Thursday, December 18, 2008
Paul M. Weyrich, first head of the Heritage Foundation, and current President and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation, died early this morning at age 66.
Like William F. Buckley, Jr., earlier this year, his voice was resounding to the last.
While I never had the privilege of meeting Mr. Weyrich, his work is much in evidence in Washington. I've spent many hours at the Heritage Foundation, through participation in the Third Generation group, and at other programs, and was interviewed on Tom Jipping's show on Free Congress' cable network (back in 1997, during the Teamsters strike against UPS), which eventually strayed far from its moorings to become [P]MSNBC.
He will be missed.
UPDATE: And at least one moonbat has chimed in with his comments. He's all class.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
It seems that the burgeoning Illinois scandal over Governor Rod Blagojevich's (D) efforts to sell President-elect Barry Obama's Senate seat has yielded a direct link to the incoming administration.
It seems that Vice President-elect Joe Biden was trying to make a deal for Blagojevich's hair.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
I honestly don't know if there was any involvement. I rather doubt it.
But that doesn't mean that The One shouldn't have to answer questions.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
While I would encourage anyone to quit smoking cigarettes, if Barry exercises his right to indulge, his response should be to say "To Hell with 'Federal policy'!"
I expect to be highly critical of Barry and his administration. He is, for all practical purposes, a socialist. If he indulges his policy preferences, I expect to oppose him.
Nevertheless, for the next four years, barring anything unforeseen, the White House will be his residence.
And if he chooses to smoke, he is entitled to do as he damn well pleases in his own house.
I certainly won't be criticizing him for doing so.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Now, I'm not so sure. He declares in a recent comment that "Communism is downright cute."
Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned (well, of course I am), but I have a real problem with anybody who characterizes an ideology responsible for the death of as many of one hundred million souls and the enslavement of more than a billion others as "cute."
Whether it bespeaks ignorance or fundamental evil ... well, I just don't know.
Monday, November 24, 2008
It's none too soon. Sure, they have lots of readers, probably because childishness sells, particularly among the denizens of the far Left.
One has but to witness their recent complaints. It seems that one contributor is in high dudgeon over Virgil Goode's demand --- to which he is statutorily entitled --- of a recount in his narrow loss to lightweight Tom Perriello. One commenter, clearly engaged in an exercise in projection (having apparently forgotten Democrat whines about George Bush's victory in 2000), offered this observation:
An established pattern of Republican elites and their sense of entitlement is, to put it simply: "Any so-called victory by Democrats is not legitimate; it is our right and duty to contest it." And, every time they do demand a recount or go to court (sometimes all the way to the Supreme Court) it does indeed in some measure de-legitimize the Democratic victory, making it seem somewhat less victorious, somewhat less likely to be repeated, while enhancing (in Republican minds at least) the stature of the Republican point of view.Wow. Now, I suppose that Goode's chances for success are somewhere between slim and none (only one commenter evidences any modicum of sanity; the children over there don't allow me to comment, after all). After all, my recollection is that Virginians can take pride in the integrity and accuracy of their electoral processes, a situation demonstrated in 2005, when Attorney General "Landslide Bob" McDonnell won his race by fewer than a thousand votes, and the recount resulted in a shift of fewer than fifty votes in his favor over Democrat State Senator Creigh Deeds.
Have we heard enough yet that Democrats won the White House only because of: 1) the unfortunate blip in the economy, 2) Bush's incompetence, and 3) failure of the current Republican leadership to adhere strictly to Republican principles, i.e., they were not conservative enough, because, after all: the United States is basically a center right nation. Therefore, Obama does not have a mandate and he must work in bipartisan fashion with the Republicans (on their terms, not his). All this applies at every level of government---- most especially in these pesky Congressional Districts such as Goode-Perriello. Obviously.
And what were the boys and girls at Ranting Kids... er, Raising Dough... er, Raising Kaine... er, "RK" ... er, whatever, saying then?
Well, chief moonbats Lowell Feld and Josh Chernila offered a virtual cornucopia of rationalizations and complaints about the process. Lowell offered the observation that "it appears that 'the fix is in,' with the 'recount' rules written in such a way that there's almost no possibility of Deeds winning." Hmmm. Wasn't Virginia's State Board of Elections controlled by Democrats in 2005? Contributor Nichole openly urged Deeds to request a recount. Josh bucked up the Democrat nominee with "Keep fighting Creigh, we're behind you!" (emphasis added).
I have no doubt that the Virginia Moonbatosphere is in mourning over the impending shutdown of this widely-read blog. But the boys and girls at Ranting Kids... er, Raising Dough... er, Raising Kaine... er, "RK" ... er, whatever, are little loss to rationale discourse and debate. Or even to those who expect just a little bit of consistency, other than consistently applying situational ethics to their "analysis."
Friday, November 21, 2008
November 21, 2008A class act.Dear Friends,Well, as I was saying...
Let me please begin by underscoring what an honor it was to speak to you last night. I am, as you might imagine, quite embarrassed to have collapsed last night. I hope that embarrassment is not the product of undue human pride, or at least not principally so. I am embarrassed in part because I fear I ruined your evening and caused you concern - for that I am truly sorry. Equally important, I hope the shortened conclusion of the speech did not detract from the message I hoped to convey: Specifically that the issues of law and policy relating to our continuing national security are real, and are worthy of the most careful thought and deliberation so as to keep the American people safe.
The Federalist Society has spent the last 25-plus years promoting thoughtful and fair debate concerning the critical legal and public policy issues facing our nation. It was an honor to address you last night, and I urge you to continue the fine efforts of the Federalist Society in the future.
Finally, I was truly humbled to hear all of the prayers and well wishes sent on my behalf from attendees at the dinner. Thank you all. I am, fortunately, well, and I too pray for all of our good health and for the future of the Nation we all love.
Very Truly Yours,
It looked for all the world to me as though he suffered a stroke. Of course, my degree is in law, not medicine.
Like former Congressman David McIntosh, who led one before we left after the AG was carried away by emergency personnel, I covet everyone's prayers for our Attorney General. Mine go to him and his family.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
For some reason, that quotation has been floating around my head for the last few days.
As a Conservative who believes that people should vote on ideas, I am appalled that the results of this election demonstrate that there are many more stupid people voting than one might hope.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Once again, the most respected coach in college sports, and perhaps in all sports --- Joe Paterno --- is denied the respect he deserves.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
She is most famous for perhaps one of the funniest lines ever delivered in a movie, though it was completely deadpan.
