Saturday, September 30, 2006

Time To Renew An Old Joke

With the resignation of Florida Congressman Mark Foley, it's time to renew an old joke, from the last congressional page scanda, one from the Eighties (that one bipartisan, involving Massachusetts Democrat Gerry Studds and a male page, and Illinois Republican Dan Crane, and a female page):

You know that Congressman don't use book marks? They just bend the Page.

'Course, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Dan Crane was defeated in the next election, while Gerry Studds went on to serve several more terms in Congress.

And, of course, if Republicans acted like Democrats, we could expect that, in twenty years, the GOP would adopt an agenda which would seek to legitimate Foley's and Crane's behavior.

Friday, September 29, 2006

State Senate Blocks Action on Transportation

Indulging his fetish for increased taxes, Senator John Chichester has demonstrated once more why it is long past the time that we retired this chucklehead.

As much as two billion dollars in surplus tax revenue, and he wouldn't vote for anything that didn't include higher taxes.

Not that the House of Delegates covered itself in glory. A $1.5 billion bond package that would have sent only $375 million to Northern Virginia over five years --- 25% of the total --- is just a continuation of the same old problems of raping Northern Virginia to subsidize projects in other parts of the Commonwealth. I can't see a single good reason for Northern Virginians to vote for it. But at least it was something.

It was certainly more than Governor Timmy! and his Democrat/Repubmocrat allies offered.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

BREAKING NEWS --- James Webb Terrorized Black Americans

WELL! Isn't this a revelation? It seems that the Washington Post's Michael Shear is reporting that Virginia Democrat nominee James Webb organized his ROTC unit to terrorize Black citizens in the Watts section of Los Angeles. Whether he was in uniform when doing so is a question apparently not asked, nor answered.

Webb's comments to the Times-Dispatch prompted Allen campaign officials to direct a reporter to Dan Cragg, a former acquaintance of Webb's, who said Webb used the word while describing his own behavior during his freshman year at the University of Southern California in the early 1960s. Webb later transferred to the U.S. Naval Academy.

Cragg, 67, who lives in Fairfax County, said on Wednesday that Webb described taking drives through the black neighborhood of Watts, where he and members of his ROTC unit used racial epithets and pointed fake guns at blacks to scare them.

"They would hop into their cars, and would go down to Watts with these buddies of his," Cragg said Webb told him. "They would take the rifles down there. They would call then [epithets], point the rifles at them, pull the triggers and then drive off laughing. One night, some guys caught them and beat . . . them. And that was the end of that."

Cragg said Webb told him the Watts story during a 1983 interview for a Vietnam veterans magazine. Cragg, who described himself as a Republican who would vote for Allen, did not include the story in his article.
Interesting, isn't it, that Shear felt it necessary to point out that "Allen campaign officials" were responsible for directing a reporter to Cragg. The reporter writing the Salon story evaded that question and refused to divulge his sources on an interview I heard on Chris Core's WMAL radio show the other day.

This apparently rates only four flipping toupees from Ben Tribbett. I wonder why? Oh, no I don't.

UPDATE: Well, I've seen today's WaPo. This story appears on page B1, front page of the Metro Section. That George Allen's purported racism rated repeated page one coverage and Jim Webb's purported serial hate crimes appeared buried in the second section of the paper tells you all you need to know about the editorial biases of Pravda on the Potomac. It certainly confirms Marxist I.F. Stone's observation that "What makes the Washington Post a great newspaper is the fact that you never know on what page the Page One story will appear."

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Do Lefties Even READ The Constitution?

Apparently not, if you pay attention to how up in arms some on the far Left are over an apparent proposal to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 currently being considered by Congress.

The Constitution specifically empowers Congress to suspend the writ, as follows:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
I suppose one can argue over whether it is appropriate in this case --- I might even agree with them --- but let's not pretend that even suggesting it is unconstitutional. Or that its scope is broader than it is. One incredibly foolish group is even suggesting that it "could allow the government to detain the attorneys themselves as 'enemy combatants.'"

One frequently wonders what color the sky is on the planet of these lunatics. Apparently, too, they speak another language. Clearly, they don't understand English.

Ya Gotta Believe!

There's so much tripe attributable to Democrats, but the recent hate campaign against George Allen is a new low for those that, many believe, couldn't sink any lower. But it's worth considering what you have to believe in order to support Jim Webb for the Senate

Ya gotta believe that George Allen used the word "nigger" thirty years ago, but that Jim Webb didn't use the word "gook" while a Marine in Vietnam.
Alternatively, ya gotta blieve that George Allen's use of the word "nigger" thirty years ago was unacceptable, but that Jim Webb's use of the word "gook" while a Marine in Vietnam was acceptable.
Ya gotta believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, and other Liberals said their were, and that they magically disappeared when George W. Bush became President.

Ya gotta believe that George Allen's racist character thirty-five years ago is more relevant than was Bill Clinton's character when he was President of the United States.

Ya gotta believe that a man who quit Ronald Reagan's Administration over foreign and military policy differences knows better than a man who remains a member of Reagan's political party.

Ya gotta believe that young Mr. Siddarth was gravely offended by being called "Macaca" ... but sat down and broke bread with the people who thought it was funny, and drove for hours back to Northern Virginia without telling anyone that he had the goods on "Felix."

Ya gotta believe that "Macaca" is a term that resonates with racist voters in Breaks, Virginia.

Ya gotta believe that Jim Webb doesn't know that he's paying his nutroots supporters who are banging the racism drum.

Ya gotta believe that people who were willing to tolerate a racist as Virginia's Governer in 1993 and as Virginia's junior Senator in 2000 have seen the light.

Ya gotta believe that the GOP is a racist party, and that many people knew about George Allen's racism, and just didn't tell anybody.

Ya gotta believe that...
War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

What A Great Idea

As implied in a post below, I am not of the mind that we should fear or flinch from actually uttering the racial slur that is the subject of the far Left's and media's hate campaign against George Allen, so long as it is not being used to refer to individuals or a group of individuals. Referring to it has "the n-word" strikes me as every bit as peurile as most of Jim Webb's nutroots contingent.

On the other hand, referring to it as "the Byrd word" certainly has its attractions. And is far more accurate and revelatory.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Weasels for Webb

Another self-identified yet anonymous "Republican" who claims to be voting for Webb.

Is anybody stupid enough to be persuaded by this? Put your name on it, and have a record as a Republican, and then I'll be impressed. Disgusted, too, but at least I won't think you're just a liar.

Ken Shelton's Inspiration?

Courtesty of Alton, we learn of one possible source for the myths --- if myths they are, and I believe that they are --- about George Allen. He provides four links:

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4

Shelton is from North Carolina, isn't he?

I suppose some people might believe the George Allen story, just on the theory that you couldn't make this stuff up.

Well, maybe you can't. But you can sure change the factual context for political advantage.

Lefties Attack Susan Allen

In the continuing rush to the bottom which is the far Left (yes, VC, I said "far Left") of the Virginia blogosphere, Virginia Centrist --- so-called --- has reached a new low, and now attacks Senator Allen's marriage.

That's something I've only come to expect from some commenters at Sean Connaughton's Cult of Personality ... er, "Too Conservative."

And they're bold words from someone supporting a candidate who has three times as many ex-wives as George Allen.

Hitlary Says Condi Is Lying

This is priceless: a video in which Hitlary declares someone else to be a liar.

Aside from her consummate skills in this regard, isn't this the same woman who couldn't tell when her own husband was lying about "having sex with that woman; Ms. Lewinsky"?!?!?!

It's amazing what you can do when you're shameless.

Coming Soon to the Washington Post

Given its complicity in the hate campaign against Senator Allen, one wonders whether this isn't an upcoming page one headline in the Washington Post:
Monday, 2 October 2006
George Allen Announces Support For Pogroms!!!!
Racist Senator Offers Genocidal Vision for Virginians

(Alexandria, Va.) To a cheering crowd of racist Republicans, embattled Virginia Senator George Allen today announced his support for a new round of pogroms to combat poverty. "It is only through these pogroms that we can effectively work to rid Virginia of the blight of poverty," said Allen.

Independent Internet pundits Lowell Feld and Ben Tribbett were quick to discern the true significance of the Allen statement, saying that it was the latest in Allen's racist, anti-Semitic behavior and policies. "Pogroms were the standard modus operandi of eastern European anti-Semites in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries," said Feld. "There can be little doubt that George Allen will soon offer a 'final solution' for the victims of poverty that includes concentration camps to starve them, and gas chambers to murder them." When asked if he expected such facilities to be located on Craney Island, Feld said he didn't know what or where that is.

University of Virginia political pundit Larry Sabato had this comment: "Well, while I wasn't there, this is clearly an effort by George Allen to appeal to his redneck, racist, 'Bubba' base. I'm not surprised. He'll almost certainly win over a majority of Virginia's redneck, racist, 'Bubba' voters with such a program. This race is over."

Of course, such a story will be accompanied by a primary editorial, roundly condemning Allen and the neanderthal, far-Right Virginia Republican Party.

