A Hiatus

While my posts have been irregular in recent months, I do not intend to post for some time.

As many of my friends know, I have a pending case before the United States Supreme Court, Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, No. 10-1121, which I will be arguing on 10 January 2012.  Hence, all of my spare time for the foreseeable future will be directed toward preparation toward fulfilling this professional obligation.

See you later in 2012.

More Far-Left Ignorance

You've really got to love the far Left.  Now (and once again) the boys and girls at Blow Me ... er, "Blue Virginia" are making elaborate, factually-inaccurate statements against Virginia's Attorney General, claiming that "Supreme Court Disses Kookinelli and his Health Care Lawsuit."

Now, never mind that the moonbats put a question mark after it; the text clearly criticizes the Attorney General and suggests that, by not taking Virginia's lawsuit against BarryCare yesterday, the Supreme Court was somehow not giving due regard to Virginia's lawsuit and her Attorney General.

The truth is, the Supreme Court was giving it no regard whatsoever in yesterday's order.  That is because the Supreme Court has not yet considered petition for certiorari filed by the Attorney General for consideration.  It won't do that until its conference of Tuesday, 22 November.

Incidentally, I know a thing or two about Supreme Court practice.  Today, the Court set my most recent case for argument on 10 January 2012.

So, a word to the boys and girls at Blow Me ... er, "Blue Virginia":  you don't have to be a Supreme Court practitioner, or even an attorney, to comment upon the workings of the Supreme Court.

However, you just might want to consider learning enough so that you can avoid sounding like a blithering idiot when you do comment upon it.

The sad thing is that the boys and girls at Blow Me ... er, "Blue Virginia" rely upon a WaPo story in support of their conclusion.  I expect that kind of ignorance from the boys and girls at Blow Me ... er, "Blue Virginia."  Heretofore, I did not expect it in even the worst advocacy journalism in the WaPo.

The Far-Left Myth

I know; I know: you read the title, and thought, "Uh, could you be a little more specific?  After all, there are so many of them."

Well, gentle reader, I will address those I read today.  One was in Blow Me ... er, "Blue Virginia," which refers to "The risk is that we will see an 8-3 Republican majority locked into our purple, almost-evenly-divided state for the next decade (just 2 years after Democrats held a 6-5 edge)."

This is, of course, a lie of Goebbelsian proportions.  Virginia is not a "purple, almost-evenly-divided state"; it is a Republican state, and only the last vestiges of old Democrat power and machinations have managed to preserved the Democrat Party as a viable force in most parts of the Commonwealth.

Then, there was Robert McCartney's take in the Metro section of today's Washington Post, entitled "No matter who gains control of Virginia Senate, neither party won a mandate."

A simple review of the election returns demonstrates that, if McCartney truly believes this, then it must be time to institute mandatory drug testing for WaPo columnists.

Just a few of the numbers indicates that McCartney may be imbibing hallucinogenic substances.  The GOP gained seven --- count 'em, seven! --- seats in the House of Delegates, bringing their numbers to an historic high of sixty-six (66), if the results hold.

Nevertheless, you might say, the GOP gained only two Senate seats, bringing them to parity in the Virginia Senate, with ties broken by Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (for the next two years, the most powerful elected official in the Commonwealth).

But those numbers don't tell the story, as Virginia's Senate Democrats managed to lose two seats notwithstanding their control of the Senate redistricting process, and an historically shameless gerrymander which, among other things, divided jurisdictions and sometimes even precincts to advantage Democrat incumbents.

In Prince William County, for instance, population increases indicate that the County would be entitled to two full Senate seats, plus a small part of another one.  Nevertheless, only one full seat was situated in the County --- unsurprisingly, the Methuselah of the Senate, Democrat Chuck Colgan, who had to tout his relationship with Republican Governor Bob McDonnell and his "bipartisanship" to survive ---  while the rest of the County and the Cities of Manassas and Manassas Park were carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey, as smaller parts of four other districts with majorities in other counties.  Thus, a county in which preliminary results indicate that 32,495 total votes were cast for GOP candidates, and 25,167 votes were cast for Democrat and other candidates finds itself represented by three Democrats (Chuck Colgan, George Barker, and Toddy Puller), with small portions of the County represented by two Republicans (Dick Black and Richard Stuart).  And among the five, only one (Democrat Chuck Colgan) actually resides in the County.

Democrat George Barker was the primary author of this plan, and that he got any votes from Prince William County residents is a testament to partisan Democrats' commitment to the pursuit and maintenance of power over local interests.

But the total numbers statewide demonstrate that it was, nevertheless, a masterful gerrymander by Senate Democrats.  Overall, the GOP won 771,698 votes in Senate races statewide, while Democrats and others won 580,773.  These numbers are staggering in comparison to the actual member-district results.  Republican nominees secured the votes of just over 57% of Virginians for the State Senate, while Democrats and others secured the votes of not even 43%.  Were the Senate to more closely reflect this electoral reality, Republicans would hold a 23-17 seat margin.  But alas, Republicans only hold twenty of those seats, if current results are confirmed.

A masterful gerrymander, indeed.

And the GOP did even better in the House of Delegates.  There, Republican candidates (I include Libertarian and Lacey B. Putney, who caucuses with the GOP) secured 775,403 votes statewide, while Democrats (I include Green candidates) and write-ins garnered only 487,514 votes.  In short, Republicans garnered a whopping 61.4% of the statewide vote for the House of Delegates, while Democrat and other candidates secured less than 40% of the vote.

So a "purple, almost-evenly-divided state"?!?!  "No mandate"?!?!?!  It would seem necessary to ascertain from the authors of those comments the color of the sky on their planet, because whatever it is, it ain't "Blue."

A Damn Shame

Rather than leaving his fate to others and submitting to the firing squad --- probably a circular one --- Joe Paterno has decided to retire at the end of this season.  Of course, at 84 years old, he's entitled to do as he wants to, but I think it's a shame.

I am not one of those who believes Paterno to be culpable.  As I understand it, the deviant child molester who provoked this whole imbroglio was long gone from Paterno's staff when he was apparently witnessed by another member of Penn State's staff to be molesting a boy on Penn State property, where he was contractually entitled to be.  No one had ever before suspected that he was a child molester.  The witness despicably did nothing to intervene, but instead reported it to Paterno, who reported that hearsay evidence up the chain to Athletic Department and University officials, who then failed to act, or even covered it up.

What else was Paterno supposed to have done?  He had no authority over his former staff member.  He had not witnessed the crime.  He is a state employee, and did precisely what was required of him under the law.  And given his badge of authority as such, to do more might have exposed him, the University, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to considerable liabilities.

The real problem appears to be that Paterno has become a victim of his own legend.

And legend he is.  The now-winningest coach in the history of college football, Paterno has always done it the right way, running an entirely clean program when other large universities have frequently failed to do so.  A noted disciplinarian, his players knew that they could not get away with the types of misbehavior engaged in by so many star college athletes.  Young men wanted to play for him.  Young men's parents wanted their sons to learn from him, knowing that --- again, unlike in so many other large-university programs --- their sons were highly likely to obtain their degrees under their tutelage.  In a day when the concept of in loco parentis has largely gone the way of the dinosaur, it was alive and well in State College, Pennsylvania, and exercised by Joe Paterno.

In his 46 years as Head Coach, he has won two National Championships, and probably deserved two others.  More importantly, he has taught men, and raised the Pennsylvania State University from mediocrity to national renown.

The problem for Paterno is that more is now expected, because more always has been delivered.

Attaching a scandal to Paterno is therefore a unique event in college sports, because no one has ever been able to do so.