In her son's film When Harry Met Sally, Meg Ryan demonstrates that women can fake orgasms any time they want to, and proceeds to do so in a delicatessen. The camera moves to a then approximately 64-year-old Reiner, who declares to the a waitress standing by her "I'll have what she's having."
Sunday, October 26, 2008
What a hilarious call. He asked for my wife, who likewise, had just sat down to dinner. He asked a few questions, the upshot of which was "Who are you voting for?" Since I didn't want to interrupt my wife's dinner, I informed "Mark from Maryland" that there was utterly no chance that my wife would be voting for Barry or the Boyish Governor, and that, since my dinner was getting cold, he should stop wasting my time and his, and hung up.
Doubtless, he indulged his self-serving caricatures, and dismissed me as just another right-wing radical Christian who exercises dictatorial control over his wife who, at best, simply has a "false consciousness," being unaware of her own interests and in desperate need of the guidance of the vanguard of the proletariat.
Of course, this call may well represent a rather desperate tactic on the part of Barry and the Komsomol. After all, it hardly seems logical or persuasive for Marylanders to call into Virginia for Obama, and especially for Marky-Mark. Particularly south of the Occoquan. Moreover, why would it be necessary to use Marylanders if Obama is doing so well in Virginia?
And what about this?: Brenda Young has to be among the hardest of the hard "Rs." She's voted in every GOP primary in Virginia since 1990. She's been a member of her local GOP Committee since 1991. She's attended every GOP Convention (county; congressional district; and state), since 1992.
This call makes me more sanguine about the truth about Barry's "popularity."
Monday, October 20, 2008
As someone pointed out to me this morning, it's a pretty pathetic job application.
Think about it. One who finds solace in polling data could conclude that an Obama victory is a foregone conclusion, that it's all over but the shouting. So now, sixteen days before Election Day, Powell endorses The One. Might it be that he wants a job in the new Administration?
After all, look at his justifications. Powell challenges McCain's judgment. Does he do so by pointing out his contempt for the First Amendment, and his support for limiting free speech, as illustrated by the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform"? Does he attack McCain's support for any eminently arguable policy preferences?
No. Powell claims that it is illustrated by his pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for Vice President, saying that she is clearly not qualified to assume the office of President. But as compared to whom? Barry Obama? After all, Palin has the executive experience that Obama is sorely lacking. When one considers this fact, it becomes readily apparent that Powell's decision --- to the extent that it may not be completely opportunistic --- is based more on ideology than on objective criteria. And if it is based upon ideology, one can legitimately question whether his was ever truly a Republican ideology, even broadly construed.
He fears more conservative Supreme Court nominees? What Republican isn't hopeful of a more conservative Supreme Court?
Indeed, one looks at the endorsement and sees little more than The One's self-serving (and largely false) talking points. To the extent that The One's thin record depicts anything, it reveals a committed Socialist (even when --- uncharacteristically --- someone like "Joe the Plumber" gets access to ask a tough question). Other than that, The One presents little more than an empty vessel, into which his campaign devoutly hopes that the muddled middle will pour its own predispositions and hopes, without knowledge of his thin but actual record.
More interesting is the reaction of the far Left moonbatosphere. They hail the endorsement as a triumph, demonstrating once again that theirs are situational ethics of the worst sort. Aren't these the same people who not so long ago roundly condemned Colin Powell as a mere cipher, spouting the dishonest (they say) arguments in favor of taking out Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein? What is it that converted Colin Powell from a mere propaganda mouthpiece into a sage political analyst?
Apparently, his newfound and arguably opportunistic support for The One.
Lowell Feld, one of the leading moonbats ... er, "lights" over at Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough ... er, Raising Kaine ... er, "RK," has even put up a post about past Republican comments about Colin Powell. I suppose it's more fun to attack the other side as hypocritical than to remind readers about your own (or your fellow travellers') previous attacks one someone whom you now believe to have "seen the light."
Powell's endorsement of Obama demonstrates nothing so much as the fact that Powell --- his service to the nation notwithstanding --- is not a serious or consistent political thinker. Certainly, to the extent that he has ever thought about issues broader than national security issues at all.
For this endorsement does not elevate The One so much as it diminishes Colin Powell. And that is unfortunate.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Hampden-Sydney, No. 20 in Division III, and No. 1 in the Old Dominion Athletic Conference (ODAC), prevailed over the coeducational experiment in Lexington, AKA Washington & Leigh ... er, "Lee" (Robert E. Lee V, H-SC '86, was a classmate of mine) by a score of 39-29, while No. 3 Penn State broke a 12-game losing streak against Michigan by rolling to a 46-17 victory, allowing no opposing scoring after the first half, yesterday.
Hampden-Sydney may well be on their way to a second consecutive appearance in the Division III playoffs, since they can do no worse than 4-2 in the conference, with home games against Catholic (5-1 overall; 1-1 ODAC), the alma mater of H-SC Head Coach Marty Favret, next week and The Game against arch-rival Randolph-Macon (2-4 overall; 1-1 ODAC) on 15 November. A non-conference game against undefeated Huntington College (Montgomery, Alabama) is scheduled for 8 November.
And if Penn State can prevail against No. 12 Ohio State in Columbus next week, they will certainly be in the hunt for the National Championship.
Should be an interesting month in college football.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
At the alma mater's Homecoming this weekend, I learned that I'm not the only practicing attorney who feels this way. A much more recent graduate agrees.
It seems that a young man who graduated a few years after I did went on to law school at the University of Chicago, where his Con Law instructor was none other than Barack He-Whose-Middle-Name-Shall-Not-Be-Spoken Obama.
According to my source, Dr. Marion's course/teaching/method of instruction as a Political Science/Government course was superior --- far superior --- to Barry's as a law school instructor.
It surprises me not at all.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Witness the recent statement by Jeff Frederick. He repeated an observation made by Limbaugh a few days back: that both have closely associated with men who have bombed the Pentagon and buildings in New York City. I noted the comparison here.
Frederick said it in front of a magazine reporter, as if it were news, or as if twenty million people hadn't heard Limbaugh say it five days ago.
So what do the moonbats do? Well, of course, they act as if it were news. Lowell, the lead moonbat at Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough ... er, "Raising Kaine" ... er, "RK," questions Frederick's sanity --- a subject on which he is perhaps qualified to speak --- and declares flatly that Bill Ayers --- the Weather Underground terrorist in question --- is not The One's friend.
