Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Al Gore Wins An Oscar

Perhaps he's a seer. Perhaps he wants to save us from ourselves. Perhaps Al Gore knew about the horrendous effect Man is having on Mother Earth before any of us.

Or perhaps it's just another excuse --- with Socialism having been a dismal failure --- to increase the size and power of government over our lives.

Whatever. Al Gore has been anointed by the Hollywood glitterati, and won an Oscar.

It's only slightly less perverse than Roman Polanksi's.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

When Democrats Attack!

Michelle Malkin has a more detailed scoop on the political terrorist here.


It seems that the suspect, Andrew Jefferson Stone, has a facebook entry in which he opines that:
Face it. The GOP is the party of the cowardly. And all fucking cowards will fucking hang.

Also, when they aren't wetting their pants over a code-red alert from boy George, Republicans are actively fucking little boys. All of them, no exceptions.
Wow! I guess Andrew missed the briefing where perversion promotion was made part of the Democrat agenda.

However, if he is convicted on the pending charges, I suspect that it is he who will be on the receiving end of what he attributes to Republicans.

Justice would suggest that he should spend some quality time with the biggest bull queer in Mecklenburg.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Ricky Silberman, RIP

Sad news in today's WaPo: "Ricky" Silberman, former EEOC Commissioner and conservative activist, died of complications from breast cancer much too early, at the age of 69. She helped create the Independent Women's Forum, and is perhaps most famous for her staunch defense of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas during the Anita Hill imbroglio. She was also the wife (of 49 years) of D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman

I had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with her a few times at Federalist Society Lawyers Conventions at the Mayflower during the early 1990s, when attendance was much lower than it is these days. A dynamic woman, she was famous for making sport of the PCism of the radical feminists, and their abuse of the language, frequently wearing a button which read "Sex is Better than Gender."

Rest in Peace.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Good News About Sara Stirrup

One of the few off tones at Saturday's PWC Lincoln/Reagan Dinner was the news that Gainesville Supervisor John Stirrup and his family were absent because his daughter Sara was injured in a skiing accident. No other information was presented, and it cast a pall over the evening.

I am pleased to report that I had occasion to speak to Heidi Stirrup on the way home this afternoon, and she is pleased to report that Sara is doing well. In fact, Sara was in the background, disputing some of what her mother was telling me about the accident. Her injuries were not life-threatening, even if they made for some nervous parental moments.

My best to Sara for a speedy and complete recovery.

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Prince William Lincoln-Reagan Dinner

Great event, but Bryanna Altman came up to tell me of a rather odd ticket request she received.

Apparently, after the deadline to purchase tickets had passed, she was contacted by a "Jonathan Mark," requesting a ticket. When told the only seat available was one next to me --- which was silly; there were no assigned seats --- "Mark" declined.

Rejected by Democrats and Republicans alike. Interesting.

UPDATE: Jonathan has posted a "response" here, in which he confirms the essential facts, but claims that he was rejected for submitting a ticket request after the deadline had passed. Of course, he also makes another smear, refering to "Gill's jihadist supporters." I don't know any "jihadist supporters" among Gill's; the only ones that appear to exist are in the cloudcuckoo land of Mark's fertile and far-Left imagination.

And BTW, only a fool believes that Jonathan Mark concerns himself over whether anything "damages the statewide Republican ticket in 2007."

UPDATE II: Aww, little Jackie doesn't like my taste in music. I guess when you lack any substance to attack someone, you have to resort to this. Not that lack of substance has stopped little Jackie's creative fictions about Faisal Gill.

Well, big, fat hairy deal. My tastes are rather eclectic. Like them, or not. Don't really much care. But it's entirely fiction to suggest that I like now, or ever liked, REO Speedwagon. Of course, we do learn something about Mark. He says he was a "lad of 24 in 1977," meaning he was born in 1953, and therefore, that it is highly likely that his delusions result from participation in the drug culture of the late 1960s and 1970s.

Friday, February 16, 2007

The Far Left Picks Up On The Smears

The campaign against a non-traditional GOP candidate continues apace.

Now, it's the boys and girls at Raising Dough ... er, "Raising Kaine," who have picked up on the smear campaign against Faisal Gill, candidate for the GOP nomination for the 51st District House of Delegates seat. I suspect that it has less to do with substantive allegations of wrongdoing --- there are none of substance --- than it has to do with the fact that he is not a lilly-white man running as a Conservative. Can't let "those people" stray from the Liberal plantation, after all.

According to Josh Chernila, Faisal Gill is supposed to be responsible for the anti-Semitic rantings of one who claims to support him.

I don't know who "Asim in PWC" is. Far as I know, he's not active in PWC GOP circles, nor in Faisal's campaign. If he were to apply for membership in the PWC Republican Committee, I would actively and vigorously oppose his election. Knowing them as I do, I suspect that no magisterial district chairman in the PWC GOP Committee would even present such an individual's application for election.

