Thursday, January 31, 2008

What A Great Address

Flipping through my junk mail this morning, and found one of those solicitations from Omaha Steaks. Looked like a fair deal, and was considering ordering, but not really sure.

Then I saw the address to which I should send the order: John Galt Boulevard, in Omaha, of course.

It's amazing what will persuade some consumers. Or, at least, this consumer.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Thank You For Your Service

Well, it's official: after seven terms in Congress, Congressman Tom Davis will not be seeking reelection this fall from Virginia's Eleventh Congressional District.

The Democrats are salivating. Some Republicans are in a tizzy. Both are probably wrong, but that discussion is for another time.

I'm sad to see Tom go. I know, I know: some of my sterner Republican and/or Conservative friends disagree. A few "moderate" friends, too. I've had a few disagreements with Tom myself.

Nevertheless, I'm sad to see him go.

For one thing, Republican fortunes in parts of Northern Virginia have been in decline, and his seat is now in play. I don't believe that he would have lost in November, but now we'll never know.

But notwithstanding the problems that some Conservatives have had with Tom Davis, and some of our disagreements, he was always a representative I could talk to, and I thnk that's an experience shared by most.

I first mest Tom back in 1993, when he was first contemplating a run. Leslie Byrne had beaten Henry Butler for the seat, and Clinton had just been elected President. Aside from my role as Parliamentarian and advisor to Anne Keast, then the 11th District Republican Chairman, I was Prince William County Young Republican Chairman, and we were very active, so I was naturally a person he would want to talk to.

Tom is a very likable guy, and we became friends, and the Youngs became supporters. It wasn't because we threw money at him --- as a young married couple, we had very little to spare on politics --- but we always had good, productive, substantive conversations. I always liked Tom, and he always seemed to appreciate my perspective. Even when we disagreed. Perhaps especially when we disagreed on a matter of substance.

For Tom is one of those few officeholders --- perhaps especially among so-called "moderates," even those to whom he lent his support --- who didn't take disagreements personally, and who, in my humble opinion, didn't try to demonize Conservatives who may have taken a different position than him. Unlike some who share the "moderate" label, he understands and knows how to work with Conservatives.

And even when we moved out of the district, prior to the election in 1994, we remained friends. In 1995, when I was persuaded to run for School Board, he was kind enough to lend his support to my campaign, even persuading Frank Wolf to sign onto a joint endorsement letter. So much so that I was delighted when the Eleventh District was redrawn in 2001 and my neighborhood became part of his District. Some may differ, but I was not bothered at all trading Frank Wolf for Tom Davis. And though we spoke less frequently after his first, intense campaign to unseat a Democrat incumbent, it was always as though we has spoken just a few hours before, and were simply continuing the conversation.

The Youngs were there in 1994 at the Eleventh District victory party, when the GOP swept to control of the House for the first time in 40 years. We were even there when John Warner tried to horn in on Tom's glory, and was shouted down by the assembled activists for his perfidy against Oliver North, the GOP Senate candidate (contrary to what some think, I discouraged the display, and simply turned my back), one of the few close losses that night.

Some might criticize me for referring to Congressman Davis as "Tom" in this post. So be it. I don't like casual familiarity myself. But I do so in a considered manner, as I vividly speaking to Tom in the "war room" after Warner was shouted down, and saying to him "Congressman Davis, don't take it personally; it wasn't about you."

His response? "Jim, I appreciate it, but I was 'Tom' yesterday, and I'm still 'Tom' today."

Great guy. Great Congressman. Great loss.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Those Courageous Dems; Like Cockroaches, They Hate The Light

From the level of their rhetoric, you'd think that Democrats in Virginia's House of Delegates had been forced to voted in favor of homosexual pervers... er, child molesters.

But no, it was just a bill introduced by Alexandria perv... er, Democrat Adam Ebbin to grant a special privilege to Virginia labor bosses, and to give public employee unions a preferred status in the debate over scarce public resources. Democrats wanted to dodge a vote, and it was initially defeated unanimously with only two Democrats voting. However, Republicans forced a roll-call vote, which produced a vote of 82-0, against.