They call for Frederick's resignation, demonstrating beyond doubt that they fear most a Republican Party of Virginia Chairman who will respond in kind to their attacks. They scream "racism and hate," as though they don't engage in class warfare and promote hatred against the successful, and as though pointing out The One's questionable associations were not legitimate. Of course, they declare that all but embrace of The One and his candidacy is racism per se.
It's expected when the moonbats whine. That's like a dog peeing on a fire hydrant. It's rather disappointing when someone as normally sensible as Doug Mataconis thinks it's a big deal.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
He said that health care is a "right." Of course, that means that the government should take my money to care for those who are less responsible.
This alone should disqualify this dilletante from public office in the United States of America.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Among the most interesting is why certain Members of Congress who were complicit in the bad decisionmaking which allowed the "crisis" to develop are given any role in crafting a solution to it.
Chief among these is Barney Frank (D-Mass.).
I would certainly like to know what business or finance credentials he brings to the table.
After all, the closest this career politician has ever come to running a business is when Steven Gobie was running a homosexual male escort service out of Frank's townhouse in the 1980s!
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Well, OK. Ascribing the word "intellectual" to any part of Virginia's moonbatosphere is a stretch. Perhaps "intellectualoid" is a better word.
And how else do you explain the fact that many of those savaging Sarah Palin as "unqualified" for the job she seeks were championing Governor Timmy! for the same post?
Even Governor Timmy! himself!
Yet it is Republicans are responsible for the failure of the $700 billion bailout bill?!?!?!
Survey says ... well, the surveys will probably reflect that those idiots who are inclined to believe virtually any Democrat lie believe this, too, reflecting the triumph of government-controlled education, and the absence of teaching mathematical skills. But anybody who can count votes should know better.
That's nearly as crazy as the suggestion that George Bush is responsible for the financial crisis because of his agenda --- TALKING POINTS ALERT! --- of "deregulation on steroids."
Well, the first thing is, the Bush Administration attempted to sound the alarm on the precarious status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac practices years ago. Democrats on the Hill didn't want to hear it. After all, if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac kept on making irresponsible loans to people who couldn't afford to repay them, well, that just guaranteed another loyal Democrat constituency whose votes were effectively bought.
And let's not forget how this "crisis" started. Just like the "health care crisis," this is a "crisis" of Democrats' making. Democrats sponsored and jealously guarded the "community reinvestment" programs, supposedly enacted to address "racism" in the lending industry. Of course, Democrats were happy to fraudulently misrepresent sound and responsible lending practices as "racism" for political gain.
Soooooo, they socialized a portion of the lending industry with "government-sponsored entities": Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And just like Medicare (which socialized virtually half of the health-care "system," now that the chickens are coming home to roost, Democrats are calling, not for recognition of the failure of socialism and a removal of irresponsible government mandates, but for --- you guessed it! --- more socialism.
Now I can't begrudge any Republican who voted for the bailout. I understand their concern. It might even be a necessary evil, in light of the fact that this is a government-made crisis, arising out of government mandates. Kind of like the S&L debacle, where government guaranteed accounts, but failed to exercise appropriate oversight. The case can be made, and GOP leaders tried to make it.
However, unlike Democrats --- who reflexively throw money at any situation --- I would expect Republicans and Conservatives to be able to recognize the root causes, and actually address them by getting government out of an enterprise in which it has no legitimate business, expertise, or constitutional authority. And I expect Republicans to go after Democrat robber-barons like Franklin Raines, who precipitated this crises while profiting handsomely.
But to suggest that the failure of the bailout is to be blamed on the Republicans, well, only a moonbat residing in the cave of a far-Left echo chamber could believe that!
H/T to Riley for the YouTube video.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Someone sent this to me a few minutes ago.
It's also the kind of response which is to be expected when otherwise respectable portions of the Democrat blogophere are peddling trash like this, while the moonbats are peddling worse.
I don't know the timing of the creation of this work, but I never saw anything even remotely like it until just a few minutes ago.
'Can't say I'm surprised by this. My late grandfather was a Pontiac, Buick, and Cadillac dealer in Central Pennsylvania for more than forty years, from 1946 until 1 January 1987, when he sold his dealership in Sunbury to Blaise Alexander.
I vividly remember those dark days in the late 1970s, when Chrysler was begging for government loans to keep operating, oil prices were spiking, and sales of American gas-guzzlers tanked in the face of Japanese competition.
It was almost a certainty that, in a rather depressed area (economically), the only way that Schreffler Pontiac, Buick, and Cadillac survived was because of the fact that my grandfather didn't "floor-plan" his vehicles. Rather, he bought them from the manufacturer outright, and thereby avoided the costs of interest payments during economic downturns.
Don't be surprised if you see more car dealers going out of business in the next few months. And for the same reasons that we are talking about a nearly-trillion dollar bailout for Wall Street.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
This just in!
Hey boys & girls ... facts are facts!!
This has to make you think a little bit, if not then keep your blinders on!
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%;
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high --- 14,000 +;
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democrat Congress & yep --- we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS & prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure;
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low --- 11,100 --- $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS
Yep, in 2006 America voted for "Change"! And we sure got it!!! Now, Barach H. Obama, the Democrat candidate for President --- and the polls say he's going to be "the Man" --- claims he's really going to really give us "Change"!! Just how much more "Chanage" do you think you can stand?!?!
Of course, it was just a myth, and an effort to play upon racial fears, since such accusations invariably accused Republicans --- without evidence --- of voter suppression in the Black community. Either that, or a concerted scheme to misrepresent humor ("Due to high turnout expected in this year's election, the Voter Registrar has determined that Republicans will vote on the first Tuesday in November, while Democrats will vote the next day").
Not this time. Now, a denizen of the Virginia moonbatosphere has shamelessly endorsed an effort to suppress votes. As one might expect, he endorses an effort to suppress votes in Texas, which is expected to go for John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Friday, September 19, 2008
My understanding is that Mark Warner, now running to succeed retiring Senator John Warner (R-VA, and no relation), once again dodged a question about the fraudulently-misnomered "Employee Free Choice Act" at yesterday's Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce debate. "EFCA," as it's known, is number one on the union hit parade, and would require, inter alia, employer recognition of labor unions securing signatures on union membership cards in a bargaining unit. This procedure is currently allowed under the National Labor Relations Act, but employers familiar with union intimidation tactics frequently demand secret-ballot elections to put unions to their proofs about claims of majority support for the union.