Expect a correction, two days later, on page A24, bottom right-hand corner (actual size):
Wednesday, 4 October 2006
On Monday, the Washington Post inaccurately reported on a speech given by Senator George Allen. In Sunday's speech, Senator Allen announced his support for new programs to combat poverty, not "pogroms."
The Post regrets the error.

Monday, September 25, 2006


There are not too many public controversies that don't have a Mel Brooks moment. That is, a moment when one has to harken back to some hilarious scene from one of his many hilarious movies.

After the last week of despicable charges from the Webb campaign and/or his nutroots contingent, one even has a choice. Personally, I'm torn between two musical numbers. Personally, I feel like Madeline Kahn must have felt during her musical number, "I'm Tired," in Blazing Saddles. But one guesses that Senator George Allen and his staffers are mindful of the great production number from History of the World, Part I: "The Inquisition" ("Hey, Torquemada, what do ya say? 'I just got back from the auto-de-fe...."), particularly Jackie Mason's role in a ping-pong game.

Of course, among the funniest moments of the former movie --- ones that don't translate well into this unfortunate PC age, where cable TV stations expurgate the word --- are those dealing with Cleavon Little as the Sheriff. A black sheriff?!?! Well, the townspeople don't see it that way; the word "nigger" is used liberally.

And yes, I'm going to actually use the word. Gee, I guess my political opponents can now accuse me of using it. Oh, foresooth! In that context, of course, Mel Brooks was using it to make fun of the ignorance of racism. That was the point, after all. And I'm merely quoting him. Does that mean I've used what various White Liberals are calling "the n-word"? Oh, my!

And I'll use it again. After all, there are plenty of books around which use it. Heavens to betsy, I even read two books in high school (no, not George Lincoln Rockwell High) with the word in the title: Nigger, and Up from Nigger, autobiographies by comedian and civil rights activist Dick Gregory. I had heard him speak at Bloomsburg State College (now, Bloomsburg University), and was impressed. Pretty good books, too.

I have no idea whether George Allen used the word in college. My God, perhaps he took an English course on Joseph Conrad, and read The Nigger of the Narcissus! Maybe he even saw Blazing Saddles in a theatre, and dared to laugh at it. Frankly, I don't much care at this point. What I care about are the policies he advocates. Are they racist? Only in the fertile imaginations of the race hustlers.

Democrats are running a despicable, race-baiting campaign against Senator Allen, and it's abundantly clear that they are doing so to conceal the fact that their candidate is so utterly lacking in substance. It's long past time when they should be called out on it and condemned for it.

For it's not just George Allen they're hurting. It's Virginia, and the nation.

Of course, that's a natural consequence of a Liberal's election.

Allen Rebuttal to Webb ... er, Web Smear

Here it is, complete and unexpurgated. However, Jon Henke gets one thing wrong. "Swiftboating" is telling the truth about a Democrat and forcing a Liberal media to pay attention. There's a simpler word for what Salon and the paid Webb bloggers have done: lying.

Sadly, the Webb campaign is continuing their attempt to make this Virginia Senate race about lies and rumor-mongering, rather than about issues. In Salon today, an anti-tobacco and environmental activist claims Senator Allen “used “N-word” in college“.

Let’s be clear: as with the previous rumors and lies pushed by the Webb campaign, this is categorically false. Rather than talking about the issues relevant to voters, the Webb campaign is pushing rumors and lies about Senator Allen and his family.

In the proximate case, we’ve got a story in which one named person claims three main things.

  1. “He used the N-word on a regular basis back then.”
  2. “Shelton also told Salon that the future senator gave him the nickname “Wizard,” because he shared a last name with [KKK imperial wizard] Robert Shelton…”
  3. “Allen said he came to Virginia because he wanted to play football in a place where ‘blacks knew their place,’” said Dr. Ken Shelton, a white radiologist in North Carolina

Fortunately, we have quite a lot of evidence that his story is categorically false — that this Salon story is evidence of the Democratic Party growing comfortable with the “Swiftboating” tactics they’d previously decried.

Aside from Salon’s own admission that 16 of the 19 people contacted did not remember any evidence of racism from George Allen — in fact, the seven people who knew Allen well during that time period specifically said that “did not believe he held racist views” — we’ve got statements from a great many former peers of Allen that specifically debunk these charges. Most relevantly:

Shelton lied about the origin of the name “Wizard”:

Joe Gieck, 35-year UVA trainer: “I seem to recall that Ken Shelton got the ‘Wizard’ nickname for his pass catching ability and before George Allen came to the University of Virginia.”

George Korte, UVA linebacker ‘70-’73: “Ken Shelton received his nickname because of his ability as a tight end to magically get open and catch the football not because he shared someone’s last name.

Charlie Hale, UVA center ‘70-’73: I have always known him by the nickname, ‘Wizard’. I have always thought the name came from his ability to catch passes … or his ability to somehow get open in the field. Personally I believe that he was a true ‘Wizard’ because he always had the ability to sneak out after curfew and never get caught.”

Shelton lied about Allen using the “n-word”:

Doug Jones, UVA defensive back ‘71-’74 and roomate of Ken Shelton: “I was on the University of Virginia football team with George Allen for the 1972 and 1973 seasons. During that time I never heard George Allen use any racially disparaging word nor did I ever witness or hear about him acting in a racially insensitive manner.”

George Korte, UVA linebacker ‘70-’73: “Contrary to Ken Shelton, I have kept up with George Allen the past thirty-five years. During this time, I have never known or heard him use racial epithets to describe blacks either in public or private. … George Allen did not use racial epithets or demonstrate racist attitudes towards blacks in the early 1970s.

Charlie Hale, UVA center ‘70-’73: ““During the 34 years I have known George Allen I have never heard him use racial slurs or derogatory language to describe a person or group of persons.”

Shelton lied about Allen’s reasons for coming to UVA:

George Korte, UVA linebacker ‘70-’73: “George came to University of Virginia because his father became the head coach of the Washington Redskins.”

Charlie Hale, UVA center ‘70-’73: The reason that Senator Allen came to Virginia to play football from UCLA was the fact that he was very close to his father, loved professional football and wanted to be near his family who would be living in Leesburg, Virginia.

Had the Webb campaign or Salon been interested in actual journalism, as opposed to merely repeating a Webb campaign lie, they could have discovered these facts for themselves. Instead, they are doing the dirty tricks of the Webb campaign.

[this story will be updated as more news comes in]

Complete statements are below the fold:

Statement from Joe Gieck, trainer for the University of Virginia football team for over 35-years:

“I seem to recall that Ken Shelton got the ‘Wizard’ nickname for his pass catching ability and before George Allen came to the University of Virginia.”


Statement from Doug Jones, defensive back on the University of Virginia football team 1971 thru 1974 and roomed with Ken Shelton in his second year:

“I was on the University of Virginia football team with George Allen for the 1972 and 1973 seasons. During that time I never heard George Allen use any racially disparaging word nor did I ever witness or hear about him acting in a racially insensitive manner.

“He was a scholar-athlete and a leader. I was proud to be his teammate.”


Statement from George Korte, linebacker on the University of Virginia football team from 1970 through 1973:

“Contrary to Ken Shelton, I have kept up with George Allen the past thirty-five years. During this time, I have never known or heard him use racial epithets to describe blacks either in public or private.

“Specific items in the article that are not true are as follows:
1. As stated above, George Allen did not use racial epithets or demonstrate racist attitudes towards blacks in the early 1970s.

2. George came to University of Virginia because his father became the head coach of the Washington Redskins. Instead of continuing his undergraduate education at UCLA, he transferred to be closer to his family. He came to University of Virginia to attend one of the top public Universities in the nation not as the article states “because he wanted to play football in a place where ‘blacks knew their place’.

3. Many of the nicknames used to describe the players were not given by George. Mine was Tez. I received this nickname because a coach mispronounced my name as Cortez. This resulted in my nickname given to me from another linebacker. Ken Shelton received his nickname because of his ability as a tight end to magically get open and catch the football not because he shared someone’s last name.

“It appears to me that Kenny Shelton has some deep rooted problems with his self identity and a rather hyper active imagination.”


Statement from Charlie Hale, center on the University of Virginia football team from 1970 through 1973:

“My name is Charles M. Hale, Jr. and I am writing this to state my personal knowledge of Senator George Allen.

“I received an athletic scholarship and attended the University of Virginia from 1972 till 1977. I was a member of the football team and met George Allen in 1972. During my first year the position I played was center and Senator Allen was a quarterback. Neither Senator Allen nor I were on the starting team and our job was to run the opposition offense for our starting defense to prepare for upcoming games. It was during this time we became close personal friends.

“When I was being recruited by UVA, the head coach Don Lawrence, informed me and my family that we would have a new quarterback, it was the son of Coach George Allen who was going to be taking over as head coach of the Washington Redskins. The reason that Senator Allen came to Virginia to play football from UCLA was the fact that he was very close to his father, loved professional football and wanted to be near his family who would be living in Leesburg, Virginia.