It went something like this, according to the official House website: "Per House Rule 69, the following members were present and failed to vote and upon demand by a member were counted in the negative: Alexander, Amundson, Armstrong, BaCote, Barlow, Bouchard, Bowling, Brink, Caputo, Eisenberg, Englin, Marsden, Mathieson, Miller, P.J., Moran, Morrissey, Nichols, Plum, Poisson, Shannon, Shuler, Sickles, Toscano, Valentine, and Ward."

So these Dems didn't even have the courage to stand up one way or another?

Predictably, the WaPo made Democrats forced to vote for one of their constituencies' requests look like victims of dirty GOP tactics.

On the other hand, being identified with one of your core constituencies can be embarrassing, particularly when you're a Democrat.

The reporterette also gets it wrong when she asserts that "it would have reversed Virginia's long-standing status as a right-to-work state." All that Ebbin's HB 852 would have done was repeal the bar on public employee monopoly bargaining (a bill passed with the sponsorship of Prince William Democrat David Brickley), which gives labor bosses the special privilege of "representing" all employees in a bargaining unit, including those who want to have nothing to do with them. Moreover, monopoly bargaining obliges public officials to give labor bosses a preferred seat at the table in the allocation of scarce public resources, requiring an agreement.

Imagine, for a minute, if you (assuming you're not a labor boss) went to Richmond and asked your state legislator to introduce a bill giving you such a preferred seat at the table, and requiring that a public official negotiate and reach agreement with you over the County budget.

Of course, monopoly bargaining has nothing to do with being forced to pay union dues, except that it gives labor bosses the excuse to spin elaborate yarns about so-called "free riders."

What was particularly hilarious was Ebbin's effort to withdraw his bill when the GOP forced a vote on it, a privilege usually granted.

It seems to me rather stupid to introduce a bill upon which you're not prepared to vote.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Heath Ledger's Death

Haven't said anything about this, 'cause my schedule's been quite busy, but it's certainly too bad that a talented guy is dead at 28. I first noticed him as the eldest son in one of my favorite movies, Mel Gibson's The Patriot.

There is still some speculation over whether his use of illegal drugs were involved in his untimely demise.

It would certainly explain Brokeback Mountain, though, wouldn't it?

Seriously, though, there are some radicals who are up in arms over the decision of some over-the-top Christians to protest at Ledger's memorial service. While their premise is sound --- i.e., homosexuality is an abomination --- their tactics, i.e., disrupting funerals and upsetting loved ones of the deceased --- harms the message they are trying to convey.

Fortunately, these objectionable protests are accompanied by slapstick, with people like the author of [P]MSNBC's "The Scoop" calling the protesters "radicals"?


As opposed to whom? Those who are attempting to mainstream perversion?!?!?

Monday, January 21, 2008

Nine Years Ago

A column from January 1999. A few reminders of what the Clintons brought us. Holds up pretty well, though the prediction about divorce turns out to have underestimated Hitlary's lust for personal power. Certainly, one should perhaps remember their reflexive defense of the Great Prevaricator when some moonbat attacks President Bush and his Administration regarding his national security efforts on the ground that the has "destroyed the rule of law."

The Speech The Great Prevaricator Should’ve Given

Below appears a staffer’s early draft of Bill Clinton’s 1999 State of the Union Address. Dismissed shortly after the final speech was delivered on 19 January 1999, the staffer was acquitted on charges of tax evasion. It was discovered in the ruins of the Clinton Presidential Library and Adult Book Store in Little Rock, two weeks after its burning and looting in the Revolution of 2012, a precursor to the re-Founding of the United States of America. Had it been delivered, countless lives would have been spared in the efforts to restore the rule of law so casually discarded during the Clinton Interregnum.

Mr. Speaker, Vice President Gore, Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished guests, and my fellow Americans:

I stand before you tonight in fulfillment of my constitutional duty to report annually on the State of the Union. As my final speech before you, I will speak the truth. Believe it, or not.

