Sunday, December 26, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
I saw "Senate Play[s] Games with U.S. National Security," and thought for sure that I was about to read a post on the lame-duck Senate's vote to require the United States Armed Forces to enlist sexual deviants loudly proclaiming their deviance.
Alas, I misread it. What it actually said was "Senate Republicans Play Games with U.S. National Security." Apparently, it was a post on the efforts of most Senate Republicans to delay consideration of the new START Treaty --- you know: the one President Barry signed in April, but didn't submit for Senate ratification until just recently --- until the new Congress --- you know: a Congress with some actual electoral authority --- takes office in January.
Contrary to moonbat rhetoric, there may be some good and sufficient national-security reasons to not ratify this treaty. Personally, I don't feel strongly one way or the other about the treaty on the merits. Though I have substantial problems with a lame-duck Congress making substantial policy decisions which have utterly no urgency. Of course, since Virginia's moonbats can brook no dissent, the children at "Blue Virginia" don't allow comments from those who dare to disagree with the talking points issued by President Barry's White House and other myrmidons.
Does the far Left even make the pretense of having an interest in free speech anymore? Not at "Blue Virginia."
Saturday, December 18, 2010
I wonder how long it will be before NAMBLA (the "North American Man-Boy Love Association") opens an office in D.C. and gets its agenda in the Democrat platform?
Monday, December 13, 2010
Here's Attorney General Cuccinelli's letter:
Congratulations to Attorney General Cuccinelli, and to all Virginians! As a fellow litigator, I can attest to the fact that victory is sweet!Dear Defender of Liberty,
Today, a federal judge in Richmond ruled the individual mandate of the federal health care law UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
In other words - we won!
This won't be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution.
I am still fully digesting the court's ruling, so I'll get back to you again later with more details, but I wanted you to hear the good news right away.
Thank so many of you for your support to become the Attorney General of Virginia, and your support since then. Today is a day to celebrate those same first principles that our founding fathers articulated over 200 years ago.
We are proud to defend their work and the same first principles today in the 21st century.
Stay tuned - and thank you for your support.
Ken Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General of Virginia
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Remember this the next time someone tells a West Virginia joke.
I can't wait for the depraved individuals who starts telling us how this was a relationship between consenting adults (apparently, the daughter was over 18 when the sexual relationship began) and that it's really none of our business.
Oops! Too late! Someone already did.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
OK. So never mind that President Barry can't bring himself to call Islamofascist terrorists "terrorists." But now, he's calling the people elected by a goodly portion of the American electorate "hostage takers"?!?! This guy's arrogance knows no bounds!
And I was under the impression that most Republicans want to stop the Obama tax increase for everyone, and it was President Barry who was holding the American economy and the middle class and poor he claims to represent hostage to his desire to increase taxes on the successful.
Frankly, President Barry's attitude on maintaining tax increases for the rich at the cost of the middle class and the poor reminds me a lot of the old National Lampoon cover, the one with the dog, the gun, and the legend "If You Don't Buy This Magazine, We'll Kill This Dog."
I wish I could reproduce it here, but I have only this link.
Perhaps the reason for his "compromise" is that he feared that the American people had figured this out, too.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
The Rational will, of course, transpose the "Winner" and "Loser" labels, and ignore what is obviously highly ideological assessments of what happened yesterday. However, one cannot help but hope that Virginia's leading moonbat gathering place will continue with the meme that anyone who opposes the far Left and its agenda is "ignorant," or "fearful," or "irresponsible" (a particularly bold word from people who are running deficits of more than $1 trillion annually). Yeah, guys: that's the way to ingratiate yourselves and win voters' approval.
Of course, the most revealing characterization is in their fourth "Winner": "Voting against one's own self interest." If there is a phrase which more aptly sums up the arrogance of the far Left, I haven't seen it.
And the most ironic? "Denial," the tenth listed "Winner." Yeah, guys, you go with that. Please?
And then, there's the simply fanciful. Number 7 among the winners is "Empty Suits," characterizing incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor as an "Empty Suit." Again, bold words from a blogger who finds Tom Perriello --- perhaps the emptiest "empty suit" of the 2008 House freshman class --- to be a suitable Congress-critter.
And Number 1 among the "losers?" Characterizing the entire Democrat agenda for the last two years as "accomplishments." Uh, guys, apparently, a majority of voters consider Democrat "accomplishments" about as desirable as falling hindquarters-first into a marital aid factory; while I'm sure there's a contingent (mostly in the Democrat Party) who would find that appealing, it's a small-to-vanishing minority.
The claim that President Barry actually had "a strategy for reaching out to Republicans" (Loser #7) is worth a belly-laugh. Right: if you consider the demand for abject surrender to be "reaching out." President Barry's idea of "reaching out to Republicans" is similar to the Great Three's strategy of "reaching out" to Hitler and Tojo.
Get over yourselves, guys: demanding unconditional surrender is not "reaching out," except with the point of a sword. And if you're going to do that, you'd better make sure your sword is bigger. Last night demonstrated that President Barry's is not.
And if he hews to his current course, the demonstration in 2012 might be even more pointed.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
"Delusional" would be more accurately descriptive.
It's actually a pretty amazing piece, especially insofar as it reveals Mrs. Ball's woeful lack of qualification for public office. Or as someone with a firm grasp of reality, for that matter.
She invokes California Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, and the campaign of Jerry Brown, which was apparently preparing to peg her as a "whore" with the approval or at least acquiescence of the candidate, without managing a word of condemnation for Brown himself.