I do know Faisal. The notion that the despicable views expressed by "Asim in PWC" could or should be attributed to him is ridiculous. He is a supporter of Israel, unlike the Democrat Party supported by Mr. Chernilla, which has engaged in a long campaign of moral equivalency about Israel and the terrorists who continue to attack her. He has worn his nation's uniform as an officer in the Navy, and served honorably in the Bush Administration for longer than, say, Jim Webb served as Secretary of the Navy. And unlike (I'd venture a guess) virtually any of the boys and girls at Raising Dough, ... er, "Raising Kaine," Faisal has repeatedly taken oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

At the last PWC GOP meeting, I talked to Faisal about the ridiculous accusations made against him, including the notion that the radical views of some of those with whom he has worked in the past (and of which he was likely unaware; need to ask him about that) should be attributed to him. He categorically rejected those accusations. I specifically asked him if he would seek to impose Sharia law in the Commonwealth. He said "Of course not." I specifically asked him if he believed that Sharia law should be imposed in the Commonwealth. He said "Of course not."

Indeed, he pointed out that --- contrary to the campaign of hate, innuendo, and guilt-by-association being run against him --- he has educated three of his four children in Catholic schools. That's one helluva radical Muslim, isn't it?

The hate campaign being run against Faisal is despicable. It's been run, in large part, by a website whose owner is being sued for slander/libel by a litigant represented by Faisal's law firm. And now it's been picked up by the far Left. And I would expect that, to the extent that he is asked, Faisal will disavow such despicable, radical views. Which is more than I expect from Democrat candidates who allow sites like Raising Dough, ... er, "Raising Kaine," to do their dirty work for them. One can only hope that Julie Lucas, the other candidate for the GOP nomination, will likewise denounce the despicable tactics of those attacking her opponent.

By the way, no Democrat has as yet announced as a candidate for the 51st District House of Delegates seat.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Bitterly Disappointing

It's official. Congressman Tom Davis is supporting the substanceless, Democrat-sponsored (but I repeat myself) "surge resolution."

Words fail me. For the first time since I've known him (and worked hard for his election, especially the first one), I am ashamed of a public act of my Congressman.

One wonders whether many Conservatives who frequently criticize Davis, but hold their noses and vote for him anyway, will be able to do so again.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

House Democrats Don't Want To Debate The Consequences

Well, the boys and girls over at Raising Dough ... er, Raising Kaine are whining (again) about the House GOP and its effort to control the terms of the debate under the idiotic title "House GOP doesn't want to debate the war."

Well, not exactly. This time, it's over the meaningless, craven, "non-binding" resolution offered by Democrats opposing the President's strategy on Iraq. Not that Democrats have any "strategy" other than appeasement and, ultimately, surrender. But they apparently fear the electoral consequences of actual action on their purported "convictions," i.e., if you oppose our efforts in Iraq, then you should have no compunction about defunding the effort.

Here's what the boys and girls at Raising Dough ... er, Raising Kaine said, citing another far Left website:
Via ThinkProgress, a leaked letter circulated by the House GOP leadership:
In the letter, leading conservative Reps. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) inform their allies: "The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily." Shadegg and Hoekstra warn, if conservatives are forced to debate "the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."
The kids declare it "stupifying."

Well, not exactly. They do provide a link to the actual letter, which is something other than "stupifying." Perhaps that explains why they don't mention the actual upshot of the letter:
We urge you to instead broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all "unbelievers" by radical Islamists. We would further urge you to join us in educating the American people about the views of radical Islamists and the consequences of not defeating radical Islam in Iraq.
Congressmen Shadegg and Hoekstra (the latter, a former client of mine), instead propose that:
... the debate must be about the global threat of the radical Islamist movement. No radical Islamist leader ... has ever claimed that the goal of radical Islam is Iraq alone or if they succeed in Iraq this war against us would end. In fact, Robert Kagen recently wrote a piece for the Washington Post entitled "Grand Delusion" noting many politicians' desire to wish the war away. He notes that those who call for an end to the war don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will not end, but will only grow more dangerous if and when we walk away.
Apparently, the far Left find it "stupifying" that someone would suggest that the debate should not be over short-term pain, but rather, about long-term consequences. Sound familiar?

Dishonestly is the stock in trade of the far Left. They shrink from truth and consequences like vampires shrink from crosses. So instead of addressing these important issues, they depend upon their echo chamber in the far Left blogosphere to offer nothing more than astonished belittlement.

It is hardly surprising that thinkers of this calibre are "stupified" by the suggestion that the long-term consequences of their short-term electoral strategy be considered. What is truly sad is the fact that such craven behavior may be gaining traction with the American public.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

A Great American Passes

Because he was a great friend of worker freedom, I got a head's up on this impending news last week. However, I hadn't heard that he was so close to death.

RIP, Congressman Charlie Norwood (R-GA).

No Second Or Third Thoughts Over This

Ben Tribbett reports over his website that the Winchester Billy Goat, Russ "Chamber" Potts, will retire this year.

