Bob Reich Has A Blog

In the wake of the House's vote on the fraudulently-misnomered "Employee Free Choice Act," I came across Bob Reich's blog. You'll recall Reich as the bearded, diminutive Secretary of [Organized] Labor in the first Clinton Administration.

Oh, how do I respond to thee? Let me count the ways.

Here's what Reich had to say, with a few rejoinders thrown in:

You’d think that more than seventy years after the right to form a union was enshrined in the National Labor Relations Act, workers could have a union if a majority wanted one.

[You'd also think that, after a number of wars to protect freedom, all American workers would have the right to refuse to join or pay dues to a union if they didn't want to.]

Think again. Under current law, a majority vote isn’t nearly enough. Even if one hundred percent of workers want a union, employers can still stop them by demanding that the simple vote be followed by a complex process ending in a secret ballot – a process so long and drawn out that some employers use the time to fire union organizers and threaten others. End of story.

[Sure, NLRB processes are "long and drawn out." Perhaps Bob can write an article about the "long and drawn out" proceedings to enforce rights under Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988). Cases under the Clinton NLRB were delayed for seven years or more. The District of Columbia Circuit recently ordered a rare mandamus order requiring the Board to issue a decision in one of those cases which was delayed by the Clintonistas, and then delayed again by the Bush Board.]

This week, the House votes on a bill that would allow a majority of workers to sign up for a union and get one. Odds are the bill will make it through the House but get stuck in the Senate, where sixty votes are needed to overcome a filibuster. Bush has already said he'd veto it in any event. But the vote is important nonetheless. It will put members of Congress on record, and voters will be reminded in 2008 who voted for and against. (I and others in the Clinton administration and congressional Dems tried to get the labor laws reformed in the mid-1990s, but Gingrich and company wouldn't even allow a floor vote.)

[No, this week the House voted on a bill to allow union bosses to coerce workers into granting them a monopoly of representation. And BTW, trying to kill employers' rights to hire permanent replacements for striking workers --- putting a union to its economic proofs as to the reasonableness of its economic demands --- is not "reform." And when you tried to bar federal contractors from using them by Executive Order, your effort was rejected as illegal by the D.C. Circuit.]

Employer groups are lobbying furiously against the bill. They prefer the current long, drawn out process that gives employers time to use threats and coercion to prevent unionization. Such strong-arm tactics are illegal but the penalty for getting caught is a slap on the wrist. Charges of illegal dismissals take years to wind their way through the National Labor Relations Board and even when the Board finds that an employer acted illegally, the worst that can happen is the worker has to be rehired and given back pay that was lost. In 2005 alone, over 30,000 American workers were awarded back pay because their employers were found to have illegally fired or otherwise discriminated against them for their union activities.

[Just like unions prefer "the current long, drawn out process." To be sure, on those few occasions when they occur, employer "strong-arm tactics are illegal but the penalty for getting caught is a slap on the wrist." Of course, on those far more frequent occasions when unions ignore employees' rights under Beck, their "strong-arm tactics are illegal but the penalty for getting caught is a slap on the wrist." Better that they not be told at all. Didn't you have a part in rescinding an Executive Order requiring Federal contractors to tell employees about those rights?]

A half century ago, most employers obeyed the law and allowed workers to organize. In the 1950s, the National Labor Relations Board found illegal dismissals in only one of every 20 union elections. But in subsequent decades, competition heated up, investors demanded higher returns, employers felt increasing pressure to cut wages, and union-busting became the name of the game. By the early 1990s, according to government data, illegal dismissals occurred in one out of every four union elections. Nowadays, even though polls show most workers would organize a union if they could, the process is so complicated that it’s rare they even get to choose.

[Polls also show most workers believe that no one should be forced to join or pay dues to a union if they don't want to, as well. When will you be getting on that band wagon, Bob?]

Employers say a simple up-or-down vote, such as featured in the House bill, would allow pro-union workers to intimidate their co-workers. They argue for the more elaborate secret ballot. They say a secret ballot is essential to democracy. But they’ve got it wrong. Workplaces aren’t democracies. Employers have the power to hire and fire – and this is exactly where the potential for intimidation lies. The only way around it is to go with a simple up-or-down vote.

[Nothing in the House bill is about "a simple up-or-down vote"; it's about allowing unions to visit employees' homes and intimidate and/or lie to them in order to get them to sign a union card (I've had cases where a union steward has said that signing a card was simply to "get more information on the union").]

America’s rising economic tide has been lifting executive yachts but leaving most working people in leaky boats. Workers need more bargaining power. They should be allowed to form a union when a majority of them wants one – as simple as that.

And sometimes, those union bosses just have to "strap workers to the mast," don't they, Bob? Without regard to whether they're sinking the ship (think "Eastern Airlines").

Reich will keep advancing the talking points, but this wasn't about protecting worker rights to join a union; it was singularly about protecting a source of Democrat campaign workers funded by forced dues. The problem (for Democrats isn't a lack of worker freedom; it's HOW workers are exercising their freedom to reject unionization.

Most of the civilized world has recognized that a secret ballot is necessary to ensure democratic freedom. Most, that is, except America's Democrat Party. So instead of apocryphal employer "threats and coercion to prevent unionization," we'll have union "threats and coercion to [promote] unionization."

Al Gore Wins An Oscar

Perhaps he's a seer. Perhaps he wants to save us from ourselves. Perhaps Al Gore knew about the horrendous effect Man is having on Mother Earth before any of us.

Or perhaps it's just another excuse --- with Socialism having been a dismal failure --- to increase the size and power of government over our lives.

Whatever. Al Gore has been anointed by the Hollywood glitterati, and won an Oscar.

It's only slightly less perverse than Roman Polanksi's.

When Democrats Attack!

Michelle Malkin has a more detailed scoop on the political terrorist here.

BAD LANGUAGE ALERT!

It seems that the suspect, Andrew Jefferson Stone, has a facebook entry in which he opines that:

Face it. The GOP is the party of the cowardly. And all fucking cowards will fucking hang.

Also, when they aren't wetting their pants over a code-red alert from boy George, Republicans are actively fucking little boys. All of them, no exceptions.

Wow! I guess Andrew missed the briefing where perversion promotion was made part of the Democrat agenda.

However, if he is convicted on the pending charges, I suspect that it is he who will be on the receiving end of what he attributes to Republicans.

Justice would suggest that he should spend some quality time with the biggest bull queer in Mecklenburg.

