Sunday, September 30, 2007

Paul Nichols Lies To Voters

That's not my assessment. That's what the Daily Fishwrap ... er, Potomac News/Manassas Journal-Messenger say in today's editorial.

Charles as the details here.

As I've said before, Paul Nichols and I are friendly socially.

I used to think more of him than this.

Justice Thomas On 60 Minutes

Say what you will about CBS News --- I frequently will, when I think about it at all --- but Steve Croft's interview of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (about halfway over as I write) is demonstrating why 60 Minutes has been on the air for decades.

I had the privilege of hosting Clarence Thomas --- then Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission --- at Emory Law School during my third year in 1988. I was very impressed ... and surprised not at all by his future success.

Clarification Of 11th District Committee's Rejection Of Lucas Appeal

Just received this e-mail, regarding the Eleventh Congressional District Committee's unanimous rejection of Julie Lucas' appeal regarding the 51st District Convention which nominated Faisal Gill. I initially wrote about it here. The e-mail is from Denny Daugherty, and since I am not it's only recipient, it's obviously not confidential:
I was present for the meeting as a proxy for Rick Hendrix, 11th dist. rep. to the State Central Committee..
The vote to reject the Lucas appeal for lack of a petition was unanimous. The motion was made by the representative of Fairfax City.
The appeal did not ask for the convention result to be overturned. Rather, it asked for an advisory opinion on what to do about overvotes in future conventions. Party committees don't render advisory opinions; the party's general counsel does. The vote does not preclude the 11th dist. chair or any other party official from asking advice from the RPV General Counsel on that topic.
So, those who complain about the rejection of the Lucas appeal know not of what they speak. Once again, "Team Lucas" and its estimable "brain trust" was hoist upon their own petard, failing to satisfy the requirements for maintaining a challenge.

Of course, count on the cowardly Gill-Haters to maintain their attacks, even thouhg proven wrong again and again.

By their standards, I suppose it's Becky Stoeckel and the other Members of the 11th Congressional District who are now in cahoots with Faisal Gill.

UPDATE: For some reason, Greg Letieqc --- also copied on this e-mail --- has said not a word about it.

Hampden-Sydney 38, Bridgewater 31

After nearly a decade's drought, Hampden-Sydney defeated Bridgewater (ranked 24th in NCAA Division III) yesterday, 38-31. It was the Tigers first victory over Bridgewater since 1998. Indeed, there were at least two years where Bridgewater delivered the Tigers' only defeat.

Unfortunately, the Youngs did not attend the game for the first time in a few years (dammit!), including at least once when H-SC was robbed by a bad call.

Division III playoffs, anyone?

Friday, September 28, 2007

Ding! Dong! The Witch Is Gone!

Apparently disgusted because she didn't get her way, Old Whithered Wench Anke W. Cheney has decided to take her ball and go home, and promises that she won't darken the door of the GOP again.

Good riddance to bad garbage.

If only we could hold her to it when she gets over her snit.

Making It Up As They Go Along

Or, "Gill-Haters Arguments So Specious, They Don't Bother To Repeat Them."

Greg is reporting that the Eleventh Congressional District last night denied Julie Lucas' appeal from Tom Kopko's decision --- as the 51st District House of Delegates Committee, of one --- affirming the results of the 51st District Convention. I give him credit: I hadn't gotten wind that Lucas had appealed at all, and certainly don't have a copy of the decision. I will attempt to post it if I get a copy.

But oh, my! How the Gill-Haters are screaming!

First, there's Greg himself, who complains that:
the appeal was denied not on the basis of any arguments made for or against the appeal, but because Julie hadn’t obtained an additional twenty-five signatures to support it — a requirement not found anywhere in the Republican Party Plan. If you can’t defeat the arguments in a brief, apparently the Party can invent new procedural rules that weren’t followed because they hadn’t previously existed.
Now, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, 'cause Greg can't seem to help himself, but once again, he's caught claiming that something can't be "found" in the GOP Party Plan simply because he didn't look very hard for it. One of his commenters quickly noted in response that:
4. All appeals, under sub-sections 1, 2 and 3 of this section must be made in writing within thirty (30) days after the decision appealed from and the appeal must be accompanied by a petition signed by at least twenty-five (25) Party members (except as provided below) of the respective Unit, Legislative District or Congressional District affected. When an appeal involves a mass meeting, party canvass or convention, then for purposes of this paragraph the term “Party members” shall mean mass meeting participants in the case of a mass meeting; canvass voters in the case of a party canvass; or delegates in the case of a convention. If fewer than one hundred twenty-five (125) persons voted in such mass meeting, party canvass or convention, then the petition shall be signed by at least twenty percent (20%) of the voters at such mass meeting, party canvass or convention.
Party Plan, Article X, Section B(4). To paraphrase Greg, I guess if you can't defend the arguments in a brief, you deny that technical requirements plainly stated in the Party Plan don't exist.