“Senator Allen and I were team mates for a period of two years 1972 and 1973 when he finished undergraduate school and then he attended law school also at UVA. We have maintained a close friendship now for 34 years. In the summer of 1976 we spent 6 weeks together driving and camping across the United States to visit his home and family in California. After graduation from law school at UVA the Senator worked in Abingdon, Virginia as a law clerk, and I lived in Grundy, Virginia we continued to see each other and go hunting.

“In 1988 I returned to UVA for a celebration marking 100 years of football at the school. I had been living in the western US since 1978 and we renewed our friendship. He took me home with him that night where I was to meet his wife Susan. Since that time we have remained close personal friends.

“During the 34 years I have known George Allen I have never heard him use racial slurs or derogatory language to describe a person or group of persons.

“Ken Shelton is a close personal friend of mine for the same period of time I have known Senator Allen. Ken was and still remains an amazing athlete, he is one who contained the ‘complete package’ height, speed, toughness, coupled with an uncanny ability to block, run and catch the football. I lived in the same apartment with him for two years (1973 and 1974) and got to know him very well. I have always known him by the nickname, ‘Wizard’. I have always thought the name came from his ability to catch passes (like the day against the Naval Academy when he caught 3 for touchdowns) or his ability to somehow get open in the field. Personally I believe that he was a true ‘Wizard’ because he always had the ability to sneak out after curfew and never get caught.

Jim Webb's and the Democrats' desperation is showing .... again.

Count Me In

While not agreeing entirely with the tone and profanity (though I have cussed in my heart), I certainly find myself in agreement with both Not Buck Turgidson and Mason Conservative: I am thoroughly sick of the race-baiting occurring in the Virginia Senate campaign.

Racism is the nuclear bomb of political debate: if you're hit with it, there's little you can do to respond. The race hustlers have so successfully overtaken reality that they have been able to make even the most innocent phrase potentially explosive. Or at least, exploitable.

However, I am not going to engage in moral equivalency, for it is quite clear from the outset that Jim Webb's nutroots supporters have gone from Bush Derangement Syndrome to psychotic, and that this entire series of events can and should be laid directly at their feet. And it is truly disappointing that someone I like and respect --- even though we are political opposites --- as much as Ben Tribbett has joined on the nutroots bandwagon. In Ben's case, I wish it could be attributed solely to youthful exuberance, but he has so frequently demonstrated an insight and maturity beyond his years that I find myself hoping that he has been rolled.

There is a method to oppose the Bush Administration, American policy in Iraq, and any number of policies of the Bush Administration. Instead of constructive opposition, however, Virginia's Democrat nutroots are offering nothing more than hate.

Thus, it's not sufficient to say that invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein was unnecessary, ill-advised, and/or counter-productive, a colorable argument, even if ones with which I disagree. No, Democrats are claiming that: it was done for base personal economic profit; or that "Bush lied and people died," and never mind the worldwide intelligence consensus that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

I don't know if this hate campaign will alienate voters sufficient to keep them away from the polls; I tend to discount such concerns.

What I really wonder is whether this Democrat campaign of race-baiting isn't based upon concerns (perhaps discerned from polling data) that the Democrat hammerlock on minority voters in Virginia (and nationwide) is slipping away, as Republican policies spread prosperity to demographic groups previously not enjoying it, or rather, conditioned by Democrat politicians to expect government handouts.

But isn't it deliciously ironic that Jim Webb and his nutroots supporters are savaging George Allen, while they want Webb to join a Democrat Senate Caucus that included former KKK leader Robert Byrd (D-WV)?

Your Desperation Is Showing

Poor Jim Webb. It's really sad when someone previously considered fairly honorable diminishes his entire record out of naked political ambition.

Yellow stars? Lightning bolts might equal Nazis?

If Jim Webb had any decency, he'd salvage what's left of his honor and denounce those campaign-financed mouthpieces in the blogosphere who are attacking George Allen, and in the process, setting back race relations in Virginia forty years or more. He might even come up with an idea more original than cut and run in Iraq.

Their hate campaign is desperate, and despicable. That Jim Webb is financing it makes him equally guilty, and utterly unworthy of public office anywhere, at any time.

The Song Remains the Same

I'm certainly glad that someone has the time to do this research. Once again, that illegitimate Conservative tactic of using a Liberal's own words against him/her is used to provide a great history lesson from the folks advocating passage of Virginia's Marriage Amendment:

Virginians have seen the ‘Unintended Consequences’ argument before. Can you tell when the following statements were made?

1. “As an unintended consequence of the legislature’s reckless action, even contracts by heterosexual members of the same sex – mothers and daughters, grandfathers and grandsons, sisters and brothers – may be called into question.” Tracy Thorne, vice-chair of Equality Virginia.

2. “The unnecessarily antagonistic language goes well beyond prohibiting gay marriage. There may be other ramifications involving wills, medical directives, insurance policies and home ownership agreements.”

3. “But the law’s language has some concerned that it could effectively prohibit a variety of private contracts between two people of the same sex, regardless of their relationship. Others worry that the bill threatens similar contracts between people who are not gay partners but are simply both of the same sex.”

4. “The bill’s broad language would preclude contracts to share assets or provide for medical powers of attorney, and though its sponsors deny they intend to do so, it would seem to ban even certain contractual business relationships undertaken by people who happen to be of the same gender.”

5. “Both gay rights activists and independent legal scholars agreed the nation’s now most strongly worded anti-[gay]marriage statute could have considerable impact on the ability of same sex couples to enter into legal agreements with each other. The new law will abolish the rights of same-sex couples to execute a will, sign medical directives or craft custodial agreements, according to Dyana Mason of Equality Virginia. Equality Virginia, located next door to the Virginia chapter of the American Civil Union, is expected to announce a lawsuit by early summer.”

6. “Critics say the law...could negate powers of attorney, wills, leases, child-custody arrangements, joint back accounts and health insurance granted by companies that recognize domestic partnerships.”

7. “But some legal experts say the law is so vague and ill-defined that it could interfere with legal contracts such as powers of attorney, wills, medical directives, child custody and property arrangements and joint bank accounts.”

8. “Concerns are being raised that a new Virginia law affirming the state’s prohibition against same-sex marriage could have widespread impact on contract law in the state. Some worry that the law could undermine contracts between unmarried people of the same sex that govern both personal and business arrangements, such as real estate holdings, prenuptial agreements and business partnerships.”

9. “The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia announced yesterday that it will challenge a new state law that bans civil unions. The ACLU said it is seeking same-sex couples to come forward and serve as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Specifically, the group is looking for homosexual couples who have contracts or other agreements that have been invalidated by the law.”

10. “I see a whole lot of potential plaintiffs.” Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia ACLU,

11. “Equality Virginia, a statewide gay rights group, will join the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund in looking for people harmed by the law to become plaintiffs in a lawsuit that will seek to have it overturned.”

12. “This is a law that is so broad and sweeping, I don’t think there will be any shortage of potential plaintiffs.” Daniel Ortiz, UVA law professor.

13. “Mark Usry, a local representative for Equality Virginia, previously known as Virginians for Justice, said the group will sponsor a lawsuit challenging the bill and asked attendees to donate money.”

Are these quotes from today? Are they about the Marriage Amendment?

No. They were used by Marriage Amendment opponents to question the Marriage Affirmation Act, HB 751, when passed by the General Assembly in 2004. Opponents of Virginia's state constitutional amendment defining marriage are using the same tired arguments they used two years ago when Virginia passed into law the Marriage Affirmation Act.

"Opponents to the the amendment are as wrong today as they were then," said Victoria Cobb, Executive Director of the Family Foundation. “Virginians need to be reminded that these same groups warned of “unintended consequences” in 2004 and even promised lawsuits. We are still waiting for the first lawsuit. I suspect we’ll be waiting long after the Constitutional amendment passes because opponents are simply wrong.”

Sources: Roanoke Times, May 7, 2004; Virginian Pilot editorial, June 2, 2004; Free Lance Star, May 18, 2004; Washington Post, May 9, 2004; Washington Blade, May 7, 2004; LA Times, June 20, 2004; Associated Press, May 24, 2004; ABA Journal Report, July 16, 2004; Washington Times, July 2, 2004; RTD, July 1, 2004; Roanoke Times, July 1, 2004; Roanoke Times, July 1, 2004; Daily Progress, May 5, 2004

What is it about the far Left that gives them such trouble with facts?

Sunday, September 24, 2006

More Childishness from Greg Letiecq

So Greg Letiecq, he of the sterling defense of freedom of speech, has decided to start editing my self-defensive posts at his little website.

Some pseudonymous commenter noted that:
James, I hardly ever agree with you, but your last post is dead on. It’s okay to promote social justice as long as it’s voluntary. Rishell is trying to get the government to promote it. If she’s elected, which I find it hard to believe she would be, none of us would be able to afford to live in Virginia anymore. With all of the programs she wants to impliment we’ll pay so much in taxes are kids will go hungry.
I responded as follows:
Read what I say, rather than what others with a self-serving agenda and/or hidden personal vendettas have to say about me, and you’ll probably discover that you agree with me far more often than not, “Had to Say.”
Now, I wasn't specific in mentioning anyone, but perhaps a guilty conscience (presuming the existence of one) provoked the OWW aka AWCheney to jump in with one of her self-serving cheap shots:
If what you say didn’t come served with a large helping of vitriol James, I’m sure that could be said of many people, myself included.
I responded as follows:
My “vitriol,” AWCheney, is limited to those "with a self-serving agenda and/or hidden personal vendettas."