Ricky Silberman, RIP

Sad news in today's WaPo: "Ricky" Silberman, former EEOC Commissioner and conservative activist, died of complications from breast cancer much too early, at the age of 69. She helped create the Independent Women's Forum, and is perhaps most famous for her staunch defense of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas during the Anita Hill imbroglio. She was also the wife (of 49 years) of D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman

I had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with her a few times at Federalist Society Lawyers Conventions at the Mayflower during the early 1990s, when attendance was much lower than it is these days. A dynamic woman, she was famous for making sport of the PCism of the radical feminists, and their abuse of the language, frequently wearing a button which read "Sex is Better than Gender."

Rest in Peace.

Good News About Sara Stirrup

One of the few off tones at Saturday's PWC Lincoln/Reagan Dinner was the news that Gainesville Supervisor John Stirrup and his family were absent because his daughter Sara was injured in a skiing accident. No other information was presented, and it cast a pall over the evening.

I am pleased to report that I had occasion to speak to Heidi Stirrup on the way home this afternoon, and she is pleased to report that Sara is doing well. In fact, Sara was in the background, disputing some of what her mother was telling me about the accident. Her injuries were not life-threatening, even if they made for some nervous parental moments.

My best to Sara for a speedy and complete recovery.

Prince William Lincoln-Reagan Dinner

Great event, but Bryanna Altman came up to tell me of a rather odd ticket request she received.

Apparently, after the deadline to purchase tickets had passed, she was contacted by a "Jonathan Mark," requesting a ticket. When told the only seat available was one next to me --- which was silly; there were no assigned seats --- "Mark" declined.

Rejected by Democrats and Republicans alike. Interesting.

UPDATE: Jonathan has posted a "response" here, in which he confirms the essential facts, but claims that he was rejected for submitting a ticket request after the deadline had passed. Of course, he also makes another smear, refering to "Gill's jihadist supporters." I don't know any "jihadist supporters" among Gill's; the only ones that appear to exist are in the cloudcuckoo land of Mark's fertile and far-Left imagination.

And BTW, only a fool believes that Jonathan Mark concerns himself over whether anything "damages the statewide Republican ticket in 2007."

UPDATE II: Aww, little Jackie doesn't like my taste in music. I guess when you lack any substance to attack someone, you have to resort to this. Not that lack of substance has stopped little Jackie's creative fictions about Faisal Gill.

Well, big, fat hairy deal. My tastes are rather eclectic. Like them, or not. Don't really much care. But it's entirely fiction to suggest that I like now, or ever liked, REO Speedwagon. Of course, we do learn something about Mark. He says he was a "lad of 24 in 1977," meaning he was born in 1953, and therefore, that it is highly likely that his delusions result from participation in the drug culture of the late 1960s and 1970s.

The Far Left Picks Up On The Smears

The campaign against a non-traditional GOP candidate continues apace.

Now, it's the boys and girls at Raising Dough ... er, "Raising Kaine," who have picked up on the smear campaign against Faisal Gill, candidate for the GOP nomination for the 51st District House of Delegates seat. I suspect that it has less to do with substantive allegations of wrongdoing --- there are none of substance --- than it has to do with the fact that he is not a lilly-white man running as a Conservative. Can't let "those people" stray from the Liberal plantation, after all.

According to Josh Chernila, Faisal Gill is supposed to be responsible for the anti-Semitic rantings of one who claims to support him.

I don't know who "Asim in PWC" is. Far as I know, he's not active in PWC GOP circles, nor in Faisal's campaign. If he were to apply for membership in the PWC Republican Committee, I would actively and vigorously oppose his election. Knowing them as I do, I suspect that no magisterial district chairman in the PWC GOP Committee would even present such an individual's application for election.

I do know Faisal. The notion that the despicable views expressed by "Asim in PWC" could or should be attributed to him is ridiculous. He is a supporter of Israel, unlike the Democrat Party supported by Mr. Chernilla, which has engaged in a long campaign of moral equivalency about Israel and the terrorists who continue to attack her. He has worn his nation's uniform as an officer in the Navy, and served honorably in the Bush Administration for longer than, say, Jim Webb served as Secretary of the Navy. And unlike (I'd venture a guess) virtually any of the boys and girls at Raising Dough, ... er, "Raising Kaine," Faisal has repeatedly taken oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

At the last PWC GOP meeting, I talked to Faisal about the ridiculous accusations made against him, including the notion that the radical views of some of those with whom he has worked in the past (and of which he was likely unaware; need to ask him about that) should be attributed to him. He categorically rejected those accusations. I specifically asked him if he would seek to impose Sharia law in the Commonwealth. He said "Of course not." I specifically asked him if he believed that Sharia law should be imposed in the Commonwealth. He said "Of course not."

Indeed, he pointed out that --- contrary to the campaign of hate, innuendo, and guilt-by-association being run against him --- he has educated three of his four children in Catholic schools. That's one helluva radical Muslim, isn't it?

The hate campaign being run against Faisal is despicable. It's been run, in large part, by a website whose owner is being sued for slander/libel by a litigant represented by Faisal's law firm. And now it's been picked up by the far Left. And I would expect that, to the extent that he is asked, Faisal will disavow such despicable, radical views. Which is more than I expect from Democrat candidates who allow sites like Raising Dough, ... er, "Raising Kaine," to do their dirty work for them. One can only hope that Julie Lucas, the other candidate for the GOP nomination, will likewise denounce the despicable tactics of those attacking her opponent.

By the way, no Democrat has as yet announced as a candidate for the 51st District House of Delegates seat.

Bitterly Disappointing

It's official. Congressman Tom Davis is supporting the substanceless, Democrat-sponsored (but I repeat myself) "surge resolution."

Words fail me. For the first time since I've known him (and worked hard for his election, especially the first one), I am ashamed of a public act of my Congressman.

One wonders whether many Conservatives who frequently criticize Davis, but hold their noses and vote for him anyway, will be able to do so again.

House Democrats Don't Want To Debate The Consequences

Well, the boys and girls over at Raising Dough ... er, Raising Kaine are whining (again) about the House GOP and its effort to control the terms of the debate under the idiotic title "House GOP doesn't want to debate the war."

Well, not exactly. This time, it's over the meaningless, craven, "non-binding" resolution offered by Democrats opposing the President's strategy on Iraq. Not that Democrats have any "strategy" other than appeasement and, ultimately, surrender. But they apparently fear the electoral consequences of actual action on their purported "convictions," i.e., if you oppose our efforts in Iraq, then you should have no compunction about defunding the effort.

Here's what the boys and girls at Raising Dough ... er, Raising Kaine said, citing another far Left website:

Via ThinkProgress, a leaked letter circulated by the House GOP leadership:

In the letter, leading conservative Reps. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) inform their allies: "The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily." Shadegg and Hoekstra warn, if conservatives are forced to debate "the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."

The kids declare it "stupifying."