The funny thing is, this is nothing new. Back about sixteen years ago, a candidate who ran against John Frey for Fairfax County Clerk of the Circuit Court, Ferrell Egge, likewise brought an appeal, this one, to the then-Eighth Congressional District Committee, upon which I served as Parliamentarian. And like then, Egge didn't get the required number of signatures to perfect his appeal, which was promptly dismissed. And Egge was never heard from again.

Unlike Lucas' "Brain Trust," charitably described. Having well and thoroughly destroyed Lucas' efforts to overturn the results of a vote by withdrawing his appeal from the ruling of the Chairman at the Convention, O.P. Ditch is still favoring us with his serially-uninformed and unauthoritative complaints. And complaining that the reason behind the rejection of Lucas' arguments was not his own mistakes, but Kopko's delay in issuing his ruling (of course, they would have complained about his failure to investigate had Kopko been more prompt; must be nice to have your cake, and eat it, too), and the silly notion that "we don’t have a 'Party' but a 'Committee.'" But see here ("The Plan of Organization of the Republican Party of Virginia"), and here (referring to the "Prince William County Republican Party").

I guess the real question here, though, is who is more ill-informed. Greg, who claims that the reason for dismissal was a lack of necessary signatures? Or O.P., who claims that the signatures were provided?

It's delicious to watch the Gill-Haters arguing among themselves. No wonder they didn't bother to get those technical requirements right.

Pesky rules.....

What's "Moderate" About More Government Handouts?!?!

More editorializing on the "news/views" pages of today's Daily Fishwrap ..., er, Potomac News. One wonders how it was allowed to slip by.

But hey! Executive Susan Svihlik was a "Goldwater Girl." Operative word? "Was."

In a front-page, below the fold article by Lillian Kafka, the Daily Fishwrap ..., er, Potomac News offers a truly Kafkaesque view of the race to succeed Michele McQuigg as the Delegate from the 51st District, declaring Paul Nichols a "moderate":

There's no question about who's the conservative and who's the moderate in the 51st House of Delegates race.


Faisal Gill is the pro-life, non-apologetic Republican. Paul Nichols is a pro-choice, self-described "regular guy" on the Democratic ticket.

"Pro-choice," moderate?!?!?! Wonderful. Now it's "moderate," in the estimation of the Pot. News, to take the position that the Supreme Court has, by judicial fiat, the constitutional authority to declare the laws of 50 states "unconstitutional," in a decision which even legislatively pro-choice constitutional scholar John Hart Ely has declared "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

That's "moderate," according to Kafka, in a news story.

Amazingly, Kafka recounts Nichols' contrived "embarrass[ment]" "that Virginia is ranked one of the worst in paying for Medicaid benefits." Ranked? By whom? Radical organizations that hold that medical care is some sort of "right" empowering the government to seize money from those of us who responsibly care for the families that we have responsibly built to given handouts to those who don't, and haven't? Put another way, Nichols apparently subscribes to the notion that a prosperous parent should have money taken from his earnings which might be used to pay for a top-flight education for his child to pay for the medical care of an illegal-alien crack addict.

Oh, to be sure, like all demagogic Dems, Nichols will claim that it's "for the children," but the truth of the matter is that socialized medicine doesn't make such distinctions.

Nichols also declared Virginia "38th in education." Again, by whose standards? The National Education Association, whose local affiliate has endorsed --- or inevitably will endorse --- Democrat Nichols? Apparently, Nichols abides by the canard that throwing more money at teachers results in better education, and confuses the economic well-being of teachers with the educational well-being of students.

Most taxpayers would rank Virginia as one of the best on both issues, by reasonable, truly "moderate" standards.

One can't blame the NEA and the PWEA, as labor unions, for looking out for the interests of their members, any more than one can blame a dog for urinating on a fire hydrant. After all, that's what they do.

Nichols also apparently avoided (I could not make it to the debate, as I had a trial in Pittsburgh that day) the issue of Virginia's marriage amendment:
"He'll join in," Nichols said. "He'll do a great job with the comrades down there. He'll be worried about issues like that and transportation will go right by us."
Apparently, "join[ing] in" to defend the institution predicate to civil society is not something that Nichols believes Delegates should be doing. One has to wonder what parts of the radical homosexual agenda he endorses, but he apparently evaded that issue.

One hopes for a Delegate who can tell the difference between an organization's real interests and agenda, and their contrived rhetoric. One hopes for a Delegate who won't swallow whole every bit of self-interested tripe fed to him by far Left special-interest groups.

Nichols hardly gave evidence that he would be such a Delegate at Wednesday night's debate, at least according to Kafka's report.

Then again, neither did Kafka.

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Racist Gill-Hater Displays Ignorance ... But I Repeat Myself

Racist Gill-hater --- and self-professed Democrat --- Jonathan Mark has weaved another myth. This time, it's a conspiracy theory that GOP leaders "persuaded" Michele McQuigg to retire from the House of Delegates and run for Clerk of the Circuit Court to make way for Faisal Gill.

Of course, even non-racist, non-Democrat Gill-haters who are informed know that Michele has had her eye on the Clerk's office for more than two decades. She was the GOP nominee for Clerk in 1983.

