John Gray: Political Chameleon

Once again, from the invaluable Denny Daugherty:

Candidate profile

John S. Gray (D)

Washington Post
June 5, 2003

What do you think is the most urgent problem facing your jurisdiction?

"There are several significant issues: (1) Uncontrolled development: 34,000 more houses to be built, with poor planning for roads, schools and other infrastructure to support those houses. (2) Uncontrolled spending: County spending has increased 60 percent in the past four years alone. Its not possible that spending is 'bare bones.' There is fat in this budget. (3) Uncontrolled real estate growth: Even with the tax rate 'reduced' to $1.16, taxes have increased more than 40 percent in the past four years. We need to get development, spending and taxes under control. They aren't now!"

John Gray sounds a lot like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates: you never know what you're going to get. Heck, it's hardly a secret that I'm no fan of Chairman Sean and his record, but I suppose that I look fair to Connaughtonites compared to Gray's blunderbuss shot.

The Desperation Starts Early

Well, it seems that Democrat Senate candidate Jim Webb and his minions have seen the handwriting on the wall, and are playing the race card early and often. The Washington Post has jumped on the bandwagon, too. The accusation seems to be that Allen referred to the young man in question not as a political flunkie for the Webb campaign, but using an obscure term that refers to a monkey.

This is too rich. It reminds me of the story out of the University of Pennsylvania a few years ago, where Eden Jacobowitz called noisy people outside of his dorm room "water buffaloes," and was accused of racial insensitivity.

That Webb and his media supporters are already desperate enough to trump up this charge is nothing but good news for the Allen campaign. What's really too bad is that Allen's fair-weather friends are already jumping on the band wagon. Or maybe it's good, because it simply reveals them for the opportunistic weak sisters that they really are.

John Gray: Friend of the Taxpayer?

As a member of the Board of the Prince William Taxpayers' Alliance, I receive a number of mailings. Denny Daugherty checked his files, and sent this along this morning:

Washington Post
March 14, 2004
Author: Letters To The Editor

At the March 9 board meeting, Supervisor Corey A. Stewart of Occoquan stunningly asked the board to direct the county staff to prepare the 2005 budget with a real estate tax rate of $1.01 per $100 of assessed value instead of the $1.10 as presented. The $1.10 rate is a reduction from the $1.16 rate used in 2004.
While I have absolutely no problem with the premise of the question, the manner in which it was raised is beyond explanation.
During his campaign, Mr. Stewart pledged to the Taxpayers Alliance not to raise taxes beyond a set formula approximating 6 percent for 2005. Real estate tax revenues are projected to raise by 12.6 percent at the $1.10 rate. The Taxpayers Alliance formula would result in a 2005 tax rate of 99 cents. In short, the Taxpayers Alliance would require a drop from $1.16 to 99 cents, or about $56 million.
Bear in mind that the $56 million cut would be shared with the schools, meaning the county would have to cut spending by $24 million and the schools by $32 million. Obviously, the concern is where those huge cuts are to be made. The alliance states it is up to the county and the schools to identify those cuts, not the alliance. I disagree, but I can live with it.
I have nothing against spending cuts, and if we can identify them, fine. Let's cut. But I do not believe we have $56 million in excess spending in the budget.
Mr. Stewart obviously thinks we have at least $49 million because that's what he proposed to be cut. What galls me is that he did so without any input from his constituents or his Budget Committee, of which I was supposed to be a part. The proposed budget has been out exactly two weeks. His Budget Committee met once. He has never held a town meeting to discuss his constituents' questions. So where did the $1.01 rate come from?
Obviously Mr. Stewart's only concern was to honor his Taxpayers Alliance pledge. Don't his constituents have any say in their taxes?
Please don't tell me this is his fight for lower taxes. The $1.01 rate is arbitrary, capricious and without any merit or basis in fact or numbers. The rate was pulled out of the air and is fictitious.
He could have waited until county staff members gave their presentations of their individual department budgets and then asked them, "Where do you think we could possibly reduce spending in your department?" No, he just picked the $1.01 rate without any concern for his constituents.
And by publicly stating that as a supervisor it is not his responsibility to know the budget in detail, nor is it his responsibility to identify his proposed cuts (that's the staff's job), he has precluded his Budget Committee from doing its job.
Two weeks ago, at the county executive's presentation of the budget, Mr. Stewart was trying to illustrate that the 7-cent countywide fire levy is an additional tax.
It is. No question. So is the gypsy moth fee and the storm water management fee, but that wasn't Mr. Stewart's point. He was trying to show that because Fairfax doesn't have the 7-cent fire levy, our taxes are higher than Fairfax's.
What he didn't know was that Fairfax doesn't have a volunteer fire system, so the 7 cents we pay is really very fair, as it represents just "hard costs" of the volunteers. We don't pay them wages or benefits.
The permanent fire staff accounts for 8 cents of the $1.10 rate being proposed. So getting rid of the 7-cent levy would result in at least an 8-cent increase in the tax rate to cover the new staff necessary to replace the volunteers. Wow! That's tax reduction if I ever saw it!
There is a level of on-the-job training necessary to be a supervisor, but Mr. Stewart is quickly that showing his short 31/2-year residency in Prince William County, and his lack of any substantive community involvement in those years, have not remotely prepared him to be a upervisor.
He needs to consider resigning now, before he does more damage than he already has in these 10 weeks to the political career he really wants. Occoquan citizens not only deserve better; we demand it.
John S. Gray
Lake Ridge

But wait! Isn't this the same John Gray who sent out an announcement last week which was quoted by one blogger as claiming that:

The far-right agenda for real estate taxation has in fact and truth been to vote against the reduction in the tax rate for the last three years. If their votes had prevailed, your real estate tax rate would still be $ 1.36, not the current rate of .76 cents. Think about that for a minute!

It appears that the self-proclaimed Connaughtonite candidate for the Board needs to get his talking points straight. 'Course, it is utterly clear that Gray is Connaughtonite in one way: he'll apparently say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear in order to get elected.

More Lies from AWCheney

Since sleaze is not a preferred method for GOP political operatives, it appears that Prince William's own AWCheney is making a bid for a career in the media.

I hear Reuters has openings for which she would be well-suited.

Squish Search and Destroy Mission

Well, as one might expect, the anti-Republicans at Sean Connaughton's Cult of Personality ... er, "Too Conservative" (for whom, I wonder? Raging Maoists?) are continuing in their efforts to attack anyone who dared to stand up against Chairman Sean's tax-and-spend ways.

Never mind that Chairman Sean ran in 2003 attacking those whom he alleged were in the pockets of developers, such as Republican Mary Hill, and turned around in 2005 and funded his failed campaign for the GOP nomination for Lieutenant Governor with developers (i.e., pro-tax increases) money. Never mind Chairman Sean's own record of tax increases.

Now, however, the pseudonymous cowards over at TC are attacking Corey Stewart because he dares to hold a fundraiser at Tim's Rivershore Restaurant. In his patented belittling style --- one even gets a whiff of his dime-store psychology --- "NoVA Scout" criticizes Corey for holding a fundraiser at "Tim’s Riverhouse in Dumfries."

Of course, "NoVA Scout" reveals in his misnomer just how ill-informed he is; though I've never eaten there, even I know that it's actually "Tim's Rivershore." But "NoVA Scout" reveals in his misrepresentations just how desparate he is to disparage anyone who stands up against higher taxes, as Corey has consistently done.

You see, "NoVA Scout" misrepresents the facts with broad generalizations. Here's what he says:

Tim’s and the County have been locked in a nasty spat over code violations for some time now. The attitude of Tim’s Riverhouse strikes me as defiance of demands for compliance with County building and health codes. If you go to the Tim’s Riverhouse Website, you get a strong flavor of how fervently the owners have seen this as a political issue. Despite the political pressure, the county marched ahead with its enforcement activities. The County’s legal position was upheld this past May when Tim’s owner, Mr. Bauckman, was convicted and given some stiff fines by the court. Mr. Bauckman is appealing those convictions. I’ve heard that County officials still regard Tim’s as being non-compliant with certain site and sanitation requirements.