Of particular interest is this section:
[T]hese photos were released by a right-wing smear blog with close ties to my opponent. I don't believe these pictures were posted with a desire to just embarrass me; they wanted me to feel like a whore. They wanted me to collapse in a ball of embarrassment and to hang my head in shame. After all, when you are a woman named Krystal Ball, 28 years old, running for Congress, well, you get the picture. Stripper. Porn star. I've heard them all. So, I sat in my husband's arms and cried. I thought about my little girl. I couldn't stand the idea that I had somehow damaged the cause of young women running for office. I couldn't stand the idea that I might shame my family, my friends or my supporters in some way.
Let's deconstruct this a little. "[T]hese photos were released by a right-wing smear blog with close ties to my opponent." "right-wing smear blog"? Ball is non-specific, so it's a little unclear about whom she is talking. I first saw them on Black Velvet Bruce Li, and then, Virginia Virtucon (those have since been removed). I may even have been referred to the former by no one's Republican, Ben Tribbett (with the wonderful title, "KRYSTAL BALL PICTURES AS CHRISTMAS DOMINATRIX RELEASED!").
The tactic of making female politicians into whores is nothing new. In fact, it happened to Meg Whitman, one of the world's most accomplished business women, just last week. It's part of this whole idea that female sexuality and serious work are incompatible. But I realized that photos like the ones of me, and ones much racier, woeuld end up coming into the public sphere when women of my generation run for office. And I knew that there could be no other answer to the question than this: Society has to accept that women of my generation have sexual lives that are going to leak into the public sphere. Sooner or later, this is a reality that has to be faced, or many young women in my generation will not be able to run for office.
Now, I myself have on occasion pegged BVBL as a "smear blog" (ask Faisal Gill), but so far as I know, it hardly has "close ties" to Rob Wittman's campaign. Virginia Virtucon? Well, maybe close ties, but "right-wing"? I guess only in the fevered imagination of the moonbat far Left, where everyone to the right of Teddy Kennedy is "far right," and which finds so appropriate a representative in Krystal Ball (witness her references to "marriage inequality [code for defining "marriage" as, well, marriage], failing schools [oblivious to or ignoring the fact that the far Left and its teacher-union allies have controlled them for decades], an often-tainted food supply [whatever she is talking about; perhaps eggs distributed during Obama's administration?]," etc.
After all, she writes as though the Great Prevaricator's impeachment was about someone's "private life," rather than the truth: that it was about a President's perjury and obstruction of justice. Ah, if only Richard Nixon had been so shameless! She writes about how the Great Prevaricator's wife's "expression after she had to face the entire country with her private life exposed for the world to see."
Mrs. Ball represents the far Left's penchant for revisionist history, too, apparently forgetting that Hillary Clinton, too, was shamelessly lied to by her husband, even if you accept for a moment that her response after he finally came clean wasn't all about maintaining her proximity to power.
"they wanted me to feel like a whore." I guess Krystal Ball actually owns a crystal ball. Either that, or she's engaging in the far Left's tried-and-true tactic of attacking the motivations of her opposition, and attributing the motives that serve her interests.
Perhaps, just perhaps, dear Mrs. Ball, they wanted to point out that you're irresponsible: irresponsible for that behavior; irresponsible for allowing it to be photographed; irresponsible in your choices about those with whom you associate. Perhaps Howard Stern should run for Congress, too.
And please don't try to wrap yourself in the mantle of "female sexuality," and fevered femi-Nazi caricatures of Conservatives. I truly believe that most Conservatives don't give a rat's rear-end about your private sexual behavior, or that of most people.
Which raises the question: from where did the photos come? Who released them? Who had them in their possession? Ball asks "How did this happen?," but on a broader level, complaining that "Politics is a nasty game," without expressing any interest in who it was who actually brought them into the public sphere. No; she'd rather attack the messenger. And as "nasty" as at least one party she attended? Hmmmmm.....
And surreal in the extreme is her assertion that:
[P]hotos like the ones of me, and ones much racier, would end up coming into the public sphere when women of my generation run for office. And I knew that there could be no other answer to the question than this: Society has to accept that women of my generation have sexual lives that are going to leak into the public sphere. Sooner or later, this is a reality that has to be faced, or many young women in my generation will not be able to run for office.Really? That's quite a commentary of women of Ball's generation. Are so many of them really equally irresponsible and exhibitionist? After all, I recall the news in the Eighties when a hard-core porn star won a seat in the Italian Parliament, but that was Italy, after all, and her campaign, if memory serves, was more of a lark, akin to Mary Carey's run for California Governor in the Gray Davis recall.
And as the father of a 25-year-old stepdaughter, I somehow doubt "that women of [Ball's] generation have sexual lives that are going to leak into the public sphere."
But Ball expresses no interest in "how" it happened, instead trashing her enemies broadly, playing the victim card.
Perhaps the real lesson here is that Ms. Ball chooses her "friends" as wisely as she chooses her behavior. And in both cases, neither commends her for a seat in the United States Congress.
Now, an internship in the Clinton White House? That's another question entirely.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Perhaps she has just been channeling Algore.
On the other hand, perhaps it's just another indicator of Democrat desparation.
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Recall, of course, that this was the same site that --- indeed, the same author who --- savaged Bob McDonnell for daring to point out that:
McDonnell said he did not include a reference to slavery because "there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia.Here's how "lowkell" responded to that bold and controversial statement:
WTF?!? Slavery wasn't one of the "most significant" parts of Virginia history? My god [sic, unless, of course, "lowkell" is referring to his god, i.e., big government"), what did they teach this guy at Pat Robertson's law school?
In response - and rightly so! - "The proclamation was condemned by the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus and the NAACP. Former governor L. Douglas Wilder called it "mind-boggling to say the least" that McDonnell did not reference slavery or Virginia's struggle with civil rights in his proclamation." I agree strongly with the Legislative Black Caucus and Doug Wilder; McDonnell's airbrushing of slavery and the civil rights struggle is completely outrageous, shameful, and unacceptable.