Even 1972 Democrat presidential candidate former Senator George McGovern has found this proposal too radical for his tastes.
So why won't Mark Warner let Virginians know his position?
Might it be that he fears Virginians' reaction to a Senator who will advance Big Labor's anti-democratic agenda of intimidation?
Remember, this is the same Mark Warner who promised when running for Governor that he wouldn't raise taxes, and turned around and fought for the biggest tax increase ($6 billion) in Virginia history, on fraudulent claims of budget "crisis."
Of course, anyone who's been paying attention knows that Democrats scream "crisis" whenever they want to spend more taxpayer money to buy votes.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Nevertheless, in looking at today's economics news, and the drop in the Dow-Jones Industrial Average (about 2.15% as I write), I am marvelled that the press is describing it as "a meltdown."
Really? I was in law school in 1987, and vividly remember the day when the DJIA lost approximately 25% of its value, or about 500 points on a then-average of about 2000.
That was "a meltdown."
One can only wonder about the premises from which these reporters are proceeding. Utter ignorance of history?
Or are they so completely in the tank for Barry Obama and the Democrat Party that they are willing to misrepresent current events to sustain the lies that a merely "sluggish" economy is "the worst since the Great Depression"?
Thursday, September 11, 2008
I guess it was only a matter of time before these boobs started assuming the mantle of Old Testament prophets.
If only they had approaching the same inspiration.
H/T to Moonbats-R-Us ... er, "RK."
It's like a really bad Disney movie... The hockey mom, you know 'I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska' and she's facing down Vladimir Putin using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink. It's absurd, it's totally absurd, and I don't understand why more people aren't talking about how absurd it is. It's a really terrifying possibility; the fact that we've gotten this far and we're that close to it being a reality, it's crazy. I need to know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago...I wanna know that, I really do, because she's going to have the nuclear code.You know what's really totally absurd? Taking seriously the political rantings of an (admittedly talented) actor and screenplay writer whose foreign policy experience is limited to playing the caricature of a covert operative.
Or even more absurd? Nominating as a candidate for President a guy whose entire ticket has no executive experience, and whose most significant decisionmaking has involved which radical associations he's going to throw under the bus for current political gain, and never mind the poor judgment reflected in making those radical associations in the first place. A guy who complains about "gotcha" moments ("lipstick on a pig is still a pig") who might be taken ever so much more seriously had he risen to the defense of George Allen two years ago, with his "macaca" moment.
It's like --- oh, I don't know --- a really bad Robert Ludlum movie.
H/T to Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough ... er, Raising Kaine ... er, "RK." Whatever.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Not that you're likely to see it reported in the so-called "main stream" media, but pollster John Zogby, himself a Democrat, shows McCain/Palin up by nearly 4% over Barry Obama and Joe "the Plaigarist" Biden.
No wonder the moonbats are going positively crazy.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Particularly since I am actually one.
Searching on Westlaw, I searched the "allfeds" database (all federal courts) for "at("Barack H. Obama"). A search under at("Barack Obama") yielded no results.
There were seven reported decisions, all between April 1994 and January 1996.
Four were appeals, all in the Seventh Circuit. Nothing unusual for a Chicago attorney. Three were in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Again, not unusual.
Yet in not one of them was Obama listed as lead counsel, at least obviously. He was the second or third (and last) named attorney in each of the Seventh Circuit cases. He argued (and won) only one of them.
Civil rights attorney? Maybe. For about five minutes.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Is David Axelrod --- producer of the Obamaganza rally at the end of the Democrat convention --- the Leni Riefenstahl of our time?
And no, I don't mean Barry Obama is a Nazi. What I mean is that Axelrod --- like Riefenstahl --- is packaging a local rabble-rouser of little accomplishments and dangerous ideas into an acceptable political product, with little more than smoke and mirrors.
The only difference? Riefenstahl was more talented. And did it in black-and-white.
H/T to Zimbio.com. Martyhef said it first.
Of course, the goal is to ascribe to your political opponents an unattractive characteristic. So much easier than addressing the merits of their arguments, don't you know.
Or worse yet, addressing the fact that your candidate is not only objectively unqualified for the office he seeks, but is an agent --- not of change --- but of reactionary Liberalism.
But what is perhaps most entertaining is the irony of the accusation, and the tactic. After all, taking a page from our friend, it is actually those who regularly demonstrate their affliction with Bush Derangement Syndrome who are the most "angry" people in politics.
I suppose that our friend is demonstrating what the psychological types call "projection."
I don't know what the actual figures are, but I think it has to be beyond question that the so-called "mainstream media" already has devoted more time to the family difficulties involving Palin's eldest daughter than it has over Senator Barry Obama's ties to admitted terrorist William Ayres, convicted felon and slumlord Tony Rezko, and race-baiting "minister" Jeremiah Wright.
Once again, the media is more interested in a Republican's personal pimples, while ignoring a Democrat's professional carbuncles.
What was that again about "right-wing media bias"?
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
MARSHALL RIPS DEMOCRAT LIBERALS FOR ATTACKS ON PALIN’S DAUGHTER
Virginia Del. Robert G. Marshall on Tuesday (Sept. 2) blasted liberal Democrats for launching “vicious and outrageously personal political attacks” on the unmarried pregnant daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Sen. John S. McCain’s choice as his vice presidential running mate.
“Liberal Democrats affirm a right to privacy for any woman who wants to have a legal abortion, but they are granting no such privilege to Bristol Palin,” said Marshall, of Manassas, who has represented Northern Virginia’s 13th Legislative District in the state House of Delegates for 17 years.
“The Democrats excuse themselves from the sin of scandal, but they’re more than willing to use children as pawns on political chessboards. Like the Pharisees when they confronted Christ with a woman taken in adultery, whom they couldn’t have cared less about, Democrat liberals will use any means to try to take the gloss off John McCain’s smart vice presidential pick.
“These vicious and outrageously personal political attacks must stop.”
Marshall, chairman of the Life, Liberty, Property Political Action Committee, compared a May 31 statement by Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, while he was campaigning in Johnstown, Pa., with that of Gov. Palin and her husband, Todd, on Monday when it became public that their 17-year-old daughter was pregnant.
“I’ve got two daughters,” Obama said in Johnstown when describing his position on abortion. “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Gov. Palin and her husband, on the other hand, on Monday issued a statement indicating they “are proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby. She knows she has our unconditional love and support.”