We’ve had sustained economic growth for nearly eight years — since before I got here — resulting in the first budget surplus in thirty years. Ronald Reagan was right: we can grow our way out of deficits, with spending controls and tax reductions. Not that we would have had the latter without a Republican majority in Congress, and Alan Greenspan.

We are at peace, though brushfires tax our resources and require maintenance of a standing military far in excess of historical norms. This remains the burden of the world’s sole remaining superpower and the last best hope of mankind. Despite my best efforts to gut the military, destroy its esprit de corps, diminish the preparedness of our youth to serve, and exchange our technological superiority for campaign contributions from the Communist Chinese, our youth, military, and the GOP Congress continue to meet the burden of our defense.

That having been said, I must now turn to the most pressing matter at hand: my own butt.

My spinners and apologists have spent more than twelve months defending me, repeating everything I told them. After all, what we’re doing is too important to pay attention to little things like honor, integrity, and the rule of law.

The fact is, I lied. In case you hadn’t noticed, I lie even when the truth will suffice. I lied through my teeth, both at the Jones deposition and before the grand jury.

I didn’t do it because I was embarrassed. Anyone who believes that apparently wasn’t there when I answered the “boxers or briefs” question.

I didn’t do it to protect my family from embarrassment. Hillary doesn’t care who I fool around with. The simple fact is, Hillary’s here for the power. Always has been. Any self-respecting woman would have left long ago.

The same goes for my staff. What chumps! Even when they learn the truth, not one has the dignity to resign. They just keep coming back for more. Remember Kevin Bacon in “Animal House”? “Thank you, sir. May I have another?”

House Democrats, and apologists in academia? They give buffoonery a bad name. Just a bunch of Libs defending another Lib. Word’s leaked out that three House Dems are joining my defense team in the Senate. So what else is new? They were my defense team before there were charges.

The only reason I’m still here after over a year of what for anyone else would be unremitting public humiliation is because I want Algore — excuse me, Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. — to have the opportunity to serve for ten years, if you’re truly stupid enough to elect that environmentalist wacko once, let alone twice. That, and I didn’t want to yield the pulpit from which to practice the politics of personal destruction against those who have known the truth about me since the beginning.

But hey, I made it twice, though never with a majority. Momma said “Anybody can be elected President.” I’m living proof that she was right.

But if witnesses appear, even Tom Harkin and Bob Torricelli will have to face facts. I’m not going to be able to get by with the fatuous argument that I’m so weird that what most people would consider sex isn’t sex, or that I’m such a narcissist that I didn’t touch Monica’s most intimate of areas, and she just serviced me.

If the facts receive a full airing, I should be removed, though those fools in the Senate might be so blinded by hatred for the GOP that they might still vote to acquit. Heck, you Republicans are so gutless, some of you might vote for acquittal.

Can’t risk that, though. Since I lied, I’ll be disbarred. My PI, Terry Lenzner, tells me that Hillary’s lawyers have divorce papers ready for filing the day after I leave the White House. Upon removal, I’ll have no pension, no income, no license to practice law, millions in legal bills, and no wife to earn a living for me.

So I’m getting out. I hereby pardon myself for all crimes committed, and effective at one minute after noon tomorrow, I hereby resign the office of President of the United States. Maybe then I can get some tail in peace.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008


I know. I never thought I'd have to write that headline.

But it seems that Rush Limbaugh was wrong, and "Media Matters" is not just an adjunct of the Democrat Party targeting any media that does not toe the far Left moonbat line.

It's really just an adjunct of the Hitlary for President campaign.

Troubling Report

It seems that former Congressman Mark Siljander (R-Mich.) has been charged in a 42-count indictment with funneling money to Islamofascists through a charity with which he was involved. The DOJ press release describes the indictment in more detail.

Mark Siljander's last gasp at elective politics was in 1992, when he was one among many Republicans who ran for Virginia's newly-created 11th Congressional District seat in the United States House of Representatives. He had the support of the Youngs back then, and we were quite good friends with one of his nieces, who hosted us at his home a few times (as I recall, we watched Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves in his home theatre). He lost the GOP nomination to Henry Butler, who went on to defeat at the hands of Leslie ("No-Enemies-to-the-Left!?) Byrne.