Funny, but I missed "lowkell's" reference (at least back in April) mentioning that nullification was "what the Civil War was all about." Perhaps he was "airbrushing" it at the time.
And so much for --- huge surprise here --- moonbats "understanding what the [Constitution] is all about." Perhaps, when you have judges who are willing to defy the plain language of the Constitution to enact your policy goals, you forget that amending the document is the anticipated way of doing things.
Article V of the Constitution specifically provides:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; ...and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Soooo, amending the Constitution is permissible --- and was even anticipated --- by the Framers. Indeed, many of them were in the first Congress, which proposed twelve amendments, ten of which were adopted as the Bill of Rights, and one of which was eventually adopted as our latest amendment.
Whether the proposed amendment is a good idea is an eminently debatable point, and a different question entirely. And as constitutional conservative, I am skeptical of any effort to amend the basic law of the land.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the moonbats from the far Left bothering to address the issue on the merits.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Actually, I would have had more respect for the former if he'd just 'fessed up, and said something like "Listen, I'm willing to blame George W. Bush for a lot, most of which is not his fault. But Ahmadinejad's accusation is too insane even for me."
Thursday, September 23, 2010
I may have made a mistake.
I came home early today, and saw that one of my favorite shows, NCIS, was on Sleuth, a channel we watch fairly regularly.
My FiOS guide informed me that I was not subscribed. To a channel I had for the last 17 months.
Sooooo, I called Verizon, went through the idiotic computer (which seems designed to discourage actual communication), and finally was told that my package had been changed, and I no longer had it.
Of course, it was a channel offered when I signed up for a two-year, no-cancellation package.
I wonder if anyone else is contemplating a class-action lawsuit against Verizon for its unilateral breach of contract?
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Aside from the reliance upon mistranslations --- the Commandment is "Thou shalt not murder," not "Thou shalt not kill"; then again, why should we be surprised that the far Left can't get the Bible right? --- and self-serving statistics --- if you're worried about "deterrence," every person upon whom the death penalty is imposed is effectively deterred from murdering again --- most of today's most vocal anti-death penalty types simply have no shame. They're arguing, in essence, that because Lewis is "borderline retarded," she should not suffer the ultimate penalty for her crime.
So once again, we're treated to the win-at-all-costs, argue-what's-convenient tactics of the far Left.
If you oppose the death penalty, oppose it. For all reasons; under all circumstances. Kind of like the Catholic Church. I don't agree with it's position, but at least I can respect it as ethically consistent.
But spare us the pretensions that you're opposing it for the reasons you just happen to be citing on any particular occasion. It's as phony as, well, most Democrats' opposition to the Iraqi war.
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Should've known better. Yesterday, I posted a discussion of a WaPo article which said that the Governor's plan to privatize liquor sales in the Commonwealth (a good idea) included a tax increase (a bad idea).
And I shouldn't have believed The Post.
Turns out one of the people who reads this blog (God bless him! Nice to know somebody is listening) is Governor McDonnell's spokesman, Tucker Martin, and last night, Tucker sent me this e-mail (emphasis added):
I wanted to shoot these facts over to you, the article in the Washington Post this morning was incorrect. Hope this helps clear it all up.I hate to get things wrong, and unlike a newspaper "Corrections" section, I want to give this correction at least as prominent a place as the erroneous information posted here.
* There is no 4% tax increase as part of the staff ABC privatization recommendation
* Newspaper reports that say this are incorrect
* Specifically, there is no 1.5% fee on all outlets that sell alcohol
* Under the staff recommendation all restaurants and hotels will have the option of paying an additional 2.5% "Restaurant Convenience Fee" that would allow them to buy discounted distilled spirits directly from private wholesalers and receive on-site delivery
* Buying direct from private wholesalers will save restaurants money, and on-premise delivery will add convenience
* But it is optional
* If they choose not to participate they will buy and pick-up direct from private retailers, just like they currently do with ABC stores
* Because of the benefits that restaurants would gain from dealing directly with private wholesalers we anticipate the overwhelming majority would choose to participate in the 2.5% "Restaurant Convenience Fee"
* The staff privatization plan keeps ongoing revenue to the state equivalent to what is received in the current monopoly set up
* The state is projected to bring in $324.2 million in FY 2011 from alcohol sales
* After privatization, under the staff recommendation plan, the state will bring in $301.8 million
* That is a slight difference of only 6.9%
* In the context of a $37.9 billion annual budget this is a difference of .059%
* Additional government reforms proposed by the Administration will easily fill that gap
* This ABC privatization plan keeps ongoing revenue to the General Fund equivalent to the current monopoly system
* It does not contain a tax increase, newspaper reports stating this were incorrect
* It will produce $500 million for transportation while eliminating an outdated government monopoly
J. Tucker Martin
Director of Communications
So, apologies, Governor. Mea culpa. And I really should have known better.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Today's news provides word that the Governor is briefing legislators on his plan to privatize Virginia's liquor stores. Of course, Virginia is one of only eighteen states in the Union in which the state maintains a monopoly on the sale of the "demon rum."
Now I agree with the Governor: the Commonwealth shouldn't be in the business of selling liquor. For that matter, it shouldn't be in the business of any kind of business. For that matter, it should probably get out of the education business, too.
But never mind all that. It seems that the Governor's plan is meeting some resistance, largely from Democrat legislators and Senate Repubmocrats. Sooooo, what does the Governor propose? To placate his Democrat critics --- as well as those Republicans who foolishly support higher taxes --- by proposing a new bar and restaurant tax.
Now, I suppose that it would be just to tax alcoholic beverages consumed in bars and restaurants to make the sale of the Commonwealth liquor monopoly "revenue neutral." But is it just and fair to increase taxes (apparently, by 1.5%) on those who eat at McDonald's --- a practice which carries with it its own costs --- which does not serve alcohol? Or to increase taxes those who eat out at family restaurants but do not buy alcoholic beverages?