Bristol Palin and Levi Johnson, 18, the father of their pre-born child, are planning to wed.
“The issue of life and abortion is playing out like a gigantic morality play on the American political stage,” Marshall said, noting that Gov. Palin is pro-life and gave birth to son Trig five months ago though prenatal tests indicated he would be born with Down syndrome.
“What happened to tolerance? What happened to understanding and forgiveness?
“The Palin family is showing real strength of character under stress, which is what you have left when things are not under your control, everything seems to be going wrong, and you have to make a decision. They’ve made the right one.”
Must suck when the targets of your caricatures respond according to their principles, rather than your ridiculous smears of their true beliefs.
Of course, the far Left --- who rabidly defend the "right to choose" (so long as it applies to the right to choose to kill an innocent) --- cannot survive their own internal contradictions. For if you believe in a "right to choose," you must of necessity believe that there are circumstances in which the "choice" is appropriate.
So defenders of abortion must believe that there are time when abortion is the "right" choice.
But they never want to tell us when it is "the right choice."
Now, even unsophisticated thinkers can comtemplate such circumstances. For example, perhaps, when one is carrying a severely handicapped child? What qualifies? Tay-Sachs, a horrible genetic disease which condemns a child to a lingering death by the age of five? Cerebral palsy? Down's Syndrome, like little Trig Palin? A teenage pregnancy? Mere inconvenience?
The reason that Sarah Palin has to be destroyed is not because she is unqualified to serve as President, for she is. In fact, she's more qualified to serve than Barry Obama.
Sarah Palin must be destroyed because she's everything that so-called "Feminists" purport to stand for, but really don't. She has made a political career on her own merits, not riding on the coattails of her former-President husband, like Hillary Clinton. She's not a wealthy woman like Nancy Pelosi who demagogues about how the rest of us aren't surrendering enough of our income. She's the mother of five. She has exercised her choice to open her heart to a child facing challenges which most can only imagine. Living with Down's Syndrome cannot be easy, and I can speak from personal experience on the point, as I know a man with Down's.
In short, she's the purported "feminist" ideal, and rejects almost entirely the feminist ideology.
No wonder the far Left fears her so.
What does it say when those most vocal, fervent supporters can praise a media type who questions the foreign policy questions of the bottom of an opposing ticket, while utterly ignoring the complete lack of similar qualifications at the top of theirs?
What does it say about a candidate whose most vocal, fervent supports praise his attestation that "I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper," while ignoring the fact that his biological brother is living in poverty in Africa on about $12 a year?
What does it say about a candidate who allows such individuals to act as smear merchants against his opposition? Remember, after all, these are the people who decry "Willie Horton" and "Swiftboating." Their silence in the face of the sleazy, slanderous moonbatosphere is both considered and deafening.
Now, I know that the boys and girls over at Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough, ... er, Raising Kaine ... er, "RK" bill themselves as "Virginia's Online Progressive Community," but what can we take from these examples?
It's pretty simple, really: "Virginia's Online Progressive Community" is peurile, sophomoric, and just plain mean.
And God forbid one should ever dare to offer a little reality. I was barred from posting comments a few months back for wholly content-based reasons.
Yeah, yeah, I know: it's their website, and I have no free speech rights on someone else's property. But I allow far Lefties to comment here, when rarely do they comment. So much for the Left being guardians of freedom.
Of course, those of us who understand them know better. After all, these are the people who are commenting about suggesting that .... well, let's just let Horse's Ass, or "Mule," or something like that speak for himself:
One can easily imagine how right-wing preachers would decry an out-of-wedlock pregnancy in the family of a Democratic candidate, exclaiming, while pounding on their Bibles, that the pregnancy sets a "poor example" for American teenagers. They would say that this is what can be expected from a family with "liberal" permissiveness. Well, I'm waiting to hear what the Bible thumpers say this time.Really, "Mule"? Can one? Well, only if one is so thoroughly steeped in the mythos of the far Left that one has to make it up.
Have these people ever opened a Bible? Have they ever darkened the door of a church for any purpose other than the search for political power/votes?
One has to wonder. After all, it seems to me that one needn't have spent a great deal of time with one's body in church or nose in the Bible to have sensed just a little of the theme of "forgiveness" in the New Testament.
I can't say I'm surprised, though. After all, the single defining characteristic of the totalitarian, secular Left is the myth of human perfectability through the instrument of government. Proceed from that arrogant, delusional presumption, and it's easy to fail to recognize the need for God, and for forgiveness for sins. Indeed, "sin" becomes an obsolete notion, replaced by pathologies to be cured by pills, or surgery, or education, or --- most important of all --- more government.
And how does it apply to Sarah Palin's daughter (with due regard for her, I will not name her here)?
Well, you can savage the minor child of a Republican, particularly when you've constructed these elaborate fictions about your ideological enemies.
Witness the continued popularity of Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough, ... er, Raising Kaine ... er, "RK" among the moonbat Left.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Here's what Todd Palin's union's president, Leo W. Gerard, had to say about his wife's selection for the GOP ticket:
"It is important to realize that while the governor’s husband is a member of a union, this does not automatically qualify her for an on-the-job training program to become a heartbeat away from the presidency. And while her husband is one of 850,000 dues-paying members of the steelworkers union, it does nothing to absolve Sen. McCain of his long history of anti-union sentiment and anti-worker actions, including continuously pushing an anti-working family agenda that:
*Opposes giving workers the right to bargain collectively;
*Jeopardizes retirement security by privatizing social security;
*Further threatens job security by signing more job-stealing trade deals without the regard to human rights and environmental abuses; and,
*Erodes the ability of working families to secure quality health care by taxing their employer -provided coverage for both active and retired workers.
McCain’s choice is another example of his poor judgment and his desire to play politics as usual. McCain-Palin is not a team that works for working families. The first-term governor’s record is thin and divisive. And John McCain has a life-long record of being for the rich and powerful. No union card can hide that any more than Ronald Regan's union card did."
Other unions like the Teamsters (its Local 959 is one of the most powerful in Alaska) have been no more pleased by this obvious pander, which seems to have been conceived in ignorance of Rule 34 of Republican National Committeeman Morton Blackwell's Laws of the Public Policy Process: "You cannot make friends of your enemies by making enemies of your friends."