Another outrageous lie from an outrageous liar.

Warner Campaign Already Defying The Law

Stopped by Sam's Club on the way home today. It seems that Mark Warner partisans were defying Sam's Clubs' well-known anti-solicitation/anti-handbilling policy by illegally putting bumper stickers underneath windshield wipers.

Why should anyone be surprised that a campaign of a Liberal Democrat has no respect for other people's property?

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

A Few Corrections

A normally fairly rational Democrat blogger (by Democrat standards, that is) has posted without comment a list of Democrat talking points for the Fall election.

It is entitled "Seven Republican Roadblocks: Seven Reasons for Change," but a better title would be "Seven Democrat Lies and Half-Truths: Seven Reasons to Elect Republicans":
  • Opposed raising the minimum wage --- Half-truth; Republicans opposed the standard Democrat, economically anti-rational vote-buying and job-killing scheme. Witness the net loss of jobs immediately after it took effect. The great accomplishment of the current Democrat Congress is killing jobs;
  • Fought life-saving stem cell research --- Lie and Half-Truth; Republicans opposed Federal funding for research which involved the destruction of human embryos;
  • Brought us the abusive driver fee --- Half-Truth; should continue "as part of a compromise in which Democrats refused to provide for transportation funds out of the General Fund"; fails to mention Governor Timmy's! proposal to sock it only to Virginia drivers;
  • Scuttled efforts to raise teacher pay --- Half-Truth; refused to support Democrat vote-buying scheme by throwing more money at failing government schools;
  • Roadblock in preserving our AAA bond rating --- Lie; refused to support spendthrift policies with higher taxes;
  • Obstruct increases in long-term care for seniors --- Lie; refused to support Democrat scheme to buy the votes of old people by impoverishing young people;
  • Opposed the largest investment in education in Virginia history --- Lie; refused to throw more money at failing government schools.

As always, Democrat talking points require appropriate annotations. And a healthy dose of skepticism

Monday, September 24, 2007


Well, the Demcrat-icks are playing their old game in the 52nd House of Delegates race.

Tonight, I was push-polled by a firm hired by some Democrat organization --- I believe it was the House Democrat Caucus --- trying to smear Delegate Jeff Frederick.

If it was a legitimate poll, I completely screwed up their results.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Delusions Of Grandeur From The Gill-Haters

Wow! This is incredible! Apparently the Gill-haters have obtained an opinion from the Virginia Bar which virtually assures that Faisal Gill cannot serve as a Member of Virginia's House of Delegates!

Well, not exactly, Instead, they contrive to apply a legal opinion regarding an entirely different matter to (you guessed it!) smear Gill.

This is among the more interesting memes that the far Left is currently using to attack Republican legislators (or prospective legislators) who also practice law. Some are suggesting that Delegate Dave Albo should not have voted to approve Governor Timmy's! proposal to target Virginians with so-called "abuser fees" because of his legal practice.

What I'm wondering is, what are the author's qualifications to render a legal judgment? The author, "GOP Husband," is too much of a coward to reveal his identity. Say what you will about the website's owner, psychotic racist Jonathan Mark, but at least he attaches his name to his smears. Perhaps he has nothing to lose.

Of course, by the "standard" applied by the author, virtually no practicing lawyer is qualified to serve as a Member of Virginia's militantly part-time House of Delegates. Of course (must've been an oversight) the opinion cited itself warrants that lawyers are "uniquely qualified" to serve in lawmaking bodies.

And what goes unmentioned is that Democrat candidate Paul Nichols --- who has a very diverse practice --- would be equally unqualified to serve under this "standard." Gill unqualified to serve because he might vote on immigration issues? What about Nichols and criminal justice issues? What about Nichols and matters related to family law? Will Nichols recuse himself from voting on domestic partnership proposals? Enforcement of last year's amendment memorializing traditional marriage in Virginia's Constitution? For that matter, matters related to Virginia civil procedure and civil liability? Tort reform?

All are matters related to his law practice.

Why aren't the Gill-haters applying the same standard to Nichols?

Might it be because the point isn't good, ethical, unconflicted government, but rather, to attack a GOP candidate based upon whatever contrivance one can conjure up?

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Is It Even A Crime?

There are reports in today's news that the misplaced sign attacking as racist those in Prince William County (the sign is in Manassas) who wish to see the immigration laws enforced may have been subject to attempted defacement.

I have my doubts.

First, the instrument of the attempted defacement was a "Molotov cocktail." Now, I don't know much about urban guerrila warfare, but I've always been under the impression that a "Molotov cocktail" is one of the most elementary of home-made improvised explosive devices. Given it's simplicity --- responsibility precludes much of a description here --- it's hard to screw it up such that the device doesn't work. This one didn't.

Second, the race hustlers have been all over this. Vehemently. Immediately.
Mexicanos Sin Fronteras spokesperson Ricardo Juarez Nava was on hand Friday to survey the scene at the property. Juarez said that situations like Thursday are a result of rhetoric from anti-illegal immigration groups like Help Save Manassas and county board chairman Corey Stewart that he believes is promoting hatred towards the immigrant community.
Hmmmmm. "On hand Friday."