Sorry, Governor: ABC privatization is a good idea. But using it as a stalking horse for raising taxes generally should be a non-starter.
There's something --- oh, I don't know --- so Democrat about it.
Monday, September 06, 2010
The union movement has always been attached to a set of values -- solidarity being the most important, the sense that each should look out for the interests of all. This promoted other commitments: to mutual assistance, to a rough-and-ready sense of equality, to a disdain for elitism, to a belief that ... individual rights did not stop at the plant gate or the office reception room.Mr. Dionne might just want to consider the treatment by labor bosses of those who don't buy into the union myth before he promotes another one: how unions have promoted "a belief that ... individual rights did not stop at the plant gate or the office reception room."
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Review of the list shows H-SC to be number eleven (11) among all Southern colleges in salary potential. H-SC is number two among Virginia colleges, behind only Washington & Lee University, and ahead of Virginia Tech, UVa, and William & Mary.
Indeed, H-SC fares well against more well-known and larger institutions such as George Washington, Johns Hopkins, SMU, Emory, Florida, Clemson, and Florida State.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
When Republicans take control of Congress, one can only hope that they have the wit to raise a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman again ... having learned yet again that you can never underestimate the perfidy of the far Left.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Monday, May 03, 2010
Interestingly, seventeen of the twenty most economically stressed are in states which permit forced-unionism agreements, which unions euphemistically label "union security" agreements. The remaining three are in Nevada, which may go far to explain Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) difficulties in his re-election bid.
All of least economically stressed counties are in Right to Work states, which protect workers from being forced to join or pay dues to a labor union as a condition of employment.
H/T to Drudge.
Sunday, May 02, 2010
It seems that Virginia's Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli (R) has issued a lapel pin which features a twist on the common state seal: in his version, the torso of the female goddess Virtus is completely covered up. Virginia's actual state seal depicts Virtus with one of her breasts exposed. Cuccinelli jokingly told employees that he wanted to clothe the figure more completely.
As usual, the real scandal is that the pin quotes a presidential assassin. John Wilkes Booth famously yelled "Sic semper tyrannis!" ["Thus always to tyrants!"] after shooting President Abraham Lincoln on 14 April 1865.
There is no word on whether the Secret Service as been contacted about this scandalous action by Attorney General Cuccinelli, but the threat to President Barry is obvious.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Without doubt, President Barry's myrmidons will dismiss it on a number of grounds. It's the National Enquirer, after all. And we all know it never gets this kind of gossip right. Well, OK, there was John Edwards/Rielle Hunter ....
I have my doubts about this story. Not that I have any use for President Barry (hence, the moniker "President Barry"), but whatever his lack of qualifications for the job he holds, and ideological incompatibility with the United States Constitution, he simply does not have a reputation as a satyr.
Like, say, Slick Willie, whose reputation as a user and abuser of women preceded his tenure in office, and required a campaign official whose role was to tamp down "bimbo eruptions."
And whatever her flaws, my impression of Michelle Obama is that she would have little tolerance for that kind of behavior.
But I saw one comment which suggested that this is some sort of "scandal." If it is, it is not one which should constitutionally threaten his presidency, based upon what we know at this time.
Only those who have bought into their own rhetoric about the Clinton impeachment could possibly believe that.
Of course, Slick Willie was impeached because he committed perjury, and because he obstructed justice in the Paula Corbin Jones lawsuit. It was never "just about sex," as his myrmidons suggested. It was all about the Chief Executive --- and hence, chief law enforcement officer --- of the United States corrupting the justice system he was sworn to uphold.
There is no indication that President Barry has done any of those things. And unless there is, anyone who calls for any kind of investigation or official legal action would lack a reasonable basis to do so.
Nevertheless, I suspect that, if this story has any basis in fact, we will see many people suggesting that impeachment is a possibility.
Of course, they will almost certainly be far Left types indulging their continuing desire to re-write the history of the well-justified Clinton impeachment.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
It's not the question you think it is.
As this video demonstrates, the only question to be answered today is whether Charlie Crist is a liar?
We shall see.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Fortunately, the original post was preserved on Waldo Jaquith's indispensable Virginia Political Blog Blogroll. Here's the post, titled "Cuccinelli too Busy with Tea Parties to Defend Constitution," as it appears on Waldo's blogroll:
Virginia’s Attorney General has been so busy making public appearances with tea parties and gun rights groups this week he seems to have totally missed that James Madison University’s newspaper room was raided y local police.
Intimidation of any newspaper office by local police raises some significant constitutional questions and since JMU is a state school you would think the Attorney General might come to the aid of the press office. He has not.
Suggesting how much confidence the Breeze Newspaper has in the Attorney General, they have announced they are now consulting with the Student Press Law Center in Arlington.
Watch the story unfold in the voices of students.
Now, never mind that Doug Smith over at that site has apparently missed Cuccinelli's attempt to defend Virginians against unconstitutional "health care reform," pursuant to a statute passed with bipartisan support --- as opposed to BarryCare, which enjoyed bipartisan opposition --- by the Virginia legislature. No, wait! He trashes that.
And never mind that legitimate questions can be raised over whether a publication of the Commonwealth --- which any student newspaper at a state institution of higher learning is --- enjoys First-Amendment protection against another instrumentality of the Commonwealth, i.e., law enforcement.
No. Instead, Smith suggests that the Attorney General has some obligation to "come to the aid of the press office" raided by local law enforcement authorities.
Of course, Virginia's Attorney General has few, if any, law enforcement powers, and even less authority over local law enforcement officials.