No second or third thoughts over this one. No loss at all.

John Cha-Ching!-Chester Kills Transportation Package

Others with more time than I have commented upon the shortcomings of the proposed transportation compromise offered by House Republicans. However, it was the best proposal on the table, short of spending the perennial surpluses on transportation. It was certainly preferable to anything offered by Governor Timmy! and Senate Republicans.

That is, of course, why His Lordship, Senator John Cha-Ching!-Chester had to kill it.

Here's what Governor Bill Bolling had to say:


February 13, 2007


- Lieutenant Governor criticizes decision to reject compromise transportation bill -

- Earlier today, the Senate’s Committee on Finance once again rejected the compromise transportation plan that had been approved by the House of Delegates. In its place, the Committee adopted a plan that would:

  • Use no existing general fund resources for transportation
  • Impose a new registration fee of $150 on all vehicles at the time they are first registered in Virginia, and
  • Increase the sales tax in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.
In response to the Committee’s action, Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling issued the following statement:

“Once again, I am extremely disappointed by the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to reject the compromise transportation plan offered by the House of Delegates. While the compromise plan is not perfect, it represents our best chance of getting something accomplished on transportation this year.”

“By adopting a plan that refuses to use any existing resources for transportation, the Committee has harmed our chances of reaching a transportation agreement. It makes no sense to ask the people of Virginia to pay higher taxes and fees at a time when state spending is increasing at historic levels.”

“By adopting a plan that would increase the sales tax in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, the Committee has shown a glaring disregard for the wishes of voters in those regions of the state who overwhelmingly rejected similar proposals in 2002. The voters expect their wishes to be respected, not ignored.”

“The problem in Richmond is not a lack of resources. The problem is a lack of fiscal discipline and a willingness to direct the resources we have to our highest priorities. If transportation is the most important issue currently facing Virginia that is where we should direct our money.”

“I remain hopeful that a transportation agreement can be reached before the end of the current legislative session. However, any such agreement must include the use of existing resources for transportation purposes, rather than simply imposing higher taxes and fees on the people of Virginia.”


Couldn't have said it better myself.

Overcoming Second And Third Thoughts

When I read this, I had a definite reaction.

But then I thought I should deny myself my temptation to say something, on the theory "if you can't say anything nice...."

Then I thought, "Why bother?" You won't miss him, and the blogosphere will be cleansed of yet another pseudonymous coward who arrogantly attacks others while secreting associations and biases which would reveal much.

But when it came right down to it, I couldn't resist.

Good riddance to bad garbage.

Pot. News Letterwatch

Sometimes, you open the Potomac News, and just wonder how it is that its editors can let some things pass. Or perpetrate others.

Today was one of those days. A single letter-to-the-editor was published, from Paul Jacobs of Montclair. Its purpose? To serve as part of the far Left's continuing campaign against Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13).

Now, my first instinct was to dismiss it for the far Left claptrap that it is. This purpose was served when I read the title that the editor placed on it: "Marshall doesn't represent district." I don't know how everyone else reads letters, but among the first things I look at are the title and the author. So I looked down to see that the letter entitled (by the editors) "Marshall doesn't represent district" was from Paul Jacobs of Montclair.

Montclair!?!?!? Well, sure. Jacobs is certainly an authority entitled to comment on whether Bob Marshall represents Bob Marshall's 13th District. NOT!

Montclair is located in the 52nd District, represented by Delegate Jeff Frederick. And, by the way, is removed from Bob Marshall's district by at least two others.

To give Jacob his due, he didn't write the title. And nowhere in his letter does he actually say "Marshall doesn't represent district." Sadly, from his perspective, his points were diminished by a title which would or should have caused most casual readers to look and laugh at him. After all, one would presume that the individuals most qualified to comment upon whether Marshall does or "doesn't represent [his] district" are those who reside there, not someone who lives in Montclair.

'Course, one might have thought that it would have occurred to the editors to point out that Jacobs doesn't live in Marshall's district, since it is doubtful that the casual reader would know that.

Of course, the problem of having people laugh at him would be endlessly compounded once they read the far Left claptrap of his letter, which sounds like it comes out of a Democrat Rhetoric Machine. He constantly refers to our government as a "democracy."

News flash, Mr. Jacobs! We live in a republic, not a democracy.

Then there's the nonsense of his points. He complains for two paragraphs about gerrymandering and unopposed candidates. Why, then, does he go on to complain about Bob Marshall. Marshall had an opponent in his last election. A rather buffoonish opponent, to be sure, but an opponent, nonetheless. Another candidate for a disclaimer? Perhaps. Perhaps even a phone call to the letter's author asking whether he wants to get his facts straight, or whether the letter should be published as is to demonstrate that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

But it is Jacobs' actual content which is most absurd. Indeed, so substanceless is it that one could substitute just a few words and use it as a standard issue template to attack virtually any politicians. So let's do so!