Coupling the apparent and perhaps contrived incompetence of the perpetrator, and the convenient excuse that such an "attack" gives the race hustlers to label all advocates for immigration law enforcement as "racist," one cannot help but wonder whether this wasn't contrived by the race hustlers themselves in order to advance their agenda.

In any case, the police are investigating. Hopefully, if a crime was committed, the perpetrators will be prosecuted.

If it was the race hustlers, it will hopefully be for fraud.

But if it was, indeed, someone opposed to the message on the billboard, one hopes that it will not be for the ill-advised contrivance known as a "hate crime" (read: thought crime). If not contrived by the race hustlers, this was a crime, to be sure, and should be prosecuted. But a "hate crime"? For all we currently know, it was a childish prank. Or a political crime, perpetrated by one opposed to the message expressed, perhaps by an advocate for immigration law enforcement, outraged and disgusted at being called a racist.

A "hate crime," this ain't.

At least, no more than any other crime.

Let's Play The Paul Nichols Game!

I haven't seen the offending piece myself, but today's Potomac News contains a letter discussing a mailer sent by 51st District Democrat candidate Paul Nichols, attacking Republican nominee Faisal Gill for being a member of a firm practicing immigration law:
In a recent mailing Paul Nichols suggests that Faisal Gill is somehow supportive of illegal aliens because he is an immigration attorney. He also suggests that this makes Gill unfit to run for office. As an attorney, he should know that charges against someone are not necessarily legitimate, and that counsel in legal matters should be available to everyone.
The author, of course, makes a good point. Not every attorney has the luxury of representing people who reflect their own views or seek ends identical to their own. Most make a decent, respectable living fulfilling their role in the justice system, honorably advocating their clients' positions.

Is this really the game that Nichols wants to play? Bashing an attorney for representing his clients? Perhaps he missed that day in law school in which the duties of an attorney to represent their clients and fulfill their role in the justice system, and the dualism between an attorney in his role as an attorney as distinct from his role as an individual, was explained.

But if that's the game he wants to play, we can have a lot of fun. After all, he's a divorce attorney ("a real shark in the courtroom," according to one of his former clients), and a good one, according to everyone to whom I have spoken. Does that mean he supports adultery? Spousal abuse? Child abuse? Certainly, over the years, his client list must include a few people engaging in these activities. He has a criminal law practice, too, according to his firm biography. Does he take the position that all were innocent? Unless, that is, he never lost a criminal case (unlikely; Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz famously observed that "Rule Number One in the criminal justice system is that most criminal defendants are guilty"). Furthermore, Nichols' firm represents injured persons. Ambulance chaser? Previously, the attack-dog tactics over Gill's work as an attorney (always failing to mention his service in the Navy's JAG Corps) have been performed by cutouts, attacking Gill while giving Nichols deniability, all while Nichols maintains the facade of respectability.

Does Nichols really want the illicit activities of his clients attributed to him? Apparently so.

After all, that's what he wants to do to Faisal Gill. It's a cheap shot, and ethically questionable. Professionally, it's simply wrong.

Not only does Nichols have some 'splainin' to do, he owes Gill an apology.

But you can play too! If you know of a client of Nichols or his firm, and his or her offense, attribute that activity to Nichols. Place your best, cheap-shot accusations in attributing the activities of Nichols' clients to Nichols himself in comments.

Turnabout is fair play, after all.

Friday, September 21, 2007


In an overwhelming vote, the Senate last night voted to condemn the ... er, advertisement attacking General David Petraeus on the eve of his report to Congress on the Iraq situation.

Voting against the resolution were Democrat presidential contenders Senator Hitlary Rodham Clinton (D-Dogpatch) and Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.). Senator Barak Obama (D-Ill.) did not vote. Obama did, however, vote for a substitute proposal and put himself on record as endorsing the Democrat smear that challenging former Senator Max Cleland's elevation of union interests over national security interests in a homeland security bill was a challenge to his "patriotism" (wrong: it was a challenge to his judgment and his priorities; whine, whine, WHINE!). The substitute (offered by Senator Barbara Boxer) also whined about ads attacking Senator John Kerry's smears of American troops during the Vietnam War.

In a rational world, Clinton and Dodd would be immediately disqualified from further public service, and certainly from consideration for nomination for President in one of the nation's two major political parties.

In the modern Democrat Party, however, one is the frontrunner.

I weep for the future.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Boy, You Got Some 'Splainin' To Do

Courtesy of Charles, we learn that Paul Nichols, Democrat candidate for the 51st House of Delegates seat, has contributed the maximum to the John Edwards campaign for President this year.

Nichols has been trying to pass himself of as a moderate, while cutouts continue to attempt to smear Faisal Gill.

I guess it's easier than explaining your financial support of radicals like John Edwards and his brazenly Socialist agenda.

Let's Play The Hitlary Game!

So Hitlary Clinton (D-Dogpatch) thinks that Vice President Dick Cheney is Darth Vader?