Like you, AWCheney.
Greg decided that he should edit my post, declaring factual statements about Harry Parrish's primary campaign manager in 2005, a woman who aided in bringing since unprosecuted charges against opponent Steve Chapman but tried to deny her involvement (i.e., "those 'with a self-serving agenda and/or hidden personal vendettas. Like you, AWCheney.") as "offensive content." Offensive to AWCheney, probably, but not to those interested in facts regarding her sleazy tactics.

Apparently, though, "offensive content" is identifying the sleazy tactics of Greg's friends, but not belittling comments like this:
AWCheney said on 24 Sep 2006 at 5:57 pm
Actually no, Jimmy, you spread your vitriol indiscriminately…which is why you are so popular.
I responded with this:
Once again, the OWW can’t respond to facts, so she responds with belittling name-calling. To make it clear again, “Jimmy” is my ten-year-old son. He does not post here.

Get back on your meds, OWW.
Apparently, for Greg, that last line was "offensive content." Here's my last post on that thread:
James Young said on 24 Sep 2006 at 9:18 pm:

It's really amazing what you consider "offensive content," Greg. Noting the sleazy behavior and cheap shots of your friends? I note that AWCheney's belitting comments survived unscathed.

You're quite a selective champion of free speech.

Not to worry, though. I've posted the comments over at my site to demonstrate your selectively self-serving commitment to free and open debate.

And your hypocrisy.
We'll see how long my comment survives.

One really has to wonder about the relationship between Greg, the missing and as-yet unidentified "BVBL," and AWCheney. The posts which caused Steve Chapman to sue Greg and BVBL had all of the hallmarks of a well-funded opposition research operation.

Coincidence? Maybe a jury will decide. Were I representing Chapman, I would certainly be taking AWCheney's deposition.

These guys are priceless! Perhaps they're angling for a job in the Webb campaign of hate, distortion, and race-baiting. They'd fit right in.

UPDATE: Greg has made some comments that I commend to your attention, and also has removed some of the offending posts.

However, he now has a post up (one of his usually humorous photos, with appropriate captioning for the hearing impaired) which says very nearly one of the same things that I did. Hmmmm.

UPDATE II: I also managed to misspell Greg's name, which he was kind enough to overlook. It was unintentional, and I have corrected the error.

George Will on Michigan Civil Rights Initiative

George Will has an excellent column in today's Washington Post on the sleazy tactics of advocates of racial spoils systems to oppose a citizen's initiative to makes explicit in Michigan's state constitution the color-blindness spoken of so eloquently in dissent by the first Justice Harlan in Plessy v. Ferguson.

Observers of those opposing Virginia's Marshall-Newman Amendment to protect marriage will recognize the scare tactics being employed by nihilistic proponents of the radical homosexual agenda.

Friday, September 22, 2006

Democrat Chairman Candidate's Website Appears

Nine years ago, I ran (for the second and last time) for public office, the Dumfries District seat on the Prince William County School Board. It was in the early days of the Internet, and I certainly had no real appreciation for the Internet's power in campaigns. Nevertheless, a very pleasant young man from Woodbridge was kind enough to volunteer to put up a website for me. I don't know how much traffic it got, but I remember looking at it and thinking it quite good.

Whatever it looked like, it was certainly better than this.

One would think that a Democrat nominee for public office in a county of a third of a million people could do better than this. Sharon Pandak has managed to put up a site with even less substance than your average Democrat candidate.

"Experience Integrity Leadership"? What "Experience"? "Integrity" compared to whom? "Leadership" to where?!?!?

Previously, I was doubtful that Corey Stewart could match Chairman Sean's 70% in 2003. After all, Chairman Sean pulled a lot of Democrat votes because of his tax-and-spend policies.

But if this is the level of professionalism and substance we can expect from the Pandak campaign, Corey might even exceed 70%.

H/T to Greg.

Despicable Democrat Smears

Like most people (even Jim Webb is making pretensions, though I don't believe him), I'm getting a little sick of the race-baiting campaign against George Allen.

Perhaps the most despicable element of it, though, is that, in order to believe the smears, which started with a comment in August, you have to believe that Mrs. Allen --- George's mother, not Susan --- is a racist, and that it was at her knee where young George learned to badly mispronounce the racial smear "macaque."

Personally, I don't believe it. Any more than I believe that Jim Webb didn't refer to Southeast Asians as "gooks" during his tour in Vietnam. Don't expect a series of front-page Washington Post stories exploring that reality.

Jim Webb and his paid bloggers should be ashamed of themselves, but they probably aren't. Hell, Jim Webb won't even own up to financing this hate campaign against George Allen.

And after all, smearing a frail 83-year-old woman is a small price to pay in order to obtain political power.

It's Official: Ben Tribbett Is "In The Bag" Mode

While this may endanger my "Gold" rating in his blogroll, with this post about the race for Prince William County Chairman, Ben Tribbett goes from "frequently sensible --- if Liberal --- political analyst," to "in-the-bag adjunct to Democrat campaigns." "Toss-up"? "Slight-lean GOP"? The last race had the GOP nominee getting 70% of the vote. The "brand name" alone makes this race presumptively "Solid GOP."

Ben is a better and more reliable read for those nine or ten months a year when he's not trying to get Dems elected. Though his site remains useful on a "Know Thine Enemy" theory.

And it's still a damn sight better than Raising Dough... er, "Raising Kaine."

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Webb the Dodger

It's a little pathetic when a man who served his country (apparently honorably) in Vietnam can't own up to his responsibility for a blatantly race-baiting strategy. Watch Jim Webb the Dodger.

You Dems must be so proud.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Andrew Hurst: Con Artist

Oh, it's so much fun to watch the sanctimony of the far Left in high dudgeon.

According to the paid mouthpiec... er, boys over at Raising Dough ... er, "Raising Kaine," Democrat Andrew Hurst said at last night's debate that, as a Congressman, he wouldn’t accept millions of dollars from PACS. In fact, according to RK, Andy has refused to take any money from PACS during this election. The poster also opined that his unwillingness to accept money from lobbyists is the simple reason of why he would be productive while serving in Congress. "Hurst would be held accountable to the people instead of the lobbyists."

Oh really?

It's kinda funny that he should mention that, because the FEC would probably beg to differ. It lists $450 in PAC money, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, hardly known as an apologist for Conservatives and/or Republicans. I suppose that's not "millions of dollars from PACs," so one might not be able to call Hurst a bald-faced liar, but he has accepted PAC money.

And a further look at his top contributors, at least as of his last report, indicates which "people" to whom he would be held accountable. And it would only take a couple of guesses from the informed political observer to guess which ones. Labor unions? George Soros? Trial lawyers? Survey says: trial lawyers!

Once again, if one goes to Open Secrets, one easily finds a chart showing the source of Hurst's funds. The chart is explained like this:
This chart lists the top donors to each candidate so far in the current election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
And what does Andy Hurst's chart show? His top five donors are law and lobbying related. ReedSmith LLP, a Washington law firm for whom Hurst works, donate $24,500; Jack H. Olender & Associates, $2,500; the Law Office of C. Bardis LLC, $2000; the Law Offices of Robet Stahl, $2000, and Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, $1,300. Further review shows that seven of his top ten sources of donations were law-related. Hurst's single biggest donor group, as of his last report? You guessed it! Lawyers and lobbyists. The FEC reports show a similar bent. You can't swing a dead cat around Hurst's contributors without hitting a lawyer.

Self-righteousness is a singularly repugnant characteristic. Particularly when one has nothing to be righteous about. The post at Raising Dough ... er, "Raising Kaine," simply demonstrates how far in the bag they are for anyone on the far Left.

UPDATE: Gee, better divert attention from Hurst's hypocrisy. At the risk if unduly increasing his traffic (more than twice as many people visit here per day), you might want to go to Hurst's official campaign blog to learn how Democrats respond when their hypocrisy is exposed: ignore it, and go on the attack.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Impressive Reticence To Take Unjustified Credit

Remember all those Democrat claims that high gas prices were the fault of the Bush Administration?

Well, of course, gas prices have been falling substantially for weeks, but no one is giving credit to the Administration.

Except in a very few, limited circumstances, it is abundantly clear that no Administration can have much influence on gas prices, so Democrat attacks were --- as usual --- demogoguery.

I'm fairly impressed, though, that no Republican of whom I am aware has attempted to take credit for the recent good news on the issue. To do so would be bad economics, even if it were arguably good politics.

I guess it's the difference between those who understand markets, and those who don't

Senator Allen's Response To The Pseudo-Controversey

From Jon Henke:
Statement from Senator George Allen

ARLINGTON, VA – U.S. Senator George Allen released the following statement this afternoon:

“Yesterday, I found it especially reprehensible that a reporter would impugn the attitudes of my mother, as Ms. Peggy Fox did in her first question at the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce Senate debate. My mother and father both taught me to abhor bigotry, and Ms. Fox’s suggestion to the contrary was deeply offensive.

