Tuesday, February 27, 2007
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
BAD LANGUAGE ALERT!
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.Wow! I guess Andrew missed the briefing where perversion promotion was made part of the Democrat agenda.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:The kids declare it "stupifying."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."
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
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:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 13, 2007
BOLLING ISSUES STATEMENT ON SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE ACTION ON TRANSPORTATION BILL
- Lieutenant Governor criticizes decision to reject compromise transportation bill -
RICHMOND - 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:
In response to the Committee’s action, Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling issued the following statement:
- 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.
“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.”
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.
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.What fun! We'll have to play the Democrat Claptrap game again some time.
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.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
"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
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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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, 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.
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
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:
This was my response:
Jonathan Mark favored us with this response:
And then, he offered this:
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:
This was my response:
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
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:
But what it's really about follows:
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.
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