This is particularly unfortunate with regard to [Virginia] where [James Webb] has clearly lost touch with the distinction between being an elected representative and a special interest crusader for his own [economic] beliefs. It is time for him to step down and pursue his [economic] agenda in the private sector.

There are three issues that Northern Virginians want their delegates to address: taxes, traffic and education [sic].

[James Webb] instead chooses to waste time advancing his personal [socialist] and [economic] agenda. He presumes to tell our [corporations] who should be [paid how much], tell [corporate boards] how to [pay their officers], and tell [investors] what personal choices they are allowed to make for themselves.

He has, in effect, established himself as an ayatollah of [corporate governance]. With him we have a political figure who ... wants his [economic] beliefs to become civil law, and wants the government to tell [businesses] how to [pay their employees].

What country does this sound like? It's time for him to go.
What fun! We'll have to play the Democrat Claptrap game again some time.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Lefties Misrepresent Facts To Smear Cantor

The Right-Wing Liberal has the scoop here. After all, it's pretty clear that Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA) does not "thinks Congress has no role to play in war and Bush only needed to check with his lawyers to take us into Iraq" as one far-Left blogger has claimed. Of course, what Cantor actually said was much more limited: "the Constitution gives the commander and chief the right to send our troops into battle." You know, the part about the President as "commander-in-chief"?

"Hardball's" Chris Matthews asked him "[I]f the U.S. Congress were to discuss tomorrow morning whether to declare war on Iran, would you vote yay?" Cantor answered that "it's the commander in chief's role," and then went on to say that "It's not Congress that will ask for that. It is the commander in chief that will make that decision," i.e., to ask for a declaration of war, and that Congress won't declare war absent a presidential request. Cantor also rejected the comments of the other Congressman appearing (Israel) regarding the War Powers Resolution.

What is clear from the transcript is that the far Left and Matthews just weren't listening. Matthews' confusion is understandable; it was a live interview, and one nearly has to read it to understand it and Cantor's point.

And while dishonest in the extreme, the far Left's attack on Congressman Cantor is understandable. After all, he's a Conservative Jew. Can't have that in Congress, since Jews have historically been among Democrats' most loyal constituency. It's always embarrassing when someone leaves the Liberal plantation.

Then there's the little problem with Congressman Israel's pledge of fidelity to the War Powers Resolution, perhaps the most unconstitutional piece of legislation ever passed by Congress. That's just embarrassing.

Of course, it is more that a little ironic that those who are among the most ardent defenders of the unconstitutional Liberal welfare state are attempting to give lessons on the Constitution to Cantor.

West of Shockoe has been leading the attack. A quick visit to that website (with picture) strongly suggests that the author should spend a little less time with beer, and a little more with the Constitution. And with what Cantor actually said.

Friday, February 09, 2007

Pathetic Desperation by VB Dems

Oh, scandal!

VB Dems have discovered that State Senator Ken Stolle has stolen the photo picture taken by the Commonwealth and gracing the pages of Virginia’s Legislative website and used it on Kaufman & Canoles' website. Oh, foresooth!

Welllll, maybe not.

I don't have much use for a tax increaser like Stolle, but if THIS is the best these guys can do....

Besides, on what basis do the VB Dems assume that the picture was taken by the Commonwealth, and used by K&C, and not vice versa? 'Course, it's much more likely that the photo was taken by the law firm or Stolle, and submitted to the Commonwealth for use on the legislative website.


Thursday, February 08, 2007

Nancy Pelosi's Penis Envy

Well, it seems that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn't satisfied with the government transportation supplied to former Speaker Dennis Hastert. No; she wants something bigger: a military version of the Boeing 757, in order to travel back to her San Francisco district. At $300k per round trip, she should quickly become a deficit unto herself.

Wow! It took the GOP twelve years in the majority to fully indulge big-spending ways. Queen Pelosi has managed to get there in just over a month. Color me surprised.

Personally, I'd give her a 747 used as Air Force One ... so long as it was only a one-way trip.

When It Gets Too Hot....

Greg gets out of the kitchen.

It seems there was a little exchange over the last couple of days on Greg Letiecq's website. It had its roots in another comment thread, in which someone --- probably someone like "t," a parody of that which he or she purports to represent --- suggested that "racist jews" were opposing Faisal Gill. Greg, of course, hater of all things Gill, decided that this parody must be representative of the Gill campaign, and a member of his usual, pseudonymous/anonymous "Amen!" chorus chimed in.

As did I, offering the observation that "I suppose that you COULD make a case that there is clearly bias at work here. Of course, given the tone of this blog with regard to Faisal, it is not 'anti-Semitism' which is the most likely candidate."

And oh my, how the hatred piled on! Jonathan Mark, a Democrat (rejected for leadership as a committee member in his own district in Fairfax), played the victim card, wrongly or dishonestly claiming that "From the beginning, Gill’s supporters have accused his critics of being racist."

And then, the little bastard called me a "race pimp," notwithstanding the fact that I quite clearly said only that one "COULD make a case that there is clear bias at work here." I didn't make the case, or accuse anyone of bias.