And, as noted above, no one should be able to do so now.  He has no culpability --- moral, legal, or ethical --- in these circumstances.  Joe Paterno has never been and is not now a law unto himself, no matter that the legend suggests that he might be, that he could be.  It is a measure of the man that, to my knowledge, he never has tried to become so.  It is that humility which is one of the things that makes him the great man that he is.

I confess: I am a fan.  I grew up about 90 miles from State College, and my grandparents were long-time season ticket holders (40-yard line; home side; about halfway up).  After attending the 1972 Indianapolis 500 with my parents, and a Cincinnati Reds game a year later with my father, the only big-time sporting events I attended in my formative years were with my grandparents at Beaver Stadium.

And so now, we are going to witness one of the rarest events in Division I college football: Penn State is in need of a head football coach.

And I pity the man facing the task of filling Joe Paterno's black shoes.

9/11 --- Ten Years Later

I'm not going to add to the reflections on the terrorist attacks on the United States ten years ago.  It wasn't until nearly a month later that I learned that the attack on the Pentagon had struck very close to home, claiming Shelley Marshall, the wife of a college classmate.  It sufficient to republish a column that ran two days later in the late, unlamented Potomac News (for which I was then a weekly columnist):

Terror’s Day of Infamy --- Thursday, 13 September 2011

    When the telephone rang at about 9:15 a.m., I was busy putting the finishing touches on this week’s column (something about Virginia’s state-wide races; stay tuned).  It was my wife’s number identified on the caller ID.  Having dropped me off so she could take the land yacht for an emissions inspection, I thought she was just called to let me know that she had arrived safely at work.
    “Turn on the radio.  The World Trade Center has been attacked again.”  She was in tears.  Later, she told me she’d always wanted to see it.  My last two times in New York, I’d stayed at a hotel across the street.  I’d had other choices for decent hotels near the Federal Courthouse, but the Millennium Hilton offered a magnificent view of the World Trade Center, the Financial District, Staten Island, and the Statue of Liberty.  When in New York....
    “Could’ve been an accident,” I responded.  I told her that I remembered reading a story as a child about a B-25 hitting the Empire State Building.  ‘Course, that was a prop plane.  In fog.
    “Two planes have hit.  One on each tower.”
    OK.  So it wasn’t an accident.  My assumption was, at the time, that it couldn’t have been anything much larger than a Cessna.  In passing, I knew that one plane alone might have been a hijacked airliner.  But two?  No way.
    Since there are public policy operations going on in our offices, a few people have cable feeds, with C-SPAN and CNN available.  I went to the office of our VP for Legal Information, a fancy name for the Foundation’s PR guy.  The pictures were, of course, incredible.  By this time, footage of the second airliner hitting the South Tower were running.  Some already there were in tears.  More struggled to keep control.  I was on deadline so, as difficult as it was, I returned to my labors.
    It wasn’t the end, either.
    Just before sitting down, I looked west from my office window, and heard a boom and felt a thud.  Not entirely unusual, but it was already hardly a usual day.  At that point, I half expected to be backlit by a flash of brilliant light, but resisted the urge to “duck and cover,” particularly since I was six stories up.  Fat lot of good that would have done if it were anything reasonably powerful.
    “What the hell was that?!?!” I hollered.  Nobody else seemed to hear or feel it.  Occasionally, things get dropped, like large boxes of union financial records.  Was I just being paranoid?  Could one “just be paranoid” on a day like today?
    Returned to the television.  “Anything new?” I asked.  “There’s now a fire reported at the Pentagon.” “Open the shades.  I just heard a bang and felt a thud.”  Sure enough, in an otherwise cloudless sky on an otherwise magnificent morning, a plume of smoke arose.  To the north-northeast.  Looked to be about ten miles away.  My God.
    A number started running through my head: 2,403.  It wasn’t until later that I remembered its significance — the number of American dead at Pearl Harbor.  By nightfall, I found myself hoping against hope that we got off that “lucky.”  And answering phone calls from nervous relatives, in-laws, and friends knowing of my frequent travels.  And making a few myself.
    ****
    The operation has to be admired for its elegance, execution, and effectiveness.
    Four virtually simultaneous hijackings.  At least four trained pilots to take over the controls, since any pilot I’ve ever known would take a bullet before willingly and purposefully driving his aircraft into a building, no matter how many passengers were executed before his eyes.  Three hitting marquee targets; a fourth on the ground with only the deaths of those on the plane through probably nothing more than God’s grace.  And absolute security precluding any kind of forewarning.  Damn them.
    One piece of precious good news: they didn’t have or use nukes.  With the dismemberment of the Soviet Union, and little rogue states with nascent nuclear capability, this is a real threat.  And wouldn’t it have been ironic to destroy with his subsequent handiwork (he was the military leader of the project to design and build the first atomic bomb) General Leslie R. Groves’ earlier and fame-building handiwork, the Pentagon?  Maybe such historical ironies are lost on the types of barbarians who perpetrated Tuesday’s attack.  But one has to believe, or devoutly hope, that the fact that they didn’t use one means they don’t have one.
    But what’s next?  After now 26 hours (as this is written) of non-stop coverage — MTV and VH-1 were running a CBS News feed; ESPN had ABC News; Speedvision ran Fox News Channel — what do Americans do?
    President George W. Bush might have hit about the right tone, though one yearns for the eloquence of FDR on such an occasion.  We find the dead.  We mourn and bury them.  We find those responsible.  We denounce their crimes against civilization, America, Americans, and the Islamic faith they corrupt in pursuit of their own power.
    And put more bluntly than a President can, we blow they and all who harbor them to the Hell they so richly deserve.

Union Front Group Endorses Lateef

According to the boys and girls at Blow Me ... er, "Blue Virginia" have a post touting the fact that a group called "Virginia New Majority" has endorsed Democrat Babur Lateef for Chairman of the Prince William County Board of County Supervisors.

Well, actually, the Lateef campaign made the post.

Lateef's campaign describes "Virginia New Majority" as "a non-partisan non-profit 501(c)(4) organization that has worked around the state to advance the issues you and I care so deeply about."

Non-partisan?  Sure.  That must be why it endorsed only Democrats.

Actually, "Virginia New Majority" is a union front group whose "board chairman, Juan Marcos Vilar, is the political director of the Service Employees International Union. Records show VNM has received political donations from the SEIU."

Now, you won't read this on VNM's website.  The "More Info" link helpfully adds you to its mailing list.  And other links merely direct you to its blog, which touts the desire to "bring together immigrants, African-Americans, women, youth, and working-class Virginians to build a progressive [read: "reactionary liberal"] movement in Virginia through grassroots voter organizing."


I found the more interesting and revealing information on Fairfax Underground.
Another far-Left front group.  Color me surprised.

Seen On Facebook

Hey, President Barry!  Know what else you inherited from George W. Bush?

A Triple-A credit rating!!!!

Carl Rice, RIP

Received news of the death of an old friend --- an attorney and district judge --- today.

Only 48 years old.

RIP.

... And Again

One thing about the boys and girls at Blow Me ... er, "Blue Virginia": they're predictable.

Just few months ago, they offered a rather ... creative rendering of the fundraising of Babur Lateef, Democrat candidate for Chairman of the Prince William County Board of County Supervisors, a fantasy which I discussed here.

Now that the second quarter's numbers are in, "lowkell" is trying to bang the drum to persuade the mindless who read and believe Blow Me ... er, "Blue Virginia" that Lateef is "racking up some impressive fundraising numbers compared to incumbent Corey Stewart (R) this past quarter."  Fair 'nuff: if you compare second quarter numbers, Lateef raised 11% more than Stewart, or about $9,000 more ($80,084 compared to $71,781).

