. “Delegate Bob” Marshall new book, Reclaiming the Republic: How Christians and Other Conservatives Can Win Back America.

  • Part 1: We introduced the book.
  • Part 2: We reviewed the prefatory material.

In this post we will summarize the content of Chapters 1 and 2.

Chapter 1 – Religious Liberty

Chapter 1 begins the first Part of Marshall’s book. As Part 1 of this series of posts observed, Part 1 of Marshall’s book explains what the conflict is about and what we risk losing. Marshall doesn’t use the expression, but he is talking about that part of the “culture war” that involves the fight over control of our government. As its title suggests, Chapter 1 is about religious liberty. Here Marshall describes what that that expression meant to the Founders and how the Founders codified the protection of religious liberty in our Constitution.

What is Marshall’s focus? He wants us to understand that the Founders sought freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. To that effect he quotes Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Joseph Story. Here is how Marshall ends this chapter.

Story believed that the Judeo-Christian moral assumptions of Americans regarding government of the people were necessary to ensure the common good: “It is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgement in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one’s conscience. The real difficulty lies in ascertaining the limits, to which the government may rightfully go in fostering and encouraging religion.”

Chapter 2 – Rolling Back Rule by Judges Or Just How Supreme Is the Supreme Court?

In our day we tend to regard the Supreme Court as the final arbitrator of the Constitution. That is, because the Supreme Court exercises the power of judicial review without any apparent Congressional restraint, we tend assume the Supreme Court has that power in all respects with respect to the Constitution. As Marshall points out, however, the Constitution gives Congress enormous authority over the Courts. The Constitution gives Congress the power to decide which cases can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. (from here ( (Article III, Section 2))

To demonstrate Congress’ control over the Supreme Court, Marshall cites the Founders and gives examples from our history. To make it easy to follow, he organized Chapter 2 according to the following questions.

  • Did you know that the Constitutional Convention rejected judges as lawmakers?
  • Did you know that the Supreme Court does not have the exclusive right to interpret the Constitution?
  • Did you know that Congress controls the types of cases the Supreme Court hears?
  • Did you know that it is possible to remove federal court jurisdiction over social issues?
  • Is there a constitutional right to a Supreme Court hearing?
  • Did you know that the Constitution does not give the role of final arbiter of its interpretation to the Supreme Court?

Interested in the answers to those questions? Then read Chapter 2.

Posted in Book Review, Citizen Responsibilities, Constitutional Government | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment


Yesli Vega, running for Supervisor, Coles Magisterial District, and Ray Mizener, running for Supervisor, Gainesville Magisterial District have answered our candidate questionnaires. See below.

Thus far we have sought responses only from those in contested firehouse primary races(see CONTESTED RACES IN THE PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE’S PARTY CANVAS). We now have 6 of the 8 supervisor candidates who have responded.  Do not have responses from Supervisor’s Nohe (running for Chairman of the Board of Supervisors) or Supervisor Candland (running for Supervisor, Gainesville Magisterial District).

Supervisor, Gainesville Magisterial District

Supervisor, Coles Magisterial District — Open Seat

Posted in 2019 Election | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment


GOOD NEWS! You have filled all the seats at our 2019 Spring Fundraiser. Therefore, we have closed reservations, and we look forward to seeing you on Saturday.


Posted in Citizen Responsibilities | Leave a comment