Well, not exactly. They do provide a link to the actual letter, which is something other than "stupifying." Perhaps that explains why they don't mention the actual upshot of the letter:

We urge you to instead broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all "unbelievers" by radical Islamists. We would further urge you to join us in educating the American people about the views of radical Islamists and the consequences of not defeating radical Islam in Iraq.

Congressmen Shadegg and Hoekstra (the latter, a former client of mine), instead propose that:

... the debate must be about the global threat of the radical Islamist movement. No radical Islamist leader ... has ever claimed that the goal of radical Islam is Iraq alone or if they succeed in Iraq this war against us would end. In fact, Robert Kagen recently wrote a piece for the Washington Post entitled "Grand Delusion" noting many politicians' desire to wish the war away. He notes that those who call for an end to the war don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will not end, but will only grow more dangerous if and when we walk away.

Apparently, the far Left find it "stupifying" that someone would suggest that the debate should not be over short-term pain, but rather, about long-term consequences. Sound familiar?

Dishonestly is the stock in trade of the far Left. They shrink from truth and consequences like vampires shrink from crosses. So instead of addressing these important issues, they depend upon their echo chamber in the far Left blogosphere to offer nothing more than astonished belittlement.

It is hardly surprising that thinkers of this calibre are "stupified" by the suggestion that the long-term consequences of their short-term electoral strategy be considered. What is truly sad is the fact that such craven behavior may be gaining traction with the American public.

A Great American Passes

Because he was a great friend of worker freedom, I got a head's up on this impending news last week. However, I hadn't heard that he was so close to death.

RIP, Congressman Charlie Norwood (R-GA).

No Second Or Third Thoughts Over This

Ben Tribbett reports over his website that the Winchester Billy Goat, Russ "Chamber" Potts, will retire this year.

No second or third thoughts over this one. No loss at all.

John Cha-Ching!-Chester Kills Transportation Package

Others with more time than I have commented upon the shortcomings of the proposed transportation compromise offered by House Republicans. However, it was the best proposal on the table, short of spending the perennial surpluses on transportation. It was certainly preferable to anything offered by Governor Timmy! and Senate Republicans.

That is, of course, why His Lordship, Senator John Cha-Ching!-Chester had to kill it.

Here's what Governor Bill Bolling had to say:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 13, 2007

BOLLING ISSUES STATEMENT ON SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE ACTION ON TRANSPORTATION BILL

- Lieutenant Governor criticizes decision to reject compromise transportation bill -

RICHMOND - Earlier today, the Senate’s Committee on Finance once again rejected the compromise transportation plan that had been approved by the House of Delegates. In its place, the Committee adopted a plan that would:

• Use no existing general fund resources for transportation
• Impose a new registration fee of $150 on all vehicles at the time they are first registered in Virginia, and
• Increase the sales tax in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.

In response to the Committee’s action, Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling issued the following statement:

“Once again, I am extremely disappointed by the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to reject the compromise transportation plan offered by the House of Delegates. While the compromise plan is not perfect, it represents our best chance of getting something accomplished on transportation this year.”

“By adopting a plan that refuses to use any existing resources for transportation, the Committee has harmed our chances of reaching a transportation agreement. It makes no sense to ask the people of Virginia to pay higher taxes and fees at a time when state spending is increasing at historic levels.”

“By adopting a plan that would increase the sales tax in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, the Committee has shown a glaring disregard for the wishes of voters in those regions of the state who overwhelmingly rejected similar proposals in 2002. The voters expect their wishes to be respected, not ignored.”

“The problem in Richmond is not a lack of resources. The problem is a lack of fiscal discipline and a willingness to direct the resources we have to our highest priorities. If transportation is the most important issue currently facing Virginia that is where we should direct our money.”

“I remain hopeful that a transportation agreement can be reached before the end of the current legislative session. However, any such agreement must include the use of existing resources for transportation purposes, rather than simply imposing higher taxes and fees on the people of Virginia.”

###

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Overcoming Second And Third Thoughts

When I read this, I had a definite reaction.

But then I thought I should deny myself my temptation to say something, on the theory "if you can't say anything nice...."

Then I thought, "Why bother?" You won't miss him, and the blogosphere will be cleansed of yet another pseudonymous coward who arrogantly attacks others while secreting associations and biases which would reveal much.

But when it came right down to it, I couldn't resist.

Good riddance to bad garbage.

Pot. News Letterwatch

Sometimes, you open the Potomac News, and just wonder how it is that its editors can let some things pass. Or perpetrate others.

Today was one of those days. A single letter-to-the-editor was published, from Paul Jacobs of Montclair. Its purpose? To serve as part of the far Left's continuing campaign against Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13).

Now, my first instinct was to dismiss it for the far Left claptrap that it is. This purpose was served when I read the title that the editor placed on it: "Marshall doesn't represent district." I don't know how everyone else reads letters, but among the first things I look at are the title and the author. So I looked down to see that the letter entitled (by the editors) "Marshall doesn't represent district" was from Paul Jacobs of Montclair.

Montclair!?!?!? Well, sure. Jacobs is certainly an authority entitled to comment on whether Bob Marshall represents Bob Marshall's 13th District. NOT!

Montclair is located in the 52nd District, represented by Delegate Jeff Frederick. And, by the way, is removed from Bob Marshall's district by at least two others.

To give Jacob his due, he didn't write the title. And nowhere in his letter does he actually say "Marshall doesn't represent district." Sadly, from his perspective, his points were diminished by a title which would or should have caused most casual readers to look and laugh at him. After all, one would presume that the individuals most qualified to comment upon whether Marshall does or "doesn't represent [his] district" are those who reside there, not someone who lives in Montclair.

'Course, one might have thought that it would have occurred to the editors to point out that Jacobs doesn't live in Marshall's district, since it is doubtful that the casual reader would know that.

Of course, the problem of having people laugh at him would be endlessly compounded once they read the far Left claptrap of his letter, which sounds like it comes out of a Democrat Rhetoric Machine. He constantly refers to our government as a "democracy."

News flash, Mr. Jacobs! We live in a republic, not a democracy.

Then there's the nonsense of his points. He complains for two paragraphs about gerrymandering and unopposed candidates. Why, then, does he go on to complain about Bob Marshall. Marshall had an opponent in his last election. A rather buffoonish opponent, to be sure, but an opponent, nonetheless. Another candidate for a disclaimer? Perhaps. Perhaps even a phone call to the letter's author asking whether he wants to get his facts straight, or whether the letter should be published as is to demonstrate that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

But it is Jacobs' actual content which is most absurd. Indeed, so substanceless is it that one could substitute just a few words and use it as a standard issue template to attack virtually any politicians. So let's do so!

This is particularly unfortunate with regard to [Virginia] where [James Webb] has clearly lost touch with the distinction between being an elected representative and a special interest crusader for his own [economic] beliefs. It is time for him to step down and pursue his [economic] agenda in the private sector.