But then "lowkell" gets carried away, and claims that these numbers "indicate[] that Lateef is not beholden to anyone but the people of Prince William County."

This appears to have been too much even for the rather limited universe of those permitted to comment on Blow Me ... er, "Blue Virginia," and one commenter has already had the wit to point out the reality of the numbers:

Since you said "Lateef is not beholden to anyone but the people of Prince William County", that most of his money isn't actually from Prince William County. Of the $150,000 he raised in Q1, VPAP shows that only $40K came from within the county, which means 73% of his donations for local office came from outside that locality.

Amazingly, this only got worse in Q2. Of the $73K in itemized donations Lateef reported, almost $63K of it came from outside Prince William County, or an astounding 87%. Even assuming the $7500 he raised in unitemized contributions all were local, that's still more than three-quarters of his money coming from outside of the locality his term in office would affect....

Finally, speaking of interesting numbers, while Lateef did outraise Stewart this quarter, Stewart still maintains a nearly $100K cash-on-hand advantage, $140K to $234K.

In that commenter's opinion, "I just don't think that over 70% of your contributions coming from outside Prince William is, in any way, an indication that a candidate is only beholden to the voters of that County."

Now, poor little "lowkell" doesn't like it when reality intrudes on his hyper-partisan fantasies, and immediately attacks the commenter.

Once again, one has to borrow a phrase from the moonbatosphere and wonder whether the fact that most of Lateef's donations come from out of the County will prove to be "a disservice to Prince William County's more than 400,000 residents."

At It Again

Well, one of the children at Blow Me ... er, "Blue Virginia," is at it again, attacking perhaps the nation's best Attorney General, Virginia's Ken Cuccinelli.  And, of course, since Blow Me ... er, "Blue Virginia" doesn't allow comments from anyone but certified moonbats, I am responding here.

"Kindler" is apparently in a snit because, as he tells it, "an attorney general would normally be expected to use his position to protect the citizens of his state from genuine threats to their rights and well being."

Uh, that's wrong, "Kindler."  And it doesn't take a Westlaw subscription to find that out.' A simple Google search ("'Attorney General' Virginia duties") reveals that:

The office is charged with providing advice to state agencies and the Governor; serving as consumer counsel for the people of the Commonwealth; defending criminal convictions on appeal to ensure that justice is served; and defending the laws of the Commonwealth when they are challenged on constitutional grounds.

A complete list of the duties is here, and nowhere among those duties is the job "to protect the citizens of his state from genuine threats to their rights and well being."  That's just another moobat fantasy of an activist Attorney General who would do the will of the far Left in pursuing an expansionist nanny state.

According to "Kindler," he "cannot think of a single occasion on which our attorney general has done so."  Of course, perhaps "Kindler" hasn't heard of the Attorney General's lawsuit against BarryCare (AKA "ObamaCare"), the Federal government's takeover of health care, which he is pursuing pursuant to a duly-enacted statute of the Virginia legislature protecting Virginia's citizens against this Federal encroachment.

"Kindler" therefore accuses Attorney General Cuccinelli of "attacking any institution that seeks to protect Virginia citizens in any way that does not conform with Cuccinelli's rigid (and at times delusional) right-wing ideology."  Actually, it sounds a lot more like "Kindler" is attaching anyone who seeks to protect Virginia citizens in a way that does not conform to "Kindler's" rigid (and invariably delusional) left-wing ideology.

"Kindler" then offers a virtual laundry list of "offenses" by Attorney General Cuccinelli, virtually all of them based in a pathetic ignorance of history, as follows:

10. Separation of church and state: He advises ministers to ignore Jefferson's (and the First Amendment's) "wall of separation" between church and state.

This is particularly entertaining.  Jefferson had nothing to do with the First Amendment.  It was proposed and shepherded through the first Congress by James Madison, while Jefferson was Ambassador to France.  While Jefferson's Statute on Religious Freedom was a precursor to it (and which, incidentally, acknowledged "Almighty God" as "creator"), the "wall of separation" language appears nowhere in the First Amendment, and is actually a subsequent commentary upon it by Jefferson, eleven years after its passage.

And, of course, "Kindler" apparently only has a problem with Conservative ministers who "ignore" the First Amendment, even as "Kindler" misapprehends it.

9. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority: Cuccinelli threatens one of the most basic rights of a capitalist society -- the right to enter freely into contracts -- just to prevent the Authority from using contract preferences for union labor.

This one is likewise entertaining, since "Kindler" evidences utter misunderstanding of how "project labor agreements" compel contractors to use the "union labor" whether their employees choose union representation or reject it.  Of course, in the brave new world of moonbattery proposed by the far Left, employees have a free choice for union representation, but only if they choose to have it.

8. FCC net neutrality regulations: Cuccinelli sues another Federal agency for doing its job and trying to protect Web users-- and remind me what the hell this has to do with Virginia?

Apparently, "Kindler" would like to ignore that reasonable minds may differ over the efficacy of proposals for "net neutrality."  And "what the hell [sic] this has to do with Virginia"?  Well, "Kindler," a few million of us use the Internet, in case you hadn't notice.

7. U-VA campus weapons ban: the AG limits the ability of our universities to control public safety, so as to curry favor with the NRA. 

"Kindler" apparently does not understand that, as an instrumentality of the Commonwealth, our public universities are subject to the same constitutional limitations as any other instrumentality of the Commonwealth, and therefore, the same obligations when they adopt regulations which infringe upon fundamental constitutional rights...  even the ones (like the Second Amendment's protection of the right to "keep and bear arms") that "Kindler" doesn't like.

 4. Health care : Cuccinelli sues the Federal government to prevent it from expanding access to affordable health care. 

"Expanding assess to affordable health care"?!!??!  "Kindler" must have been writing this when on too many recreational drugs, as evidenced by his faulty numbering.

5. Right and access to abortion: He rules that the State Board of Health can choose to regulate abortion clinics under the stringent rules required for hospitals, even in the absence of legislation authorizing such regulations.

Another far-Lefty fantasy, since there is no "right" to abortion stated in the Constitution.  Then there's the hypocrisy of a far-Lefty complaining about regulation only as it applies to his friends, which some might consider a core "police power" of the Commonwealth to regulate the health and safety of her citizens.  And, by the way, never mind that Virginia's legislature subsequently validated the Attorney General's efforts with legislation.

4. Police action on immigration: He finds that police may question anyone's immigration status once they've been stopped for any reason, even without a state law authorizing such actions.

Perhaps there is no such state law, but Federal law certainly makes illegal immigration an offense, whether it be civil or criminal.  And certainly, state officials are frequently part of efforts to enforce Federal laws.

3. EPA authority to address climate change: He sues the EPA for doing what it is required to do according to the Clean Air Act, science and a very clear Supreme Court ruling, threatening the right of everyone to be protected from the severe impacts of climate change. 

This is, of course, reference to a petition which was utterly permissible under Federal regulatory standards (Texas filed one, too), and the link is to a WaPo article which pointed out that the "EPA's ruling rested entirely on the findings of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" which "declared climate change to be an accepted scientific fact but in recent months has been questioned for mistakes ranging from typographical errors to problems with sourcing."  Apparently, "Kindler" doesn't know the difference between "science" and "political science."

2. University gay rights: Cuccinelli rules that state colleges and universities cannot protect the rights of gays on campus.

 What "rights"?  There is no "right" to sexual deviancy protected by any law passed by the Commonwealth or the Federal government.  And state universities are, as noted above, instrumentalities of the state.