Now, if you read that, you might get the impression that eating at Tim's might give you a good case of food poisoning. Witness the reference to "sanitation requirements." There is a later reference to "health, safety and building codes," and the general suggestion that Corey Stewart isn't really interested in law enforcement. It is almost reminiscent of far Left imprecations that "children would die" if the GOP Congress were successful in slowing the increases in socialist welfare programs during the Clinton regime.

Of course, a minimal Internet search will tell you otherwise, which is perhaps why "NoVA Scout" doesn't bother with any links. One could, for example, go to Supervisor Maureen Caddigan's website, and find reprinted a column by James Simpson in the Potomac News that discusses the controversy, and reveals that it is only about the safety of the decks at Tim's.

And while I normally don't believe the Post, a Washington Post article on the controversy reveals the truth of the matter:

County officials said they took the action June 9 because the restaurant's owner, Tim Bauckman, rebuilt and expanded the outdoor seating area without proper permission after Hurricane Isabel heavily damaged it. They say Bauckman then refused to cooperate with county officials and went ahead and rebuilt his restaurant his way.

Of course, what makes Sean Connaughton's Cult of Personality ... er, "Too Conservative," so charming is that it will predictably parrot whatever Chairman Sean says, even when --- as is frequently his wont --- he misrepresents the facts. Here's what Chairman Sean was quoted (emphasis added) as saying at the time, making the same misrepresentation:

"We have a 1960s-era waterman's hangout that has now turned into a 300-seat open-air restaurant," said board Chairman Sean T. Connaughton (R). "I can tell you very sincerely that the county wants to see Tim's operate and get it legal as soon as possible. The owners just have to start working . . . to make sure the building, site plan, sewer and water and safety issues are addressed."

What this contoversey mainly seems to have been about is the fact that it tends to belie Chairman Sean's claims to have streamlined the bureaucracy to make Prince William County a "business-friendly" location. At least for long-established, un-gentrified businesses.

I'm not going to re-hash the entire controversy here. My point (and I do have one) is that one gets an entirely different understanding of what it was about if one makes the mistake of relying upon the post at TC. But understanding the controversy is, of course, not their point. Denigrating Corey Stewart is.

I almost commented about this over there. But casting pearls before those cowardly swine increasingly appears to be an utter waste of time. After all, in trashing Corey, the author demonstrates his de facto support for Corey's opponent, John Gray.

Of course, John Gray has experience in running for office. He was a candidate for Occoquan District Supervisor in 2003. Oh, yeah. It was for the Democrat nomination.

Webb Hagiography at Huffington Post

The paid hacks at Raising Kaine have a link and an extended quotation from a glowing endorsement of James Webb at Huffington Post.

Wow. One political dilletante/turncoat endorses another. Color me surprised.

Another Function of Cowardice? Or Just Jealousy?

Well, the children over at Too Conservative have decided to initiate a flame war. Nothing surprising here; they belittle me, in their standard attack upon anyone who makes reasonable surmises about the fact that all save Vince (to whom this comment does not apply) cower in anonymity/pseudonymity, and therefore, hide from public view the ability to judge their prejudices accordingly.

It's absolutely incredible to me that some claim to be Republicans and/or Conservatives, and that they should be listened to, even though none has the courage to attach their names and reputations to their sage advice, and frequently attack those who actually lead and either have or continue to put it on the line for their beliefs.

It's a considerable step down from those who publicly pledged their "lives, ... fortunes, ... and sacred Honor" to found this nation, and the many who actually gave them.

Or maybe it's just the fact that at least one person considers them less influential than yours truly.

FLASH! Tax Growth Outpaces Income Growth In PWC

Here's a little news flash for those who are still in denial over the outrageous growth of taxes in PWC: "Real estate property tax growth in ... Prince William [C]ount[y] far outpaced personal income growth from 2000 to 2004." "[I]n Prince William, personal income grew by 13 percent to $35,198, while real estate taxes went up nearly 35 percent."

OK, so it's not news to those who don't subscribe to ... uh ... let us say, a little cult of personality. But perhaps those remaining in denial will, at long last, admit the truth.

But don't count on it.

Webb Campaign Drops Slogan

Well, it seems that the blogosphere is all abuzz over the fact that Democrat Senate candidate James Webb is dropping his "Born Fighting" slogan. I've frequently wondered whether it was merely a ham-handed attempt to boost his book sales.

However, on the principle that no challenger's campaign can be without a good slogan, or even a lame one, I hereby open the floor to a contest to pick the best, most appropriate slogan for the Webb campaign. Here are a few entries:

1. "Born Equivocating"

2. "Born Elsewhere"

3. "Born Quibbling"

Submit your best entries in comments.

I Guess Thieves Have Their Priorities In Order...

From Neal Boortz, the following story demonstrating that no good deed goes unpunished:

NO GOOD DEED .....

I saw a pretty nasty accident last week. It happened about a quarter-mile south of my Peachtree Rd. condo. An old SUV full of some rather hefty women (at least I think they were women) left the road, ran across a lawn, plowed through a fence and then took a nose dive about 20 feet straight down to the entrance of a basement parking garage. From the looks of things everyone went right through the front window. One woman wasn't moving when I got there, but the EMTs determined she was alive and transported her to Grady Hospital. Two days later I'm told she was still in ICU.

Anyway ... why am I telling you this story? After all, stupid people not wearing seat belts get thrown through windshields virtually every day.

Well .. it seems that someone who worked at a nearby apartment building was one of the first on the scene. He called 911 on his cell phone. One of the victims who was not horribly hurt asked to borrow his phone to make a call.

When she got through making the call she put the phone in her pocket and refused to return it. Days later calls were still being made on the phone.

When the owner of the phone would call his own number and ask that the phone be returned they would just hang up. The theft of his phone was reported to the police. We'll see if anything happens.

There's some real scum running around out there. Good people die in accidents all the time, but the cretin who stole this cell phone somehow survived. Pity.

One can only hope that the thief is enjoying exquisite pain.

Jumping the Shark at TC

With this post by a pseudonymous Connaughton sycophant, followed by a predictable "amen" chorus of anonymous/pseudonymous posters, and the very public effort of some to discredit the prudent course of the PWC GOP, can there be any doubt left that whomever it is who is left at Sean Connaughton's Cult of Personality has jumped the shark?

Phony Claims of Partisan Affiliation

I love political debate. What I despise is people who misrepresent themselves for purposes of lending credibility to their arguments.

So, for instance, there's the "I'm a Republican, but..." crowd, which tries to legitimize its attacks on Republicans or Republican positions by claiming affiliation with the GOP. I am always particularly skeptical of those callers to, for instance, C-SPAN, who make such claims before attacking the GOP. Our own local rag ... er, journal, is guilty of the same kind of misrepresentation, discussed in a letter yesterday by the Secretary of the Prince William County Republican Committee, Grant Bell. Grant rightly took the newspaper to task for its frequent claim that "Nobody likes taxes, but...." practices. This journal, which for a time moved towards being more reflective of its Conservative readership, virtually always preferences its endorsement of the latest tax increase proposal to come along with the claim that it doesn't always support higher taxes. The problem? No one can seem to remember the last time the Potomac News advocated against a proposed tax increase.

Take today's article in the Potomac News regarding yesterday's rally against the Marshall/Newman amendment, which will add the protection of Virginia's Constitution to the continuing assault by the perversion lobby against marriage and the family, provides a fine example of the practice, one which is easily refuted.

Here's the little vignette that caught my eye:

Kreamer's husband, Terry Kreamer, said passage of the amendment would be a step back for Northern Virginia, especially if it were to affect a business's ability to provide domestic partner benefits.

A registered Republican, Terry said that some gays and lesbians might take their business to Washington, D.C., or Maryland.