And, of course, the Democrat candidate for the office waived his experience as an assistant Commonwealth's Attorney, even though Virginia's Attorney General has few, if any, law enforcement powers, and --- as a Democratic member of the House of Delegates reminded me last night --- ran worst among Democrat statewide candidates in 2009.
But why should a partisan Democrat let the facts get in the way of an ill-informed (and ill-edited) far-Left rant against Attorney General Cuccinelli?
And why was that ill-informed far-Left rant removed?
Could it be because it revealed its author as ignorant of the matters about which he presumed to comment?
Sunday, April 11, 2010
So enough already about whether or not he was called a "faggot" when he decided to get in the face of TEA Party protesters a day before voting on final passage of so-called "Health Care Reform." Barney Fag set the terms of the debate months ago. And since it is likely that he has participated in the activity he uses to smear the TEA Party activists enough times to know that it's both a smear, and more applicable to him than it is to them, the outrage of both him and his defenders about having the "faggot" epithet hurled at him is feigned
TEA Party protesters were --- even if true --- merely fighting fire with fire. And if Frank can't take it, perhaps he shouldn't have dished it out.
Its stated goal is "to dismantle and demolish the Tea Party movement by any non-violent means necessary."
They claim to be "A nationwide network of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who are all sick and tired of that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes, and morons; who constitute the fake grass-roots movement which calls itself 'The Tea Party.'" Interestingly, no one has honestly identified themselves with the group, as far as I can tell. Certainly, no identifiably Republican has been so associated with the group.
Nevertheless, to this stated end, the group promises to "act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public's opinion of them."
No word on whether "Crash the Tea Party!" will likewise use an appalling lack of ability to use appropriate punctuation (i.e., "misspelled protest signs; wild claims in TV interviews; etc.";"that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes, and morons who constitute....") or the English language (i.e., "that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes, and morons [which] constitutes....") to the same end.
For those who need a translation, a more honest statement would be "We are a bunch of far Lefties who, fearful of the power and influence of the Tea Party, will be attempting to infiltrate it and act as agents provacateur to convey our own false and libelous caricature of members of the group." More information to this end appears here.
One wonders how quick Virginia's moonbatosphere will be to attack this effort at provocation?
Monday, March 29, 2010
Today, word comes of a threat serious enough that Federal charges have been filed. A threat against a Socialist ... er, Democrat voting for BarryCare?
No. It was against Republican Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA), prominent opponent of BarryCare.
Curiously, while in high dudgeon over what may be simple vandalism with no apparent connection to the TEA Party movement, Virginia's moonbatosphere has thus far remained silent about this actual threat of politically-motivated violence.
To his credit, Doug Mataconis --- who parroted the far Left line on the Perriello story --- has reported with equal prominence the real threat against Cantor.
H/T to Drudge.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
These are, of course, along with accusations that the movement is racist to its very core.
Certainly, this post must be a mistake. For those not interested in going through the advertisements to get to the substance of the video, it shows a decidedly African-American Mr. Coleman apologizing for his post. Which, by the way, still has not been demonstrated to have anything more to do with the vandalism at the less-infamous Mr. Perriello's home.
Of course, why should the far Left let facts get in the way of a good smear?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Witness a few weeks ago, when the estimable Ben Tribbett AKA "Not Larry Sabato" decided to attack Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli for answering a hypothetical question about how to mount a challenge to President Barry's legitimacy, based upon the dubious theory that he is not a "natural-born citizen" of these United States.
I said in comments on various moonbat blogs who picked it up that it was clearly the type of hypothetical question that lawyers answer all the time, and both the Jaded JD and AG Cuccinelli addressed the "issue" with that explanation.
And no one plays the victim card better than the moonbat far Left. Witness those currently in high dudgeon because some TEA Party activists over the weekend purportedly called civil rights hero and Georgia Democrat Congressman John Lewis a "nigger" (I refuse to use the preferred politically-correct euphemism for this ugly word, and as I am not directing it at anyone or any group, it is not offensive), and Massachusetts Congressman and former owner of a bawdy house specializing in male prostitutes Barney Frank a "fag."
Now, never mind that notwithstanding the presence of many media cameras and tape recorders, and doubtless the presence of dozens of personal recording devices, no one has managed to produce an actual recording of the offending and derisive attacks. That lack of any real evidence hasn't stopped Virginia's moonbats from attacking TEA Partiers here, and here, and ... well, you get the point. Even Doug Mataconis claims that it happened, because, after all, far-Left TPM (Talking Points Memo) said so.
Sure; if it happened, it is wrong, and allows enemies of the movement to smear it. But given the race-hustlers' and Lavender Lobby's penchant for simply making things up to advance the myths of victimhood, it's hardly wise to take those running with this at their word. Particularly given the utter absence of real evidence (i.e., not the claims of the alleged targets of the epithets) that it actually happened.
It is, of course, part of the far-Left meme that opposition to BarryCare is "racist." It's all over the far Left sites.
Today, the smear shifted to ascribing actual acts of violence to those associated with the TEA Party movement (full disclosure: I've never attended a TEA Party rally or any other event, though I'm certainly on their mailing list; but then again, I'm also on homosexual Delegate Adam Ebbin's e-mail list, and have no idea how I got on that one, either) or, at least, holding TEA Party activists responsible for possible acts of violence because they ... well, used one of the tactics of the far Left.
In this case, it seems that someone with TEA Party ties published the address of a Perriello in Charlottesville, but not Congressman Tom Perriello. Turns out, it was his brother who --- we are repeatedly informed --- has "four young children." And today, it is reported, his gas line was cut. And the far Left wants to smear the entire TEA Party movement with it.