1. Climate science research : And in his most repressive and destructive act of all, Cuccinelli engages in a relentless, bitter assault against Jefferson's university for allowing honest climate change research to be conducted -- threatening not only our First Amendment rights, but the protection we all gain from allowing truth to be discovered and openly stated, regardless of which industries' financial interests may be harmed in the process. 

Of course, the point is whether it was "honest climate change research" (remember when it was "global warming" research; I'm old enough to remember when we heard breathless warnings about the "coming Ice Age")?  The point is whether anthropogenic "climate changes" is genuine, or it's just another far-Lefty fantasy designed to create an excuse for bigger government.  And "repressive"?  "Jefferson's university" is a publicly-funded institution.  Public officials are certainly within their authority --- some might even say it's their responsibility --- to insure that public funds are not used fraudulently.

"Kindler" is, of course, doing what Virginia's moonbatosphere does best: demonizing.  But elections have consequences, and Attorney General Cuccinelli won his by a virtual landslide.

What was that again about "protect[ing] the citizens of his state from genuine threats to their rights and well being."  Virginians elected Attorney General Cuccinelli to do precisely what he is doing.  And that is what "Kindler" really objects to.  A "bully"?  Is that really the best they can do?

Pathetic.

A New Look

I am such a Conservative that I have had virtually the same design since starting this blog more than half a decade ago.  Today, I have surrendered (in some small measure) to modernity.

Feel free to offer your comments on the new design.  It may yet change again.

More Left-Wing Sexual Abuse In Northern Virginia

Well, that's how The Richmonder would report it, anyway.

"It" is the report in today's WaPo that Michael Gardner, former Chairman of the Falls Church City Democratic Committee, and husband of a current Falls Church City Council member, has been charged with sexually abusing three girls under the age of thirteen.

You see, it seems that "The Richmonder" has a penchant for smearing all Conservatives, Republicans, and "right-wingers" whenever an individual is alleged to have engaged in unlawful behavior.  Even if, when you read the story, it's the "Left-winger" who has also been cited for wrongdoing.

As for me, I'll indulge that quaint little notion of "innocent until proven guilty."  And eschew "The Richmonder's" guilt-by-association tactics.

My Favorite Talk Show Host....

is Conan O'Brien.  I don't watch him.  I probably haven't seen a total of 30 minutes of any of his shows.  But here is why, from the Commencement Address that he delivered at Dartmouth College this year.  President George H.W. Bush (41st President of the United States), was seated behind him on the dais:

Before I begin, I must point out that behind me sits a highly admired president of the United States and a decorated war hero while I, a cable television talk show host, have been chosen to stand here and impart wisdom.  I pray I never witness a more damning example of what is wrong with America today.

I can't add to that.  The Weekly Standard (H/T) doesn't even try.

VICTORY IN WISCONSIN!

Late today, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reinstated rationality to the state of Wisconsin, and overturned a lower court decision striking down the Wisconsin legislature's recent move to limit the power of public employee unions.

The report in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal is actually pretty fairly written, absent the inaccurate and ideologically-tinged characterizations of the special privileges granted to public-sector unions as "rights."

On Anthony Weiner

While the whole imbroglio over the exhibitionist and unfortunately-named Congressman from New York is entertaining, I strongly suspect that his actions are significantly less at variance with normal male behavior than his crypto-Socialism is at political deviance from the Constitution.

And while the former is embarrassing to him, and entertaining to the rest of us, it is the latter which should disqualify him from holding public office.

The New Far-Left Meme

It's always entertaining when the far Left comes up with a new meme.  Mickey-Mouse (i.e., complete fantasy) entertaining, not any other kind.

In the last few days, Virginia's moonbatosphere has offered up a new one, apparently in recognition of the continued popularity --- and resurgent popularity --- of the works of Ayn Rand.

The meme goes something like this: the House GOP budget is "anti-Christian" because it reduces government handouts.  Apparently, some of these moonbats have taken their cue from the "Rev." Jim Wallis, whose faith seems more committed to Karl Marx and big government than to genuine Christian teaching.  Far-Left "religious" leaders speak, and Virginia's moonbats jump.  And jump.  And jump.

Now, never mind  the fact that the proposed budget actually does very little to restore the United States to constitutional government, and would actually do much to perpetuate unconstitutional government spending.  And never mind that these are the same people who scream "THEOCRAT!" at any Republican leader who seems even mildly influenced by any Conservative Christian leader.

Interesting in the extreme is the fact that some denizens of the moonbatosphere seem to have committed themselves expressly to theocracy.  Well, at least, their warped view of what a "Christian" society would look like.  They are, in short, "theocrats" themselves.

Well, at least what, in their warped minds, they have convinced themselves constitutes the core of Christian teaching.  That is bears any relation to anything recognizable as Christianity is wholly coincidental.


Don't remind them that Judeo-Christian teaching has rather unambiguous imperatives about deviant sexual behavior, and about what constitutes "marriage."  And don't ever remind them about what Catholic teaching says about abortion.

And --- for God's sake! --- don't point out to them that the Christian charitable imperative has nothing to do with government spending, that charity --- by hypothesis --- is an individual act, uncorrupted by government coercion.

Fortunately, worry not about about their psychological well-being (well, no more than usual) and the dangers of philosophical whiplash.  After all, they're not really interested in genuine Christian teaching, or a philosophically consistent position.

They're simply interesting in using some Christian teachings (or rather, their corruption of genuine Christian teaching) as a club with which to batter their political enemies.  For the One True Faith of the far Left has nothing to do with Christianity.

It is Big Government, pure and simple.

Finally: A Deviant Admits What The Far Left Denies

... that advocates for the radical homosexual agenda certainly are "recruiting."

WARNING: Explicit language.

Unfortunately, it's not only the far Left which denies this elementary fact; some who fancy themselves as "libertarians" refuse to admit it.  Sadly, some might even believe it.

H/T National Organization for Marriage

Lamestream Media And Double Standards

I wonder what would have happened if Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush had invited someone to the White House who opposed interracial dating?

Perhaps we'll find out, since President Barry had two honored guests there last night who oppose interracial relationships.

Calling what some of his guests do "poetry" is a a stretch.  Inviting them to the White House is offensive.

H/T to Drudge.

No, Governor McDonnell: Please Don't Sign It

Well, it appears that little Dickie Saslaw blinked, and was forced to alter his extreme political gerrymander.

Nevertheless, as my friend Greg Letiecq observes, "Gerrymandering is OK if parties agree how to do it."  Here's Greg's descriptions of the districts --- five of them!  Count 'em!  Five! --- covering Prince William County, Manassas, and Manassas Park:

The new proposed 28th district, for example, stretches from Bull Run Mountain all the way to Westmoreland State Park and at one points is only a few hundred feet wide where Rt. 215 crosses into Fauquier County.  The 29th district inkblot that was so egregious to RPV a few weeks ago is unchanged, snaking from Stonewall Golf Club to Manassas Park and then to Dumfries.  Traversing the proposed 36th District still requires a boat as it meanders from Mount Vernon up the Potomac River towards Widewater State Park in Stafford County.   The 37th District picks up a slice of Prince William County in Yorkshire along Rt. 28 nearly up to the Manassas Park city line that puts this portion of a Prince William County precinct in with Lorton.  There’s so much that hasn’t been fixed in this plan it’ll make your head spin.

Now, I don't agree with Greg that the new plan is "litigation bait of the highest order."  And while I probably know a little more about litigation than Greg, it certainly is not in the context of election law.  Maybe he's right.

Nevertheless, the average senatorial district in the Commonwealth is right around 200,000 souls.  With a population of 448,000 and change in the latest census, PWC, Manassas, and Manassas Park should have a total of two complete districts, with about a fourth of a third district.  But five districts?!?!