So much for the politics of personal destruction. I guess she forgot that Darth Vader was redeemed in the end.

But never one to let an opportunity for a good game pass by, I humbly offer "The Hitlary Game": name (in a comment) the movie character Hitlary most resembles.

You know, like Mildred Pierce (Joan Crawford, 1945).

Or Mommie Dearest (Faye Dunaway, 1981).

You can play, too!

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Runamok Hypocrisy

Came across this post this morning, complaining about an allegedly illegally-posted sign by a Republican candidate for reelection.

There is little that I hate in politics more than the application of purportedly objective criteria in the service of a partisan agenda. It's called "hypocrisy," and it seems that Craig Vitter's outrage is reserved for signs allegedly illegally-posted by Republican or Republican-identified candidates.

He has now complained about signs allegedly illegally-posted by Neabsco School Board candidate Julie Lucas, and now Delegate Jeff Frederick.

But 'nary a word about the multiple possibly illegally-posted signs by Democrat candidate for BOCS Chairman Sharon Pandak and Neabsco School Board candidate Manes Pierre. Or even Maureen Caddigan, for that matter.

He calls it a "crusade," or invites you to do so, if you will.

Seems to me to just be a crusade to silence Republican candidates, or rather, to beat them over the head with behavior he tolerates from Democrats.

Mr. Vitter has written a letter to Delegate Frederick. If I may, I offer my not-so-humble suggestion for an apropos response:
Dear Mr. Vitter:
Thank you for your note. I am always delighted to hear from the voters and citizens, even those who don't reside in my district.
I must confess that I found your note about being "confronted by one of your large campaign signs on the north-east corner of the intersection of Route 1 and Dale Blvd" and public announcement of it rather curious, since it suggests a commute rather more limited that the one that I would imagine that you have. Given my limited knowledge of your place of residence, though, I am certainly curious as to why my sign and my campaign is the target of your ire. Without a doubt, mine was not the only allegedly illegally-placed sign that you passed on your commute, yet it is only one that you seem to have noticed, and you direct your attention to me.
You also assert that "This sign is place [sic] on the hill within the state owned [sic] right of way [sic] in violation of state code 33.1-273." Whether it is or it is not "within the state owned [sic] right of way [sic]" is not something that I am prepared to concede, since I have not seen the sign. Suffice it to say that campaign workers tend to be a zealous lot, and I do not and cannot take responsibility for everything that they do. I discourage them from placing signs illegally, just as I discourage them from removing (illegally placed or not) signs from opposing campaigns, or campaigns of other than Republican candidates.
I likewise discourage them from applying objective criteria in the service of a partisan agenda.
Rest assured, however, that I will see to it (personally, if necessary) that all of my campaign signs are removed from whatever location in which they are posted subsequent to Election Day.
Best regards, etc.
Sadly, I have my doubts that Delegate Frederick will respond in the way that I have suggested.

UPDATE: Craig responds to my post here, saying that he has attempted to contact Manes Pierre, and had his mail returned as "undeliverable." Too bad he misses the point in his effort to belittle....

Monday, September 17, 2007


To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, bringing you the efficiency of the United States Postal Service, the compassion of the Internal Revenue Service, and the excellence of the government schools.

Plan your escape now.

Why "LIberal Arrogance" Is Redundant

It's endlessly fascinating that many Liberals claim to be smarter than Conservatives. One of Ann Coulter's books detailed how so many Liberals attempted to advance the canard that Republican/Conservative Presidents are simply dim bulbs (however, not so dim that they weren't able to beat the best that the Democrats could nominate). Interestingly, even Jimmy Carter's harshest critics didn't suggest that he was stupid; to the contrary, most conceded that he was highly intelligent, given his credential as a nuclear engineer in the Navy (notwithstanding the fact that, like George W. Bush, he misprounounces "nuclear" as "nukular").

Now, a new scientific study out claims that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives.

The funny thing is that even a Liberal like William Saletan can figure out that the research is flawed.

I guess he's the exception that proves the rule.

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Something With Which She Has Experience

I had to laugh the other day, when Hitlary Clinton (D-New York Times) attacked General David Petraeus and muttered something about crediting his report would require a ".... willing suspension of disbelief...."

Of course, it's a curious that Hitlary would have a problem with a "willing suspension of disbelief," since she has such vast experience with it, to-wit, defending her philandering husband against charges of marital infidelity; pleading ignorance about the illicit business practices of those with whom she is in partnership, etc.

It's just the latest manifestation of the old Clinton habit of bemoaning practices of which they, themselves, are consummate practitioners (remember "the politics of personal destruction?" Bold words from the employers of Terry Lenzner). Of course, in this case, it's more of a case in questioning a practice upon which they, themselves, rely upon so often.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

When Is The Press Conference?

Prominent Prince William Democrats recently appeared en masse, with willing press accomplices in tow, to associate the activities of Conservatives and Republicans to stem the tide of illegal aliens in Prince William County with racism. The Washington Post headlined its story with "Leaders Denounce Klan Activities In Manassas," but a more appropriate title would have been "Democrat Candidates Attempt To Exploit Racist Activities," as it was organized by Democrat nominee for the 50th District, Jeanette Rishell.

