Monday, March 30, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
It seems that Mr. Gray, whose candidacy to represent Prince William County at the State GOP Convention set for late May in Richmond was rejected by the County GOP Convention nearly two weeks back, is entirely bitter about it. Of course, he was rejected because he's one of the most undependable political chameleons in the County, having run for public office as Republican, Democrat, and Independent over the last ten years or so.
In fact, the only party under whose banner he has not run is the one to which he most appropriately can be categorized: the Flake Party.
In any case, here's the text of his letter:
And since hard truths are little-valued by the editors of the News and Messenger, here's the comment that I posted, but don't expect to see for too long on the website.
On March 14, the local Republican Committee held its annual convention.
As the Republican super majority on the Board of County Supervisors now emphatically requires that all senior citizens, the disabled and small business owners (amongst others) affirm their legal
presence in Prince William County, I was wondering if the Republican delegates to that convention were themselves required to affirm their own legal presence in PWC to use facilities paid for by county
I know for a fact they were not, so I guess what is good for the goose isn’t good for the gander. Gee, how sad. I wonder what we call that?
JOHN S. GRAY
Well, Mr. Gray, I don't know what we call "that," but I know what we call people who knowingly make false statements: liars.
In fact, all participants as delegates to the County GOP Convention were required to "affirm their legal presence in Prince William County," because all participants in the County GOP Convention were required to be "legal and qualified voters in Prince William County," i.e., registered voters, which requires legal presence. This requirement was plainly stated on the application to be a delegate to the Convention. So your charge is false. It's also knowingly false, since --- if you are the same "John S. Gray" who applied to be a delegate to the Convention (or perhaps just the State GOP Convention; it is is one or the other, or both) --- you signed this very affirmation as a condition for consideration.
Now, if this is the same "John S. Gray" who applied and was rejected to be a delegate to the State GOP Convention, I suppose his bitterness --- if not his dishonesty --- is understandable. Then again, if this is that "John S. Gray," he's unsuccessfully run for elective office as a "Republican," a "Democrat," an "Independent," and perhaps every other political party except the brazenly "Flake" party.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Isn't it amazing how partisans for the radical homosexual agenda, who demand special privileges while putting on a great pretense about only wanting "equality," then engage in behavior which causes others to deny them even the simple courtesies?
I thought I'd make my comment here, rather than at "Special Privileges Loudoun":
Whiny? You know, it just doesn't pay to try to have a respectful, civilized conversation with a fag. In the end, you'll almost always be belittled, demonized, or a combination of both.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
And agree I do, with virtually every point Leslie makes. Jeff is my Delegate, and a friend. I voted for him to be RPV Chairman. I did so having gone to Richmond intending to vote for John Hager, whom I have known (and liked) far longer than I have known and supported Jeff. Indeed, I had some serious reservations about some of the criticisms raised by Jeff's campaign. But the Convention run by John Hager's staff changed my mind.
And, like Leslie, I am deeply concerned about the bitterness of this fight, which has caused deep divisions among good friends. Fortunately, at least among the Jeffersoniad, I don't see the personal animosities arising out of differences of opinions that I see elsewhere. Those who think that Jeff should step aside, or be removed, seem to believe that this is the best course for entirely practical reasons, and I would be a fool to suggest that such an argument lacks merit. The very fact that it is made by serious people without a particular axe to grind makes it worthy of respect. That is, of course, as opposed to the reflexive rantings of fatuous dilletantes who hide behind pseudonyms and whose nihilistic actions make them unworthy of serious consideration.
And it is difficult indeed to take some of the latter seriously. They have joined in the far Left's efforts to demonize Frederick. And since they frequently suggest that the best way for the GOP to succeed is to be more like Democrats, I have to reject them ab initio. As Ronald Reagan demonstrated (see also 2006 and 2008 election results; Bush 43 Administration), "slower socialism" as a politically-motivating concept is both the road to serfdom and a recipe for electoral disaster.
But I am stubborn enough to believe that more harm would be done by Frederick's departure for bad reasons than would be done by his retention of his position even given his flaws.
Has Virginia's GOP really fallen upon such hard times that we're going to allow Virginia's far-Left moonbatosphere and its spineless cousins among so-called "moderate" Republican bloggers to not only dictate who is an "acceptable" Republican, but also to overturn the results of a lawful vote?
'Fact is, it has been some time since an RPV State Chairman has completed a term to which he or she has been elected. The last one may well have been Pat McSweeney (1992-96). And then-Governor George Allen tried to orchestrate his removal, as well. Like now, I opposed that removal effort, which seems to have been as contrived as this one.