The indictment was brought in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, in Kansas City, where --- until recently --- my law school roommate was a Special Agent for the FBI. It's a small little world.

This is quite disturbing. It would take much to convince me that Siljander wittingly supported terrorists.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Pissing In The Voters' Faces

Opened my Potomac News today, and learned from a blurb in "Neighbors of Note" that Governor Timmy! has appointed rejected Prince William BOCS Chairman candidate for Chairman Sharon Pandak to the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority.

Yet more evidence that the NVTA is blatantly unconstitutional under Virginia law (Virginia's Constitution). Pandak has been twice rejected by the voters of Prince William County, yet she is now among those setting our tax rates.

Remember that the next time some Democrat waxes demagogic about "democracy."

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Hillary Dies

Got your attention there, didn't I?

Well, that was the headline on MSNBC earlier tonight.

It's since been changed to "Everest hero."

Bill Richardson Out

Well, it seems that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has decided that he's had enough. He's quitting the race for the Democrat presidential nomination.

So now, Democrats don't even have the chance to vote for the one person in the race objectively qualified --- i.e., with executive, diplomatic experience; not just married to someone who had it --- for the job.

And so it goes.

Monday, January 07, 2008

Another Logically-Flawed Attack

Well, another moonbat fool is attacking Republicans who support America's efforts in Iraq, but whose children are not fighting there, asserting that "Mitt Romney supports the Iraq war [sic] so .... Why isn't a single one of his five sons fighting in it?"

Of course, it's not a real question; it's just an effort to attack a Republican.

I've got a better question: "Mosquito" opposes American efforts (it's not a "war"; that was won four years ago), so why hasn't he gone to Iraq and taken up arms against American forces."

After all, if that's the measure of the courage of one's convictions for "Mosquito," clearly, he/she fails, too.

Or is it just his/her "logic" which miserably fails?

Sunday, January 06, 2008

George McGovern: Still A Fool After All These Years

Today's WaPo brought us the ruminations of 1972 Democrat presidential nominee, and former Senator, George McGovern.

No, he's not dead yet. At least, not from the neck down.

But one could reasonably conclude that he certainly is dead from the neck up from reading his ridiculous rantings against the Bush Administration, suggesting that both the President and the Vice President should be impeached. It certainly reconfirms why, as bad as Richard Nixon may have been, the American people were certainly right to keep this fool as far away from the White House as humanly possible.

It's almost impossible to catalog the ridiculous lies and misrepresentations without reproducing the entire rant, but to respond just to the highlights:

"The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, [but thank you, George, for demonstrating that "a narrow and ... superficial partisanship exists among Democrats] and a lack of courage and statesmanship [ --- defined as doing what I want them to do ---] on the part of too many Democratic politicians."

Here's McGovern's general indictment

But what are the facts?

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.

Wow! That sounds serious. Too bad McGovern sustains it with "facts" which are only the products of the fertile imaginations in the moonbat far Left.

From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team's assumption of power was the product of questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged -- perhaps even by a congressional investigation.

Give McGovern credit: at least he lets us know immediately that he's willing to buy the most ridiculous nonsense from the far Left. And he doesn't disappoint: "....American democracy has been derailed...." News flash, George! We're a "republic," not a "democracy."

Fortunately, such an elementary mistake is a tipoff to the informed reader as to how seriously McGovern's other comments should be taken.

McGovern declares that "The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq." Well, I would argue that the "dominant commitment of the administration" has been to the safety of the American people, but of course, that is arguable. And whether it is "irresponsible," as McGovern goes on to assert, is of course debatable.

What is not arguable is that the war in --- not against --- Iraq (the war "against" Iraq was won nearly four years ago, and what are now doing is resisting an insurgency) is not "illegal." Of course, the use of the term "murderous" is just silly. What does that mean in the sense of any war ? One has to wonder whether, in the best tradition of his most ardent 1972 supporters, McGovern is suggesting that American soldiers are committing war crimes wantonly and/or with official sanction.