Well, it went back and forth for a while, with Greg editing a comment in which I called Mark a ... well, a sphincter muscle at the lower end of the alimentary canal, which is probably an insult... to assholes.

Well, Greg finally got sick of comments, and closed the thread. In doing so, and notwithstanding the fact that it was Mark who started the name-calling (but in support of Greg, and therefore, acceptably), and indeed, was --- save for my one transgression, which probably few saw --- the only one who did so. Nevertheless, Greg had to get one last shot at me in:

I try to walk a fine line between allowing hard commentary and reigning in what too often devolves into personal attacks between posters which only serves to lower the quality of the threads. It doesn’t escape my attention that this only seems to occurr when you’re involved in the discussion in some way.

Once again you’ve managed to change the topic of discussion on a thread and make me waste a lot of my time babysitting. I’m aware that you’re not responsible for all of this, and at other times you’re contributed valuable and insightful commentary on a lot of what’s been posted.

Well, Greg, that might be so. It has less to do with me than it does with the facts --- as opposed to guilt-by-association and innuendo --- that I bring to the conversation. You know: facts about people like AWCheney, who makes pretensions of integrity, but served as little more than pit bull with PMS for Harry Parrish's last primary campaign, by using the criminal justice system for political advantage. Facts about Faisal Gill, like the fact that he was cleared of any wrongdoing by Federal investigators.

People frequently resent one who demonstrates or illustrates their inadequacies.

I know these are historical facts sometimes inconvenient to whatever goal Greg seems to have. But they are relevant, and they are facts.

I also raise questions. Questions like why Greg is so hostile to Faisal, whose law firm represents Steve Chapman in a lawsuit against Greg which increasingly looks like it will be successful. Questions like why is Greg so focused on spreading negative innuendo against a Republican candidate, when he seems to have nothing positive to say about his primary opponent (at least nothing we've seen yet).

Yeah, Greg, I changed the topic of the conversation. I changed it from irresponsible defamations of Gill supporters as anti-Semites to noting that, if one were to search for racism, an argument could be made that it was better found to be underlying some of the attacks (though probably not Greg's) against Gill.

But Greg has demonstrated yet again that the end justifies the means. It's OK to call me a "race pimp." But suggest that Greg --- or more accurately, his posters --- might be motivated by racism, or simply that someone could see it that way?

That gets comments shut down. And that blame placed not upon the name-calling offender, but on the recipient of the bile.

Yeah, Greg. That's a very reasoned, rational discussion you've got going there.

UPDATE: Awww! No Greg has blocked me from accessing his little website. I guess if you're not part of the "Amen!" chorus, you don't get to participate.

With that level of maturity, it is little surprise that he's facing a lawsuit for his irresponsible defamations.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Is There No End To Their Perfidy?

I just received a very interesting telephone call. Of course, the enthusiasm for tax increases demonstrated by Senator John Chichester (RINO-Northumberland) and the Winchester Billygoat aka Russell Potts (RINO-Winchester) is one way of currying favor with the Democrats.

However, it seems that rumor around Richmond has it that this is a considered course by Chichester and Potts, and that --- if the Democrats were to gain control of the Senate in 2007 --- they would attempt to switch parties to maintain their lofty positions as Committee Chairmen under Democrat control.

Tell me again why "RINO" is not an appropriate appellation for these two? Or why Potts was allowed to retain his seat as a Committee Chairman after running as an independent for Governor?

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Democrats Shocked ---- Shocked! ---- About Politics In Judicial Nominations

It seems that a Republican Senator is being scored by the far Left for a conversation that he had with a candidate for a Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court judgship.

The boys and girls at Raising Dough ... er, "Raising Kaine," are shocked --- shocked! --- that politics plays a role in judicial nominations.

The Virginian-Pilot reports that Senator Nick Rerras dared to ask a potential nominee about her views on abortion, and referred to far Left feminists as "FemiNazis." Norfolk lawyer Mary G. Commander "was shocked, offended and embarrassed" by the conversation, and stated in a letter Rerras that "I know that I will never be able to pass your litmus test. My conscience, however, will not let me remain silent about what you have done."

However, Commander later revealed that she is unqualified for the bench, asserting that "
because judges do not make law, her personal views should be irrelevant."

Somebody hasn't been paying attention. No candidate to become a judge is qualified if he or she is so ignorant about the legal history of the last century or so that they would claim that "judges do not make law." Of course, the problem is that judges all too frequently "make law," and reactionary Liberals are doing their level best to insure that Conservatives are not put in a place to restore the law.

It is a measure of the arrogance of the far Left that they believe that a politician who asks a prospective judges views on abortion so-called "rights" is applying a "litmus test," but that a requirement that a prospective judge pledge fealty to Roe v. Wade is not a "litmus test."

Their faux outrage is equally disingenuous.