All that Governor Allen achieved, given the super-majority requirements of the State Party Plan, was to weaken McSweeney and RPV for the remainer of McSweeney's term. And one wonders whether that effort didn't come around to bite Allen on the posterior, whether a strong RPV could have made the difference in Allen's unsuccessful run for a second term to the United States Senate in 2006.
I actually attended the State Central Committee at which McSweeney's removal was considered. Among other things, Tenth Congressional District Chairman (then, and sadly, now) Jim Rich earned my everlasting emnity for his role in that contrived controversy. My impression at the time --- and confirmed at subsequent meetings, where I frequently carried proxies for others --- was that the SCC was largely not so much the voice of the various units from which its members were elected as it was a "gold watch" for good and faithful service. I vividly remember one member standing up at the meeting during a subsequent convention to complain about the fact that the Party was providing child care for young children, so that their parents could attend and vote at the convention. I remember thinking --- and may have said in response at the time --- that this older gentlemen probably didn't have to suffer exposure to the little urchins at the country club, but that the Party's future was in young parents, and their children, and that his complaint was both silly and counterproductive.
Sadly, it seems that certain elements of the SCC have gotten no more serious in the interim. As Leslie notes, the charges against Jeff are by and large "silly," even among those that are not maddeningly vague (Charge 3 is that Jeff made "Unauthorized expenditures of RPV funds for unbudgeted activities without either State Central Committee or Executive Committee consent," and fails to specify even a single such "Unauthorized expenditure"; how does one respond to that?), and/or contrived, and/or false (Charge 2: failure to comply with a directive to disclose vendor contracts; Charge 10: failure to notify the Executive Committee of a non-existent security breach).
Indeed, some have the stench of bitter irony. Charges 4, 5, and 6 essentially complain about Frederick's conduct of SCC meetings. I'd bet a dollar that 10th Congressional District Chairman Jim Rich has signed up for this lynch mob, which makes these bold words from a man who has disregarded the "minimal rights" of those opposing him in similar circumstances.
Jeff has responded more than adequately. Not that his response will matter much to those sizing up Jeff's neck for a noose.
I have no illusions that the merits will make much difference to many among those on the SCC who never supported Jeff. In the memorable phrase of a friend regarding a particularly odious honor proceeding of which we were both aware in my law school days, it may well be that the "kangaroos [will be] a-hoppin'" at the 4 April SCC meeting.
But nevertheless, Jeff Frederick should stay.
Monday, March 16, 2009
There are plenty of questions about our veterans' health care system. But I've never heard anyone seriously question our national moral obligation to treat those who have given so much for their country.
This is unspeakably vile. More evidence --- as if more were needed --- that the far Left just doesn't get it.
H/T to Drudge.
As a former Democrat who became an independent based upon the far Left's coopting of the Democrat Party on terrorism and national defense policy, he was proof that Hollywood isn't quite hopeless, aside from his considerable thespian abilities.
But --- like the legislation's title --- the accusation itself is a carefully-crafted misrepresentation.
Here's what moonbat Josh Chernilla, quoting MSNBC's vile lesbian commentator, had to say over at "Blue Commonwealth":
Corporate interests are bent on lying about the Employee Free Choice Act - they'd have you believe that the bill means the end of the secret ballot - but nothing could be further from the truth. The Employee Free Choice Act simply gives employees the choice to join unions - not the employers. Right now, workers can join unions through majority sign-up or a secret ballot election, and they can do so under the Employee Free Choice Act, too. The only difference is it will be the employees' choice, not the employers.Now, never mind that George McGovern has never been known as a champion of "corporate interests," even among the most pathetic of the moonbat Left. But EFCA proponents are advancing their cause by lying about the argument of their opponents.
No one says that "the bill means the end of the secret ballot" as a general proposition. Of course, secret-ballot elections can still be sought and conducted for decertification and deauthorization (prohibiting unions and employers from imposing or enforcing a forced-unionism agreement). And, of course, a union could still seek a secret-ballot election to organizing a bargaining unit, though why one would do so when it could conduct its campaign behind closed doors and pressure employees without allowing employers to conduct a campaign is a mystery.
But of course, "the bill means the end of the secret ballot" to put a union to its proofs when it presents a petition for union representation signed by a majority of employees. And therefore, also of course, it "means the end of the secret ballot" in the circumstances to which it applies.
The lie itself also demonstrates a singular ignorance of existing labor law, one which one might not expect from someone with Maddow's academic credentials, were it not for her political credentials.
But, as recent presidential history has demonstrated, no lie is too outrageous in pursuit of more power for the far Left.