Now, maybe a more sophisticated reporter would have picked up the fact that Terry was lying through his teeth. Of course, there is no such thing as a "registered Republican" in Virginia. Our General Assembly, in its estimable wisdom, precludes registration by political party, so there are neither "registered Republicans" or "registered Democrats" in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

To be sure, there are ways to measure whether one is a Republican or Democrat. Donations, for instance. The Virginia Public Access Projected (www.vpap.org) list no reported donations by anyone named "Terry Kreamer" to any candidate or cause in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Opensecrets lists a single "Terry Kreamer" of Alexandria as having given money to Don Young, of Alaska.

Then there's whether the individual has ever darkened the door of a Republican event. To my knowledge, no individual named "Terry Kreamer" has ever done so in Prince William County. To be sure, I don't know every individual who has, but if such an individual were a prominent and/or respected Republican, I might know him.

However, an Internet search reveals a single listing (apparently of him and his wife, also identified in the article). They appear in the Bull Run Unitarian Universalist newsletter, and they appear to be active members. Of course, some consider this denomination to be less Christian (indeed, my impression is that it doesn't even pretend to be "Christian") as it is religion for the far Left.

Of course, it's by now a truism that opponents of the Marshall/Newman amendment are misrepresenting the amendment in their craven and disingenuous efforts to defeat it. But it is purely pathetic that they also misrepresent themselves to do so, as well.

UPDATE: An anonymous post in the comments indicates that this individual voted in Virginia's 2000 Presidential primary. This may call into question some of my conclusions, though one primary vote does not, in my never-to-be-humble opinion, a "committed Republican" make. It certainly does not make one a "registered Republican." One would presume that committed Virginia Republicans know that there (sadly) is no such thing in Virginia.

F.T. Rea's Peurile Behavior

Well, it seems that F.T. has now decided that even agreement from a Conservative is something he can't tolerate.

It seems that F.T. has a post discussing the injustice of Art Monk's exclusion from the Hall of Fame.

I agree with his discussion. This is an incredible injustice. So, in the spirit of agreeing where I can, I posted something to the effect of "Finally! A post with which I cannot disagree."

And given F.T.'s childish challenge to the rather simple bio posted here, I said something to the effect of "And no, Monk was NOT one of the Redskins that I represented."

Rather than merely taking it in the charitable tone in which it was intended, F.T. simply deleted it. Cast it down the memory hole. There isn't even a "Post deleted by blog administrator."

To use Waldo's phrase, what a maroon.

Idiocy from the Webb Campaign

Or perhaps I should say, more idiocy.

Attacking Senator George Allen for refusing to vote for a minimum wage increase, the Webb campaign manages to invoke the standard Democrat tactic of class warfare, while at the same time demonstrating its utter ignorance on matters economic:

I am sure the 153,000 hardworking Virginians who haven’t received a raise since 1997 would have appreciated it. But obviously, Allen’s too busy playing political games,” said Webb spokesperson Kristian Denny Todd.

Kristian, here's a little economic reality for you: Anybody who is still being paid minimum wage after nine years on the job, or who is still working at the same minimum wage job after nine years, doesn't deserve a raise.

Of course, with childish antics like this (Webb's own site is still trying to make hay of the fact that Senator Allen's middle name is "Felix"), perhaps Todd's interest in a minimum wage increase is understandable. If he's paying them what they're worth, one can't imagine that Webb is paying them much more than minimum wage.

Takes on Mel Gibson

I haven't commented on this, and I'm not sure I'm doing so now. However, there is an interesting story in today's LA Times on the reactions of his friends. Having had the bitter experience of dealing with alcoholics, I certainly question the notion that "it's the disease speaking."

Mona Charen has an interesting take --- and probably gets a lot closer to the truth, save for her comments about Steven Spielberg's Munich, with which I take some exception --- here, as well.

UPDATE: Having picked up David Horowitz's Anti-Chomsky Reader a few weeks ago, and having just delved into it, it occurs to me that many of the same people who are savaging Mel Gibson for his anti-Semitic rant--- contrary to the man that Jewish friends like Dean Devlin describe --- positively lionize Noam Chomsky, who is a an anti-Semite of biblical proportions and a Holocaust denier, too.

My Stalker is Back!

Well, I came across another website which seems to be dedicated to attacking me. I won't dignify it by linking to it here (why increase his or her site traffic, even to the pathetic extent that I have any?), but suffice it to say that it links to the stalker's site that appeared in April. It claims that I am a bigot because I judge people by their actions, specifically, their perverse sexual behavior.

You know, kind of like recognizing those poor, sad, anonymous/pseudonymous trolls for the cowards that they are.

I must confess that I am a bit disappointed, though. Damn it! The boys over at NoVA Townhall were first on his or her hit list!

To take a page from the far Left playbook that suggests that supporters of traditional marriage (which seems to be the main reason for this individual's fury), what is it about those of us who stand up for reason and values that you find so threatening?

Save Him From His "Supporters"

I came across a fascinating comment over at Ben Tribbett's site, made in the context of Ben's call for nominations for his patented "Weenie of the Week" and the (in my opinion) misnomered "Warner of the Week." Notwithstanding the fact that its author is a coward, i.e., anonymous, it really deserves a response at length, a response which doesn't lend itself well to a mere comment. Here's what this bozo said:

Weenie: Anti-Connaughtonites who spent all their time tearing the man down, but when they saw the chance to grab power became the sweetest singers of his praise. "He is a bad Republican, but Bush should definately appoint him." Give me a break!

Warner: Prince William Democrats. While the GOP has been publicly fighting and tearing itself apart over the Chairmanship, the Dems have been quietly laying in wait ready to pounce on a weakened and divided opponent.

Posted by: | August 04, 2006 at 03:59 PM

This is really funny. Well thought-out criticisms of the policies pursued by a politician --- one can only presume that the author refers to criticisms of Connaughton's tax-and-spend policies, as well as his craven efforts to seize control of the Prince William GOP --- are "tearing the man down." And recognition that, as an admiralty lawyer --- an extremely specialized area of practice --- and as a veteran, he is well-qualified for the post to which he now has been confirmed, makes us "the sweetest singers of his praise." That's not the hypocrisy intimated by the author of the post, but rather, fair assessments of the man's qualifications.

As a wise movie cop once said, "A man's got to know his limitations." Those who have suffered under the tax-and-spend policies of Connaughton are well-positioned to criticize those policies. They are not personal criticisms (Connaughton has so isolated himself from Conservatives that few of us know him personally); they are policy criticisms.

As for the assertion that Prince William Democrats have been "quietly laying in wait ready to pounce on a weakened and divided opponent," well, perhaps. Far more likely that the long, slow, lingering death of the Prince William Democrat party is reflected in the fact that the only vigorous intellectual debate over policy is occurring not between the two parties, but within the GOP.

F.T. Rea --- Moonbat Redux

F.T. Rea really hates it when someone turns the tables on him, and identifies his tactics and uses them on him. Of course, he fails to substantiate his claim that the President called Iraq an "imminent threat," but never mind that. Now he just attacks me, among others:

One angry defender of Bush’s Iraqi war policy writes on his blog: “...When F.T. [Rea] is called out for his lies, he engages in ... more lies!”
By “lies” the defender means that I disagree with his version of the run-up to the war in Iraq. This lathered up Bush defender claims the administration never ever said there was an imminent threat being posed by Iraq’s huge stores of weapons of mass destruction.
To suggest otherwise hurts Bush, so it simply makes one a liar.
****
Sadly, the lack of civility and lack of common decency illustrated above aren’t all that unusual today. It seems screaming insults at opponents has become acceptable in many circles. And, you know what -- none of this childish behavior has anything to do with making the world a better place.
None of it is really about candidates, or ideas, or the future. No. It has to do with self-promotion and meanness. It’s about brats being brats.
Perhaps when the heat weave passes, some of this will go away like bad air. But I'm not holding my breath.

A few pertinent points: (1) Nothing in my post "defend[s] ... Bush’s Iraqi war policy"; it merely notes that opponents based at least one element of their argument on a misrepresentation; (2) my comments do not illustrate a "lack of civility and lack of common decency," unless you count among those virtues the practice of couching in euphemism base and intentional misrepresentations of fact; and (3) it is amazing that someone who chooses to call the President of the United States and his Administration liars is now accusing someone else of "childish behavior."