Soooo, one has to wonder: If still a "proud union member," will Todd Palin be exercising his "Beck rights" to prevent his union from using his dues to oppose the election of his wife as Vice President? Was he even aware of the fact that he could not be forced to be a union member, or to support the political and ideological activities of the Steelworkers union? Or is he among those many union "members" who have illegally been told that full membership --- and support for union political and ideological activities --- was required as a condition of continued empolyment?
I'd certainly be interested to the answers to these questions, and Mr. Palin's course of action if they are what I suspect them to be.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
That's too rich. Dems nominate for President a man who's not even qualified for the office he holds now, put at the top of their ticket a man with less executive experience than the woman at the bottom of ours, and Lowell wants to play the experience game?
Please, Lowell. Indulge yourself.
And while you're at it, Lowell, please don't forget to mention how many of those Republican woman are, likewise, more qualified to be at the top of our ticket than the Dalai 'Bama is to be at the bottom of yours.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
What was interesting was their comments after their victory. First, Kerri Walsh pointedly said "Thanks, Mr. President," doubtless referring to President George W. Bush's famous visit with the women and the photograph taken with them, in their very skimpy uniforms.
Then, asked what was next for them, both women basically said that they wanted to go home and make babies.
One can only imagine the savaging they will take from the moonbatosphere for these variations from acceptable public discourse.
As for me, way to go, ladies. You may be the best ever in your event. You've made us all proud.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
No, the smear is Obama's whining about being called "unpatriotic."
Gee, Barry, who --- precisely --- is calling you "unpatriotic"? When? Where? Is your concern about the issue that someone serious is actually doing it?
Then again, perhaps we can play homo advocate for a minute. Applying their smear/reasoning, we should conclude that Obama worries about being called "unpatriotic" because of his own insecurities and fears that he actually is unpatriotic.
In reality, as far as I know, it's not the McCain campaign making such accusations, or any other serious GOP organization, for that matter. Now, I suppose that a few bloggers, or radio talk show hosts, or others might be doing so --- I wouldn't; I think you're a moron, not a traitor, and besides, I'm not even sure what you mean by the term --- but serious people don't take them any more seriously than the name-calling in the far-Left moonbatosphere supporting your candidacy.
In fact, the first serious item coming upon a Google search of "Obama unpatriotic" was a reference to your whining speech yesterday.
In short, the smear is not McCain calling Obama "unpatriotic." The smear is Obama's unfounded and specious accusation that McCain's legitimate questions about Obama's judgment, wisdom, and woeful inexperience are merely a challenge to his patriotism.
I don't expect that anyone in the so-called "main-stream" media will ever ask the Dalai 'Bama to put up (with specificity about who and when such accusations have been made) or shut up.
Then again, I never recall the so-called MSM ever asking John McCain to specify how money had corrupted the process, or required surrender advocates to tell us when the Bush Administration attempted to link 9/11 to Iraq.
The reason? Well, first, members of the MSM don't care what the answers are.
Perhaps more importantly, the sneaking suspicion or actual knowledge that the answer to the questions are, in each case, "Well, never."
As Barack Hussein Obama milks the veepstakes for all that it is worth (not that there's anything wrong with that), speculation abounds that he will select Governor Timmy! as his running mate.
All well and good. But if Governor Timmy! is selected to run for Vice President, he should resign from his current office.
Never mind that Virginia deserves another Governor; at a minimum, Virginia needs a full-time Governor, particularly in light of recent budget difficulties. After all, Virginia Attorneys General typically resign to seek their party's nomination for Governor.
Sooooo, if Governor Timmy! wants to become the junior member of the least-qualified national ticket in modern American history, he should surrender his office and commit to that quest his full attention.
Hey, at least he has some executive experience.
H/T to Riley at Virginia Virtucon for the graphic.
Soooo, this (BHO) is the crypto-Socialist who believes that "the rich" aren't shelling out enough for his vote-buying schemes ... er, "social welfare" programs?
Message to the socialist Democrats: don't soak me for more unless you're taking care of your own.
H/T to the Drudge Report.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
One could make a full-time job responding to the moonbattery of the far Left. Most times, it's just not worth the time or trouble.
But little "Truth-teller" over at Democrat official Clifford Garstang's --- or is that Clifford Claven? --- Cobalt6 blog is simply beyond the pale. Now, I suppose he can name-call as much as he wants, since it's not like he does much more than whine about the post he attacks (oddly, one in which I am pointing out an unfair question asked about the Obama campaign, and one which implies that he was associated with John Edwards' sleazy behavior). In fact, Garstang can and has done so here, a privilege he doesn't extend to those who don't register for his website.
But this is certainly odd: he notes that I "claim to be a lawyer, but that Alex Davis/Jonathan Maxfield used to claim that as well."
Well here's a little news flash, Cliffy: people listed as "counsel of record" (and scheduled to argue) before the United States Supreme Court don't merely "claim" to be lawyers; they are lawyers.
Now, I realize that the nature of the blogosphere and those who assume anonymous or pseudonymous persona might cause a certain skepticism, and here, I certainly respect a healthy skepticism. But I've been around the Virginia blogosphere a long time; people know me; I've even broken bread with no less a member of the Democrat blogosphere than Ben Tribbett. Even a Google search would make it pretty clear that I am who I say I am.
In short, Cliffy, your alter-ego or colleague might want to check easily-ascertainable facts before he questions someone's credentials, something he ironically does behind a cowardly cloak of anonymity. Not that such treatment and respect for others would be characteristic, or even expected from the far-Left slander machine.
But it would constitute simple decency. As would banning "Truth-teller" from your blog for his misdeed. Again, not something I expect from the likes of you or your website, Cliffy, 'specially since you endorse "Truth-Distorter's" tomfoolery.
Of course, our friend Carl Kilo pretty much gets it right.
Monday, August 18, 2008
In related news, Obama also announced the appointment of a food taster, a designated staffer to start all automobiles, another to open all door handles, and a fourth to insure no bombs are planted under his toilet (see Lethal Weapon II).
OK, for the humor challenged, this is a joke.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Other than the possibility that Edwards was being considered as a running mate (well, so much for that), I just couldn't figure this one out. What? Had Edwards been shtupping Michelle Obama? Being that it's Democrats, was he shtupping --- or being shtupped by --- Barack himself? That's certainly not the story, as I understand it.
As with any raging Socialist, I've little use for Barack Obama. But among his many sleazy associates, John Edwards is probably the least of them.
At least Edwards' sleaze was limited to personal corruption, not public corruption.