There are three issues that Northern Virginians want their delegates to address: taxes, traffic and education [sic].

[James Webb] instead chooses to waste time advancing his personal [socialist] and [economic] agenda. He presumes to tell our [corporations] who should be [paid how much], tell [corporate boards] how to [pay their officers], and tell [investors] what personal choices they are allowed to make for themselves.

He has, in effect, established himself as an ayatollah of [corporate governance]. With him we have a political figure who ... wants his [economic] beliefs to become civil law, and wants the government to tell [businesses] how to [pay their employees].

What country does this sound like? It's time for him to go.

What fun! We'll have to play the Democrat Claptrap game again some time.

Lefties Misrepresent Facts To Smear Cantor

The Right-Wing Liberal has the scoop here. After all, it's pretty clear that Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA) does not "thinks Congress has no role to play in war and Bush only needed to check with his lawyers to take us into Iraq" as one far-Left blogger has claimed. Of course, what Cantor actually said was much more limited: "the Constitution gives the commander and chief the right to send our troops into battle." You know, the part about the President as "commander-in-chief"?

"Hardball's" Chris Matthews asked him "[I]f the U.S. Congress were to discuss tomorrow morning whether to declare war on Iran, would you vote yay?" Cantor answered that "it's the commander in chief's role," and then went on to say that "It's not Congress that will ask for that. It is the commander in chief that will make that decision," i.e., to ask for a declaration of war, and that Congress won't declare war absent a presidential request. Cantor also rejected the comments of the other Congressman appearing (Israel) regarding the War Powers Resolution.

What is clear from the transcript is that the far Left and Matthews just weren't listening. Matthews' confusion is understandable; it was a live interview, and one nearly has to read it to understand it and Cantor's point.

And while dishonest in the extreme, the far Left's attack on Congressman Cantor is understandable. After all, he's a Conservative Jew. Can't have that in Congress, since Jews have historically been among Democrats' most loyal constituency. It's always embarrassing when someone leaves the Liberal plantation.

Then there's the little problem with Congressman Israel's pledge of fidelity to the War Powers Resolution, perhaps the most unconstitutional piece of legislation ever passed by Congress. That's just embarrassing.

Of course, it is more that a little ironic that those who are among the most ardent defenders of the unconstitutional Liberal welfare state are attempting to give lessons on the Constitution to Cantor.

West of Shockoe has been leading the attack. A quick visit to that website (with picture) strongly suggests that the author should spend a little less time with beer, and a little more with the Constitution. And with what Cantor actually said.

Pathetic Desperation by VB Dems

Oh, scandal!

VB Dems have discovered that State Senator Ken Stolle has stolen the photo picture taken by the Commonwealth and gracing the pages of Virginia’s Legislative website and used it on Kaufman & Canoles' website. Oh, foresooth!

Welllll, maybe not.

I don't have much use for a tax increaser like Stolle, but if THIS is the best these guys can do....

Besides, on what basis do the VB Dems assume that the picture was taken by the Commonwealth, and used by K&C, and not vice versa? 'Course, it's much more likely that the photo was taken by the law firm or Stolle, and submitted to the Commonwealth for use on the legislative website.

Pathetic.

Nancy Pelosi's Penis Envy

Well, it seems that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn't satisfied with the government transportation supplied to former Speaker Dennis Hastert. No; she wants something bigger: a military version of the Boeing 757, in order to travel back to her San Francisco district. At $300k per round trip, she should quickly become a deficit unto herself.

Wow! It took the GOP twelve years in the majority to fully indulge big-spending ways. Queen Pelosi has managed to get there in just over a month. Color me surprised.

Personally, I'd give her a 747 used as Air Force One ... so long as it was only a one-way trip.

When It Gets Too Hot....

Greg gets out of the kitchen.

It seems there was a little exchange over the last couple of days on Greg Letiecq's website. It had its roots in another comment thread, in which someone --- probably someone like "t," a parody of that which he or she purports to represent --- suggested that "racist jews" were opposing Faisal Gill. Greg, of course, hater of all things Gill, decided that this parody must be representative of the Gill campaign, and a member of his usual, pseudonymous/anonymous "Amen!" chorus chimed in.

As did I, offering the observation that "I suppose that you COULD make a case that there is clearly bias at work here. Of course, given the tone of this blog with regard to Faisal, it is not 'anti-Semitism' which is the most likely candidate."

And oh my, how the hatred piled on! Jonathan Mark, a Democrat (rejected for leadership as a committee member in his own district in Fairfax), played the victim card, wrongly or dishonestly claiming that "From the beginning, Gill’s supporters have accused his critics of being racist."

And then, the little bastard called me a "race pimp," notwithstanding the fact that I quite clearly said only that one "COULD make a case that there is clear bias at work here." I didn't make the case, or accuse anyone of bias.

Well, it went back and forth for a while, with Greg editing a comment in which I called Mark a ... well, a sphincter muscle at the lower end of the alimentary canal, which is probably an insult... to assholes.

Well, Greg finally got sick of comments, and closed the thread. In doing so, and notwithstanding the fact that it was Mark who started the name-calling (but in support of Greg, and therefore, acceptably), and indeed, was --- save for my one transgression, which probably few saw --- the only one who did so. Nevertheless, Greg had to get one last shot at me in:

I try to walk a fine line between allowing hard commentary and reigning in what too often devolves into personal attacks between posters which only serves to lower the quality of the threads. It doesn’t escape my attention that this only seems to occurr when you’re involved in the discussion in some way.

Once again you’ve managed to change the topic of discussion on a thread and make me waste a lot of my time babysitting. I’m aware that you’re not responsible for all of this, and at other times you’re contributed valuable and insightful commentary on a lot of what’s been posted.

Well, Greg, that might be so. It has less to do with me than it does with the facts --- as opposed to guilt-by-association and innuendo --- that I bring to the conversation. You know: facts about people like AWCheney, who makes pretensions of integrity, but served as little more than pit bull with PMS for Harry Parrish's last primary campaign, by using the criminal justice system for political advantage. Facts about Faisal Gill, like the fact that he was cleared of any wrongdoing by Federal investigators.

People frequently resent one who demonstrates or illustrates their inadequacies.

I know these are historical facts sometimes inconvenient to whatever goal Greg seems to have. But they are relevant, and they are facts.

I also raise questions. Questions like why Greg is so hostile to Faisal, whose law firm represents Steve Chapman in a lawsuit against Greg which increasingly looks like it will be successful. Questions like why is Greg so focused on spreading negative innuendo against a Republican candidate, when he seems to have nothing positive to say about his primary opponent (at least nothing we've seen yet).