Now, at least one thing F.T. gets right: "By 'lies' [I] mean[] that [F.T.] disagree[s] with [my] version of the run-up to the war in Iraq," to-wit, I "claim[] the administration never ever said there was an imminent threat being posed by Iraq’s huge stores of weapons of mass destruction." Now, reading that, you might conclude that the debate was about a matter of opinion, e.g., the merits and demerits of a policy of preemption, which is an eminently debatable point.

But this isn't about opinion; its about the fact that F.T.'s allegation that the President and his Administration advanced the notion that Iraq constituted an "imminent threat" is an utter, absolute falsehood. It's fact, and notwithstanding numerous opportunities to do so, F.T. persists in his failure to offer a countervailing fact. I can only conclude that he knows that there are none, since there would doubtless be numerous sources on the far Left happy to substantiate such an occurrence, had it ever occurred. In short, F.T. clearly indicate that he has suspended any pretense of relying upon evidence, instead preferring to rely upon a far Left urban legend. And since I assume that he is smart enough to know the difference, I can only conclude that he is engaging in an intentional mispresentation of fact, i.e., a "lie."

F.T.'s arrogance would be astounding, if it were not so pathetically unjustified in his inability to actually address the issue.

And BTW, I suppose that F.T. will try to dismiss the above as ad hominem argument. That would be incorrect. Ad hominem is like Mark Levin referring to Hillary Clinton as "Her Thighness" (a pretty funny line, truth be told). It's dismissing someone who demonstrates that you have been lying a "brat," or accusing them of "self-promotion and meanness." The above addresses F.T.'s misrepresentations of fact, and identifying a knowing falsehood and calling attention to its purveyor is hardly an ad hominem argument.

But --- getting back to the silly suggestion by F.T. that the President was involved in "Newspeak" and Orwellianism --- dismissing my argument as mere ad hominem would be so much easier than F.T. admitting that his attacks on me, like the major premise of his attack upon the President, are "designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Orwell, George, Politics and the English Language (1946).

UPDATE: F.T. has childish decided to delete my comments. Here's one that I have since posted, but as I expect it to be deleted, I'll reproduce it here:

You see, there you go again, F.T. You claim to not use the term "liar" lightly, implying that I do. In fact, I don't. I use it when it fits, and it manifestly fits when applied by those who set themselves up as authorities, make elaborate claims of presidential prevarication, and then fail to make their case. As you do. "Liar"? Absolutely.

And once again, you misrepresent the disagreement. It is not about politics. It is about the facts upon which you purport to premise your politics. Since one of those facts is so demonstrably false, it is difficult to imagine how you expect to have a civil conversation with those of us who are conversant with the facts.

Of course, with your childish decision to simply delete my posts, it is utterly clearly that you simply want to purvey your bilious myths, free of the bother of those who want to bring facts to the conversation.

Another far Left champion of free speech, and vigorous debate!

F.T. also offers some interesting comments about what he expect of lawyers, simply seeking to denigrate me. Of course, what he really seems to expect is that I will roll over and play dead for him.

Illegal Convention?

Riley's been all over this, and it appears that Chairman Sean's nomination to a post in the Bush Administration will be receiving the prompt attention it deserves (he seems well-qualified for the post).

Those in the blogosphere and elsewhere who have been screaming and hollering about an "illegal convention" --- some for self-serving political reasons and/or out of a desire to weaken a Conservative candidate --- should be preparing themselves for a hearty serving of crow.

New Kid in the Block

Well, it seems that there's a new organization out there, called "The Virginia Way."

I'm a little sick to death of those who appeal to objective criteria --- criteria they abandon when they become inconvenient --- to attack their political foes. Of course, one searches the website in vain for reference to any living individual willing to associate themselves with this group. One can only wonder whether their argument would be denigrated by their association with it, i.e., perhaps it is a front group for homosexual activists.

And, of course, Madison, Jefferson, and Monroe --- like John Adams in Massachusetts, whose state Constitution was used to justify gay "marriage" --- were well-known supporters of homosexual sodomy.

Remember When Flying Was Fun?

Via Drudge, another story on the joys of modern air travel.

A Reason to Celebrate

Well, according to at least one wise soul, I am now Virginia's eleventh most influential blogger, having risen in Republitarian's estimation from sixteenth. Either that, or the field has simply been thinned. I note that young Vince has dropped on the list significantly. 'Course, that could just be a function of his current location as a college student in Texas.

Nevertheless, never one to let a kindness go unrecognized, I offer my thanks to Republitarian.

Now, if I could only break the top ten!

Texas Air National Guard Jets Used to Help Oil Companies!

At least, that's what the environmentalist wackos at this website --- brought to my attention by Jim Riley over at Virtucon --- seem to think.

This is one of the more severe cases of Bush Derangement Syndrome I've ever seen. I wonder if it's just a goof?

Excessive Heat Warning

According to the Style section of the Washington Post, the prediction for 101-degree heat in the Washington area for today is "Satan-in-a-Speedo hot."

I don't know about you, but this alone renders the 2000, Brenda Frazier remake of Bedazzled, with Elizabeth Hurley as Satan, superior to the 1967, Dudley Moore version, with Peter Cook as Beelzebub (though Raquel Welch was appropriately cast as Lust in the earlier version).

UPDATE: This might be a wonderful opportunity for a PhotoShop illustration, but: (a) I can't find a photo of Peter Cook; (b) I'm not competent to use it; and (c) the aesthetic horror would be unfit for viewing.

The OWW Reappears

After an all-too-brief, yet merciful, silence, one of those involved in attacking a young candidate with criminal charges reappears over at Sean Connaughton's Cult of Personality. And only when greeted with response in kind does "NoVA Scout" notice that the thread has "degenerated."

I LOVE a good double-standard!

The Marriage Amendment

The ever-entertainingly insane Alice Marshall thinks supporters of Virginia's Marriage Amendment (which it's opponents call the Marshall-Newman Amendment, in the apparently ill-informed belief that they have successfully demonized Delegate Bob Marshall in the eyes of most Virginians) should reprint its text in full. No problem:

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

Now, anybody who's not a homosexual activist or an anonymous/pseudonymous coward (this means you, "NoVA Scout"), why don't you explain why you are so threatened by this?

The Orwellianism of F.T Rea

Courtesy of Waldo's invaluable vapoliticalblogs.com, came across this nonsensical post by F.T. Rea, formerly, and perhaps presently a "real" journalist. In it, he quotes notable (for his afflication with Bush Derangement Syndrome) New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who cites a widely-held misapprehension as evidence of a lack of Liberal bias, rather than what it really is: evidence of the general ignorance of the American populace as to foreign affairs. Here's what F.T. said:

In “Reign of Error,” columnist Paul Krugman is depressed that a new Harris poll says 50 percent of Americans believe Iraq really had weapons of mass destruction when it was invaded in 2003. That figure is up from 36 percent in February of 2005, in spite of all the international reports that say nothing was found in Iraq to justify the “imminent threat” to America described by President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, et al, in the run-up to the invasion.

The problem? Well, F.T. misrepresents the facts by claiming that "the 'imminent threat' to America [was] described by President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, et al, in the run-up to the invasion." Of course, the whole point of a doctrine of pre-emption is to address a threat BEFORE it becomes imminent and that, of course, was the argument made by the Administration, for good or ill. That F.T. and the far Left have to misrepresent the argument made demonstrates the emptiness of their position.

And if F.T. wants to dispute the point, I cordially invite him to give me chapter and verse as to any time the President, Vice President, or any member of the Administration said the threat was imminent. A good discussion on the issue can be found here, and it makes the rational point that, while there may have been those in the Administration who tried to make the argument, the dominant argument was to the contrary. Indeed, the only examples that the author could find were instances of reporters putting words into the mouth of presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer:

Moreover, there are extremely few instances in which any member of the Bush administration even suggested that Iraq posed an "imminent threat."