But where, oh where, are those Democrats when confronted by actual racism and religious bigotry against 51st District Republican nominee Faisal Gill?

I guess some forms of racism and religious bigotry are acceptable to Prince William Democrats.

Particularly in the service of the campaign of a Democrat nominee for public office.

It's almost enough to make one nostalgic for former Sheriff Lee Stoffregen. Say what you will about Lee, but when challenged by Republican Glen Hill, a black man, his campaign admirably eschewed playing the race card, making the election a straight contest on the issues.. To the contrary: I have a colleague who is fairly well informed, and a staunch Republican, who told me the day after the election --- when I jokingly quoted to him a line from Blazing Saddles ("A black Sheriff?!?!?") --- that he was utterly unaware of Hill's skin color.

I guess it's a measure of the desperation of Prince William Democrats that they are now willing to play the race card, or at a minimum, to stand by silently while it is played against a Republican nominee.

BREAKING! Democrat Challenger Endorses Racist Campaign Tactics

Harkening back to his party's unsavory history as the champions of slavery and Jim Crow, George Barker, Democrat candidate for the 39th District state Senate seat, tonight virtually endorsed the largely racist and religiously-bigoted campaign being waged in a race for another seat.

Barker appeared tonight before the Prince William Committee of 100, a non-partisan group promoting public discussion of issues. Given an opportunity to pose a question to incumbent Republican Jay O'Brien, Barker took the opportunity to reference Republican nominee for the 51st House of Delegates seat, Faisal Gill, and asked O'Brien if he endorsed him.

Aside from the implied insult to O'Brien's honor --- as a GOP nominee, he is pledged to support all of the Party's nominees for office in the ensuing election --- Barker impliedly lent his endorsement to the largely racist and religiously-bigoted campaign being waged against Gill.

The interesting question is whether the Democrat nominee against Gill, Paul Nichols --- who was present in the audience --- will condemn Barker's endorsement of these tactics, or will he publicly repudiate them?

I can say that I heard people close to Nichols refer to Gill as "the terrorist," though I find it difficult to believe that Nichols would endorse such racist and bigoted behavior.

The question is, will he tolerate it around him? Will he allow himself to benefit from it?

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

In Memoriam

Among the more somber moments of this weekend's Alumni Council meeting at the alma mater, Hampden-Sydney College, was a memorial service in remembrance of the victims of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.

Perhaps because of the nature of a small men's college founded with the purpose of producing "good men and good citizens," the tragic events of that day struck particularly hard, with one alumnus and his wife killed aboard one of the hijacked aircraft, and the wife another murdered in the Pentagon. A rather high rate of casualties for a school which boasts only 5000 living graduates.

It was only a month later, at the 15th reunion for the Class of 1986, that I learned that the latter spouse was the wife of classmate Donn Marshall. His wife, Shelley, the mother of his two children, worked in the Pentagon. Sweet girl. We had exchanged pleasantries on one or two occasions at alumni functions.

Donn spoke movingly at the Service of Remembrance conducted in the College Church on Saturday.

In memory of those who were murdered, and those brave souls who acted on United Flight 93, and probably prevented an even greater level of carnage, I am reprinting here my post-9/11 column:
Potomac News
Thursday, 13 September 2001
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.
I hope that it holds up pretty well, over the years. Certainly, our outrage and commitment to the mission should, as well.

Sunday, September 09, 2007

The Great Unreported Story Of The Fall

Charles notes what the news media has ignored: that an increase in the minimum wage caused August's loss of 4000 workforce jobs.

Another economic disaster (at least for those 4000 families) brought to you by the Democrat Party!

Saturday, September 08, 2007

Hampden-Sydney 54, Gettysburg 7

Just got back from the alma mater, after a weekend of Alumni Council meetings, socializing with old friends and favorite professors, and great football.

Hampden-Sydney played today for the second time at its brand-new Everett Stadium, which is pretty much a new home-side edifice in the Federal style of architecture which earned the school a place on the National Register of Historic Places. It's truly a beautiful facility, an imposing brick structure with three arches, a second-floor lounge for special events, and a third-floor press box. Congressman Virgil Goode and his wife were also in attendance.

It was a great game, utterly dominated by the Tigers. Just couldn't bring myself to root for the Lutherans today.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

The Problem With Lying (Or Psychosis)....

is keeping your creative fictions straight.

Yesterday, Johnny Mark, racist hater of everything related to the Virginia GOP's first Muslim candidate for the House of Delegates, Faisal Gill, created the elaborate fiction that Gill was a "resume padder" who claimed to be the Chairman of a group "WHICH NEVER DID ANYTHING." His lies were rebutted here.

Now, Johnny Mark responds with a partial rebuttal --- he seems to have backed off of his fiction that Gill claims to have "founded" the group --- by misrepresenting Gill's website, and claiming that "Gill thus claims to the the Chairman of the now-defunct Prince William Taxpayers Alliance."