“The notion peddled by the Webb campaign that I am somehow embarrassed by my heritage is equally offensive, and also absurd.

“I was raised as a Christian and my mother was raised as a Christian. And I embrace and take great pride in every aspect of my diverse heritage, including my Lumbroso family line’s Jewish heritage, which I learned about from a recent magazine article and my mother confirmed.

“On several occasions through the years, I have mentioned publicly that my mother's father was incarcerated by the Nazis. I have never known whether he was persecuted by the Nazis because of his nationality, his religious faith, his role as a community leader, or his part in the anti-Nazi resistance.

“What I do know is that my grandfather’s imprisonment by the Nazis had a profound impact on my mother. It was a subject she found painful to discuss and so we almost never discussed it.

“Some may find it odd that I have not probed deeply into the details of my family history, but it’s a fact. We in the Allen household were simply taught that what matters is a person’s character, integrity, effort, and performance – not race, gender, ethnicity or religion. And so whenever we would ask my mother through the years about our family background on her side, the answer always was, ‘Who cares about that?’

“My mother has lived a long and full life, and I hope and pray she will enjoy many more years. She deserves respect and she also deserves privacy, especially where painful memories are concerned. I sincerely hope that simple decency will be respected.”
Good statement. Though I still think he should have taken my suggestion when responding to the original question.

Allen's Heritage

The latest imbroglio over the Senate campaign in Virginia demonstrates better than ever how empty the suit on the Democrat's side is, but I've got to confess a guilty pleasure:

It's given rise to perhaps the best pseudonym I've ever seen:

John Podhoretz as Felix Macacawitz.

Too bad only about a dozen Virginia bloggers get the joke.

Great Jim Webb Video

Great, that is, if you're a fisherman and enjoy landing a big one and seeing it flop back and forth in its death throes.

If it weren't so pathetic, it'd be funny. I particularly like the juxtaposition of Webb's comment about the Poodle AKA John Kerry and the picture of Kerry with his arm around Webb. It's amazing what some people will do to acquire power.

H/T to f mcdonald at UCV.

Farther Out On The Far Left

Now, according to one wag, it's "ultra-conservative" to take the position that marriage, as defined by millenia of civilization, is a relationship between a man and a woman (or women, if polygamy counts).

I suppose that, when you're a raging socialist with a nihilistic agenda, everything which is not nihilistic seems "ultra-conservative."

What If Senator Allen Had Said This?

Melissa, one of the Ditzy Democrats at Monstrosity, suggests a better response (though I've changed one word) to the idiocy of one of the reporterettes at yesterday's Virginia Senate debate:
YES, damnit, I'm a Jew! What, are you [a Nazi] or something? Do you want me to make a little STAR out of my notecards, color it with a yellow highlighter and TAPE it to myself so that everyone will know for sure? You want a swastika, bitch?
Obviously, I support Senator Allen, and am voting for him.

But if he had actually said this, a notoriously cheap lawyer such as myself might even have sent him money.

Having just seen portions of Patton on AMC this weekend, I've got to wonder whether Senator Allen --- should he see this --- would be mindful of a line near the end of the movie: "No, I never said that. I never said any such thing. But I wish I had."

Monday, September 18, 2006

George Allen's Jewish Roots?

Apparently, some reporterette at the Allen/Webb debate before the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce asked George Allen whether one of his forebears was a member of the Jewish faith. Senator Allen responded admirably.

I'm really trying to figure out why anybody would care. 'Cept for the Jew-baiters who raised Harris Miller's faith and heritage in the Democrat Senate primary, that is.

Who Do They Think They're Kidding?

Fox News in D.C. covered a rally today against the Marshall-Newman Amendment to protect marriage. Speakers echoed the Chicken Littles who suggest that its passage would impair the right of contract.

One question which wasn's asked of the speakers was whether they support the notion that marriage should be re-defined to include homosexual relationships.

It would doubtless be revealing to learn that most of those who theorize that this amendment would interfere with the right of contract are, in reality, supporters of the radical homosexual agenda. Their opposition to the amendment clearly has less to do with concerns about unintended consequences than it does to do with the intended consequences: putting Virginia squarely in opposition to the radical homosexual agenda.

The Excuses Are Starting Early

Apparently, some of our friends on the Left side of the Virginia blogosphere are starting their excuses for their impending loss early.

Yeah, it can't be the fact that you've embraced the looniest of the Looney Left. It has to be those wascally Wepublicans and their dirty tricks.

Saturday, September 16, 2006


Contrary to popular opinion, there's evidence that the Washington Post sometimes recognizes the idiocy of the far Left.

Nevertheless, the far Left is still trying to get mileage out of Plame-gate.

And that includes the Fairfax County Democratic Commttee.

Pathetic doesn't even even begin to cover it.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Apropos of Nothing

Found a link to a site to create a map of states visited, and came up with this result:

create your own visited states map
or check out these Google Hacks.

create your own visited states map.

Five short. Have to get working on that. 'Cept D.C. isn't (and shouldn't be) a "state."

Republican for Webb? Sure!

Well, the boys in the bag for Jim Webb over at "Raising Dough" ... er, "Raising Kaine," have a post up from someone who claims to be a "Republican for Webb." While I have no doubt that this person is for Webb, he or she refuses to identify him/herself by anything more than a pseudonym.

And once more, we have an elaborate claim of a credential (i.e., being a Republican) from someone who prevents verification.

I have no doubt that there are a few, misguided "Republicans" out there who are supporting Jim Webb. But those stupid enough to credit a post by a pseudonymous coward who claims to be a "Republican" are .... well, doubtless a part of the core constituency of the Democrat Party.

Bart Hinkle Jumps the Shark?

It seems that Richmond Times-Dispatch colunist Bart Hinkle has started his own blog.

Today, he writes to criticize Attorney General Bob McDonnell, saying this:

Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell has issued an opinion that the proposed marriage amendment to the Virginia Constitution “will not affect current legal rights and obligations of unmarried persons involving contracts, wills, advance medical directives,” and so on. He’s said as much before. But as I’ve pointed out before (in the May 16 column, “Could a Judge Misinterpret the Marriage Amendment?"), the advocates of the amendment seem to have painted themselves into a logical corner.

If the threat to traditional marriage from activist judges is so dire that existing statutory language banning gay marriage is not sufficient, then what is to prevent those same (unidentified) activist judges from misinterpreting the marriage amendment and invalidating existing statutory language on other topics? Judges elsewhere have ruled that state marriage amendments invalidate the protections of spousal-abuse laws for unmarried persons, for instance.

The emphasis is added. As I understand it, Hinkle is suggesting that the same activist judges who would disregard the law and 5000 years of civilization to create some "right" for homosexual "marriage" might also cite this amendment to "invalidat[e] existing statutory language on other topics" to the detriment of homosexuals.

Yeah. Right.

Let me explain it to you, Bart. The potential problem isn't "activist judges" who rule absurdly to illustrate what they [presumably] believe to be an absurd amendment. The potential problem is "activist judges" who pervert the law to achieve their personal political preferences, e.g., homosexual "marriage." Thus, an "activist judge" inclined to rewrite the definition of the word "marriage" to allow a couple --- or group --- of perverts to call their activities "marriage" is not going to be inclined to extend the reach of the marriage amendment to deny them the equal protection of laws against domestic violence, search and seizure, etc.

It is a measure of the desperation of perversion's proponents that they are left to suggest that their own allies on the bench might use the marriage amendment to harm them. Like most of the sturm und drang of the far Left, it is nonsense.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Only in the WaPo

Only the Washington Post could run a headline like this with a straight face.

"GOP Moderate Chafee Wins R. I. Primary."

Only the Washington Post could call Lincoln Chafee a "moderate."

Another One Bites The Dust

As anticipated here, the "board of imbeciles trustees" (as someone here, put it) of Randolph-Macon Women's College voted to go co-ed in the fall of 2007. Women have one less educational option, and Hampden-Sydney men have one less option for ... well, whatever. I have a lot of fond memories of R-MWC girls, none of which I am going to relate in a place where my wife might read them.

Now administrators will have to come up with a new name. Benedict Arnold College has been suggested and right now, I can't think of a more apt name. Were I an alumnae (my sister is, class of '89), my dollars would be going elsewhere.

This is terribly sad. Stories noting this infamy are here:

Washington Post
Roanoke Times
Richmond Times-Dispatch
News & Advance

Better they had closed the doors than diminished the educational firmament. Better dead than co-ed.


Special Election on 7 November?

Craig Vitter, who is apparently more in touch with hourly goings-on in PWC than I, posted this comment to this post:
James, FYI, the judge issued the writ and the election will be on Nov 7th. The announcement is supposed to happen at 3:00 PM today.
I truly hope that Craig is correct. If he is, kudos to the judge. whomever he is, who didn't allow the taxpayers to be soaked with another unnecessry bill from Chairman Sean. However, it still does not excuse Chairman Sean's brinksmanship, detailed here, and here.