Twice, former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer affirmed questions from reporters using the phrase "imminent threat" to describe the administration's case against Iraq. As the liberal Center for American Progress pointed out, when Fleischer was asked by a reporter on May 7 of this year, "Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?" he replied, "Absolutely." And on October 16 of last year, a reporter asked, "Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth." Fleischer replied, simply, "Yes."

While Fleischer's affirmation of reporters' use of the phrase is indeed notable, it's important to keep in mind that he never uttered the words himself - hardly conclusive evidence in the matter.

In short, those who claim the Administration used the argument that Iraq was an "imminent threat" are not only misstating the facts. In fact, they are ignoring the uncontroverted evidence.

There is obviously some argument against the doctrine of preemption, and against virtually every Administration policy, and certainly, respectably people have respectably made them. However, any argument which begins from the premise that the term “imminent threat” to America was used by President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, et al, in the run-up to the invasion is a bald-faced lie, and speaks volumes about both the integrity of its advocate, and the reason of their position.

Of course, in the modern world, that's what it takes to be on the far Left.

UPDATE: Oh my! When F.T. is called out for his lies, he engages in ... more lies! Now he's questioning my legal credentials. I guess it just demonstrates how far removed he is from being an actual journalist, since a real journalist --- or anyone capable of your basic Internet search --- would have little trouble confirming that I am, as F.T. puts it, "actually ... a lawyer."

Conspiracy Theory

One of the pseudonymous conspiracy-theorist moonbats over at Sean Connaughton's Cult of Personality ... er, "Too Squishy" offers us his rantings on why it's a terrible thing for the PWC GOP to be prepared with a nominee in the even that their god, Chairman Sean, actually gets the job for which he appears to be well-qualified.

And get this: he trashes the GOP and those whom he perceives to be its Conservative leaders! I know this comes as a shock, Gentle Reader, but it's true. Or maybe it's just a function that the "moderates" (read: Liberal tax-and-spenders) don't have anyone who's quite ready for Prime Time.

This is the kind of thing, however, which demonstrates that there are good reasons why some people hide their identity.

The Alice Marshall Game

From GOTV, aka Alice Marshall's Insanity, we are treated to this little pearl of wisdom:

Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) called Soros "pro-marijuana" because of Soros' advocacy of decriminalizing the drug (Soros also favors clean needle programs).

Question for Davis supporters, have you ever smoked marijuana? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

Well, gee, I guess Alice is right. But I've never smoked marijuana (never even SAW it until I interned in a U.S. Attorney's office, and then, it was in an evidence bag), and I've got no problem throwing people in jail for dealing it, and probably for smoking it to.

Let's use her "logic" a little more, though:

1. Have you ever [exceeded the speed limit]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

2. Have you ever [driven after having a few drinks]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

3. Have you ever [driven recklessly]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

4. Have you ever [taken office supplies, including paper clips and pens]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

5. Have you ever [made a rolling stop at a stop sign]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

6. Have you ever [changed lanes without signaling]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

7. Have you ever [cheated on your taxes, like failing to pay sales taxes on items ordered from out-of-state]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

Teddy Kennedy Misses the Mainstream

Well, it's Sunday, and only in the Washington Post could Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick) offer his musings on "the mainstream of legal thought" in the Outlook section, rather than in the Style section, where slapstick usually appears.

The only way Teddy Kennedy could find the "mainstream" is if he drove his car off of a bridge into it.

Things That Make You Scream "Aaaaaaaaaaahhh!"

Thanks to Doug Mataconis, we learn that the "artist" who gave us "Trailer Trash Birthing" ... er, "Monument to Pro-Life: The Birth of Sean Preston," a sculpture of a nude Britney Spears on a bearskin rug giving birth, has released another work of "art," and hence, the title (which works on a number of levels).

This abomination also reminds me of a biblical admonition, something to the effect that "If thine right eye offend thee, pluck it out."

Believe me: this offends.

And if that were still the standard, I'd be investing in eye patches.

Caddigan v. Stewart for GOP Nomination

Well, according to Ben Tribbett and Vince Harris, Maureen Caddigan will run for the GOP nomination for PWC Board of County Supervisors Chairman.

If true --- while I respect Ben, Vince might just be making it all up --- then this virtually guarantees a Stewart nomination (Ben only calls it "Lean Stewart"). As I have said elsewhere, Maureen does not travel well outside of the Dumfries District, where she is no doubt "all that," as those who have dared to stray from her orbit --- yours truly included --- learn quickly. So it is entirely doubtful that she could win the GOP nomination, much less the County.

Actually, it seems to me that the former is even less likely than the latter. After all, simply having an "R" next to her name will garner her votes from those who don't know her.

Oh, to be sure, there are those who are spinning this as a Connaughton move. Who knows? They might even be correct. But it is difficult for me to believe that Connaughton is a puppet master here, particularly considering that Maureen supported Chairman Sean's opponent in 1999, Democrat incumbent Kathleen Seefeldt. It is equally difficult for me to believe that Republicans will not remember this fact and hold it against Maureen.

If growth is the issue, and Republicans are dominant in PWC, then it is looking very good for Corey Stewart. Maureen Caddigan is most assuredly in the tax-and-spend mode of Sean Connaughton, and she was tax-and-spend before tax-and-spend was cool, working hard for a "meals tax" twice rejected by voters in referenda (Chairman Sean was MIA in those battles in the mid-Nineties). So I can agree with Ben on one thing: she is definitely a "moderate" in the Chairman Sean mold. That is, she wants the GOP label for its electoral power, but spends like a Democrat.

It will be interesting to see how serious County Republicans are about protecting the GOP "name brand."

Home-Area Girl Among Hill's 50 Most Beautiful

While it's a list I never would have made when I was interning on the Hill (even if interns were eligible), it's nice to see that a girl from Central Pennsylvania, Maureen Ryan, made The Hill's list of the "50 Most Beautiful People" on Capitol Hill. She's the six-foot redhead at the top of the page. I think she may have been born the year I interned for Congressman George Gekas (R-17).

I can only imagine that, with her on the other side, the girls at Shikellamy didn't win too many games against Danville's girls' basketball team.

Where Are The Intermeddlers?

Back in 1998, Delegate Bob Marshall made headlines, along with Governor Jim Gilmore, when they tried to intervene to prevent the removal of Hugh Finn's feeding tube, an action sought by his wife. Finn, who was in a persistent vegetative state, was kept alive by a feeding tube, providing him with food and water, but was not subject to any extraordinary measures to maintain his life (no respirator, etc.).

And oh, how the far Left savaged them for interfering with family decisions.

Then, in the last two years, there was the even-more prominent case of Terri Schiavo. Even more politicos, including the United States Congress, tried to intervene on her behalf, when her "husband" --- who had already taken up with another woman and had two children with her --- sought (eventually, successfully) to remove her feeding tube.

And oh, how the far Left, Death Caucus savaged any who dared to speak out against denying her food and water, and interfering with her "husband's" decision to starve her.

Now, there's Abraham Cherrix, a sixteen-year-old boy on Virginia's Eastern Shore with Hodgkin's disease. On Friday, 21 July, an Accomack County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court judge ruled that Abraham must report to a hospital by this afternoon for testing, evaluation, and treatment as doctors deem necessary. He also found that Abraham's parents are neglectful for risking his health by permitting him to pursue alternative treatment of a sugar-free, organic diate and herbal supplements supervised by a Mexican clinic.

Now, I agree with the judge as to his assessment of the Cherrix's decision. Were I Abraham's parents, and with all due respect to the well-known first-rate qualities and advances of Mexican medicine, I wouldn't treat him according to that clinic's recommendations. In fact, I think Abraham's parents --- like Abraham --- are a little loopy.

But my initial post might have left the impression that I agree with the judge's intereference with the family's decision, which is decidedly not true. I apologize for the confusion.

And while I know my limitations, and that I just can't read everything out there, I am mightily confused by the reaction by the far Left side of the Virginia blogosphere.

The silence from the far Left of the Virginia blogosphere on this judge's interference with the Cherrix family's decisionmaking process --- Doug Mataconis has been all over this story --- is positively deafening.

Or maybe they only support the privacy of family decisionmaking when it involves ending an innocent's life.