The entire notion that "it will be the employees' choice" is false, since these advocates for more union-boss power --- like most labor statutes --- virtually ignore those employees who do not support union representation. Of course, what Maddow fails to recognize is that the notion that it is "the employers'" choice is true, but only to the extent that existing labor law doesn't recognize the right of even a substantial minority of employees --- say, 30% of a bargaining unit, the percentage necessary to seek a certification, decertification, or deauthorization election under existing law --- to demand a secret-ballot election when a union and employer agree to card-check recognition. Of course, what currently requires agreement of an employer --- recognition upon a showing of majority support with signed authorization cards --- would become mandated under EFCA, with no mechanism for either an employer or bargaining unit employees to demand an election.
Hence, the term "card check" is absolutely accurate. Union representation would be imposed upon all employees, even those who don't want it, upon a showing that a mere and perhaps ephemeral majority had, in full view of union organizers, signed authorization cards.
It is understandable that the far Left would want to cast EFCA opponents as liars, since the change they propose would permit imposition of monopoly bargaining upon employees based upon the unexaminable promises, misrepresentations, and --- yes --- lies of union organizers in collecting authorization cards. It would also then impose mandatory "arbitration" of first contracts upon a failure to reach agreement, but that's a pernicious element of EFCA which gets less attention than the more fundamental flaw in its extinguishing of the right to a secret-ballot election to prove union support.
Maddow and Chernilla: Liars for the far Left.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Yesterday, I was so proud to have a Democratic President.
As you may have heard, President Obama signed an executive order to lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. Once again, America will take the lead in conducting research that has the potential to improve the quality of life of countless Americans. I'd be grateful if you could take a moment to join me in support of President Obama.
Show your support for President Obama on stem cell research.
While we should celebrate this historic day, the fight for stem cell research is far from over. Here in Virginia back in 2005, I exposed Bob McDonnell’s radical stance on this issue. I fought tooth and nail against him. And let there be no doubt that if elected Governor, Bob McDonnell would do everything he could to close Virginia's doors to the cures and hopes of stem cell research. We as Democrats simply can’t afford to lose in 2009.
I believe that yesterday was a beginning, not an end. I want Virginia to lead in the development of stem cell research. I believe our research institutions should lead in this fight, which not only would create 21st century jobs here in Virginia, but also help find the way to cures. Let’s show President Obama how important a step yesterday was.
Thank President Obama for supporting the promise of stem cell research.
Thank you for joining me in support of President Obama. Together, we can continue to move this Commonwealth forward.
Now, aside from the fact that I'm no friend of Creigh Deeds --- don't even know how I got on his e-mail list --- this missive is rife with revelations about the guy who apparently wants to sell himself as a "conservative" Democrat.
First, there's the implication that America can't "take the lead in conducting research that has the potential to improve the quality of life of countless Americans" unless government funds it. Remember, of course, that the so-called "ban" on embryonic stem-cell research was only a ban on government funding of it (which, to his credit, Deeds apparently recognizes); the private sector was completely free to use embryonic stem cells --- importantly, for foes, from aborted fetuses and discarded embryos from fertility clinics --- to their heart's content.
Does Creigh Deeds really believe this? Wow.
Moreover, while I don't pretend to understand the science of it --- my degree is in law, not genetics or biology --- the issue here isn't whether embryonic stem-cell research would occur. It clearly could occur, even under the eeeeeeevil! Bush Administration. Whether it did occur, I don't know. But to the extent that it did, it occurred with private or state funding, not federal funding.
But that raises this important little question: if it didn't occur, or if you're worried that it didn't occur, doesn't that raise a question as to whether it might not have occurred because its potential is not what the abortion lobby wants you to believe it to be? My layman's understanding is that the most practical applications of stem-cell research has not involved embryonic stem cells. With that being the case, might it be that private entities chose not to fund it based upon a disciplined cost-benefit analysis of its potential?
And if private entities subject to the discipline of the market have made that determination, how is it that government --- subject to no apparent discipline, at least in the age of the Obamorons --- can make a rational contrary determination?
Aside from the profound moral questions at issue, it is utterly clear that the decision to fund federally embryonic stem-cell research is the result of the damnable confluence of a pro-abortion lobby that would impose no limitations on the unbridled "choice" over the life and death of the most innocent, and a Big Government lobby which arrogates unto itself the authority to interpose itself into all manner of individual decisionmaking other than a mother's decision to kill her unborn child.
How either attitude is consistent with the scheme of "ordered liberty" created under our Constitution by great Virginians like Madison, Jefferson, and Washington remains a mystery.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Now, if you begin from the premise that an objective standard exists by which we can determine that certain species are "endangered" or not --- never mind that, having spent the last hundred years canonizing Darwin, the ESA is little more than an effort to overcome application of his theory --- it would seem to follow that circumstances exist for both putting species on the list, and for removing them.
Of course, if you begin from the premise that government must always grow and seize more control over our lives, then removing them becomes anathema, no matter how well they are doing as a species.
Guess which premise informs the moonbat formerly known as one of the Ranting Kids?