Yeah, Greg, I changed the topic of the conversation. I changed it from irresponsible defamations of Gill supporters as anti-Semites to noting that, if one were to search for racism, an argument could be made that it was better found to be underlying some of the attacks (though probably not Greg's) against Gill.

But Greg has demonstrated yet again that the end justifies the means. It's OK to call me a "race pimp." But suggest that Greg --- or more accurately, his posters --- might be motivated by racism, or simply that someone could see it that way?

That gets comments shut down. And that blame placed not upon the name-calling offender, but on the recipient of the bile.

Yeah, Greg. That's a very reasoned, rational discussion you've got going there.

UPDATE: Awww! No Greg has blocked me from accessing his little website. I guess if you're not part of the "Amen!" chorus, you don't get to participate.

With that level of maturity, it is little surprise that he's facing a lawsuit for his irresponsible defamations.

Is There No End To Their Perfidy?

I just received a very interesting telephone call. Of course, the enthusiasm for tax increases demonstrated by Senator John Chichester (RINO-Northumberland) and the Winchester Billygoat aka Russell Potts (RINO-Winchester) is one way of currying favor with the Democrats.

However, it seems that rumor around Richmond has it that this is a considered course by Chichester and Potts, and that --- if the Democrats were to gain control of the Senate in 2007 --- they would attempt to switch parties to maintain their lofty positions as Committee Chairmen under Democrat control.

Tell me again why "RINO" is not an appropriate appellation for these two? Or why Potts was allowed to retain his seat as a Committee Chairman after running as an independent for Governor?

Democrats Shocked ---- Shocked! ---- About Politics In Judicial Nominations

It seems that a Republican Senator is being scored by the far Left for a conversation that he had with a candidate for a Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court judgship.

The boys and girls at Raising Dough ... er, "Raising Kaine," are shocked --- shocked! --- that politics plays a role in judicial nominations.

The Virginian-Pilot reports that Senator Nick Rerras dared to ask a potential nominee about her views on abortion, and referred to far Left feminists as "FemiNazis." Norfolk lawyer Mary G. Commander "was shocked, offended and embarrassed" by the conversation, and stated in a letter Rerras that "I know that I will never be able to pass your litmus test. My conscience, however, will not let me remain silent about what you have done."

However, Commander later revealed that she is unqualified for the bench, asserting that "because judges do not make law, her personal views should be irrelevant."

Somebody hasn't been paying attention. No candidate to become a judge is qualified if he or she is so ignorant about the legal history of the last century or so that they would claim that "judges do not make law." Of course, the problem is that judges all too frequently "make law," and reactionary Liberals are doing their level best to insure that Conservatives are not put in a place to restore the law.

It is a measure of the arrogance of the far Left that they believe that a politician who asks a prospective judges views on abortion so-called "rights" is applying a "litmus test," but that a requirement that a prospective judge pledge fealty to Roe v. Wade is not a "litmus test."

Their faux outrage is equally disingenuous.

Democrat Party Attacks Democracy

Just a few days ago, the far Left blogosphere was abuzz over the President's use of the phrase "Democrat Party" in reference to the majority party in the House and Senate. Vivian Paige banned someone for doing so, and sparked a lengthy discussion. I wish I could provide a link, but I can't find the thread.

Now, from Virginia "Progressive," we have this, celebrating the introduction of the fraudulently-misnomered "Employee Free Choice Act." It is the top legislative priority of the AFL-CIO, and proposes to do away with the inconvenience of a secret-ballot election in order to impose monopoly bargaining on private-sector employees. It is co-sponsored by 230 House Democrats.

Tell me again what's "democratic" about the Democrat Party?

Senate Refuses Transportation Compromise

At Lt. Governor Bill Bolling's "Bloggers Day" in Richmond a few weeks ago (I've got to do a lengthy post on that, and will, soon), the main talk was of the transportation/tax "compromise" proposed by House Republicans. Like all proposed compromises, it was chock full of bad ideas, the main one being a tax increase.

Compromise is not in the lexicon of the tax advocates in the Senate. Once again, pro-tax Repubmocrats on the Senate Finance Committee --- led by the estimable John Chichester (RINO-Northumberland) --- refused any compromise, and decided to slap on a 5% sales tax on gasoline.

The Asses of Evil strike again. Ward has a great roundup here.

Now, They're Attacking Tony Dungy

First, the Boy Scouts of America. Then marriage itself.

Now, partisans for the radical homosexual agenda are attacking a pro football coach.

By most accounts, Indianapolis Colts Head Coach Tony Dungy is among the finest men in professional football. Moral; upright; but with his share of family tragedy (his son committed suicide last year).

Of course, that means that he has to be attacked. It seems that Dungy has agreed to appear at a fundraiser for the Indiana Family Institute, an organization that dares to push back against partisans whose arrogance and radicalism causes them to attack the language ("marriage" should mean something other than the union between a man and a woman) and the fundamental building block of civilized society (the aforementioned "marriage"). Hence, one finds various logs (Pam's House Blend, OutSports, and AOL Sports Blog) attacking Dungy.

You see, any group that dares to push back against the radical homosexual agenda is attacked as "an organization which promotes hate toward gays and lesbians."

Of course, what the far Left calls "hatred" is simply resistance to their agenda. It's belittling and disparaging, the very opposite of rational debate, in the same way that partisans for the radical homosexual agenda dismiss their opponents as "homophobes," i.e., "those who fear homosexuals," when of course, fear has nothing to do with it.

Most Conservatives I know couldn't care less about --- and wouldn't even think about --- what homosexuals do in their so-called "private" lives. The problem arises when they demand not merely tolerance for their perversions, but public acceptance of them, i.e., when they seek to make public what they misnomer as their "private" lives.

It's long past time when Conservatives respond in kind, and reject the radical homosexual agenda for what it is: an agenda seeking to mainstream perversion. That is the standard that partisans for the radical homosexual agenda have chosen for the terms of their debate. They cannot legitimately complain when Conservatives respond in kind.

New Far Left Insanity

According to Waldo, an organization fraudulently touting itself as the "Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance" is floating a referendum which would void any marriage which does not produce children within three years.

I suppose there might be enough homosexuals, homophiliacs, and partisans for the radical homosexual agenda to get this on the ballot. But one hopes that the voters of Washington are sensible enough to reject it for the far Left BS that it is.

On the other hand, perhaps this is a good thing. If the attack on marriage hasn't been enough, perhaps this will finally wake up those who still deny the existence of a Culture War. I confess that I used to be one of them.

What is truly amazing is that the far Left is so used to advancing its agenda without opposition, that its partisans express incredulity at those who dare to engage in the battle.