Get Your Talking Points Straight

Corey Stewart must be something pretty special, for all of the bile being poured out against him in the Squishy element of the Virginia Blogosphere. However, his opponents haven't quite gotten their talking points straight.

There's one element that seems to doubt my source as to the impending Convention, even though it was gold (and the only thing that made my post a scoop was simply that I posted it more quickly than anyone else; it was based upon an e-mail sent to the County GOP Committee's membership).

And then there are those who are suggesting that the speed with which the Committee is moving is somehow premature. This, of course, is belied by the fact that PWC Dems are doing the same thing, according to one of their bloggers.

And then there's the line that this is some sinister plot to make Corey's nomination a foregone conclusion, somehow "rigging" the process.

I don't know who will win a convention. I do know that it is cheaper to nominate through convention, and saves the taxpayers money. Of course, saving taxpayers money is not high on the list of priorities for Corey's opponents/Chairman Sean's sycophants. I also know that I will be little issue to it, if scheduled for 19 August, as I will be out of the country on that date.

What appears clear is that those who have little say in the County GOP --- because they aren't really Republicans, after all --- are launching a preemptive strike against a guy who might just actually govern like a Republican.

They have good cause to fear it. Proof of the wisdom of geniunely Conservative governance will likely have the same effect upon their ideology that sunlight has on a vampire. And bloodsuckers have good reason to fear sunlight.

John Dean's New Book

Was in BJ's after church this morning, and briefly perused John Dean's new book, Conservatives Without a Conscience.

I haven't read the book, and I certainly won't enrich Dean by purchasing it, even at BJ's price. Vivian Paige is fond of it; Shaun Kenney rightly calls it "silly."

Dean is just the latest in a ... well, rather short line of "conservatives" who have attempted to capitalize on demonizing the GOP and its dominant ideology from an "insider's" view.

But let's remember, after all, that John Dean probably was never really a "Conservative." After all, he was part of the Nixon Administration, an administration "Conservative" only in comparison to the naked socialism advanced by its predecessor and in comparison to Hubert H. Humphrey and George "No Enemies to the Left" McGovern. And let's remember, too, that the guy was part of the corruption of the Nixon Administration. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about his role:

Dean pled guilty to obstruction of justice before Watergate trial judge John Sirica on October 19, 1973. He admitted supervising payments of "hush money" to the Watergate burglars, notably E. Howard Hunt, and revealed the existence of Nixon's enemies list. On August 2, 1974, Sirica handed down a sentence of one to four years in a minimum-security prison. However, when Dean surrendered himself as scheduled on September 3, he was diverted to the custody of U.S. Marshals and kept instead at Fort Holabird (near Baltimore, Maryland) in a special "safe house" holding facility primarily used for witnesses against the Mafia. He spent his days in the offices of the Watergate Special Prosecutor and testifying in the trial of Watergate conspirators Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Robert Mardian, and Kenneth Parkinson, which concluded on January 1, 1975. Dean's lawyer moved to have his sentence reduced, and on January 8, Sirica granted the motion, adjusting Dean's sentence to time served.

If he weren't trashing true "Conservatives," would MSM types like Keith Olbermann be giving him the time of day? Doubtful.

Dean is and seems to have always been, at his heart, little more than a sleazy opportunist. He is certainly a turncoat if, indeed, he ever was really a Conservative.

Membership Insurance Scam

The Washington Post had a great story today about a tactic used by "political groups to inflate their membership rosters -- and their bottom lines -- by taking dues from people with no interest in the groups' politics." It was a fascinating story, starting out as follows:

In 2001, Jennifer B. Chace heard an insurance broker's pitch for a new insurance company.... She jumped at the offer, but first, the broker told her, she would have to sign an application -- already filled out -- that would entitle her to a low group rate.

With that signature, Chace, a Florida dentist in the market for ... insurance, unwittingly joined one of Washington's most prominent ... organizations, ..., she would later testify.

Now, lest you think that this was a story about a public school teachers scammed into joining the National Education Association to enjoy its virtually useless professional liability insurance, it was a story about a tactic "marketing tax-free medical savings accounts" used to boost membership in the conservative Citizens for a Sound Economy (now known as FreedomWatch).

It's really amazing what the WaPo considers scandalous. Although this appears to be a story fed to a reporter by a plaintiffs' lawyer, the Post consistently ignores the scandal of what is legal in its own back yard --- the practice of District and Maryland groups "inflat[ing] their membership rosters -- and their bottom lines -- by taking dues from people with no interest in the groups' politics."

I guess if it's labor unions doing so, well, that's just perfectly fine with the WaPo.

PWC Convention Set?

With the news that Chairman Sean's nomination to a Bush Administration post may be on the fast track to Senate confirmation, I received an e-mail today announcing that the County GOP convention to nominate his successor may well be scheduled for Saturday, 19 August.

It's a pity. The Youngs will be on their summer vacation on that day, and will miss their first County GOP Convention in more than a decade.

Given the summer vacation schedule of many families, one wonders whether it wouldn't be wiser to delay the convention until early September, if possible.

UPDATE: As one might expect, those who hate Conservatives --- or anyone else not on the Chairman Sean, tax-and-spend bandwagon --- are viewing this on the most sinister way possible, at least, sinister as they foolishly measure it. One speculation is that:

If this is indeed the date of the convention than it really can only favor one candidate. That is right, you guessed it, Corey Stewart. It is no secret that Stewart prefers deciding this in a convention and that he and his supporters (including Tom Kopko) would be the ones pushing for such a quick resolution.

Of course, someone who makes such speculation merely demonstrates his singular ignorance as to the provisions of the Party Plan. As the County Committee must approve the date and manner of any nominating process, this is hardly the plan of some Corey cabal to frustrate the will of the County GOP. To the contrary, it's about the leadership that Tom Kopko was elected to exercise.

UPDATE: It's always entertaining to read some comments, especially from those who like to pretend that they know what's going on. Indeed, one reads "NoVA Scout's" comment and wonders if he has ever held a leadership role in any party organization (tending to disprove my suspicion that he is Chairman Sean). Obviously, he is not familiar with the only "rigging" that I have ever witnessed or have been aware of, to-wit: that performed by the Young Republican Federation of Virginia in 1993. As for Craig's assertion that he has "been told that the convention was in the bag should it happen and that a convention would be set up to favor Stewart," this sounds suspiciously like the plaintive whinings of someone who knows that he or she cannot win a fairly-run Convention --- no one has suggested that there has been anything but in PWC --- and simply wants to hobble their opponent. If Craig doesn't choose to reveal his source for this scurrilousness, it should be judged accordingly.

I have no problem revealing my source for this information (probably should have to begin with), but it was simply a general mailing from Chairman Tom Kopko, sent by Secretary Grant Bell. I simply happened to get it out there firstest. Here it is, with irrelevant portions omitted.

July 21, 2006

Dear Friends,

A few updates that I hope you find useful:

1. Pr. Wm. GOP Convention – Aug 19 (tentative): your Vice Chairman, Karen Ulrich, is busy researching location availability for the latest possible date, Saturday, August 19. Mark it on your calendar. Conventions have been the custom as most people feel they are fairest and Karen will have information in hand for our decision, if needed, on the 31^st.
2. Attention BOCS Chairman Candidates! I am accepting suggestions for convention committee members through July 29 at 9pm. Please send me any preferences for the Nominations, Credentials, Rules, and Elections convention committees.

If you have questions or suggestions, please feel free to write or call me. Updates are also posted on our website!

Sincerely,

Tom Kopko
Chairman, Pr. Wm. County Republican Committee (PWCGOP.org)

Rank Dishonesty

Was looking over posts as Waldo Jaquith's indispensible vapoliticalblogs.com, and came across a link to the "Commonwealth Coalition," which has the goal of defining deviancy down by defeating this year's constitutional amendment to constitutionalize marriage.

And what should greet me? An honest picture from some Castro Street gay "pride" parade? Two men? Two women? A polygamist family? A man looking lovingly into the eyes of "man's best friend"?