Democrat Party Attacks Democracy

Just a few days ago, the far Left blogosphere was abuzz over the President's use of the phrase "Democrat Party" in reference to the majority party in the House and Senate. Vivian Paige banned someone for doing so, and sparked a lengthy discussion. I wish I could provide a link, but I can't find the thread.

Now, from Virginia "Progressive," we have this, celebrating the introduction of the fraudulently-misnomered "Employee Free Choice Act." It is the top legislative priority of the AFL-CIO, and proposes to do away with the inconvenience of a secret-ballot election in order to impose monopoly bargaining on private-sector employees. It is co-sponsored by 230 House Democrats.

Tell me again what's "democratic" about the Democrat Party?

Monday, February 05, 2007

Senate Refuses Transportation Compromise

At Lt. Governor Bill Bolling's "Bloggers Day" in Richmond a few weeks ago (I've got to do a lengthy post on that, and will, soon), the main talk was of the transportation/tax "compromise" proposed by House Republicans. Like all proposed compromises, it was chock full of bad ideas, the main one being a tax increase.

Compromise is not in the lexicon of the tax advocates in the Senate. Once again, pro-tax Repubmocrats on the Senate Finance Committee --- led by the estimable John Chichester (RINO-Northumberland) --- refused any compromise, and decided to slap on a 5% sales tax on gasoline.

The Asses of Evil strike again. Ward has a great roundup here.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Now, They're Attacking Tony Dungy

First, the Boy Scouts of America. Then marriage itself.

Now, partisans for the radical homosexual agenda are attacking a pro football coach.

By most accounts, Indianapolis Colts Head Coach Tony Dungy is among the finest men in professional football. Moral; upright; but with his share of family tragedy (his son committed suicide last year).

Of course, that means that he has to be attacked. It seems that Dungy has agreed to appear at a fundraiser for the Indiana Family Institute, an organization that dares to push back against partisans whose arrogance and radicalism causes them to attack the language ("marriage" should mean something other than the union between a man and a woman) and the fundamental building block of civilized society (the aforementioned "marriage"). Hence, one finds various logs (Pam's House Blend, OutSports, and AOL Sports Blog) attacking Dungy.

You see, any group that dares to push back against the radical homosexual agenda is attacked as "an organization which promotes hate toward gays and lesbians."

Of course, what the far Left calls "hatred" is simply resistance to their agenda. It's belittling and disparaging, the very opposite of rational debate, in the same way that partisans for the radical homosexual agenda dismiss their opponents as "homophobes," i.e., "those who fear homosexuals," when of course, fear has nothing to do with it.

Most Conservatives I know couldn't care less about --- and wouldn't even think about --- what homosexuals do in their so-called "private" lives. The problem arises when they demand not merely tolerance for their perversions, but public acceptance of them, i.e., when they seek to make public what they misnomer as their "private" lives.

It's long past time when Conservatives respond in kind, and reject the radical homosexual agenda for what it is: an agenda seeking to mainstream perversion. That is the standard that partisans for the radical homosexual agenda have chosen for the terms of their debate. They cannot legitimately complain when Conservatives respond in kind.

New Far Left Insanity

According to Waldo, an organization fraudulently touting itself as the "Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance" is floating a referendum which would void any marriage which does not produce children within three years.

I suppose there might be enough homosexuals, homophiliacs, and partisans for the radical homosexual agenda to get this on the ballot. But one hopes that the voters of Washington are sensible enough to reject it for the far Left BS that it is.

On the other hand, perhaps this is a good thing. If the attack on marriage hasn't been enough, perhaps this will finally wake up those who still deny the existence of a Culture War. I confess that I used to be one of them.

What is truly amazing is that the far Left is so used to advancing its agenda without opposition, that its partisans express incredulity at those who dare to engage in the battle.

Friday, February 02, 2007

Sometimes, You Just Have To Call The Lunatics Out

I haven't said anything about the campaign against Faisal Gill here. Frankly, a lot of it just seems silly, little more than guilt by association and smears. Moreover, while some may have a point about Faisal's electability, and a reasonable debate can be held over the relative merits of Faisal versus his opponent, Neabsco School Board member Julie Lucas, it is utterly clear that such reasonable debate is not to be found on a website owned by a man named as a defendant in a lawsuit in which the Plaintiff is represented by Faisal's law firm.

I run hot and cold on Greg Letiecq and his creatively- and tackily-named website. He has done much to expose the apparent scandal regarding Rack and Roll in Manassas, and an apparent campaign by Manassas Park authorities against Dave Ruttenberg and his business. Yet, other times, he seems to associate with the sleaziest elements of the Prince William County GOP, and many be the first Virginia blogger who's managed to get himself sued for his over-the-top behavior.