Now, hanging Weatherman terrorist William Ayers or race-baiting minister and confidante the "Rev." Jeremiah "God damn America!" Wright around the Dalai 'Bama's neck is perfectly appropriate. Maybe even convicted felon and Obama contributor Tony Rezko, since Obama had business dealings with him. Obama has a long trail of association with a virtual rogues' gallery of deeply sleazy associates.
But John Edwards? Not unless an Obama was involved in his illicit activities.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Now, no word on the merits or demerits of the relative positions being taken by either of the parties to the negotiations is provided. No word on whether Verizon is being unreasonable, or whether the relevant Communications Workers of America (CWA) and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) locals are making unreasonable demands akin to those currently coming home to roost in the American automobile industry.
Simply reflexive support of a labor union, and an effort to facilitate its efforts.
'Bout what I'd expect from Democrats.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Now, never mind that the gentleman in question never bothered to establish whether the church he was criticizing had anything to do with putting the sign up (it apparently has been taken down).
Mr. Garstang instead decided to throw out an accusation of racism. He apparently considers a reference to "Black churches."
What; predominately Black churches don't exist? Democrat candidates don't flock to them in the weeks leading up to elections? Democrat campaigns have not verifiably provided "walking around money" to Black (or African-American) preachers? The media frequently reports that the most segregated hour is when Americans attend worship. Now, that's not the case in my church, nor in many churches I know in Prince William, including the one attended by my sons' godparents.
I've approved his comment (since I despise the bile anonymity promotes, I reserve the right to reject comments by anonymous/pseudonymous posters) on the theory than friends and readers will recognize that this accusation says more about Mr. Garstang's character than it could ever distort mine among those familiar with facts.
No word on how the sign got there.
One presumes that Mr. Garstang will exhibit similar high dudgeon when Democrat candidates like Mark Warner, Barack Obama, and others start making campaign appearances in Black churches as the election draws near.
Or will he?
Friday, August 08, 2008
After all, about the only thing respectable about the guy was the fact that a successful, good-looking trial lawyer didn't dump for a trophy wife his rather frumpy wife when she hit 40. Even more tragic is the fact that Elizabeth Edwards' cancer has recurred, and apparenly is inoperable. In short, she is dying.
But I'm wondering about the moonbatosphere's response. After all, they savaged Newt Gingrich for "pressing his [first] wife for divorce while in the hospital," or so the story goes. Incidentally, the first Mrs. Gingrich survived, and is alive today.
Go ahead. Google "Gingrich divorce 'first wife' cancer." I came up with not fewer than 10,400 results in about a quarter second. Most on far-Left smear sites.
As for Edwards? Don't hold your breath waiting for the moonbatosphere to apply the same standard to their boy. After all, "principles" are principles for the far Left. They're mere tools of convenience.
UPDATE: Well, there's one exception. But I've never categorized Ben Tribbett as part of the moonbatosphere.
To what am I referring? The amazing op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal in which he come out against the fraudulently-misnomered "Employee Free Choice Act," a pernicious little proposal at the very top of the union-boss wish list.
And what would EFCA do? Well, let's leave it to former Senator McGovern:
it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.So tell me again how Democrat supporters of EFCA (North Carolina freshman Congressman Heath Shuler comes to mind) are "moderates"? George McGovern is no moderate, and even he cannot stomach this proposal.
The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check." There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.
Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.
I once labeled McGovern "George 'No Enemies to the Left' McGovern."
It would seem that I owe him an apology. I apologize.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Since the end of World War II, government policy has funded and encouraged the suburban lifestyle, subsidizing highways while starving mass transit and keeping gas taxes much lower than in some other countries."funded and encouraged the suburban lifestyle [by] ... keeping gas taxes much lower than in some other countries."
So, it's a "subsidy" when government refuses to seize more of the income of the producers?
Few comments so succinctly illustrate the Marxist/Socialist premises upon which so many of today's media based their "reporting."
Sunday, August 03, 2008
His One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich should have been required reading in every American government school, but wasn't. While I had read this work, I was reintroduced to his importance by one of my college professors, James Pontuso, Patterson Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs at Hampden-Sydney College, whose doctoral thesis was on the great Russian author's work.
With a personal knowledge that the author of the phrase (Eric Blair AKA George Orwell) could not, Solzhenitsyn illustrated the reality of Marxist totalitarianism: "Imagine a boot in your face. Forever." And revealed its horrors to a world all too frequently willing to turn a blind eye.
Friday, August 01, 2008
By which the speaker means "We really don't want to or can't answer this, so we'll just dismiss it. Doesn't Senator Obama give a good speech?"
In short, it's just a "distraction" from the fact that BHO gives such a darn good speech. Says nothing, but says it well.
Once again, the far Left is demonstrating it's lack of respect for anyone who isn't on the far Left. And that the far Left fears real debate in the same way (and for the same reasons) that a vampire fears sunlight.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
But I seem to remember something about savaging former Delegate Dick Black for childishly characterizing challenger David Poisson (French for "fish") as "Poison."
Yup. Sure enough. Here's a post by teenager Kenton Ngo attacking Black's actions.
It's pretty pathetic when a teenager demonstrates more maturity than a man of Feld's years. On your own website!
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Shortly thereafter, World War II was ended when quickly-weaponized atomic bombs were first used in anger over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While fewer died on 6 and 9 August 1945, respectively, than were killed in conventional raids on Dresden and Tokyo, it is the events of August 1945, which command the attention of most.
And what were the results of man's success in harnessing the atom?
Hundreds of thousands of American and Allied troops were neither maimed nor killed because President Harry S. Truman had the wit to bring to bear this new instrument of American power. Likewise, hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of Japanese survived who would not have, had the Allies been forced to invade and conquer the Japanese mainland.
Nuclear weapons can also happily be credited with the lack of a direct major-power confrontation during the last half of the Twentieth Century. Doubtless, we came close to one on a number of occasions. Nevertheless, the prospect of the horrific consequences of the use of nuclear weapons as equally undoubtedly a major factor in preserving a precarious --- if imperfect --- peace notwithstanding the ideological hostility between the world's two major powers in the post-war period.
Alan Oppenheimer, the on-site head of the Manhattan Project, quoted Shiva, the destroyer, from the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita, upon witnessing mankind's first atomic mushroom cloud: "I am become Death, the Shatterer of Worlds."