McGovern is simply wrong when he asserts that the war is illegal because it "has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires." It clearly doesn't, and this nation has engaged in warmaking without a constitutional declaration of war dozens of times in American history. McGovern also declares that the war is illegal because it is "in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law," as though someone who was a miserable failure as an American presidential candidate is some kind of arbiter of violations of the U.N. Charter --- and note that McGovern fails to mention 17 different U.N. Security Council resolutions of which Saddam Hussein was in violation --- or "international law," whatever that is.

McGovern also declares that "The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush," and asks "has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?" The answer is, of course, debatable, but I can imagine an administration more "damaging [than] the Bush-Cheney era."

Imagine, if you will, a McGovern Administration.


It's then that McGovern really gets going with outrageous lies:

the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an "imminent threat" to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- another blatant falsehood.
The problem? Virtually every word of McGovern's assertion is --- to borrow his phrase --- a "blatant falsehood."

"[H]ad nuclear arms"?!?!?! Hardly. "Sought to acquire nuclear arms," a conclusion based upon intelligence from the Brits (by which they still stand, incidentally)? Certainly. And to accept McGovern's premise, one would have to assume that it was a ridiculous notion to believe that Hussein would do so. Hello? "Osirik" ring a bell, George? The Israelis were convinced enough to bomb that French-built nuclear reactor in 1981, perhaps the only reason that Hussein did not have nuclear weapons by 199o, when it invaded Kuwait.

"[H]ad ... other horrifying banned weapons"?!?! Well, yeah. Of course. The entire point of the post-1991 inspection regime (remember those 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions?) was the requirement that Iraq demonstrate that it did not have such weapons. It failed or refused to do so, an adequate and lawful casus belli to recommence the hostliities halted in 1991. Certainly, it had them at one time. Hussein used them in the Iran/Iraq War of the early 1980s, and against the Kurds, i.e., his own people, a few years later.

"Imminent threat"?!?! There you go again, repeating the most outrageous lies of the far Left. The entire premise of a policy of preemption --- the justification for invading Iraq to remove Hussein's regime --- is to address a "threat" before it become "imminent."

It's really too bad that the far Left is so intellectually chaotic/dishonest that it can't keep straight its slanders to the extent that it is not self-contradictory.

And then there's "led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks." Really? How? Now, I don't doubt that many Americans --- in the fog of ignorance which surrounds most of them --- believe that, but the fact is, no far Leftie has ever been able to cite even a scintilla of evidence that the Administration ever made such an accusation, or ever did anything to promote such a viewpoint. It's simply another of the "big lies" of the far Left, Bush-hating moonbats.

And this guy carried the presidential nomination of a major American political party?!?!!

George just can't seem to help himself. He goes on to make assertions about "the illegal tapping of our telephones by government agents" --- only if you're talking to terrorists or terrorist-suspects from other countries, George --- and that the Administration has "impl[ied] that we are at war with the entire Arab and Muslim world," an incredibly ridiculous accusation to eleve against an Administration which has gone to great pains to distinguish between most Muslims and the radical fringe.

George doesn't even seem to speak the same language. He says "Another shocking perversion has been the shipping of prisoners scooped off the streets of Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other countries without benefit of our time-tested laws of habeas corpus," as though "our time-tested laws of habeas corpus" were sacrosanct (they're not; Lincoln suspended the writ during the Civil War, and the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to suspend it), or even applicable to illegal combatants who are never under the jurisdiction of the Federal courts (which they are not, precisely because they have been "scooped off the streets of Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other countries."

And it's absolutely hilarious that McGovern complains about the fact that "the president was advised by the intelligence agencies last August that Iran had no program to develop nuclear weapons, he continued to lie to the country and the world," while in the same article complaining that "the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons." And on what did "the Bush-Cheney team" base their "deception"? Oh, yeah, that would be faulty intelligence that McGovern now, apparently, believes should be treated as Holy Writ.

McGovern is also exercised --- he calls it "scandalous neglect and mishandling" --- over the Administration's response to Hurricane Katrina. And as authority? McGovern cites "veteran CNN commentator Jack Cafferty."