Sometimes, You Just Have To Call The Lunatics Out

I haven't said anything about the campaign against Faisal Gill here. Frankly, a lot of it just seems silly, little more than guilt by association and smears. Moreover, while some may have a point about Faisal's electability, and a reasonable debate can be held over the relative merits of Faisal versus his opponent, Neabsco School Board member Julie Lucas, it is utterly clear that such reasonable debate is not to be found on a website owned by a man named as a defendant in a lawsuit in which the Plaintiff is represented by Faisal's law firm.

I run hot and cold on Greg Letiecq and his creatively- and tackily-named website. He has done much to expose the apparent scandal regarding Rack and Roll in Manassas, and an apparent campaign by Manassas Park authorities against Dave Ruttenberg and his business. Yet, other times, he seems to associate with the sleaziest elements of the Prince William County GOP, and many be the first Virginia blogger who's managed to get himself sued for his over-the-top behavior.

But recent posts on his website make it utterly clear that those attacking Faisal Gill --- and I mean, those other than those who are deeply and irrationally resentful of his role in Steve Chapman's nearly successful Republican primary campaign against Harry Parrish, who allowed himself to be rolled into an unnecessary tax increase by a Democrat Governor --- have utterly jumped the shark by equating all associations and second-hand associations with people who know people who know people who have been involved in terrorism must equate to support for terrorism. That Greg is indulging them seems to be little more than his deep resentment over the fact that Fasial's firm has dared to provide legal representation to Steve Chapman in his suit against Greg and his website over the smears that Greg promoted in his campaign against Chapman.

Here's a recent exchange on Greg's website, which I reproduce because I remain optimistic that Greg will recognize the insanity of those who also oppose Faisal's candidacy on this basis, and will ultimately edit/remove the posts because of their embarassing and foolish character:

1. Jonathan Mark said on 1 Feb 2007 at 11:29 pm:

   “”"it is those who are attacking Faisal with charges upon which he was cleared”"”

   Faisal was the imprisoned terrorist money-launderer Abdurahman Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist in 2001.

   That makes Gill a terrorist sympathizer, because Alamoudi is a terrorist serving a 23 year sentence in a federal prison.

   No one forced Gill to work for Alamoudi as a lobbyist. Gill chose to do so as an adult and now he is facing the consequences.

   That is appropriate. Support for terrorists like Alamoudi has consequences for those who provide the support.

This was my response:

1. James Young said on 2 Feb 2007 at 9:30 am:

   Wow, Jonathan! That’s quite a stretch. From lobbyist in 2001 to “terrorist sympathizer.”

   Gee, I’d better do an inventory. I represented Redskin Terry Orr in 1993 and 1994. A few years later, he pled guilty to and served time for a financial crime. Guess that makes me a “financial-crimes sympathizer.”

   And I’ve known Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist for years. Since they are associated with Jack Abramoff, I guess that makes me complicit in his crimes, too.

   Then there was the guy with whom I shared fellowship in a cigar shop who later shot his wife and murdered his stepson, right here in Prince William County. Guess that makes me a “murderer sympathizer” and a “wife-abuser sympathizer.”

   ‘Course, I can get in my WayBack Machine, and note that, on my way to elementary school in Northumberland, I used to walk by a guy who tried to kill his sister-in-law. Guess that makes me an “assault sympathizer,” too.

   I wonder what your inventory would show? You’re a Democrat, right? And you supported Bill Clinton, right? Guess that makes you a “perjurer/adulterer/rapist sympathizer.” Then there’s Dan Rostenkowski. Let’s add “tax-evader sympathizer.” Oh, and let’s not forget “check-kiter sympathizer.”

   Unless you can make the case that Faisal knew Alamoudi was a terrorist money-launderer, your claim is absurd.

Jonathan Mark favored us with this response:

1. Jonathan Mark said on 2 Feb 2007 at 12:47 pm:

   “”"Wow, Jonathan! That’s quite a stretch. From lobbyist in 2001 to “terrorist sympathizer.””"”

   From chief lobbyist for a terrorist in 2001 to “terrorist sympathizer.” I.e, Gill sympathized with Alamoudi the terrorist. That is why he was the terrorist’s lobbyists.

   “”"Gee, I’d better do an inventory. I represented Redskin Terry Orr in 1993 and 1994. A few years later, he pled guilty to and served time for a financial crime. Guess that makes me a “financial-crimes sympathizer.””"”

   Were you Terry Orr’s chief lobbyist while he engaged in the criminal activity? If so, what did you do on Terry Orr’s behalf as his chief lobbyist? I need more info before I can determine the propriety of your actions as Terry Orr’s putative chief lobbyist.

   “”"And I’ve known Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist for years.”"”

   That might explain why you support Gill. Norquist is Gill’s mentor. Without Norquist the candidacy of Faisal Gill would be a joke.

   “”"Since they are associated with Jack Abramoff, I guess that makes me complicit in his crimes, too.”"”

   You were never Abramoff’s chief lobbyist. Gill was Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist. No matter how much James Young tries to insinuate that Young is as guilty as Gill, James Young stops short of providing information that Young was ever a convicted criminal’s chief lobbyist while the convicted criminal was committing his crimes.

   “”"Then there was the guy with whom I shared fellowship in a cigar shop who later shot his wife and murdered his stepson, right here in Prince William County. Guess that makes me a “murderer sympathizer” and a “wife-abuser sympathizer.””"”

   Were you the murderer’s chief lobbyist while he engaged in criminal activity? Gill was Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist.

   “”"‘Course, I can get in my WayBack Machine, and note that, on my way to elementary school in Northumberland, I used to walk by a guy who tried to kill his sister-in-law. Guess that makes me an “assault sympathizer,” too.”"”

   Were you the attempted murderer’s chief lobbyist while he engaged in criminal actitity? Gill was Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist.

   “”"I wonder what your inventory would show? You’re a Democrat, right?”"”

   WRONG!!!!! I am no longer a Dem because where I live the Dems almost all support the odious Rep. Jim Moran. I was twice denied membership in the Lee District Democratic Committee. The first time they rejected me they even pocketed my $35 application fee.

   I voted for George Allen last year. Don’t assume what you don’t know, James Young.

   “”"And you supported Bill Clinton, right?”"”

   Absolutely, and I gave money to both of his presidential campaigns and to his wife’s first senatorial campaign.

   “”"Guess that makes you a “perjurer”"”

   Alamoudi is in jail for 23 years for terrorist money laundering. Bill Clinton was never even indicted for a crime, let alone convicted. YOU ARE BLIND TO ALAMOUDI’S CRIMES! You are blind to the fact that Alamoudi sits in a jail cell. Alamoudi’s crimes are proven.

   “”"/adulterer/”"”

   I don’t even want to go there. Suffice it to say that the PWC Republican Party, and the Democratic Party too, would be much smaller organizations if adulterers did not join.