I'm just wandering what standard (I know: juxtaposing far Left and "standard," ha ha) is motivating them? After all, the Supreme Court will, on 28 April, hear argument in Doe v. Reed, No. 09-559, in which the Court will consider efforts by the radical homosexual lobby to secure the names and address of citizens who signed a ballot proposition to defend traditional marriage. Their avowed purpose in doing so was to place the names and addresses of R-71 petition signers on the Internet to encourage “uncomfortable conversations.”
Similar tactics were used by partisans for the Lavender Lobby in response to the victory for Proposition 8 in California. During and after the campaign, Proposition 8 opponents publicized on the Internet the names, employers, and contact information of Proposition 8 campaign contributors from public filings harass and intimidate them. See, e.g., www.eightmaps.com;
www.californiansagainsthate.com. Death threats were made; families and businesses were threatened.
And yet ... those in high dudgeon over the actions of a few, isolated TEA Party activists (whom some would say are merely exercising their right to petition government for a redress of grievances) have said utterly nothing about the actual actions and threatened actions of the Lavender Lobby against those who defend the standards of all major religions and five thousand years of civilized society regarding marriage.
Oh, and all of these activities and facts pre-date the public revelation of Congressman Perriello's brother's home address.
No one endorses violence in this regard. But it is curious indeed that the far Left has become so exercised over this event, but those same commenters have remained silent in the face of violence and intimidation perpetrated by their political allies.
Double standards: if the far Left didn't have them, they'd have no standard at all.
Putting the name and face of an obscure state Secretary of Transportation on your masthead?
In fact, though I support Keith Fimian for the Republican nomination for the 11th Congressional District, it's really an overstatement to put him there, too. It's at best premature.
And why isn't Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli there?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!Today, President Barry signed a bill mandating socialized medicine, and answered "None of the above."
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.Today, 222 members of the House of Representatives, all Democrats, violated this elementary requirement for lawmaking in the United States.
Benjamin Franklin is reputed to have been asked by a woman, after the close of the Constitutional Convention, "What kind of government have you given us, sir?" Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Apparently, we cannot. I weep for the future.
But to the first question, there may happily be an affirmative answer, and this guy seems to be a likely candidate.
That he is the only possible candidate of whom I currently am aware, and who seems to have any interest in defending the constitutional process for considering and passing bills, speaks ill of the modern Democrat Party.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
Witness the recent controversy, in places like Politico, Huffington Post, Politics Daily and the Talking Points Memo, over Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's rather pedestrian answer to a hypothetical posed to him during the campaign.
As I said when I first read this, AG Cuccinelli's comments had all the earmarks of a response to a hypothetical question in an oral argument. Late this afternoon, AG Cucinnelli confirmed it.
It would be quite refreshing if the moonbatosphere would grow up. Then again, they would have to change their basic character, or lack thereof.
Mr. Obama laughed about it afterward. “I generally wouldn’t take advice about what’s good for Democrats” from Mr. McConnell, he told an audience in Pennsylvania.Now, that's hilarious. Democrats lecture Republicans virtually non-stop about what's good for the GOP, yet when the tables are turned, President Barry laughs it off.
Yet like the stopped clock (that's right twice a day), President Barry manages to get this one right. Democrats shouldn't be taking advice about electoral wisdom from Republicans. I'll be the first to confess: we don't have their best interests at heart.
It would be so much better if certain spineless Republicans out there would recognize that the obverse is equally true.
It is the sure and certain knowledge that those spineless Republicans are out there that President Barry doesn't discourage the efforts of Democrat/Liberal commentators who offer such "advice."
Sunday, March 14, 2010
I guess my first reaction to an ideologue like Raines was "Well, on the issue of 'unfair, unbalance, unchecked,' Howell Raines certainly knows from whence he speaks." And when I saw the online title, I had to ask whether Raines even knows any honest journalists (certainly he didn't hire many), or would recognize one if he tripped over him.
But the funniest parts of the article were Raines protestations about his perceptions of bias in Fox News reporting.
For instance, Raines proceeds from the assertion of Fox News' "endless repetition of its uber-lie: 'The American people do not want health-care reform.'" Note that it's in quotation marks. Followed by "Fox repeats this as gospel." Not that Raines bothers to cite the date, or time, or anchor who uttered such an uber-lie. No. He just asserts that it's endlessly repeated. But doesn't bother to tell us of even one occasion when it's been uttered. Or by whom.
And never mind that it's rather silly. Even Republicans concede that some reform is in order. Just not the scheme for socialized medicine advocated by President Barry, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-People's Republic of San Francisco), and Senate Majority Leader "Dingy" Harry Reid (D-Nevada). Just not the "Holy Grail" of government-controlled health care inherent in every far-Left scheme to control of our lives.
But then there's the endless sanctimony that one would expect of someone associated with the New York Times:
1) the condemnation of "the world of Foxian reality, whose actors are brought on camera to illustrate a preconceived universe as rigid as that of medieval morality";
2) the caricature that "when Fox does trot out a house liberal as a punching bag, the result is a parody of reasoned news formats," as though the New York Times, with its well-documented history of Liberal bias, holds a monopoly on "reasoned news formats," apparently defined by Raines as one in which the only Conservative views which are acceptable in polite company are those that concede the far-Left premise, and merely want to slow down the inexorable march of history to the Socialist Utopia;
3) the implication that Fox News does not present "information free of partisan poppycock," or --- incredibly arrogantly --- that Raines has ever been responsible for providing such information;
4) the notion that "Fox legitimize[s] a style of journalism that is dishonest in its intellectual process, untrustworthy in its conclusions and biased in its gestalt," again, as though the New York Times represents "a style of journalism that is honest in its intellectual process, trustworthy in its conclusions and [un]biased in its gestalt"; and
5) the accusation --- more indicative of the psychological condition of "projection" more than anything else --- that Roger Ailes and Fox News are "responsib[le] for creating a news department whose raison d'etre is to dictate the outcome of our nation's political discourse," as though Raines' New York Times were utterly innocent of the same offense.