Nice quibbling.

Now, now, Johnny, here's a little lesson for you: just because an organization does not renew a website address does not mean it is defunct. It may mean a lot of things, but not that it is defunct. Furthermore, you just can't seem to get the name straight.

You've got to love the single-mindedness of this Gill-hater. Or pity it.

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

And The Lies Keep Coming And Coming

Racist Gill-Hater Jonathan Mark, he of the life so empty that he has to spend as a pit chihuahua attacking a Republican nominee, has outdone himself with his recent lies.

Having purchased the expired websites formerly owned by the Prince William Taxpayers Alliance, he is now re-writing history to cast Gill as a liar and a "resume padder."

One wonders, indeed, what it is with which a fifty-something man who has nothing better to do than engage in serial attacks upon a Republican nominee for the Virginia House of Delegates "pads" has resume?

Of course, it is Mark who is the liar. Or is he just unable to tell the difference between the truth and his elaborate fantasies?


Of course, it was the "Prince William Taxpayers Alliance," not "Association," so Mark cannot even get his basic facts right.

Then there's the claim that Gill "FOUNDED" the group. This is, of course, not true. As one of its founders, I can speak with some authority on the issue. Indeed, Gill wasn't even present at the initial organizational meetings (at least one was held in my home); to the best of my recollection. Rick Hendrix was there. So was I. So were Ella Shannon, Bob FitzSimmonds, Denny Daugherty, and a few others

But then again, Gill never claimed to be a "founder" of the organization, so far as I am aware (Hector Quintana once did, but his group pre-dated ours by several years, and quickly went defunct when former BOCS Chairman Sean Connaughton became the epitome of a tax-and-spender). The tip-off is that Mark doesn't trouble himself to link to such a claim. He just makes up the lie to serve his purpose, and tries to pass it off as truth.

Gill was elected its Chairman a few years after its founding, a post he surrendered when he became a candidate for public office (Bob FitzSimmonds did the same thing), but the organization is not defunct, either. My recollection is that he came to the group shortly after its founding.

And, of course, there's the claim that the group "NEVER DID ANYTHING." Chairman Sean, who attempted to kneecap Republicans numbered among the group, might disagree, as would those candidates who sought and received (Jeff Frederick; Scott Lingamfelter; John Stewart; Corey Stewart) or were denied the group's endorsement. So might former Governor Jim Gilmore, who appeared at a fundraiser for the group just last year.

Did we do as much as we might have liked? Did we have as much influence as we might have hoped? Probably not. What group does? But that does not excuse the naked falsehoods behind Mark's post. And, of course, we "did something" by establishing the website addresses Mark recently purchased to pass himself off fraudulently has having something to do with the group. Mark's own post belies the claims he makes in it. Charles does a fine job of rebutting Mark's most recent fantasies here, demonstrating that it is simple to avoid spewing falsehoods, if you simply ask, or care. Mark, of course, did not.

Mark's psychosis is deepening.

And BTW, Johnny, unlike you, some of us don't have to pad our resumes.

More Fraud From Jonathan Mark

What is it about a man that will cause him to expend his own money to destroy another man?

One might want to ask that question about self-described Democrat Jonathan Mark, who has purchased the domain name for the Prince William Taxpayers Alliance, and linked it to his hate-Faisal Gill website.

Of course, now that the Prince William County Board of Supervisors has retreated from its tax-and-spend ways --- with the absence of Sean Connaughton and the election of Corey Stewart as Chairman --- the Taxpayers Alliance has concededly not been very active.

I suspect that renewal of the ownership of the name was overlooked.

Monday, September 03, 2007

What About This Surprises?

It seems that presidential candidate John Edwards (D-LaLa Land) has come out of the closet to admit that his plan for socialized medicine (as opposed to those from his Democrat competitors) would explicitly require doctor visits.

What about this is surprising? Democrats (with some GOP support) succeeded in socializing half of the medical system with the passage of Medicare in 1965. They've spent many years attempting to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. Why should this surprise? If government becomes responsible for our health care, then it logically follows that government should be able to tell us how to live in order to avoid the pathologies which cause increased medical costs. The far Left and nanny-state types started with tobacco use, since it is difficult to argue against the proposition that smoking cigarettes can, in the long term, cause disease. The crusade against the "vile weed" has gotten so absurd that, a few weeks ago, I learned that one is prohibited from smoking even in cigar stores in Anchorage, Alaska.

Of course, soon (and even now, among the vanguard) they will tell us to avoid carbohydrates, saturated fats, butter, and other cholesterol.

These are the wages of conceding to the incrementalism of the far Left. It would be refreshing if the "go-along-to-get-along" contingent of the GOP would recognize the folly of their desire for collegiality. These people wish to control our lives. If we don't oppose them, soon many will wake up to learn that it is too late to reclaim lost liberties. Short of violent revolution, that is.