   “”"rapist”"”

   This bores me. Bill Clinton is not running for the HOD-51 nomination. Faisal Gill is. We have questions about what Gill did on behalf of the imprisoned terrorist Alamoudi while Gill was Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist.

   You can respond to our reasonable questions by railing against Bill Clinton if you like. It is not much of an answer though.

And then, he offered this:

1. Jonathan Mark said on 2 Feb 2007 at 12:53 pm:

   “”"what is next? you gonna accuse president Bush(senior) for supporting Talibans.”"”

   No, because Bush senior is an old man and is not running for office. Someone else could reasonably accuse him, though.

   “”"He had taliban delegation visit white house.”"”

   Unusually bad grammar, suggesting that English is not the author’s first language.

   “”"Talibans were “freedom fighters”, they got thier training,weapons and funds from usa. So should we hold papa bush responsible for supporting them?”"”

   Yes. However, Bush senior is retired from politics and I guess is in his 80s. I have no interest in criticizing him in 2007.

At this point, I came to the ineluctable conclusion that Jonathan Mark is insane, so I didn't respond. Nevertheless, he felt the need to attack anyone who challenges his sleazy tactics:

1. Jonathan Mark said on 2 Feb 2007 at 2:26 pm:

   James Young seems very involved in this matter. How well does he know Gill? Is he or has he ever been representing Gill in any criminal or civil matter?

   I am not convinced that James Young is sufficiently distant from Gill to have clean hands in this matter.

   At this point we do need to ask James Young: Asim Ghafoor’s contracting firm was Gill’s nominal employer when Gill worked as the AMCs chief lobbyist. Ghafoor is currently Gill’s law partner.

   Does James Young oppose Ghafoor’s proposals to create an Islamic state in the US, with Moslems at least subject to Sharia law and non-Moslems reduced to dhimmi status?

   Is James Young at all concerned that Ghafoor was Gill’s nominal employer while Gill worked for the AMC in 2001, and is Gill’s law partner now?

   If Gill becomes a Delegate then would Gill’s law practice, and therefore that of his partner Asim Ghafoor, benefit? Is James Young comfortable assisting Asim Ghafoor, directly or indirectly, in his attempts to institute sharia law in the US?

   Has James Young ever met Asim Ghafoor? Alamoudi? Gill and Alamoudi together? Has James Young ever discussed Gill with Norquist? Norquist with Gill?

This was my response:

1. James Young said on 2 Feb 2007 at 6:47 pm:

   Jonathan, all that you managed to demonstrate with that last comment is that you’ve jumped the shark.

   But thanks for confirming what most reasonable people should have suspected all along: you’re insane.

Well, I don't indulge the insane, and the only rational thing that Jonathan seems to believe is that Jim Moran is "odious" (no argument there). On the other hand, at the rate he is going, Jonathan seems anxious to join Greg in the dock as a defendant against a slander lawsuit.

But if Greg is going to indulge these insane fantasies, it is little wonder that Steve Chapman's lawsuit was filed and, at this writing, remains pending.

Demonstrating What They Really Care About

I can’t help but remember a line from the Broadway show “Pippin”: “The church isn’t interested in saving souls; it’s investing in real estate.”

In an amazing display of candor, the remaining leaders of the newly fag-friendly Episcopal Diocese of Virginia demonstrate what they really care about, by suing those rambunctious Episcopalians who dare to believe that God really meant what He said when He condemned homosexuality.

As noted in the Washington Times article:

The diocese filed 11 separate suits against the clergy and lay leaders of Truro Church in Fairfax, the Falls Church in Falls Church, Christ the Redeemer in Centreville, Church of the Apostles in Fairfax, Church of the Epiphany in Herndon, Church of Our Saviour near Leesburg, Church of the Word in Gainesville, Potomac Falls Church in Sterling, St. Margaret’s in Woodbridge, St. Paul’s in Haymarket and St. Stephen’s in the Northern Neck.

But what it's really about follows:

At stake is millions of dollars in real estate, including an estimated $27 million to $37 million at Truro and the Falls Church, two of Virginia’s largest and most historic churches.

At least the parishioners in these diocese are still interested in eternal salvation. And EDV leaders are demonstrating that in which they are interested.

H/T to VJP

Going Around The Virginia Blogosphere

Well, here are my results, though these quizzes were clearly written by a Democrat:

You Are 88% Republican

You are a card carrying Republican, and a pretty far right one at that! There's no chance anyone would ever mistake you for a Democrat.

How Republican Are You?

A few qualifications, though:
1. I never listened to the Dixie Chicks;
2. I've never liked Nascar;
3. I've no problem with public school teachers. My only problem is with their unions;
4. I hardly ever shop at Wal-Mart; and
5. I've never smoked marijuana (first time I saw it, it was in an evidence bag).

As for the other side:

You Are 4% Democrat

If you have anything in common with the Democrat party, it's by sheer chance. You're a staunch conservative, and nothing is going to change that!

How Democrat Are You?

Apparently, the only thing that made me "4% Democrat" was the fact that I have a graduate degree. That someone thinks that a graduate degree makes you more Democrat is simply an indication of the narcissism of the far Left.

The Blue Stops Here!

Election results from Occoquan District special election for Supervisor:

Republican Mike May --- 57%

Democrat Jeff Dion --- 43%

Precinct-by-precinct results here.

Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction

Headline tonight on Raising Dough... er, "Raising Kaine":

"Jeff Dion Goes Down To Defeat In Prince William."

Heh.

Adventures in Sycophancy II

From our friends at Sean Connaughton's Cult of Personality ... er, "Too Conservative."

Only a Connaughton sycophant would care.

Delegate Jeff Frederick's Week 3 Update

From Delegate Jeff Frederick (R-Dumfries/Woodbridge):

- Week 3 Update

--> UPDATE <--

In last week’s update I mentioned how over 2700 bills had been filed by Members of the General Assembly. If you’re doing the math, this year’s General Assembly will have to successfully process an average of 60 pieces of legislation per day during our forty-six day ("short") session. The average member of the House of Delegates filed 18 bills and resolutions this year; the average Senator filed 23 pieces of legislation (I'm a bit above the average at about 35).

The process for dealing with all that legislation is in full swing. Yet, as you might guess, just because legislation is submitted doesn’t mean it will be approved. A lot of bills will pass, of course, but the number won’t likely approach the 2700 filed. Some bills just don’t have enough support to be approved. Others are remarkably similar to other pieces of legislation that were filed, so bills sometimes to get combined to increase efficiency. And, some will pass one house only to be rejected by the other (i.e. pass the House, fail in the Senate, or vice versa). Legislation has to jump through a lot of hoops before becoming law, and only the strong – and, hopefully, the best ideas – survive.