But recent posts on his website make it utterly clear that those attacking Faisal Gill --- and I mean, those other than those who are deeply and irrationally resentful of his role in Steve Chapman's nearly successful Republican primary campaign against Harry Parrish, who allowed himself to be rolled into an unnecessary tax increase by a Democrat Governor --- have utterly jumped the shark by equating all associations and second-hand associations with people who know people who know people who have been involved in terrorism must equate to support for terrorism. That Greg is indulging them seems to be little more than his deep resentment over the fact that Fasial's firm has dared to provide legal representation to Steve Chapman in his suit against Greg and his website over the smears that Greg promoted in his campaign against Chapman.

Here's a recent exchange on Greg's website, which I reproduce because I remain optimistic that Greg will recognize the insanity of those who also oppose Faisal's candidacy on this basis, and will ultimately edit/remove the posts because of their embarassing and foolish character:
  1. Jonathan Mark said on 1 Feb 2007 at 11:29 pm:

    “”"it is those who are attacking Faisal with charges upon which he was cleared”"”

    Faisal was the imprisoned terrorist money-launderer Abdurahman Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist in 2001.

    That makes Gill a terrorist sympathizer, because Alamoudi is a terrorist serving a 23 year sentence in a federal prison.

    No one forced Gill to work for Alamoudi as a lobbyist. Gill chose to do so as an adult and now he is facing the consequences.

    That is appropriate. Support for terrorists like Alamoudi has consequences for those who provide the support.

This was my response:
  1. James Young said on 2 Feb 2007 at 9:30 am:

    Wow, Jonathan! That’s quite a stretch. From lobbyist in 2001 to “terrorist sympathizer.”

    Gee, I’d better do an inventory. I represented Redskin Terry Orr in 1993 and 1994. A few years later, he pled guilty to and served time for a financial crime. Guess that makes me a “financial-crimes sympathizer.”

    And I’ve known Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist for years. Since they are associated with Jack Abramoff, I guess that makes me complicit in his crimes, too.

    Then there was the guy with whom I shared fellowship in a cigar shop who later shot his wife and murdered his stepson, right here in Prince William County. Guess that makes me a “murderer sympathizer” and a “wife-abuser sympathizer.”

    ‘Course, I can get in my WayBack Machine, and note that, on my way to elementary school in Northumberland, I used to walk by a guy who tried to kill his sister-in-law. Guess that makes me an “assault sympathizer,” too.

    I wonder what your inventory would show? You’re a Democrat, right? And you supported Bill Clinton, right? Guess that makes you a “perjurer/adulterer/rapist sympathizer.” Then there’s Dan Rostenkowski. Let’s add “tax-evader sympathizer.” Oh, and let’s not forget “check-kiter sympathizer.”

    Unless you can make the case that Faisal knew Alamoudi was a terrorist money-launderer, your claim is absurd.

Jonathan Mark favored us with this response:
  1. Jonathan Mark said on 2 Feb 2007 at 12:47 pm:

    “”"Wow, Jonathan! That’s quite a stretch. From lobbyist in 2001 to “terrorist sympathizer.””"”

    From chief lobbyist for a terrorist in 2001 to “terrorist sympathizer.” I.e, Gill sympathized with Alamoudi the terrorist. That is why he was the terrorist’s lobbyists.

    “”"Gee, I’d better do an inventory. I represented Redskin Terry Orr in 1993 and 1994. A few years later, he pled guilty to and served time for a financial crime. Guess that makes me a “financial-crimes sympathizer.””"”

    Were you Terry Orr’s chief lobbyist while he engaged in the criminal activity? If so, what did you do on Terry Orr’s behalf as his chief lobbyist? I need more info before I can determine the propriety of your actions as Terry Orr’s putative chief lobbyist.

    “”"And I’ve known Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist for years.”"”

    That might explain why you support Gill. Norquist is Gill’s mentor. Without Norquist the candidacy of Faisal Gill would be a joke.

    “”"Since they are associated with Jack Abramoff, I guess that makes me complicit in his crimes, too.”"”

    You were never Abramoff’s chief lobbyist. Gill was Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist. No matter how much James Young tries to insinuate that Young is as guilty as Gill, James Young stops short of providing information that Young was ever a convicted criminal’s chief lobbyist while the convicted criminal was committing his crimes.

    “”"Then there was the guy with whom I shared fellowship in a cigar shop who later shot his wife and murdered his stepson, right here in Prince William County. Guess that makes me a “murderer sympathizer” and a “wife-abuser sympathizer.””"”

    Were you the murderer’s chief lobbyist while he engaged in criminal activity? Gill was Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist.

    “”"‘Course, I can get in my WayBack Machine, and note that, on my way to elementary school in Northumberland, I used to walk by a guy who tried to kill his sister-in-law. Guess that makes me an “assault sympathizer,” too.”"”

    Were you the attempted murderer’s chief lobbyist while he engaged in criminal actitity? Gill was Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist.

    “”"I wonder what your inventory would show? You’re a Democrat, right?”"”

    WRONG!!!!! I am no longer a Dem because where I live the Dems almost all support the odious Rep. Jim Moran. I was twice denied membership in the Lee District Democratic Committee. The first time they rejected me they even pocketed my $35 application fee.