It would be interesting if the Board of Elections could provide information on how much Chairman Sean's temporizing will cost the taxpayers of Prince William, if anything.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Truly Frightening

Just returned home after two days of trials in Pennsylvania, and checked the mail. This frightening image and thought greeted me:

I think the neighbors heard me scream.

But then there was this notation:

"Mitt Romney, the governor of Massachusetts and a GOP presidential hopeful, has a history of polygamy in his family, the Salt Lake Tribune has reported. Romney’s great-grandfather had five wives, and two great-great-grandfathers had ten each. But the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to which Romney belongs, disavowed polygamy in 1890. As the Tribune article acknowledges, the governor “is a confirmed monogamist of nearly four decades.” Should Mitt Romney join a 2008 race that includes John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and George Allen, the only candidate in the GOP field with just one wife would be the Mormon."


Despicably Self-Serving

A few months back, I attended a Federalist Society luncheon downtown. As is the norm at these events, one sits with many one may not know, or know well, but the family-style Chinese at Tony Cheng's promotes discussion. On this occasion, I sat down at a table with, among others, an older gentleman, and we eventually exchanged names, and idle chat.

Our discussion became more focused when we talked about where we live. When I mentioned where I live, he immediately asked "What do you think of Sean Connaughton?"

I was somewhat apprehensive. While not shy about giving my opinions about Chairman Sean, this was a pleasant, informal luncheon setting, and I didn't want to gratuitously give offense, particularly since my experience is that people feel strongly about Chairman Sean: either they love him, or they hold him in contempt.

So I measured my words, saying something to the effect that "Well, my opinions of Sean are pretty well known. As a taxpayer, I'm a little sick of paying for his spending spree. And it strikes me that his ambition exceeds his ability."

My luncheon companion told me "It was a trick question. I don't think much of him, either."

What was even more fascinating was what he said next, offering that he had once written a recommendation letter for Chairman Sean, about which he now was dubious.

Given that he was a Virginia voter, my response was this: "Well, here's the $64 question: did you vote for him for Lieutenant Governor?"

The answer: "Well, I voted for him. But I didn't send him money."

Interesting. Particularly in light of Chairman Sean's now-apparent machinations over his resignation as Chairman of the Prince William County Board of County Supervisors. It seems that, while Chairman Sean was long ago confirmed by the Senate to his presidential appointment, and dated his resignation letter on 5 or 6 September, but that its effective date was not until today, Tuesday, 12 September. Jim Riley credibly reports that he would have had to have done so before he would have been sworn into his Federal office, on Wednesday, 6 September.

So, the question remains: why did Chairman Sean time his resignation so as to make it apparently impossible to conduct the special election to choose his successor on the same date as the general election on 7 November?

No answers have been forthcoming from Chairman Sean. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that it was simply so he could preside over remembrances on 11 September.

Whatever the reason, the facts are these:

Chairman Sean could have resigned so as to allow a special election to be conducted contemporaneously with the general election in November.

Chairman Sean could have long ago announced an effective date for his resignation.

Chairman Sean's resignation letter was apparently dated 5 or 6 September, giving an effective date for his resignation of 12 September, but was not transmitted to the appropriate authorities. No explanation given.

It could have been written weeks earlier.

Chairman Sean has offered nothing but vague, platitudinous BS to explain his delay.

Turnout at a special election held other than in November will all but certainly be lower than during a November general election.

Prince William taxpayers will be stuck with a large bill ($40 to 45 thousand, or more) to pay for a special election.

Having offered no good, or even bad, reason for his behavior, speculation is running rampant as to the reason why Chairman Sean has behaved in this way, some of it here. Perhaps there is one thing that all can agree upon:

Chairman Sean has behaved despicably.

Monday, September 11, 2006

Time for a Reprint

Here's my column from 13 September 2001, with a few added thoughts that the Potomac News wouldn't have published:
Suggested Title: Terror’s Day of Infamy

When the telephone rang at about 9:15 a.m., I was busy putting the finishing touches on this week’s column (something about Virginia’s state-wide races; stay tuned). It was my wife’s number identified on the caller ID. Having dropped me off so she could take the land yacht for an emissions inspection, I thought she was just called to let me know that she had arrived safely at work.

“Turn on the radio. The World Trade Center has been attacked again.” She was in tears. Later, she told me she’d always wanted to see it. My last two times in New York, I’d stayed at a hotel across the street. I’d had other choices for decent hotels near the Federal Courthouse, but the Millennium Hilton offered a magnificent view of the World Trade Center, the Financial District, Staten Island, and the Statue of Liberty. When in New York....

“Could’ve been an accident,” I responded. I told her that I remembered reading a story as a child about a B-25 hitting the Empire State Building. ‘Course, that was a prop plane. In fog.

“Two planes have hit. One on each tower.”

OK. So it wasn’t an accident. My assumption was, at the time, that it couldn’t have been anything much larger than a Cessna. In passing, I knew that one plane alone might have been a hijacked airliner. But two? No way.

Since there are public policy operations going on in our offices, a few people have cable feeds, with C-SPAN and CNN available. I went to the office of our VP for Legal Information, a fancy name for the Foundation’s PR guy. The pictures were, of course, incredible. By this time, footage of the second airliner hitting the South Tower were running. Some already there were in tears. More struggled to keep control. I was on deadline so, as difficult as it was, I returned to my labors.

It wasn’t the end, either.

Just before sitting down, I looked west from my office window, and heard a boom and felt a thud. Not entirely unusual, but it was already hardly a usual day. At that point, I half expected to be backlit by a flash of brilliant light, but resisted the urge to “duck and cover,” particularly since I was six stories up. Fat lot of good that would have done if it were anything reasonably powerful.

“What the hell was that?!?!” I hollered. Nobody else seemed to hear or feel it. Occasionally, things get dropped, like large boxes of union financial records. Was I just being paranoid? Could one “just be paranoid” on a day like today?

Returned to the television. “Anything new?” I asked. “There’s now a fire reported at the Pentagon.” “Open the shades. I just heard a bang and felt a thud.” Sure enough, in an otherwise cloudless sky on an otherwise magnificent morning, a plume of smoke arose. To the north-northeast. Looked to be about ten miles away. My God.

A number started running through my head: 2,403. It wasn’t until later that I remembered its significance — the number of American dead at Pearl Harbor. By nightfall, I found myself hoping against hope that we got off that “lucky.” And answering phone calls from nervous relatives, in-laws, and friends knowing of my frequent travels. And making a few myself.


The operation has to be admired for its elegance, execution, and effectiveness.

Four virtually simultaneous hijackings. At least four trained pilots to take over the controls, since any pilot I’ve ever known would take a bullet before willingly and purposefully drive his aircraft into a building, no matter how many passengers were executed before his eyes. Three hitting marquee targets; a fourth on the ground with only the deaths of those on the plane through probably nothing more than God’s grace. And absolute security precluding any kind of forewarning. Damn them.

One piece of precious good news: they didn’t have or use nukes. With the dismemberment of the Soviet Union, and little rogue states with nascent nuclear capability, this is a real threat. And wouldn’t it have been ironic to destroy with his subsequent handiwork (he was the military leader of the project to design and build the first atomic bomb) General Leslie R. Groves’ earlier and fame-building handiwork, the Pentagon? Maybe such historical ironies are lost on the types of barbarians who perpetrated Tuesday’s attack. But one has to believe, or devoutly hope, that the fact that they didn’t use one means they don’t have one.

But what’s next? After now 26 hours (as this is written) of non-stop coverage — MTV and VH-1 were running a CBS News feed; ESPN had ABC News; Speedvision ran Fox News Channel — what do Americans do?

President George W. Bush might have hit about the right tone, though one yearns for the eloquence of FDR on such an occasion. We find the dead. We mourn and bury them. We find those responsible. We denounce their crimes against civilization, America, Americans, and the Islamic faith they corrupt in pursuit of their own power.

And put more bluntly than a President can, we blow they and all who harbor them to the Hell they so richly deserve.

A staff attorney with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc., Young lives with his wife and their two sons in Montclair. He is a long-standing member of the Prince William County Republican Committee, and is past Chairman of the Prince William County Young Republicans.
We got home early that day, and found ourselves wondering about the two daughters (one now at West Point) of one of our neighbors. Both worked at the Pentagon. Thankfully, neither was killed or injured.

But the full measure of our personal loss wouldn't be known until nearly a month later. A classmate at Hampden-Sydney lost his wife at the Pentagon, which we learned shortly before attending my 15th class reunion. Our class reunion was a month after September 11th, and Brenda sat next to him at dinner, spending most of the dinner holding his hand, having lost her mother at age ten. He worked across the street, and their two young children were in the Pentagon day care center. He described finding them as simultaneously the happiest moment of his life, and the worst, as he realized that his wife had been killed, because she wasn't there, too. I cannot imagine the strength he mustered to come to our reunion, but then again, perhaps it was the consolation of old friends.