Amazing! Apparently, George W. Bush should be impeached because the Democrat Governor of Louisiana and Democrat Mayor of New Orleans were incompetent, and because the Administration was overwhelmed by the disaster caused by their incompetence.

So George McGoveron wants George W. Bush impeached.

If you want to tell George McGovern how ridiculous he remains, the WaPo helpfully provides an e-mail address.

Saturday, January 05, 2008

Constitutional Amendments Or Constitutional Suggestions?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
U.S. Const., amend. II
Well, the government of the District of Columbia has filed its brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, and its quite a piece of work.

According to the WaPo, the brief makes three key arguments:

The District's brief defends the law in three ways.

First, the brief says that the most reasonable reading of the first two clauses of the amendment is that it guarantees a right to gun ownership only in relation to some sort of military service.

"The Framers' phrasing of the Second Amendment was in fact a natural way to protect a militia-related right," the brief states.

Even if the court decides the amendment does protect an individual right, the brief says, it must be read as a restriction only on the federal government, to which it was aimed. "District-specific" legislation cannot "implicate the amendment's purpose of protecting states and localities from the federal government."

And if those first two arguments are decided against the city, the brief says, the court should uphold the restrictions as a reasonable response by the government to urban crime and a natural extension of what the brief says are gun-control laws that date back to when the District was the Town of Georgetown.

Dealing with the weakest argument first, the second --- that the Second Amendment is "a restriction only on the federal government" --- is likely to be laughed out of Court. That is, unless the Supreme Court is willing to reverse decades of precedent "incorporating" the protections of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment to apply them to the States. How's that for a prospect? Does the District really expect the Supreme Court to reverse decades of the "incorporation doctrine" to sate the gun-grabbers? Probably not; that's probably why only five pages of a 59-page brief are devoted to this silly argument.

Oh, and by the way, the District is an instrument of the Federal government, so the notion that the Second Amendment does not have direct application to it is absurd. The argument appears to be more of a construct based upon some extreme federalism argument, one which likely would not pass the lips of its advocates were it addressing anything other than the Second Amendment. Imagine, if you will, the hue and cry which would arise were the sentence describing that argument rewritten slightly:
"Even if the court decides the amendment does protect an individual right, the brief says, [the First Amendment] must be read as a restriction only on the federal government, to which it was aimed."
"Even if the court decides the amendment does protect an individual right, the brief says, [the Fourth Amendment] must be read as a restriction only on the federal government, to which it was aimed."
"Even if the court decides the amendment does protect an individual right, the brief says, [the Fifth Amendment] must be read as a restriction only on the federal government, to which it was aimed."
"Even if the court decides the amendment does protect an individual right, the brief says, [the Eighth Amendment] must be read as a restriction only on the federal government, to which it was aimed."
What fun. What makes some people think that Liberals/the far Left believes in individual rights?

As for the first argument, it is little surprise that it is being made by big government advocates. As the D.C. Circuit recognized --- and few gun-rights organizations, even the National Rifle Association, will admit --- the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the citizens' rights to the instrumentality to exercise their right of revolution against oppressive government.

Did you really think that it was mere coincidence that advocates of welfare-state nannyism are also the most strident gun-grabbers? They have good reason to fear the citizens' right of revolution.

The final argument, that D.C.'s law is "a reasonable response by the government to urban crime," is nearly as silly as the first. Any Supreme Court justice with knowledge of D.C.'s crime and murder rate might want to ask "How's that working for you?" at oral argument. After all, D.C. was, until recently, the murder capital of the United States, and its murder rate increased after passage of the gun ban.

The Respondent's brief should make for interesting reading.

As will the Supreme Court's response.

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Tom Lantos (D-Cal.) To Retire

The Congress' only Holocaust survivor has announced he will retire after his current term, as he is suffering from esophogeal cancer.

The usual fulsome praise can be found in the Washington Post article. Don't expect anything better: I remember traveling to Lantos' district (near San Francisco International Airport) a few years back --- around election time --- seeing signs for his Green Party opponent, and thinking that the opponent made Lantos look like the reasonable candidate in that race.

What's really a pity is that Lantos won't be taking a few more malignancies with him when he departs.