It should, and perhaps will, occur to the Governor and his advisors that the author of this plan --- Senator George Barker, D-WaPo ... er, Lorton/Lake Ridge, submitted the initial plan --- simply desires to split and/or punish jurisdictions which collectively gave the Governor a margin of approximately 15,000 votes in his victory in 2009.

Certainly, this confirms what some of us have known for years: any Prince William County resident who votes for George Barker should have his head examined.

Some of the problems of the initial plan may have been solved, and the new plan, which does more to protect existing incumbents, may have passed by a veto-proof majority.  And it is reported that Governor McDonnell intends to sign it into law.

Nevertheless, Governor McDonnell should keep faith with the overwhelming majorities in Prince William County, Manassas, and Manassas Park, who helped to put him into office, and veto this gerrymandered monstrosity.

It's Kinda Funny...

that Virginia's moonbatosphere has thus far had more to say about President Barry's release (finally!) of his long-form birth certificate than do the Conservatives they are attempting to smear.  See here, and here, and here.

I've long thought this was a non-issue, since there is little doubt that, were there any there there, power-hungry Hillary Clinton and her investigators would have brought conclusive information forward during the Democrat primaries to conclusively destroy then-Senator Barry.  This should end the debate, and I suspect that it's been kept alive by the Obamorons themselves as a method of smearing Conservatives.

Whether it will end the debate remains to be seen.


UPDATE: and here, and here, and here.

UPDATE II: and here.

An Apt Observation

While the article is about Paul Krugman, The Economist (emphasis added) is clearly speaking to the general attitudes of the far Left, seen so often in Virginia's moonbatosphere:

this sort of psychologising diagnosis of strong political conviction often serves as a cheap, supremely condescending trick for pathologising and thus dismissing those with whom we disagree.  A good deal of work on the psychology of conservatism is like this.  The motivating question, "What the hell is wrong with these people?" takes it for granted that there is something wrong with "these people," and thus that disagreement with them is based not on a reasonable difference of opinions among intelligent people of good will, but rather on some sort of deep-seated defect of character or cognition in the "other" insusceptible to correction through civilised discourse.

While I would have used American spellings, I couldn't have said it better myself.  I wish I had said this.

Rank Hypocrisy

With the tax deadline yesterday comes the occasion of finding out how much taxes are being paid by President Barry and his Vice President.

And with all of the presidential rhetoric --- well, OK: rhetoric from the President --- about how "the rich" should pay more, or their "fair share," we have occasion to consider just how much extra the nation's two highest-ranking election officials sent in.  After all, we have suffered thro ... put up w ... listened to more than two years of President Barry telling us that the rich wo uldn't mind surrendering more of their income to the government.

And by any measure, President Barry and his wife qualify as "rich": last year, they reported nearly $1.8 million in 2010, and on that income, paid $466,104 in taxes.


One would expect that, given his rhetoric, one would find prominently discussed the additional contribution offered to the Federal treasury by President Barry and his wife.  That, perhaps, they declined to take a $30,000 mortgage-interest deduction, or a deduction for an admirable $245,075 in contributions to 36 different charities.

(cue crickets chirping)

As usual, the reality of the far Left doesn't match their sanctimonious rhetoric.

Color Me Surprised

Not content to dismiss anyone who is not a mindless Obamabot as "heartless," or a "fanatic," the children at Blow Me, Virg ... er, "Blue Virginia" have disinterred Ayn Rand, dusted her off, and slapped her around a little bit.

Which should be taken just as seriously as ... well, just about everything else they say.

After all, these people know "crazy."

Creating The Illusion Of Support

The moonbatosphere reallllly hates Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chairman Corey Stewart.  After all, he has made substantial steps toward addressing the problems caused by illegal aliens at the local level.  According to the far Left, making sure lawbreakers don't get away with it makes Stewart a "bully."

Perhaps more seriously, he has held the line on taxes and government spending, something that his predecessor, Repubmocrat Sean Connaughton, couldn't manage to do in good times, posturing as a tax reducer when, in good times, average home values were increasing.  Connaughton reduced tax rates, but of course, increase assessments meant that the average homeowner's tax bill increased by more than 60% during Connaughton's tenure, enough to support his profligate spending spree.  Then, of course, Connaughton got out of Dodge before he had to make the tough choices made by his successor.

The far Left is running Dr. Babur Lateef, a local opthalmologist, against Stewart in this cycle, and at least one far-Left website is crowing that "Babur Lateef Nearly Matches Corey Stewart in 1Q11 Fundraising."

Wow.  This sounds serious.

Until you look at the real numbers.  Lateef reports total contributions of $146,894 during the reporting period.

But of this number, $10,000 comes from ... Babur Lateef, M.D.

Of course, that's OK: a candidate should put his own money where his mouth is.

Then there are three contributions totaling $10,533 from Advanced Opthalmology, Inc., in Woodbridge, Virginia.  And who is the principal in the eeeevil corporation?  Well, it appears to be ... Babur Lateef, M.D.!

So that's a total of $20,533, or nearly 14% of the total, from Dr. Lateef himself.

Then there are the out-of-state donations, totaling a whopping $60,850.  To be fair, some appear to be from family members (other "Lateefs"), but many are not from people who are readily identifiable as members of Dr. Lateef's family, i.e., those with the same surname.  Nevertheless, fully 41.42% of Dr. Lateef's donations are from individuals residing in West Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, West Virginia, Georgia, and Texas.  At least one donation even came from California!

I suppose Chairman Corey Stewart should be flattered that the far Left's enmity for him extends so far.

Then there are the other donations from outside of Prince William County.  Donations from other places in Virginia total $44,850, or 30.53% of Dr. Lateef's donations.

In total, then, of the $146,894 in donations reported by Dr. Lateef, more than 70% come from outside of the County, and more than 40%, from out of state.  And let us not forget the nearly 15% that come from the candidate himself.

In toto, then, excluding money from the candidate himself, from out of state, and out of the County, Dr. Lateef has raised only $21,161, or less than 15%, from County residents or businesses within the County.  Many of the last appear to be from other medical professionals, medical suppliers, and even one of Dr. Lateef's employees (if Lateef were a Republican, no doubt the far Left would be screaming about how this individual was browbeaten into contributing, or some other nonsensical charge).

With these numbers, my guess is that many, perhaps most, of the "Friends of Babur Lateef" couldn't identify Prince William County on a map.  And to borrow a phrase from the moonbatosphere, one has to wonder whether the fact that most of Lateef's donations come from out of the County will prove to be "a disservice to Prince William County's more than 400,000 residents."

Why Congress Will And Should Be Paid

Many among my friends are complaining that Congress will be paid during the prospective government shutdown, and believe that they should not be.  I would remind them of the provisions of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Const., amend. XXVII (1992)

I don't like seeing the bastards --- particularly the Democrat bastards, who didn't bother to pass a budget when they were in charge --- getting paid while the government is shut down.  Particularly since they won't bother to save the taxpayers money be declining to pay retroactively government employees who are furloughed.

However, Conservatives must stand up for the Constitution.  All of it.  After all, if we don't, who will?  Certainly not President Barry and his Obamorons.

Therefore, I have no problem with paying Congress during a government shutdown.

Of course, you can see here for the uneducated moonbat position.

Timmy! Is In

You can view the video, entitled "The Best Decision I Ever Made," here.  It had 147 views --- apparently, all partisans in Virginia's moonbatosphere --- when I watched it on YouTube.  One suspects that the roll-out was designed to create some kind of far-Left echo-chamber, limiting commentary to that part of the Virginia blogosphere.