Saturday, September 01, 2007

Surprise! More Lies From Psychotic Jonathan Mark

To borrow a phrase, it seems that I've "touched a raw nerve" from the "admittedly touchy" Jonathan Mark, he of the life so empty that he is devoting his time to "investigating" anybody remotely related to GOP candidate for the 51st District, Faisal Gill, and spinning elaborate smears that Faisal supports and/or is involved in their allegedly or concededly illicit activities.

By Mark's creative standards, I am involved in the Jack Abramoff scandal because Ralph Reed and I were acquainted while both studying at Emory University, and am responsible for the murder and assault committed by a man with whom I occasionally smoked cigars, and once had a drink.

For that matter, I resided in Prince William County at the same time as Lorena Bobbitt.

Of course, given that Gill has held positions of trust and high-level security clearances within to the Bush Administration, and has been investigated and cleared by those who are paid be suspicious, and the content of Mark's remarks, it is utterly clear that Mark's unhealthy fixation on Gill arises from his abject racism.

A few days ago, I noted Mark's latest smear, attempting to attribute Gill's law partner's alleged misdeeds to Gill.

Now, never mind that lawyers in partnership, even if they are working on the same case, rarely are aware of every jot and tittle of work performed by other lawyers, let alone mere law partners, whose association may be limited to sharing office space. Mark, of course, offers little or nothing in the way of facts about the way Gill's law firm operates (Mark is, of course, not likely to be able to do so, as is no one not a partner in the firm). And, of course, never mind that the shared civil liabilities that arise in the partnership context do not extend to shared criminal liabilities.

Today, Mark decides to utterly misrepresent my post, claiming that:
Unrepentant Faisal fan James Young wonders why I don't commit suicide and credits me with the worst Virginia blog article ever.
As is typical of Mark, the misrepresentations are serial. To be sure, I am "unrepentant," but apparently unlike Mark, I try very hard to avoid doing things which I should regret. But the truth ends there.

Addressing themin order, first, I am not a "fan" of Faisal. Faisal is a friend, an ally in numerous political disputes, and a fellow Board member of the Prince William Taxpayers Alliance. He was the superior candidate for the GOP nomination for the office he seeks. Moreover, he is now the GOP nominee for office in an ensuing election, to whom I therefore owe a debt of honor as a member of an official Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia, the Prince William County Republican Committee. Calling me a "fan" is just Mark's way of belittling honorable behavior, of which he clearly has little understanding. By way of comparison, Mark has himself written about how he was denied membership or cashiered from an official Democrat committee when he betrayed his obligations with regard to Democrat nominee (and Congressman) Jim Moran.

Second, I don't "wonder[] why [Mark] do[es]n't commit suicide." To the contrary, I merely note that "Most people with that little to live for would simply put shotguns in their mouths and pull the trigger." I spend very little time "wonder[ing]" why Mark does what he does. To the contrary, he is an admitted ideological Democrat, and his posts and comments demonstrate his racist attitudes. Very little to "wonder" about there.

Third, I don't "credits [him] with the worst Virginia blog article ever." I say his "may be a candidate for the dumbest post in the rather short history of the Virginia blogosphere" (emphasis added), for the reasons stated above regarding law partnerships.

One sentence; three misrepresentations. That must be some kind of a record.

With such an apparently limited ability to comprehend the meaning of simple words, it is little wonder that Mark is able to craft his elaborate smears.

You Call That A Compliment?

Today's WaPo has the expected glowing editorial praising retiring Senator John Warner (RINO-VA). After all, virtually the only time that the Post has something nice to say about a Republican is when he or she is no longer a threat.

Now, never mind the claims regarding his "courtliness," his "dignity," or his "civility" --- I know many Conservatives who would take issue which attribution of these qualities to Senator Foghorn Leghorn --- most entertaining were the naked contradictions of the editorial itself.

Perhaps the funniest thing was at the end:

Mr. Warner is a conservative but hardly an ideologue, and he has repeatedly infuriated his party's strident right-wingers -- by standing against the nomination of Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987, by opposing the leadership of Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) in the Senate, and, in 1994, by repudiating Oliver L. North's Senate candidacy in Virginia. Many Virginia Republicans saw him as a heretic -- a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Mr. Warner saw himself as more committed to principle than party.

He lacked any fixed worldview or guiding political philosophy. His commitment, he often said, was to the traditions and institution of the Senate and to the people of Virginia, whose support he repaid handsomely. He guided billions of dollars in defense contracts to Virginia, making it the country's largest recipient of military spending per capita, and he safeguarded the state's huge naval and air bases. Through it all, his steady civility, dignity and courtesy seemed almost quaint, a throwback to more courtly times. But the absence of such qualities nowadays is much noted and mourned. So, too, will Mr. Warner's absence be.

An interesting juxtaposition. "[M]ore committed to principle than party," but "lack[ing] any fixed worldview or guiding political philosophy." One might forgive a writer of a long article for putting those diametrically opposing statements in widely divergent portions of the article. Only in the cloudcuckooland of the WaPo could those statements coexist side by side. And one can only speculate as to what "principle," if any, John Warner thought himself committed to (other than, of course, the principle of "Senator John Warner").

I'm sure that the Post meant it as a compliment. More's to pity.