Perhaps most outrageously, however, is Raines' accusation that:
For the first time since the yellow journalism of a century a,go, the United States has a major news organization devoted to the promotion of one political party.Who does Howell Raines think he's kidding? Does anyone out there believe that Raines' New York Times has been, for decades, "a major news organization devoted to the promotion of one political party," specifically, the Democrat Party? Or that Fox News is even alone? Well, perhaps has a promoter of the GOP, if promoter is it, then it might be alone. But certainly not as "a major news organization devoted to the promotion of one political party," a capacity in which many of our "major news organization[s]" have enthusiastically served for years. Only they have done so in service to the "right" (to Raines) political party: the Democrat Party.
But it's not as though Raines relies wholly upon his own opinion. Instead, he offers evidence published in --- you guessed it! --- the New York Times:
This year, Freud, a public relations executive in London and Murdoch's son-in-law, condemned Ailes in an interview with the New York Times, saying he was "ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes's horrendous and sustained disregard" of proper journalistic standards. Meanwhile, Gabriel Sherman, writing in New York magazine, suggests that Freud and other Murdoch relatives think Ailes has outlived his usefulness -- despite the fact that Fox, with its $700 million annual profit, finances News Corp.'s ability to keep its troubled newspapers and their skeleton staffs on life support. I know some observers of journalistic economics who believe that such insider comments mean Rupert already has Roger on the skids.Raines is certainly entitled to his opinion. But his charges have the overwhelming stench of one complaining of getting caught at his own game. For what Raines practiced for years as an executive with the New York Times, well, Raines is guilty of his own charge: he "dare not call it journalism."
Friday, March 12, 2010
Without questioning the wisdom of that statement, or lack thereof, Holmes was never confronted with the specter of states delaying tax refunds (i.e., overpayments of taxes owed) because they don't have enough money.
Let's make sure we get this right: when refunds are due, they are of overpayments, monies wrongfully exacted from taxpayers, usually through inflated payroll deductions. And, of course, I am aware of no taxing authority which goes through the courtesy of paying interest on overcharges (though woe be unto to you if you substantially underpay your taxes; the Federal government can impose substantial penalties for doing so).
So the states listed in the article are keeping money wrongfully exacted, without compensation.
One has to wonder what the appropriate response of The People should be to such an outrage. Should taxpayers reduce deductions from their wages to engage in self-help?
In this day of assaults on our Liberty in the cause of statism, one has to wonder whether the Founders didn't have the right answer.
The question "When do reasonable men take up arms?" is one that should always be contemplated by a free People. Or a People that wants to remain free.
In his 15-year NFL career (five times longer than the average), he never missed a game. He was part of the legendary "Fearsome Foursome" which included other future Hall-of-Famers Deacon Jones and Rosie Greer. It is a measure of his greatness that he was elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in his very first year of eligibility, after selection to the Pro Bowl fourteen consecutive times, a record matched (by Bruce Matthews), but not exceeded more than three decades after his retirement.
However, many people of a certain age probably know him better for the wholesome characters he played on Little House on the Prairie and Father Murphy. In those series, he played gentle giants, and notwithstanding his credentials as a defensive lineman, and one had more than an inkling that he was typecast in those roles. He is, after all, survived by a wife of 47 years, three children, and five grandchildren.
And in a profession where most stories on players are about their bad behavior, Olsen was an exception to the stereotype. While playing, he earned a master's degree in economics. He was a summa cum laude graduate of Utah State University, and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. No intellectual slouch, was Olsen.
My favorite memories of Olsen, though, are from his fifteen-year career as a sportscaster, as one-half of my favorite broadcasting team, along with Dick Enberg. I simply enjoyed his cerebral comments on the game, and have many vivid memories of watching games with my grandfather. Though my grandfather preferred Pat Summerall.
Merlin Olsen. RIP.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Anybody in particular come to mind?
Well, apparently the incredibly narcissistic Lindsay Lohan thinks so, and she thinks it's her. She's suing E-Trade, whose trademark talking baby ads included one --- premiering during the Super Bowl --- in which one of the babies refers to "that milkaholic Lindsay." She thinks that everybody naturally thinks of her when they hear her rather common first name, and that she's therefore entitled to a $100 million payday. I guess the movie paydays are somewhat less frequent these days.
Sorry, but that's not who I thought of when I heard the ad. Indeed, except when I'm watching the far-inferior remake of The Parent Trap with my boys, or Tina Fey's hilarious Mean Girls, it's very difficult to think of Ms. Lohan at all.
Except, of course, as an example of narcissistic excess.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Congrats to Scott for his role.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Some are expressing shock.
However, all that this proves is that perhaps 56% of the Americans polled have actually read and understood the Declaration of Independence.
Another failure of government education.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Now, never mind that Marshall already has apologized for the impression that what he called his "poorly chosen words" may have left. And never mind the fact that he is one of the Assembly’s most outspoken advocates on behalf of expanded treatment and support for children with autism and other disabilities. His approach to autism legislation has even antagonized members of his own GOP caucus.
Virginia's moonbatosphere is abuzz with feigned outrage. Even the occasionally-sensible Waldo Jaquith is attacking.
However, Bob Holsworth --- while acknowleding that "It’s a made for national attention story" --- credits Marshall for quickly retracting his remarks.
Don't bet that the moonbat far Left will accept --- some won't even acknowledge --- Marshall's apology.
However, I've known and respected Bob Marshall for long enough to know that he's smart enough to ignore those attacking him now. After all, they're not really ticked off about this comment. The only "apology" that they want from Marshall is an apology for being a Conservative and a Republican.
I hope they hold their collective breath for that.