This does not appear in it:

Hopefully, he will be counting the decision to run for this seat as the worst decision he ever made, since we'll be finding out whether serving as a mouthpiece for the most radical President in American history translates into votes in Virginia.

I suspect not, but we shall see.

H/T to Ben Tribbett.

Say Goodbye To Professional Football

For some reason, I'm on this mailing list.  It appears that the 2011 National Football Season will not occur as planned:

Dear NFL Fan,

When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players' union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players' union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players’ financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.

The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.

We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.

While we are disappointed with the union's actions, we remain steadfastly committed to reaching an agreement that serves the best interest of NFL players, clubs and fans, and thank you for your continued support of our League. First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone.

 

Yours, Roger Goodell

Yours, Roger Goodell

Of course, some will attribute this to hostility to unions.  'Fact is, as far as I can tell, it's strictly an economic dispute ... one in which both sides could well be put to their proofs.

David Englin: Virginia's Dumbest Delegate?

Apparently, Delegate David Englin may be the dumbest member of the Virginia House of Delegates.  Either that, or he's simply a liar.

Give the guy credit: he's got the talking points down.  The Wisconsin situation is about "destroying public employee unions."  The budget was a "red herring."  "Removing the ability of teachers and janitors and other public employees to band together to make a better lives for themselves."

Nice soundbites, all.

Reality?  Not hardly.

Of course, repealing the special privileges possessed by labor unions --- monopoly (not collective) bargaining; government collection of their union dues --- is not about "Removing the ability of teachers and janitors and other public employees to band together to make a better lives for themselves."  After all, that sounds like a First-Amendment right that's being attacked, doesn't it?

Can little Davey Englin really not know the difference between the right to come together to petition government --- an actual right, one left unmolested by the Wisconsin bill --- and the special monopoly bargaining privilege which is being repealed?  If so, he may be too stupid to sit in the Virginia House of Delegates.

"The point of a Right to Work law is to end collective bargaining"?!?!?

No, Davey: the point of a Right to Work law is to deny a union the power to force nonmembers to pay union dues (to be fair, his debate opponent seems no more informed about what the law does).  The union still possesses monopoly bargaining power.  Unfortunately.

Apparently, Englin is so captured by his union contributors that he can't even get the facts right about what a Right to Work law does.

Either that, or he's simply channeling President TelePrompTer, mindlessly repeating the Talking Points.

David Broder, RIP

The "dean of the Washington press corps, " David Broder, has died at age 81.

While decidedly a member of the "old media," everyone in the "new media" owes a debt of gratitude to Broder.

We will not see his like pass this way again.

RIP.

I Guess Principles Had Nothing To Do With It

And now, a quick rundown on the response of Virginia's Moonbatosphere to President Barry's Executive Order to keep Guantanamo Bay's camp for terrorism suspects, and resume military tribunals to prosecute them:



Well, OK: there's one.

Waldo Jaquith's indispensable Virginia Political Blogroll is otherwise empty of commentary or criticism of President Barry's adoption of Bush 43 Administration policy.

Even When He's Right, It's For The Wrong Reasons

In my post yesterday, I noted that many on the far Left were due for a healthy serving of crow over the Supreme Court's decision yesterday in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ___ (2011).  Our Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, took a lot of grief last June, when he distinguished himself by being one of only two Attorneys General who refused to sign onto a brief in support of Snyder, and against the Phelpses.  Of course, the Phelpses won.

A moonbat over at Blow Me, Vir... er, "Blue Virginia" is still trying to challenge Attorney General Cuccinelli's motives.  Amazing!  Apparently, according to "lowkell" (Lowell Feld?), the Attorney General is a "hypocrite" because he "assault[s] speech when he doesn't like it, defending it when it doesn't bother him so much (apparently)," and was right, though "not necessarily for the right reasons."  The meme is that the Attorney General likes the speech of the Phelps cult, but doesn't like the speech of Michael Mann, a globaloney ... er, "global warming," ... "anthropomorphic climate change" advocate whose work is subsidized by the tax dollars of hard-working Virginians.

On the one hand, it's nice to see that the far Left has learned its lesson about vilifying American servicemen, since it was only a few decades ago that they were spitting --- actually, not figuratively --- on returning soldiers who answered their country's call to fight Communist expansionism in Southeast Asia.  I'm not old enough to remember if so-called "anti-war activists" picketed the funerals of those who fell in battle in the Sixties and early Seventies, and I'm really not interested in researching it to find out, but you have to wonder whether today's moonbats would be upset if the picketing occurred in the Bush 43 Administration, as a protest of a policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, which incidentally liberated 50 million Muslims from tyranny.

It's really a damn shame that the far Left can't tell the difference between free speech (i.e., the Phelps cult) and subsidized speech (state university professors; state employees; government-subsidized "family-planning" clinics).

And, of course, government-subsidized speech is rightly subject to government oversight, because he who pays the piper always calls the tune.

Oh, Waiter? One Order Of Crow (with apologies to Jeff Greenfield)

ha.  Ha.  HA!

As most of the politically-aware know, the Supreme Court today issued its decision in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ___ (2011).  As someone who's had the privilege of arguing a First-Amendment case before the Court, it's certainly an interesting case, from a professional perspective ... it demonstrates that any idiot can argue and win a case in the Supreme Court.

Snyder is about that vile and despicable little cult --- made up mostly of members of the same family, the Phelpses --- who spend their time protesting the funerals of dead soldiers and alienate those who otherwise agree that the radical homosexual agenda is anti-Christian, bad public policy, and bad for America.  The Supreme Court held today that the First Amendment protects their political demonstrations at funerals, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions generally applicable, and that they were not liable to Mr. Snyder, whose son's funeral sparked a distant protest a few years back.

But that's really not the point, at least for Virginians.  You see, our Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, took a lot of grief last June, when he refused to sign onto a brief in support of Snyder, and against the Phelpses, who were defending their First-Amendment rights to be a**holes.

He was one of only two Attorneys General in the United States to refuse to do so.  The other was from Maine

And, oh MY!, Virginia's moonbatosphere went WILD!  Blow Me, Vir... er, "Blue Virginia."; Virginia Democrats; Moonhowlings (A Place for Civil Debate), said this:

The speech of WBC far exceeds any speech deemed tolerable by a civilized society. Their speech should be treated like yelling fire in a crowded theater or using the F word during prime time TV. The behavior of Westboro Baptist Church (sic) is totally unacceptable to conservatives, liberals, and moderates. What is Cuccinelli thinking? He should pay the political price, as father Albert Snyder states. Who ever thought the Cooch would be cozied up with the ACLU? I suppose politics makes real strange bedfellows in this case. Or…perhaps the Cooch agrees with WBC.

I've got to admit, I got a laugh out of that: the place that deems itself "A Place for Civil Debate" belittling one they loath.

Even some elected officials joined in the blast-fest: Delegate Ward Armstrong (D-Collinsville), House Minority Leader called it "inexcusable."

Even a homosexual website came up on Google saying that he didn't do so "Because Kenny boy hates him some fags just like Westboro, that's why!"

Or perhaps --- just maybe --- it's because he respects the First Amendment.  You know: just like those fag-haters on the Supreme Court, the ones who struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas.


Let's make sure we say this plainly: Cuccinelli, one other state Attorney General --- right, and in agreement with eight Justices of the Supreme Court, in a decision vindicating First Amendment freedom; Virginia moonbatosphere, 48 other state Attorneys General --- wrong, and in agreement with a single Justice of the Supreme Court.

More than a few of Virginia's sanctimonious far Left should be bellying up to the table for a healthy serving of crow tonight.