And then, there's the call from my (now late) grandfather, then 86 years old. Like everyone else in our family, he hadn't called me directly at the office to make sure I wasn't traveling; they all merely called our receptionist, who assured all that I was in the office that day, and safe. His first words? "I thought I'd only have to live through this shit once." The reference, of course, was to Pearl Harbor, which occurred when he was 27 years old. I'd only ever known my grandfather to use more than "prime-time" cuss words one other time: when my grandmother had been harassed by thugs in New York City, and he was across the street. It wasn't typical for him, and indicated the measure of his outrage.

Gramps got it just about right.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

A Goodbye "F*** You " From Chairman Sean?

Ohhhhh. There's Young, being crude again.

Well, none of my qualities or faults has ever cost the taxpayers of Prince William County a dime. Were it that the same could be said of Chairman Sean Connaughton.

As detailed by Charles Reichley over at TwoConservatives, and a few others, a letter has gone out from the Prince William County Republican Committee noting that the, well, God-like Maximum Leader has failed to resign in time for the special election to replace him to be held contemporaneously with the General Election on 7 November. The letter provides as follows:
Prince William BOCS Chairman Special Election

The Prince William County Board of Elections informed us today that the special election for the position of the Chairman of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors would not occur on November 7, 2006. Therefore, another date will have to be determined for the Prince William County residents to vote for a new Chairman.

Today, September 8, 2006 was the deadline set by the Prince William County Board of Elections to place the name of the Candidates for the Special Election on the ballot. The Prince William County Government has not received the resignation from the current holder of this office, Sean Connaughton.

When a vacancy occurs or even a letter stating a future resignation date (per Virginia Code 24.2-228.1A) is submitted, a Judge has up to fifteen days to issue the Writ of Election, which sets the date of the Special Election. The Election must be held between forty-five to sixty days after the Writ (per Virginia Code 15.2-502C).

According to the following website:, Sean Connaughton was sworn in to his new position on Wednesday, September 6, 2006. Several attempts had been made to contact Mr. Connaughton to ask when he would be sworn into this new position and when his resignation letter would be received. As of this time, Mr. Connaughton has not responded.

We will keep you informed of any new information regarding this special election.
I asked whether Chairman Sean would do this to us on Thursday. If these reports are accurate, the possible has become the actual, and Chairman Sean has stuck Prince William County taxpayers with [another] huge unnecessary bill, all without even the courtesy of explanation. The arrogance of that act is incredible, even for a lawyer and a politician. Even Chairman Sean's most ardent supporters cannot justify this behavior, though I suppose some will try. They would earn just a little credibility if they didn't bother, and in fact, condemned him.

Those of us who have long recognized his shortcomings, and have in response been savaged for noting them, are --- of course --- not surprised.

Like Charles, I still hold out the hope that the County judge who draws this case can and will work promptly to insure that the special election is held contemporaneously with the general election. However, one has to wonder why the County Electoral Board would set a deadline which was not enforceable or reasonable.

It's really too bad that there are quite a few Internet pissboys (see "History of the World, Part I") out there who will nevertheless excuse this inexcusable conduct, the last, great, political "bird" that Chairman Sean has flipped to the taxpayers of Prince William County, and to a GOP which honored him with its nomination.

Chairman Sean now holds a political job. There should be political consequences for his effort to hurt his own Party. There will certainly be many among the Republican Party of Virginia who will remember Chairman Sean's perfidy when he returns and wants to restart his career in elective politics. 'Course, one wonders whether it will even be in the GOP.

As for now, one would hope that, under the circumstances, the President would respond in kind, and fire this arrogant SOB, relegating to the political oblivion he so richly deserves.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

Who Is "Eric B. Bailey"?

Yesterday, I wrote of the reported dismissal of ethics charges filed against Steve Chapman's attorneys, Faisal M. Gill and Jad Sarsour. Shortly after posting my discussion, I received a telephone call from a young man (or so he sounded) representing himself to be "Eric B. Bailey," whose signature appeared on the letter sent to the Virginia Bar, which was provided to Steve's attorneys as part of the investigation.

I had a very interesting conversation with young Mr. Bailey. I was particularly interested in what provoked him --- a stranger to the dispute --- to file his charges. He didn't challenge anything that I said in the post, but merely asked that I remove a number of links that indicated his address, which I was pleased to do, and he was kind enough to acknowledge in a comment he made. It is worth reprinting here in full, as he answers a number of questions raised in my post:
To recap our phone conversation I am not a lawyer and I am not Jaded JD. I don't know Greg Letiecq or Black Velvet Bruce Lee or Steve Chapman or Faisal Gill. I've never had any communication with any of them about this or anything else.

I filed the complaint because it looked like Gill wasn't even a lawyer and it looked like Chapman was trying to use a friend to intimidate Greg Letiecq. I don't know if Greg slandered Steve Chapman or not. If he did then that's his responsibility.

No one asked me to file the complaint and I didn't do it as anyone's agent. I did send a copy to JD after I put it together to see what he thought. I didn't send it to Greg Letiecq or anyone else. Any information they got about the complaint came from JD or someone JD sent it to.

Thanks for taking my address out of the links.
In our conversation, he represented himself as someone who is a member of his local party committee --- I don't recall if he said Republican --- and that he as been involved in a number of campaigns. I think he said he was not a lawyer, which he confirms in his comment.

"Eric's" comment to the contrary notwithstanding, one still has to wonder why a non-attorney blog-reader from Richmond would bother to file ethics charges with the Virginia Bar regarding people whom he does not know. One also has to wonder why he would provide a copy of that charge --- ethics charges are supposed to be confidential, until adjudicated --- to a pseudonymous blogger, even one who discussed possible ethical implications of the issue.

So much of what we do is based upon who we are. So the question remains, who is "Eric B. Bailey"?

As I detailed in the original post, an Internet search was quite unsatisfying. Few if any links to "Eric B. Bailey" have anything to do with Richmond. A search of "Eric Bailey" returns more, including many to"Australia's Number One motivational speaker," and others to someone who appears to be a reporter for a California newspaper.

So, I then went to the website for the Virginia Public Access Project. But I broadened my search to just "Bailey," under donors, and suddenly, there was a possibility. Except this was for "E. Brandon Bailey." Right initials, anyway. Same guy? Who knows? It lists a Glen Allen address, which is at least in the right area code. Maybe I was on to something. After all, there is that great Southern tradition of going by one's middle name (while a Yankee, my first initial is "W.")

So I went back to Google, and searched "E. Brandon Bailey." My results are here.

Was this the same guy? I responded to "Eric's" comment with one of my own. Here it is:
Thanks for the comment.

I am a little curious, though, "Eric." Is it "Eric B. Bailey," or "E. Brandon Bailey," or simply "Brandon Bailey," when you're not trying to make mischief for Conservatives? Because if it is, that, too, would explain a lot.
That was just before 4:00 p.m., yesterday. And as of yet, no response.

But back to the results of my Google search. It returned two hits. One was apparently part of a legal brief published in Summer 2004, by "a rising second-year law student at the University of Richmond T.C. Williams School of Law, Richmond, Virginia; B.A. International Studies, University of Richmond 1998." While conceding that homosexual "marriage" can be unlawful, the brief argues that "the explicit denial of those [marital ] benefits to [homosexual couples] constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause." Interesting.

Then there's the second link, apparently related to the same person. "E. Brandon Bailey" is identified in as the Chairman of the By-Laws Committee for the Equality Alliance, under the general address "" What is the "Equality Alliance"? Following the links back, one finds that it is a group whose purposes are:
The purpose of the Alliance is to—

(a) provide academic and social support for members of sexual minorities and their allies enrolled in the law school.

(b) heighten awareness of legal issues facing sexual minorities by educating the law school and community.

(c) advocate social equality and universal civil rights.

Also interesting.

So what do we now know? We know, according to Bailey, that he sent a copy of his ethics charge to "Jaded JD," who identified himself as an attorney and a homosexual in his blog. We have someone with the same initials, in the same area, who is apparently involved with a homosexual advocacy group at the law school and who has written in support of homosexual "rights," but who has not responded to an inquiry as to whether he is "E. Brandon Bailey." We have "E. Brandon Bailey" who, if I read the bio on the brief correctly, was scheduled to graduate from U of R's law school in 2006, and probably sat for the Bar in July 2006. And we have the ethics charge itself, which one can surmise was written by one schooled in the law.

So what can we surmise? Assuming that Bailey was truthful in his statements to me, we can surmise that it was "Jaded JD" who sent the ethic charge to Greg Letiecq. We know that only Bailey, the Bar, and "Jaded JD" had a copy of it. And we can surmise that "Eric B. Bailey" is "E. Brandon Bailey," as they are in the same area, and the former appears schooled in the law, while the latter is (or was) a law student.

What is not clear is why he would attempt to distance himself from since-dismissed Bar charges by using a variation of his name. Given that he apparently reads this blog, one hopes that he would provide some insight and/or some corrections to these surmises.

If it is the case that "Eric B. Bailey" is the aforementioned "E. Brandon Bailey," one certainly could legitimately question his ethics in involving himself in the controversy surrounding the "ethics" of lawyers with whom he has no relationship.

The term "officious intermeddler" comes to mind.

UPDATE: Greg offers his spin on the motives of Mr. Bailey here. He does not identify the source of his information on the ethics charge.