And after all, it's not like Delegate Marshall said that his daughters shouldn't be punished for premarital or promiscuous sex with a baby, or anything like that. We all know that those on the far Left would never forgive or forget a politician who made such an outrageous statement.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Apparently, F.U. ... er, F.T. didn't bother to read Joe Stack's suicide note, in which he expresses views much more in line with the moonbat Left than with what F.U. ... er, F.T. calls "the anti-tax, anti-government right-wing fringe."
And some people call lawyers "ambulance chasers." Lawyers have nothing on the political ambulance chasers on the far Left.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
So it's unsurprising that I found myself hooked on the Discovery Channel's wonderful show, The Deadliest Catch, and the drama of crab fishing on the Bering Sea.
Sadly, word has arrived today that one of the more compelling characters on the show, Captain Phil Harris, has died. Anyone who watches the show knows of his serious health issues in the past. He's clearly a passionate man: passionate for his profession; passionate for his family; passionate for raising well his sons. His story was one of the many which makes The Deadliest Catch some of the most compelling drama on television.
More so, because it's true.
I strongly suspect that his stardom allowed him to touch many more lives than he ever thought he would.
RIP, Captain Phil.
Monday, February 08, 2010
We bought our house in late April 1994.
The driveway looked a lot better in April than it did in January of 1996, when we got over a foot-and-a-half of snow. Mrs. Young was three months pregnant with Jimmy, and couldn't shovel.
I purchased our snowblower the next November, and was quite glad to have it over the last three months.
As were my neighbors.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
In this view, we should pay attention to conservative voters' underlying problems but disregard the policy demands they voice; these are illusory, devoid of reason or evidence. This form of liberal condescension implies that conservative masses are in the grip of false consciousness. When they express their views at town hall meetings or "tea party" gatherings, it might be politically prudent for liberals to hear them out, but there is no reason to actually listen.Just goes to prove: even a blind squirrel sometimes finds an acorn. Gerard Alexander is the author. Truly worth a read.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
if pregnant women are really such helpless, delicate flowers that one single, solitary ad urging them to choose Option A over Option B will compromise their ability to choose on their own, the obvious remedy would be for the pro-choicers to cough up a few mill of their own and run a competing ad urging women to abort. With the “choose life” ad focusingon one Heisman winner who clearly should not have been aborted (though this fact was anything but clear to doctors at the time), perhaps the “choose death” ad could focus on a somewhat less worthy Heisman winner, O.J. Simpson, or perhaps a more recent Heisman wannabe like Michael Vick.Xrlq: exposing the fraud of pro-"choice." For of course, if you believe that there should be a "choice," then you have to presuppose that there are occasions where the "choice" should be exercised.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
It appears that Jeff Wolinski AKA "Loudmouthed Inciter" ... er, "Loudoun Insider" is all upset because the new Chairman of the Loudoun County School Board has abolished roll call votes.
Now, Wolinski is correct on the principle: anyone who can't bear the consequences of association with his public actions is craven.
I wonder if he's considered irony of blogging under a pseudonym ... and squashing any efforts on his own cite to identify him (Jeff Wolinski, that is) with his pseudonym.
Monday, January 25, 2010
It was quite nice renewing our acquaintance with JoAnn, who fifteen years ago was an enthusiastic member and supporter of the Prince William County Young Republicans.
Jeff Wolinski AKA "Loudmouthed Inciter" AKA "Loudoun Insider" is reporting that Jim Rich is not running for reelection as Republican Chairman for the 10th Congressional District.
Most Republican grassroots activists know Rich as the individual who was willing to prevaricate in order to remove State Republican Chairman Pat McSweeney in 1994, at the behest of newly-elected Governor George Allen. Apparently, the rap on McSweeney at the time was that he didn't do enough to throw the nomination to Allen, and may even have supported Earle Williams, who --- as older readers may recall --- ran as the "moderate" alternative to Allen.
Those who don't know about this --- I was at the State Central Committee meeting where the "charges" were preferred --- may simply know Rich as the individual who works very hard to perpetuate his own power by phantom calls for conventions and unreasonably (i.e., before the call even is published) early filing deadlines for District Chairman.
Rich apparently says he's not running out of "family concerns."
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Apparently, the first Democrat to see the handwriting on the wall.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Now, functionaries for Massachusetts Attorney General Martha (AKA "Marsha") Coakley have visited violence upon campaign functionaries who were merely filming a Coakley event.
While it's a little late for an effective drumbeat, one cannot help but wonder what the so-called "mainstream" media's response will be to this?
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Maybe if George Allen had called the Democrat operative who broke the "macaca" story a "stalker" --- as Coakley has --- he might have beaten Senator Thinskin (D-WaPo).
Friday, January 08, 2010
It's a real pity that network executives insist upon using their entertainment as a vehicle for their ideological agenda. First, it was a "green" agenda, not talked about much lately in light of the fraud scandal out of the University of East Anglia. Lately, it's been more about "I'm a character," with various stars from various shows, mentioning one unique characteristic regarding themselves. One even says (surprise!) "I'm a Democrat."
Still waiting to hear one of them identify him or herself as a Republican.
Obviously, it's their right, but some of their commentary is so absurd as to induce nausea. Former NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw has a vehicle, something about life along US Route 50 (which runs from Annapolis, Maryland, to Sacramento, California). What is most interesting is how it's pitched: stories about America "at its most historic time."
"Most historic time"!?!?! Who do they think they're kidding? More historic than the Revolution? Unless they believe or hope that we are in the midst of a socialist revolution --- might be some merit to this --- probably not. More historic than the Civil War? World War II? Man's --- an American's --- first landing on the Moon?
Of course, it is just ideological claptrap. However, it at least has the virtue of revealing the absurdity of its proponents.