Enormously Sad

I confess that I like Two and a Half Men.  It's simply very funny and well-written, a lampoon of a drunken, gambling satyr; a commentary on men when they submit to their darker natures.  That it has survived for nearly a decade on network television speaks to its entertainment value (among other less praiseworthy things).  It is a guilty pleasure of Mrs. Skeptical Observor, who resides with one and two half-men of her own.

Sadly, Charlie Sheen seems to have been typecast in the role.  He's an enormously talented guy who first rose to Hollywood prominence in Oliver Stone's Platoon and Wall Street (and never mind their politics) holding his own against his more prominent and accomplished co-stars like Willem Dafor, Tom Berenger, and Michael Douglas.  He demonstrated his range in Hot Shots, a satire on Teop Gun.

And even with his wild lifestyle, he demonstrates a self-awareness that must speak to his intelligence.  When he was connected to "Hollywood Madam" Heidi Fleiss, he was quoted as observing that men pay prostitutes to go away.  Cold?  Absolutely.  Self-aware and insightful?  True, as well.

And now, he seems to be living the life that "Charlie Harper" has been living on network television during the run of his show.  However, the consequences so rarely suffered in a 22-minute situation comedy cannot be avoided in real life, even the semi-real life of a Hollywood star.

And his self-destruction has been much in the news of late.  He's alienated all of those around him (today, his publicist), and seems hell-bent on alienating his distinguished acting family which (again, forget their politics) has stood with him.

It's truly sad to see an enormously-talented man's decline played out in a media more interested in acting like celebrity-stalking paparazzi than in reporting on real news.

Good Thing We've Got The Vanguard Of The Proletariat To Rule ... er, "Protect" Us

According to "Kaz" over at "ProgressiveDem," "Ignorant Voters Have Inflicted Grievous Damage."

And no, he's not referring to the Obamorons.

Instead, he speaks of "voters last November [who] traveled the road to self-destruction by electing right wing GOP House members hell bent on creating an even more corporate controlled government and determined to eliminate the common good."

The arrogance of that statement is astounding.  Never mind the ridiculous notion that the Republican in Congress are "right wing"; we all know that moonbats habitually refer to anyone to the right of Saul Alinsky as "right wing."  And never mind the punctuation-challenged, quasi-Marxist rhetoric about "corporate[-]controlled government."

It's that "common good" line that's truly demonstrates the author's arrogance.

I have a set of beliefs.  I believe them to be correct.  I am an attorney, and therefore, arrogance is an occupational hazard.

But the far Left is so narcissistically self-absorbed that some of its practitioners claim a monopoly on "the common good."  Ignoring, of course, the destructive effects of eighty years of Liberal governance.

As local radio talk show host Chris Plante is fond of observing, "Frequently appalled; never surprised."

Who Is it Who's "Deranged"?

Virginia's moonbatosphere is all atwitter over the Richmond Times-Dispatch's identification of former Governor --- and now DNC Chairman --- Tim Kaine's reflexive support of nationwide Democrat's most loyal constituency: labor bosses.

Yeah, I know: African-Americans vote Democrat in higher numbers (85-90%) than union members (usually, around 60-70%).  That's why I said "labor bosses": the percentage of union money going to Democrat candidates is higher (95% or more) even than the percentage of African-Americans who are loyal Democrat voters.

Here's what the Times-Dispatch said in today's lead editorial:

Democratic activists would love to see former Gov. Tim Kaine, currently the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, take on former Gov. George Allen in a race for the Senate. Affable and sharp, Kaine would make a formidable opponent. But he may have had his macaca moment, and its name is Wisconsin.

[T]he DNC has been aiding and abetting the protesters in Wisconsin through its campaign arm, Organizing for America.

As usual, the far Left makes a false equivalency.  The Richmonder said this:

So let's get this straight; in the deranged minds of the editorial board of the Richmond Times Dispatch, Tim Kaine's display of concern for a group of American workers who are being threatened and oppressed by an out of control rogue governor is somehow equivalent to George Allen's use of a racial slur at a campaign event.

The lemming-like moonbats over that Blow Me, Virgin... er, "Blue Virginia," work to create the far-Left echo chamber by repeating the charge.

Of course, the false far-Left narrative lies in the premises: that this is about "concern," and that it's about "a group of American workers who are being threatened and oppressed by an out of control rogue governor."  This is a lie.  "American workers" in Wisconsin are not being "threatened;" what is being "threatened" is union bosses' monopoly bargaining power.  And no one in Wisconsin is being repressed, except perhaps for the majority of voters whose will is being thwarted by Democrat Senators who walked off the job rather than fulfilling their duties.  And the national Democrats' calculus is not "concern"; it's a cold political calculus about those union bosses who fund their campaigns with forced union dues (which would end under Governor Walker's plan).

And "out of control rogue governor"?  That's the most lunatic charge of all: prohibiting/ending public-employee monopoly bargaining has no more radical a supporter than Franklin D. Roosevelt.

And, of course, that's not what the Times-Dispatch said at all.  What it was doing was comparing George Allen's politically-stupid moment with Tim Kaine's equally politically-stupid moment.

And if Tim Kaine has any hope for an electoral future in Virginia, the Times-Dispatch has it exactly right.

Democrat Congressman Calls For Union Violence

Just when you thought Democrat behavior couldn't be any more despicable, you read this, from Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Michael Capuano: "I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going.  Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary."  Capuano apparently was referring to the current imbroglio in Wisconsin.

And yet, in Virginia's moonbatosphere, even today, you still find political ambulance chasers trying to smear Conservatives with the illegal actions of criminals, with 'nary a word about Democrat calls for violence.

Anybody want to make a bet as to whether Capuano will be held responsible if there's union-mob violence in Wisconsin?

Sanctimonious.  Hypocritical.  A**holes.

UPDATE: Capuano now says he regrets his remarks.  One is entitled wonder whether he regrets more that they were reported.

What Wisconsin Is Really About

All of the sturm und drang over Wisconsin is much in the news of late (see the frontpage of Drudge for numerous articles).  The newly-elected GOP Governor makes proposal to limit monopoly bargaining "rights" held by government employee unions, and require --- for the first time --- contributions to health and pension benefits to address both short-term budget issues and long-term structural issues.  Unionized government employees respond by taking to the streets on work days; government schools shut down because of teacher "sickouts" (apparently, with self-identified "medical personnel" out in the streets offering fraudulent medical excuses to avoid disciplinary action for illegal absences); Democrat state senators flee state to deny a quorum to vote on the issue.


And remember all those claims on the far Left about how those nasty Conservatives were calling them "un-American" because they opposed some or all of the policies put into place by President George W. Bush in the wake of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center?  Never actually saw such an accusation, and no links were ever provided to such slanders, but there was such an accusation leveled today against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.

To be sure, there's a lot of talk about "justice" being thrown about.  You'll find post all over the Internet --- locally, from those in Wisconsin; and right here in Virginia's moonbatosphere --- denying the fiscal realities, and claiming that this is some kind of "rights" are at issue.  One of my favorites is the suggestion is that what is at issue is "the brave people in Wisconsin [who] refuse to give up their rights to organize and to bargain as a group."  Even some purportedly on "the Right" have leveled the accusation that what is going on in Wisconsin is about "rights."