No, instead, the Commwealth Coalition greets us with a late middle-aged couple, a man and a woman. Apparently, the picture changes, but I never came across a single picture honestly portraying the goals of the Marshall/Newman amendment's opponents.

Who do they think they're kidding?

Another Teenager Running TC?

Well, I just got finished responding to some idiocy over at Sean Connaughton's Cult of Personality ... er, Too Conservative. If, as I suspect, the author will be embarrassed when his foolishness is challenged, I'm copying his post below:

In a peculiar move best explained by election year posturing, the House of Representatives yesterday overwhelmingly approved a bill that would bar federal courts from reviewing controversies arising from the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance.” (H.R. 2389) To this old, crusty defender of the Constitution, this comes across as a fairly radical assault on the constitutional structure of the Republic, so destructive that it only could be the work of anarchists or (gasp!) liberals. Should Congress be defining by statute which constitutional issues are immune from judicial review? If so, do you have a little list of the constitutional controversies you think the federal courts should be barred from considering? How do you feel about a liberal Congress banning federal courts from reviewing gun control legislation?

Should I be concerned about this kind of nonsense, or do we all know it’s just Showtime? A House vote only gets legislation part-way to law. Do any of you think this should pass the Senate? Surely none of the Old Dominion’s conservative constitutionalists in the Congress participated in this silliness today. (Oops - just checked the Roll Call - not a pretty sight).

Here is the legal brief in response:

NoVA Scout, you call this “a fairly radical assault on the constitutional structure of the Republic, so destructive that it only could be the work of anarchists or (gasp!) liberals.” You then ask “Should Congress be defining by statute which constitutional issues are immune from judicial review?”

Thank you for providing evidence that, as I have long suspected, your self-promoting “credentials” are nothing by empty puffery, particularly in light of your oh-so-jealously guarded anonymity.

Did you even go to law school? If you did, you should get a refund, because I don’t know of a Constitutional Law course or textbook (it appears on page 39 of my edition of Gunther) anywhere that does NOT teach Ex Parte McCardle, 7 Wall. (74 U.S.) 506, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1869), in which the Supreme Court declined to decide the case, noting that its appellate jurisdiction had been removed by Congress, pursuant to its authority under Art. II, sec. 2, of the Constitution, which limits the Supremes’ appellate jurisidiction, “both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

It’s right there, in black and white. It’s wonderful that the Congress is exercising one of its clearly-defined powers to limit judicial tyranny. In your vicious and obviously ill-informed criticism, you have demonstrated that you are neither a “crusty defender of the Constitution,” nor a “Conservative,” but rather, a reactionary Liberal (as opposed to “liberal”).

Now, if someone could only remind Congress of those other, clearly-defined LIMITS on its power….

On the other hand, while this surely provides evidence that NoVA Scout is no constitutionalist, and probably not a Conservative, it also demonstrates that, his self-professed "credentials" to the contrary notwithstanding, he may well be not much of an attorney, either.

Given TC's history, maybe he's his own "Amen!" chorus, too.

God? Stem Cells? Guess Which One Liberals Have More Faith In?

Jerry Fuhrman may have put it best:

How is it that people who reject out of hand the whole notion of a deity put such blind faith in something called a stem cell?

Meanwhile, here's what former Virginia Governor Marky Mark had to say about it:

President Bush vetoed legislation yesterday— his first ever use of the presidential veto — that would help to unlock the potential of stem-cell research that could change the lives of millions of Americans with potentially curable diseases.

As with so many Americans, this issue is personal for me. I have a daughter with juvenile diabetes and a mother with Alzheimer’s disease. These are among the host of diseases for which stem cell research could produce a cure.

In the Bush administration, politics has trumped science: on climate change, alternative energy research, and on medical advancement that could save lives. This country needs an administration that believes in science and brings hope to the many Americans and their families suffering from these horrible diseases. Please join me in asking Congress to overturn President Bush's veto. Sign the petition today.

Why does it not surprise me that the guy who cooked the numbers to give the impression that we "needed" a tax increase expresses unqualified faith in stem cell research.

OK, OK, so I changed the link. To something more appropriate, I think.

Life in a Small Town

Checking the headlines in my hometown paper, I learned that the community pool in my hometown celebrated its 30th anniversary today. I have a lot of fond memories of that pool and my teen years in a small town. My Boy Scout troop even worked regularly in the recycling center which contributed to its initial upkeep.

The Official TC Smackdown Post

Our friends over at NovaTownHall proudly boast their designation by Vincent Harris of "Too Conservative" as the "Worst Blog."

Well, it appears that young Vincent may well be a complete and utter fraud. A new pseudonymous blog calling itself "Velvet Elvis" makes quite a few damning claims about Vincent, demonstrating that he may be posting on his own blog under pseudonyms to give a false impression of readership/comments/support for his activities.

I don't know if it's true. I lack the technical skills to have performed such an investigation myself, or even to judge whether the facts alleged are true.

I do know this: Vince misrepresented himself when he started his blog, and I was certainly critical of his actions when he came out of the anonymity closet. And a number of posts after 6 July have disappeared since this revelation (if true) came to light.

While hardly of the same calibre of the Janet Cook fraud suffered by the Washington Post a few years ago --- she had to surrender a Pulitzer won for a fraudulent story about an eight-year-old heroin addict --- Vince has certainly had an impact in Virginia politics (Ben Tribbett once declared him the most influential Virginia teenager since Pocahontas). It would be truly sad if the facts alleged by "Velvet Elvis" are true, and as someone skeptical of all anonymous/pseudonymous Internet activities, I note that these allegations, also, are unaccompanied by someone willing to sign his or her name to them.

I also know this: those of us who condemn/oppose anonymity/pseudonymity will have been given a huge boost if these allegations are true.

UPDATE: Charles has posted his thoughts.

UPDATE 2: Well, Shaun Kenney has the scoop (sorry for the lack of a link). Jim Riley is Velvet Elvis. Whambamthankyouma'am in the comments was correct.

The End of an Experiment

Well, I tried it for a while, and I don't think I like it. I've had a lot of traffic over the last few weeks (thanks to Chad), and I suspect that some people wanted to comment, but couldn't figure out how to do so. After all, even normally discerning people like Republitarian was under the impression that I didn't allow comments.

So I've enabled the normal Blogger comments. You can still comment through Haloscan, but perhaps the most effective and accessible means is the normal way.

Soooo, have at me!

Traitors are Heroes, and Other Democrat Insanity

It seems that prominent Fairfax Democrat Alice Marshall has declared "heroic" a soldier who volunteered, and now is refusing lawful orders.

More Democrat insanity.

College Democrats Campaign

Via Drudge, there is apparently a site up with pictures of a leading candidate for President of the Komsomol ... er, College Democrats in drag.

I wonder if we can expect a lengthy expose from Lowell about the deep meaning of this behavior?

Oh, wait! Perhaps what we can really expect is a post about how we're supposed to accept and support this deviant behavior.

Getting Mental At Raising Kaine

Well, it seems that Lowell Feld over at Raising Kaine has had just a leeeetle too much Kool-Aid. Of course, one learns that alone by noting his numerous links to the misnomered far-Left nitwits ... er, outfit called the Center for Media and Democracy, an outfit which bills itself as
"Countering propaganda by investigating and reporting on behind-the-scenes public relations campaigns by corporations, industries, governments and other powerful institutions," but one which never seems to include labor unions promoting their agendas with forced union dues as among those "other powerful institutions."

In a post of 308 words, Lowell manages only ten actually to identify what he derisively calls the "Orwellian bizarro world" of the National Right to Work Committee (I'm the guy with the beard in the background, and was merely a spectator) Apparently, this is established because the Committee "works toward laws that prohibit 'compulsory unionism.'"

Of course, as a propagandist for the far Left, perhaps Lowell knows from whence he speaks when discussing an "Orwellian bizarro world."

Now, Lowell doesn't bother to give us a single word to explain that "compulsory unionism" phrase further, so I will: it simply means that the Committee wants to prohibit laws and practices by which employees are forced to join or pay dues to a labor union as a condition of getting or keeping a job.

