Monday, March 29, 2010

Democrats And Double Standards

As noted previously here, Democrats have made much of what may well have merely been simple vandalism at Congressman Tom Perriello's brother's Charlottesville home.

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

This Must Be A Mistake

The far Left has been trashing the TEA Party and accusing that it is responsible for vandalism at the home of Virginia's 5th District Congressman Tom Perriello's brother, because Danville TEA Party activist Nigel Coleman published the address on his Facebook page.

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

Contrived Outrage

The lengths to which those on the far Left --- and others --- will go to demonize their political opponents is simply amazing. And no hypocrisy is too glaring to give them pause.

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.,; 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.

And They Wonder Why...

... I call them "Sean Connaughton's Cult of Personality"?

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

None Of The Above

Two hundred thirty-five years ago today, Patrick Henry famously culminated a speech at St. John's Church in Richmond with a phrase which resounds even now:
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


On life support for decades, is this the day it dies?

I'm not optimistic.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Isn't This Treason?

Article I, section 7 of the Constitution is quite clear:
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.

Are There Any Honest Democrats Left?

Given the possibility of the Slaughter House rule proposed to "deem" the Senate version of the Federal socialized medicine bill --- I refuse to call it "health care reform," because it is no such thing --- without an actual vote in the House, the title question has to arise. Indeed, if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signs and sends to the President a bill upon which the House has never voted, it is reasonable to ask whether she has committed an act of treason.

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.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Asshats Attack AG (Alas, Absent Alliteration)

Having a serious, disciplined, principled constitutionalist as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia has apparently driven the moonbats positively ... well, batty. Even normally serious people like Ben Tribbett. And nihilists like Doug Mataconis, who really should know better, but apparently doesn't.

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.

President Barry: Comedian

Via Drudge, a funny from the New York Times, about President Barry's response to Republican warnings that passing BarryCare/socialized medicine will lead to a Democrat bloodbath in the fall:
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

Is This Satire?

Well. I opened my Washington Post today, and came across this beauty in today's Outlook section: "Fox News: unfair, unbalanced, unchecked," by former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines. Interestingly, the online version of the article has a different title: "Why don't honest journalists take on Roger Ailes and Fox News?"

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

Is This Cause For Taking Up Arms?

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., famously commented that "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization."

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.

Merlin Olsen, RIP

Merlin Olsen was, put simply, a good guy. And, in his first profession, truly one of the greats.

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

Hoping They're All Right

Whatever you think of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), here's hoping the injuries to his wife and daughter are not serious, and that they have a speedy recovery.

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Is She On Drugs?


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

An Honor Shared By Hampden-Sydney

A pretty exciting night for the alma mater: Jeff Bridges has been recognized as last year's Best Actor in a Leading Role for his performance in Crazy Heart, a movie directed by Scott Cooper '92, in his first turn as a director of a motion picture.

Congrats to Scott for his role.