    I voted for George Allen last year. Don’t assume what you don’t know, James Young.

    “”"And you supported Bill Clinton, right?”"”

    Absolutely, and I gave money to both of his presidential campaigns and to his wife’s first senatorial campaign.

    “”"Guess that makes you a “perjurer”"”

    Alamoudi is in jail for 23 years for terrorist money laundering. Bill Clinton was never even indicted for a crime, let alone convicted. YOU ARE BLIND TO ALAMOUDI’S CRIMES! You are blind to the fact that Alamoudi sits in a jail cell. Alamoudi’s crimes are proven.


    I don’t even want to go there. Suffice it to say that the PWC Republican Party, and the Democratic Party too, would be much smaller organizations if adulterers did not join.


    This bores me. Bill Clinton is not running for the HOD-51 nomination. Faisal Gill is. We have questions about what Gill did on behalf of the imprisoned terrorist Alamoudi while Gill was Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist.

    You can respond to our reasonable questions by railing against Bill Clinton if you like. It is not much of an answer though.

And then, he offered this:
  1. Jonathan Mark said on 2 Feb 2007 at 12:53 pm:

    “”"what is next? you gonna accuse president Bush(senior) for supporting Talibans.”"”

    No, because Bush senior is an old man and is not running for office. Someone else could reasonably accuse him, though.

    “”"He had taliban delegation visit white house.”"”

    Unusually bad grammar, suggesting that English is not the author’s first language.

    “”"Talibans were “freedom fighters”, they got thier training,weapons and funds from usa. So should we hold papa bush responsible for supporting them?”"”

    Yes. However, Bush senior is retired from politics and I guess is in his 80s. I have no interest in criticizing him in 2007.

At this point, I came to the ineluctable conclusion that Jonathan Mark is insane, so I didn't respond. Nevertheless, he felt the need to attack anyone who challenges his sleazy tactics:
  1. Jonathan Mark said on 2 Feb 2007 at 2:26 pm:

    James Young seems very involved in this matter. How well does he know Gill? Is he or has he ever been representing Gill in any criminal or civil matter?

    I am not convinced that James Young is sufficiently distant from Gill to have clean hands in this matter.

    At this point we do need to ask James Young: Asim Ghafoor’s contracting firm was Gill’s nominal employer when Gill worked as the AMCs chief lobbyist. Ghafoor is currently Gill’s law partner.

    Does James Young oppose Ghafoor’s proposals to create an Islamic state in the US, with Moslems at least subject to Sharia law and non-Moslems reduced to dhimmi status?

    Is James Young at all concerned that Ghafoor was Gill’s nominal employer while Gill worked for the AMC in 2001, and is Gill’s law partner now?

    If Gill becomes a Delegate then would Gill’s law practice, and therefore that of his partner Asim Ghafoor, benefit? Is James Young comfortable assisting Asim Ghafoor, directly or indirectly, in his attempts to institute sharia law in the US?

    Has James Young ever met Asim Ghafoor? Alamoudi? Gill and Alamoudi together? Has James Young ever discussed Gill with Norquist? Norquist with Gill?

This was my response:
  1. James Young said on 2 Feb 2007 at 6:47 pm:

    Jonathan, all that you managed to demonstrate with that last comment is that you’ve jumped the shark.

    But thanks for confirming what most reasonable people should have suspected all along: you’re insane.

Well, I don't indulge the insane, and the only rational thing that Jonathan seems to believe is that Jim Moran is "odious" (no argument there). On the other hand, at the rate he is going, Jonathan seems anxious to join Greg in the dock as a defendant against a slander lawsuit.

But if Greg is going to indulge these insane fantasies, it is little wonder that Steve Chapman's lawsuit was filed and, at this writing, remains pending.

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Demonstrating What They Really Care About

I can’t help but remember a line from the Broadway show “Pippin”: “The church isn’t interested in saving souls; it’s investing in real estate.”

In an amazing display of candor, the remaining leaders of the newly fag-friendly Episcopal Diocese of Virginia demonstrate what they really care about, by suing those rambunctious Episcopalians who dare to believe that God really meant what He said when He condemned homosexuality.

As noted in the Washington Times article:

The diocese filed 11 separate suits against the clergy and lay leaders of Truro Church in Fairfax, the Falls Church in Falls Church, Christ the Redeemer in Centreville, Church of the Apostles in Fairfax, Church of the Epiphany in Herndon, Church of Our Saviour near Leesburg, Church of the Word in Gainesville, Potomac Falls Church in Sterling, St. Margaret’s in Woodbridge, St. Paul’s in Haymarket and St. Stephen’s in the Northern Neck.

But what it's really about follows:
At stake is millions of dollars in real estate, including an estimated $27 million to $37 million at Truro and the Falls Church, two of Virginia’s largest and most historic churches.
At least the parishioners in these diocese are still interested in eternal salvation. And EDV leaders are demonstrating that in which they are interested.

H/T to VJP