Instead of actually addressing the issue, though, Lowell treats us to his bizarro fantasies of a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (quick: Name the other psychotic who used that phrase in all seriousness?). That goes from minimum wage laws to the political propaganda of the United Auto Workers union.

It's really a pretty pathetic post, and if this is the best that a paid staffer for the Webb campaign can come up with, I'm looking forward to the Allen victory party. Wow! The UAW says something. Must be true!

Let's just make it clear, though. We can conclude that Lowell thinks that an individual should be forced to pay dues to a labor union as a condition of getting and/or keeping a job. Even Chris Matthews (in 2000) was shocked by Ralph Nader's position on that one. Since that is the sole principle for which the Committee works (it defines "single issue"), one can only describe it in derisive terms as holding an "extreme anti-labor position" if one disputes that principle. A principle, BTW, held by a clear majority of union MEMBERS, and 75% of all Americans. I know, I know: it must be a false consciousness that those (like Lowell) in the vanguard of the proletariat have to overcome.

And a personal little shout out to Lowell. Hey, maroon! Paul Weyrich is the President of the Free Congress Foundation, NOT Morton Blackwell. Even the far Left loons whose website to which he links get that one right, as does the Free Congress Foundation's informational website. Of course, Morton Blackwell is Virginia's Republican National Commiteeman and runs the Leadership Institute.

Tip of the hat to Greg Letiecq for bringing Lowell's imbecilic post to my attention.

True American Ally Wins World Cup

I couldn't care less about soccer. I went to one game at RFK, once, when my wife's company scored some free tickets, and understand why the announcers get so excited when a goal is scored: it's an uncommonly boring game.

But I must confess to an undue amount of satisfaction that American ally Italy won soccer's World Cup over those cheese-eating surrender monkeys in France.

It belies the notion that there ain't no justice.

Schaudenfreude Over Ken Lay's Death

Jim Pinkerton had it right on Fox NewsWatch tonight.

Imagine, if you will, the reaction of the far Left if Ann Coulter had suggested delight over the prospect of the prison rape of the likes of Bill Clinton, or Governor Jim Guy Tucker, or Louisiana Congressman Bill Jefferson.

Then compare it to the comments in this Washington Post essay by Henry Allen:

now that he's died of a heart attack in the luxury of his Colorado getaway while awaiting sentencing for his crimes, none of his victims will be able to contemplate that he's locked away in a place that makes the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel look like Hawaii; that he might be spending long nights locked in a cell with a panting tattooed monster named Sumo, a man of strange and constant demands;

Why does this guy still have a job?

Actually, Allen does go on to ask a very good question: "Is it possible that a micron below the surface of our liberal and enlightened beliefs lurks savagery?"

Gee. Ya think?

Actually, Henry, the "surface of [y]our liberal and enlightened beliefs" is nothing more than a fraudulent veneer.

If you don't like it, post your comment here.

An Image from Pennsylvania's Flood

Believe it or not, there's a baseball field underneath all of that water. Decades ago, I played Little League baseball there.

In Need of a Geography Lesson

Came across this story in today's Anchorage Daily News.

Someone needs to let Ms. Holland know that Puerto Rico is part of the United States, and that there are no "Puerto Rican passports."

Mentally Ill Kim as Black Bart?

For movie buffs, one of the classics out there is Mel Brooks' 1974 "Blazing Saddles." It can't be watched on regular TV, since the Gods of PC have decreed that Brooks' scurrilous use of the "n" word --- of course, he's making fun of racism, you maroons --- is impermissible.

One of the great scenes is when the new Sheriff in town, Black Bart (Cleavon Little) gets himself out of a little fix by holding a gun to his own head.

Isn't this a little like Mentally Ill Kim ... er, Kim Jong Il, dictator of North Korea, and his treatment of that nation's long-suffering and now nearly starving populace?

Nice to See Someone Has a Sense of Humor....

Over at Not Larry Sabato, Ben Tribbett has posted a picture that one might initially believe to be PhotoShopped. But no, it appears that this is really the shirt that Fairfax County BOCS Chairman Gerry Connolly was wearing on Independence Day.

While not the fashion maven that Ben obviously is (hey, until my wife took over those duties, my grandmother bought my ties), Ken Cuccinelli has it right: this is a "screaming monstrosity."

Say what you will about Chairman Sean (I certainly have), but he'd never be seen in this:

Tip of the hat to Ben Tribbett, from whom I st... er, borrowed this picture.

Freak Accident?

Per Drudge, I came across a headline declaring that a freak accident left a man obsessed with sex.

I wonder what it was. Birth?

Deleted Post

Well, perhaps Greg thought better of it. Fair 'nuff. If he's a big enough man to withdraw his attack, I'll remove my response in kind. But I'm keepin' the e-mails.

BVBL: Champion of the First Amendment

It's one of life's sad little ironies that Greg Letiecq, who generally seems like a good guy, has managed to associate himself with some rather shady characters, including the anonymous slanderer who originally owned his website, and his frequent "amen chorus," Harry Parrish's 2005 primary campaign manager, Anke W. Cheney.

I've frequently said that I have no idea as to the merits of Steve Chapman's lawsuit against BVBL and Greg. I do know that, if the Defendants prevail, it will be because the First Amendment protects even their scurrilous attacks, and may prove an insuperable burden to Steve's recovery.

Columnist extraordinaire Thomas Sowell once famously observed that the practical definition of a "racist" in today's political world is "a Conservative winning an argument with a Liberal."

Call this Young's Corollary to Sowell's Law: "bickering" is when one Republican raises legitimate, unanswerable criticisms against another, usually squishy, Republican.

And it's certainly ironic that Greg, who is forced to rely so heavily upon the First Amendment in his defense against Chapman's lawsuit, has so little regard for it personally.

UPDATE: Turns out I misspelled Greg's last name with the initial post. A thousand apologies.

UPDATE 2: Well, Greg has a new website, apparently launched shortly after he took down his abortive attack on me Here's what he says about one of the reasons he has switched to WordPress:

This new site will allow anonymous comments as before. I will have more ability to restrict the ability of problem children to access or post, which should reduce the personal infighting and bad behavior that I’ve seen recently.

I guess "problem children," "personal infighting," and "bad behavior" are codewords for people with whom Greg disagrees and/or those who remember the misdeeds of some of his biggest fans and dare to talk about them. One presumes that he does not consider it "personal infighting" or "bad behavior" to attack a candidate for, say, posting on Match.com, or attacking his attorney for performing his professional duties.

As I said above, Greg "generally seems like a good guy," and he's shown some genuine promise since abandoning/being abandoned by the original BVBL persona. It's really too bad that he has evidenced an ability to be so easily influenced by those who are neither very honest, nor very good Conservatives.

UPDATE 3: Well, Greg has blocked my access from my office PC to his site. I guess it won't be too long before he blocks my home access, as well.

What a maroon. And BTW, please disregard all that I've previously said about him seeming like a pretty good guy. I said, in an e-mail that I posted here for a few hours, that Greg should be of good cheer, because I had referenced a website that I had previously considered beneath contempt. I guess respectability was just too much for him to take, at least in more than a small dose.

I guess it's OK to trash me on his website. So much for the theory that Steve Chapman might avoided grief by responding to the attacks against him; it appears that he just would have been deleted, or barred from access. It's so much easier when your enemies are disarmed. Greg takes it a step further though, by insuring that I can't even see the attacks or, worse yet, use his own words against him.

Probably a relatively wise step for a guy who's already managed to get himself sued once.

Hornsby Retrospective Due Out Soon

With a top of the hat to Ben Tribbett, I had occasion to visit Bruce Hornsby's website, and discovered that he has a new retrospective album coming out on 25 July.

There are a few artists whose work I will buy immediately upon seeing it --- Billy Joel; John Grisham; Tom Clancy --- and Virginia's Bruce Hornsby is among them. Happily, he gave a great concert at Hampden-Sydney's homecoming a few years back. Two thousand in attendance on a campus with just over a thousand students.

Lefty politics aside, I can't wait. Wish I could play the piano like him.