Of course, no such thing is at issue in Wisconsin.  The notion that "rights" are at issue is simply silly.  The Supreme Court has plainly held that there is no Federal constitutional "right" to monopoly bargaining (unions use the euphemism "collective bargaining," but "collective" bargaining does not require the monopoly enjoyed by most private- and public-sector unions in the United States).  Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Emp., Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463, 465 & n.2 (1979) ("the First Amendment does not impose any affirmative obligation on the government to listen, to respond or, in this context, to recognize the association and bargain with it") (per curiam).  Precedent in the Seventh Circuit to the same effect was relied upon and cited with approval in Smith.  Hanover Township Federation of Teachers v. Hanover Community School Corp., 457 F.2d 456, 461 (7th Cir. 1972), quoting Indianapolis Education Assn. v. Lewallen, 72 LRRM 2071, 2072 (7th Cir. 1969) (“‘there is no constitutional duty to bargain collectively with an exclusive bargaining agent’”).

And nothing in Governor Scott Walker's proposal would limit the right --- the real one enshrined in the First Amendment, not an illusory one --- of Wisconsin government employees to voluntarily form associations together and lobby and petition government.

What is at issue in Wisconsin is the power of Wisconsin government employee unions to exercise a monopoly on representation.  Government-employee unions in Wisconsin (and in states which grant such powers, by statute) extinguish the individual right to bargain over terms and conditions of employment with a majority vote of workers in bargaining units.  What is also at issue is the statutorily-imposed obligation of the state and local governments to bargain with government-employee unions, an obligation which is not imposed for, say, taxpayer groups.

The fact that this is about the power of government union bosses was demonstrated yesterday.  It was reported yesterday that "Top leaders of two of Wisconsin's largest public employee unions announced they are willing to accept the financial concessions called for in Walker's plan, but will not accept the loss of collective bargaining rights."

Any further claims that this controversy is about "rights," and not the power of labor union bosses, is simply dishonest.

And Let The Foolishness Begin

Came across this little gem on Waldo's indispensible Virginia Political Blogroll.

It's a post on "Blue Virginia," the moonbat website that so fears dissent that it allows comments only from those who register (and, I'm informed, will revoke registration by those who don't toe the moonbat line).  Therefore, those who don't measure up to its level of moonbattery must respond somewhere else.  Here, for instance.

In this post. Miles Grant trashes George Allen because his book is for sale at bargain prices on Amazon.com.  He also claims not to have known that Senator Allen wrote his book last year, though how one claims to be even marginally educated in Virginia politics but is unaware that a once and future statewide political candidate wrote a book is not explained.

Nevertheless, Miles goes on to note that "other more astute books on politics remain full price long after their release, either due to their irreplaceable content or due to our nation's college students being fleeced (I report, you decide)."

The link is to Nutroots ... er, "Netroots Rising," a 2008 tome by Lowell Feld (also of "Blue Virginia") and Nate Wilcox, which is apparently selling for somewhat nearer to its original price on Amazon.com than is former Senator Allen's book.

Well, a lot of things affect price in a free market, and I certainly don't expect any far-Lefty to understand markets.  Nevertheless, it is worth noting that Senator Allen's book is currently "ranked #268,910 out of 810,000 books in the Kindle store" (today, it's "#269,230 Paid in Kindle Store"), it's ranked "#99,500 in Books."


And where, you might ask, is Nutroots ... er, "Netroots Rising" ranked?  Well, Miles doesn't tell us.

As of this writing, it's ranked "#338,946 in Books," and "#386,363 Paid in Kindle Store."

In short, both versions of Nutroots ... er, "Netroots Rising" are ranked substantially lower than Senator Allen's book.  Of course, the latter is doubtless better, since it has the virtue of sanity lacked by the former.

Another Democrat Smear Campaign

This one will be aimed at Congressman Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

I guess that, when your economic policies leave one in ten American out of work, and your health care policies cost your party control of one House of Congress, and your spending policies run up more debt than any two of your precedessors, all you're left with is a smear campaign.

Given the tenor of the far-Left moonbatosphere, this development is hardly surprising.

Why Did Mubarak Delay His Resignation?

If there's a better reason that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak delayed for less than a day his departure than to give The Finger to President Barry, I can't think of it.

Heh, heh, heh.

President Barry's New Theme

While I didn't watch the SOTU address last night, I have heard that the President has adopted a new theme for his Administration: "Winning the Future."

For those of us old enough to remembers Gerald Ford and his "Whip Inflation Now" theme, and the "WIN" buttons, you have to admit that a button with this acronym, on a background of the campaign logo or President Barry's picture, is far more appropriate.  Certainly more entertaining!

Imagine it: President Barry's picture or stylized "O" logo in the background, with "WTF!" superimposed over it.

Now, there's a button I would wear!

Sadly, I lack the graphic skills to create appropriate image.

"Blood Libel"? Yes, It Is

Well, that didn't take long.  Within hours --- minutes? --- of my last post, there were plenty on the far Left who went looking for scapegoats, and found them, conveniently, among ideological foes.  Including the Arizona Sheriff for the jurisdiction in which the shooting occurred.

What is it that Rush Limbaugh says about the dangers of illustrating the folly of the far Left with the absurd?  Something about coming up with a satire, and finding out shortly later than it has, in fact, become a policy proposal of some Democrat official, candidate, or constituency.

And anybody who makes the far Left this insane must be doing something right.

I speak, of course, about former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who was immediately accused by far Left moonbats and their media apologists for having some responsibility in the tragic mass shooting occurring in Arizona on Saturday (see here and here for whole series of idiocies).  To be sure, there were a few responsible people of the Left who declined to enter into the feeding frenzy and use this tragedy as an excuse for attacking those they loathe, but they were largely drowned out by the moonbat contingency.

Or, as Governor Palin put it:

"Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."

And of course, the far Left howled!  Howled that Governor Palin had the temerity to defend herself against their smears.  Howled that she dared use the term "blood libel."

Even some normally sensible Conservatives were discomfitted by use of the term.  Here's how Jonathan Tobin, at the Commentary website, described the roots of the term:

the false accusation that Jews kidnap and murder Christian children and use their blood to help bake matzoh for Passover. This canard was popularized during the Middle Ages by European Christians and has been revived in recent decades in the Arab world as Jew-hatred has become an unfortunate staple of contemporary Islamic culture.

In fact, Tobin goes on to defend Palin's use of the term though, of course, it is divorced from its roots in anti-Semitism (another disease of the far Left not implicated in their current slanders):

[T]he claim that Palin has crossed some bright line in the sand and “stolen” a phrase that has always and should always be used to describe only one thing is absurd. Like so much else that has been heard from the left in the wake of the shootings in Arizona, this further charge against Sarah Palin is groundless. The fact is, those who are trying to link her or other conservatives to this crime are committing a kind of blood libel. Take issue with her politics or dislike her personality if that is your inclination, but the idea that she has even the most remote connection to this event is outrageous. So, too, is the manufactured controversy over “blood libel.”

Tobin's point is a valid one: the "blood libel" is a smear used against one's enemies to accuse them of having the blood of innocents on their hands.  And it has been used to justify actions against a perceived enemy (Jews in Europe in the Middle Ages, and in more recent times, and in the Arab world more recently).

Hmmm.  "Toxic rhetoric"?  "Overheated political rhetoric"?  "Hate speech"?  Reimpose the "fairness doctrine" to stifle Conservative talk radio?

Sounds like Governor Palin has it just about right to me.  "Blood libel," indeed.

Sad News

The shooting of an Arizona Congresswoman and numerous others reminds us that those who stick their heads up are going to be shot at ... sometimes literally.  Certainly, all pray that she survives and recovers from this despicable attack.

But I have to wonder how long it will be before some asshat blames Conservatives and/or the Tea Party for the attack.

UPDATE: It's now being reported that Federal District Court Judge John M. Roll was shot and killed in the attack.  Given the issues of life and death handled in the courts, one has to wonder whether he might not have been the primary target.

From The Frontlines Of The Culture War

The news is not good:

And so the purges have begun....

It's just so ... Stalinesque.