Friday, September 08, 2006

Webb's First Television Ad...

apparently features Ronald Reagan singing his praises. Not as a Senator or a Democrat, mind you, but as Navy Secretary in his Republican Administration.

Other than smearing George Allen, this seems to be the Webb campaign's first step, and it's a misstep.

Can one imagine something that would be more likely to engage Nancy Reagan than a Democrat's use of her husband's image for his own purposes?

Today's Special: Crow

As promised, though somewhat tardily (apology below), here is the bit of news that I promised late Wednesday night. For what it's worth, anticipation sent my hits over 500 yesterday for the first time ever.

It seems that the ethic charges filed against Faisal M. Gill and Jad N. Sarsour have been dismissed, as reported to me by Faisal Gill.

Notwithstanding my professional credentials, I'm actually not a fan of litigation to resolve disputes, particularly when it involves people I know and, in fact, like (well, two out of three, anyway). Hence, the entire Chapman v. Black Velvet Bruce Lee and Greg Letieqc saga bothers me. I would have much preferred it if the now-Defendants had behaved with more dignity, and frequently warned them that their behavior might be actionable. Steve might have wisely spent some time persuading Greg (at least) that he is not the buffoon that he was portrayed to be (AWCheney and/or BVBL are too far gone to bother).

However, litigation is a last resort, and usually preferable to the alternatives. In this case, like the alternative of allowing Internet smears to go unanswered.

I've not said much here, mostly offering my comments elsewhere. 'Fact is, as I've repeatedly said, the Internet is a singularly lousy place to debate legal issues and/or resolve legal disputes, and I will do my best to avoid the temptation to be drawn in to such discussions. Particularly where, as here, I am not an expert on the law of libel and/or slander and/or defamation. However, here I report an outcome.

You will also note that a link to the website in question (or more accurately, Greg's revamped version) does not appear to the right. No one has asked why, but here it is: I long ago made the decision to not dignify it with a link. There are certainly other contemptible websites linked in my blogroll, but BVBL in its prior incarnation was a special breed of slime. And even though Greg has done yeoman's work of late there regarding the Miller/Rishell and Wolf/Feder races, he persists in maintaining the name, or a variation on it. So long as he does so, one cannot get there from here, except under special circumstances (such as these).

With that in mind, much sound and fury over the lawsuit appears in the blogosphere. Greg comments upon it --- to my mind, unwisely, as a defendant --- frequently. It also seems to me that he goes off half-cocked, and offers singularly uninformed comments and conclusions. He has even set up a legal defense fund, and yes, I suppose that you can find out about contributing by clicking on the link. I will not be joining you in doing so.

Others have commented as well, as follows: Commonwealth Conservative said Steve Chapman is embarrasing himself; Virginia Virtucon gave not fewer than three offerings: Blog-a-thon, BVBL faces Legal Eagles over Chapman allegations, and Black Velvet if you Please; Ben Tribbett commented with Outrage and Chapman Lawsuit Continues; New Dominion said So Sue Me; Brian Patton said Bloggers Beware; F--- U., ... er, F.T. Rea gave his SLANT with Black Velvet Bruce Lee Sue-icide; Norm at One Man’s Trash had a few comments on The JD Investigates; Virginia Centrist commented somewhat inaccurately with Blogger threatened by public official; and the boys at Free Republic had this headline: Candidate misses filing deadline; Claims blogger distracted him; Files $200K lawsuit.

Greg has, himself, offered numerous commentaries, variously defiant and plaintive (as opposed to "plaintiff"). Most importantly, for my purposes here, he touted the fact that an ethics complaint was filed against Chapman's attorneys on 31 May, alleging twelve --- count 'em, twelve! --- separate counts of professional misconduct. Now, Greg doesn't identify the individual filing this complaint, and has yet to post anything on the outcome. He commented upon it further here, as well.

Well, I've now received a copy of that ethics charge, filed by one Eric B. Bailey, listing a Richmond address. Oddly, in an ethics charge which raises, inter alia, issues relating to Chapman's attorney's letterhead, Bailey's letter does not have one. Nor is he listed in Martindale-Hubbell's on-line listing of attorneys, as either a Richmond attorney, or more generally, as a Virginia attorney. Indeed, the only "Eric B. Bailey" listed anywhere in the United States has a basic listing noting only that there is an "Eric B. Bailey" is in Morristown, New Jersey. The same one? Who knows? A Google search of the address turns up utterly nothing. A Yahoo search returns a map which looks curiously like a residential section of town (Mommy's house, perhaps?). Likewise, a search. There is not even a "Bailey" listed at that address within the Zip Code in the White or Yellow Pages, though I suppose that "Eric B. Bailey" might have an unlisted number.

Curious. One doesn't have to be an attorney to file an ethics complaint --- far from it --- but one would expect to find a charge which has all of the hallmarks of a legal document to have been filed by an attorney, particularly when it is filed by a stranger to the dispute.

Now, no one was more thoroughgoing and virulent in his condemnation of Steve's decision to bring his suit than the late --- and here, unlamented --- "Jaded JD." Before he shut down his blog, "JD" offered a whole series of posts --- four --- about Chapman and his lawyers. His analysis also had all of the hallmarks of a legal document; indeed, he holds himself out as an attorney.

One cannot help but wonder, is the late, unlamented "Jaded JD" actually "Eric B. Bailey"? After all, "Jaded JD" wrote of leaving the Commonwealth over our ever-so-passe views on homosexual perversion, leaving to teach at a northeastern law school. Seton Hall Law School is in Morristown (though no "Eric B. Bailey" is currently listed among its faculty). Hmmmm.

Or was "Eric B. Bailey" acting as an agent for someone else, perhaps "Jaded JD"? It could be quite serious if he was acting as an agent for BVBL and/or Greg, who "received word that an ethics complaint has been filed," presumably from the filer. Rule 3.4(i) of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct states that "A lawyer shall not ... Present or threaten to present ... disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter." Under certain circumstances, the filing itself could constitute a violation of disciplinary rules.

Greg has touted the fact that the charge "alleges 12 separate counts of professional misconduct regarding the initial threat letter that was sent to BVBL." Wellllll, that's not quite true. It makes a few claims of violation, and states twelve points in support of that claim, but spinning that into "12 separate counts of professional misconduct" probably overstates the case.

You see, Faisal Gill, the first name on the firm's door of Chapman's counsel, provided those documents to me today. He is one of the targets of the charge.

Now, I wish I could treat you to gems from "Jaded JD's" pronouncements, since my recollection is that he was quite forceful and self-assured in his analysis of what he alleged to be Chapman's attorneys' unethical conduct.

But "Jaded JD's" blog has disappeared into the ether. It seems that you can find an occasional cached page, but I am unable to find the posts themselves.

One cannot help but wonder whether his decision to shut down that blog has something to do with the outcome of those ethics proceedings. You see, Faisal Gill has informed me that the VSB has orally informed him that the ethics charge filed against him and his associate has been dismissed. I wonder if Greg will tout that fact?

The arrogance of those who dismiss Chapman, his lawsuit, and even his lawyers offends me. Not because I supported Steve for the 2006 GOP nomination --- I probably would have ended up lending my rhetorical support to Jackson Miller for the GOP nomination, for what it is worth, as the objectively stronger and philosophically acceptable candidate --- but because the savagery and nastiness of their attacks was both uncalled for, and rooted in hidden agendas. To my mind, it constituted the Internet equivalent of terrorism, with mostly masked cowards attacking Chapman and his supporters over the fact that they dared to challenge Harry Parrish on matters of principle, principles to which most of them pay little more than lip service.

It also offends me professionally when people try to use the attorneys' ethics process in service of another agenda. In this case, it seems to be a political one, and/or, possibly, one related to the lawsuit.

I don't know if Chapman can prevail in his lawsuit. But if he can, one has to wonder whether these ethics charges, filed by an utterly obscure individual, were tacitly or knowingly a part of the campaign against him.

So it is only appropriate to publicize it when their elaborate claims and arguments fail, as has the charge against Chapman's attorneys. I have no illusions as to how many people will read this (though Ben's reference helps!). Much has been and probably will be written about Chapman's pending lawsuit. It would be a refreshing change if more of it were written honestly, with biases and loyalties fully disclosed, absent the bile that characterizes too many of those who have set themselves against him, and absent uninformed pronouncements about law and ethics. I don't know a great deal about Chapman's attorneys on a professional level (Gill is a personal friend and a political ally), but they certainly do not deserve the stain with which Chapman's foes have attempted to smear them.

The bile that characterizes Chapman's opponents needlessly turned a political dispute into a legal dispute, one which someone --- an officious intermeddler, at best --- has attempted to turn (unsuccessfully) into an ethical dispute. Let it be resolved by the legal process.

As for those who attacked Chapman's lawyers for daring to represent him, well, belly up to the bar. Today's Special is crow.

UPDATE: Well, no post I've ever written has ever provoked TWO phone calls, but this one did. One was from Eric B. Bailey, who among other comments asked me to remove the hyperlinks to his address, which is his home. Not wanting to facilitate any inappropriate response, I am pleased to do so. You'll just have to take my word for it.