Literary critic and historian Paul Fussell --- himself a veteran of the war in Europe, and scheduled for transfer to the Pacific for the invasion of Japan --- observed twenty years ago, in the title essay (called "classic" by one author, and "powerful" by another) of his book, Thank God for the Atom Bomb.
Today, I would put it more simply: Happy Nuke Day!
Saturday, July 05, 2008
While a long-time friend of the Right to Work movement, I had only two occasions to have any interaction with the Senator from North Carolina.
The first was back in the summer of 1984, when I was interning for Congressman George W. Gekas (R-PA). I had just attended a reception on the Hill. It was a "Free China" reception, held by Conservative Senators and Members of Congress in response to a reception for athletes from Communist China.
In any case, as I was leaving, I happened to run into Senator Helms (who had attended) and joined a group of other interns who were chatting with him. It wasn't a long conversation, but it was less than a year after the liberation of Grenada, which caused a firestorm among the media because they weren't allowed to accompany the troops. Someone else, knowing of Senator Helms' history as an award-winning journalist, asked him what he thought of the controversy.
I'll always remember his humorous, almost impish response, delivered in a wonderful Southern accent. He paused, and then offered "Well, Ah think it woulda been sportin' to send them in first!"
The other was a few years later, on a professional level, when the Senator retained me to represent him in a lawsuit challenging a Clinton Executive Order attempting to debar Federal contractors who dared to exercise their rights under the National Labor Relations Act to replace permanently strikers in an economic strike (for higher wages and/or benefits). While it was ultimately determined that only those Members of the House who retained me had a claim, and we never filed suit on Senator Helms' behalf, I was alway flattered that a Conservative hero had retained my services.
He is and will be missed.
Resquiat in pacem.
The classic metal anthem "Highway to Hell" came immediately to mind.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
She complains that Obama has assumed the posture of a moobat to win the Democrat nomination for President, but is posturing as a Republican to win the general election.
Of course, this illustrates one of the fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats: Republicans expect their candidates to do when elected what they promise in their campaigns; Democrats expect their candidates to lie and act like moonbats when elected.
Monday, June 30, 2008
You see, it seems that our friends on the far Left have taken to calling themselves "Hussein" in honor of the Moonbatic ... er, Democrat nominee for President. Lowell Feld notes this over at Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough ... er, Raising Kaine ... er, RK ... er, whatever.
Even the sometimes logical Ben Tribbett, who is Not Larry Sabato, is now Not Larry Hussein Sabato.
Now, I suppose there's something to be said for doing so. After all, the Democrat nominee-presumptive is quite sensitive about sharing his middle name with the late and former Maximum Leader of Iraq, so much so that he whined about people who were pointing it out. Obviously, some Democrats worry that reminder of Obama's non-English, non-typical name will cost him votes and/or support. Taking the power out of it (much as adherents to Martin Luther's reforms took on the name "Lutheran," once an insult) is a legitimate tactic.
But remember two years ago, when Virginia's Moonbatosphere was was making sport of Senator George Allen's middle name?
So let me get this straight: "Felix" is to be ridiculed, but "Hussein," surname of one of the five most bloodthirsty dictators of the last half-century, is to be celebrated?!?!?!
Liberalism. It's not just a lifestyle; it's a mental disease.
Doubtless, it a demonstration of solidarity with the late and former Maximum Leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. After all, these are the same moonbats ... er, "Democrats," who suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. And who has lost more to the Bush Administration than Saddam Hussein?
Oh, that's not the reason?
Could've fooled me.
According to Gen. Wesley Clark, on yesterday's "Face the Nation" on CBS, John McCain's heroic record isn't that big a deal:
In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.
He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded .... that wasn't a wartime squadron.
According to Newsmax.com, even this was too much for moderator Bob Schieffer, who raised the issue by citing similar remarks Clark has made previously, noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down. "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark replied.
Really? Apparently, riding in a swiftboat was, however.
In a March conference call with reporters while he was still backing Hillary Rodham Clinton, Clark said: "Everybody admires John McCain's service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There's no issue there. He's a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot --- and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam --- that doesn't prepare you to be commander in chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn't give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues."
It's utterly amazing that one would disparage that record. But when you're a moonbat who supports a guy who was, just a few years ago, a "community organizer," i.e., a professional rabble-rouser, and who has no significant legislative or executive record, you have to start by denigrating perhaps the most honorable service a man can render and which, among any but the moonbats of the far Left, makes a man --- objectively --- highly qualified for the highest office in the land.
Friday, June 27, 2008
A pretty good prediction in any Democrat administration.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
A link to the decision is here.
Liberty and the right of revolution lives!
As I will be arguing a case before the Court on 6 October, no further commentary will be offered.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
If you have a few bucks laying around, and are thinking about investing in an airline, DON'T DO IT!
Just got off the phone with Ruiz, at United Airlines. It seems that United just managed to find a bag that had been misdirected.
'Course, the flight that it was supposed to arrive on arrived on time at Washington Dulles International Airport ten months ago tomorrow!!!
That's right. United will be returning a bag (my mother's) from a flight from ten months ago.
You see, last summer, the Youngs took a trip to Alaska. For reasons discussed elsewhere, my mother came along.
On the way back, her single bag was misdirected.
Now, we were pretty sure as to what happened. When we got back to Dulles, and noticed that only her bag (among the seven checked by the five of us) was missing, I noticed that we had an errant baggage claim check. There was a different name on it, and it was for a woman (in the military) traveling on to Kuwait, as was our flight.
Well, we of course reported that information when we went to the Baggage Office for United to complain.
Thus began six weeks of conversations with people on the United toll-free line. 'Cept English wasn't their first language. And they weren't in the United States. Noooo, they were in New Delhi. Yeah. In India. And we begged them to contact Kuwait, and to have someone physically look for the bag. "No can do," we were told. We begged them for the phone number of the terminal in Kuwait, so we could do that which they wouldn't. No luck. It was so bad that I seriously contemplated asking a friend from church --- a Marine officer on his way to Afghanistan --- to check for the bag when he went through Kuwait. Figuring he had better things to do --- and having been assured by United that they had, indeed, checked in Kuwait, I declined to do so.
To make a long story a bit shorter, we received a check for about $1,200.00 about six weeks later. But no bag.
And now, one day short of ten months to the day after we returned home, United has finally found.
I'm sure that my mother will be delighted.
As for me, I have little doubt anymore as to the reasons for the sad state of American airlines.