Still, it is sometimes frustrating when good legislation fails and bad legislation succeeds, and frankly, that isn’t such a rare occurrence around here. There are a number of reasons for this: the quick pace; conflicting priorities between the House and Senate, and often, the Governor’s office; the strong influence of special interests; constituent/citizen feedback; party politics; and a range of other circumstances.

The redeeming thing is that frequently, good legislation that does not succeed in one year is refilled in subsequent years for another attempt, and sometimes, the bill finally moves forward. While it is too early to know what bills we are working on now will ultimately become law by the end of session, one good example of a repeat effort we're undertaking this year is to protect Virginians from the effects of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London.

That decision – which permitted a local government in Connecticut to seize the property of a private citizen to turn around and sell to a private developer for a project that would allow the locality to collect more tax revenue on the same property than it did previously – caused genuine alarm among advocates of individual property rights, and rightfully so. The ability of government to seize land under eminent domain has been controversial from time-to-time throughout our history. Because the Kelo decision greatly expanded that power for governments, the debate has taken center stage.

Some states have already passed legislation to protect citizens from the effects of the Court’s decision. This year, we're working to have Virginia join their ranks by passing legislation to protect the property rights of individuals.

As we reach the midpoint of this year’s session, known as crossover, there’ll be even more to report. The House and the Senate must complete work on all of the legislation filed by its respective members by February 6th.

Finally, as I've mentioned the last couple weeks, I wanted to again remind you about the Third Annual 52nd District Constituent Day on February 19 (for info, visit http://va52.com/news.asp?docID=94). Of course, our door is always open and constituents are welcome to visit anytime – we’d enjoy seeing you.

-------------------------------

As always, if there's anything I can do to better serve you, please don't hesitate to let me know.

-JMF.

Here's A Huge Surprise

This is going around the Virginia blogosphere (I saw it first at NLS, who came out most like the Great Prevaricator; I have a higher opinion of Ben than that), so why not?

You Are Most Like Ronald Reagan

People tend to think you're a god - or that you almost ruined the country. But even if people do disagree with you, they still fall victim to your charms!

What Modern US President Are You Most Like?

Interesting. 'Course, it is most certainly the latter, not the former.

Ignorant Anti-Christian Bigots

Well, it's happened. Though the Framers must be spinning in their graves, an institution they knew well --- the College of William and Mary --- has removed a cross from the altar of the Wren Chapel.

Why? If you said the "diversity police," or a variation on that theme, you understand.

College President Gene R. Nichol was quoted today at length in a Washington Times front-page, above-the-fold story on the controversy. According to the Times:

"I modified the way in which the cross is displayed in the ancient Wren Chapel seeking to assure that the marvelous Wren -- so central to the life of the college -- be equally open and welcoming to all," Mr. Nichol told roughly 400 students, alumni and faculty packed into the college's Commonwealth Auditorium.

Nichol was also quoted as being concerned about non-Christian visitors to the College:

"I have been saddened to learn of potential students and their families who have been escorted into the chapel on campus tours and chosen to depart immediately thereafter," he said. "And to hear of a Jewish student, required to participate in an honor council program in the chapel during his first week of classes, vowing never to return to the Wren."

Never mind that anyone who has "chosen to depart immediately" after having had their sensibilities offended by the sight of a cross (or any other religious symbol, for that matter) should be immediately disqualified from a publicly-financed education. Junior Joseph Luppino-Esposito has it just about right when he notes "We are going to support someone who is so intolerant that, when they see someone else's religious symbol, they leave?"

But the real issue here may well be how poorly Nichol and others supporting the removal of the cross from the altar may be about the Christian faith.

What do they think the altar symbolizes? Here's a couple of hints: "This is my body, given for thee"; new covenant? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

The simple fact of the matter is that the altar is no less a symbol of the Christian faith than is the cross. Thus, removing the latter while leaving undisturbed the former is not only inconsistent, but is a cheap and meaningless effort to sate the desire of the "diversity police."

Perhaps the joke is on both of them, however. The joke may be on Nichol, for if he actually believes his action to be a meaningful effort to make "the ancient Wren Chapel ... equally open and welcoming to all," then he simply demonstrates his ignorance of the Christian faith, for he has failed miserably in "cleansing" the Chapel of an important Christian symbol. On the other hand, if he is aware of the significance of the altar, then perhaps he is merely goofing on the ignorance of the diversity fascists.

On the other hand, it might have been easier simply to dismiss those who have complained about the cross (removable on request for special events) for the anti-Christian bigots that they are.

Deborah Orin Succumbs To Cancer

Sad news tonight. New York Post reporter Deborah Orin, favorite target of those favoring a monopoly by left-wing media, succumbed to cancer.

Your Hypocrisy Is Showing

Courtesy of Charles at TwoConservatives, I was reminded today's WaPo editorial, denouncing those who take note of Senator Barack Obama's middle name ("Hussein").

I guess I missed the WaPo editorial denouncing the campaign of Jim Webb and his paid Internet hacks, who engaged in the same tactic with regard to George Allen. You know. Like this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And ... well, you get the point.

Yet 'nary a word from the Standards Police at the Washington Post. Indeed, here is the result of a search of the Washington Post's website on "George Felix Allen."

Of course, when it's Conservatives taking note of the middle name of a Democrat, it's worthy of a lead (i.e., first), Sunday editorial.

Repeat after me: "There is no Left-Wing media bias. There is no Left-Wing media bias. There is no Left-Wing media bias. There is no Left-Wing media bias...."

Prince William Media Gone Brokeback?

Does the Potomac News' continuing lurch to the Left mean that it is actively ignoring issues relevant to the voters?

One cannot witness the Occoquan campaign between Mike May and Jeff Dion and conclude otherwise.

The Pot. News has utterly ignored Dion's affiliation with the far Left, as a member of Perversion Prin... er, "Equality Prince William." The funny thing is, even Dion has told the truth about his affiliation with that organization. Well, he lists it on his bio, so that one can know his affiliation if one is familiar with that organization and its agenda for mainstreaming perversion. Yet only a single Pot. News campaign story on Dion --- one from 2 December --- has mentioned that affiliation. And even that Keith Walker story ignores the fact that it is a homosexual advocacy organization.

Never mind that the Pot. New has ignored serious questions raised about Dion's quibbling/misrepresentation of his custody status. Never mind his apparent and inevitable lies to the Boy Scouts of America in obtaining a position as a Cub Scout Pack leader.

What about the impact of Dion's far Left affiliation upon what would be his execution of his public duties? Will Dion's self-serving affection for the radical homosexual agenda mean that he will attack organizations which resist it?

This isn't about the Pot. News outing a homosexual who wants to keep his private sexual conduct private, for Dion is well and fully "out." This is about the local media covering for --- rather than simply "covering" --- Dion's radical activities, and failing to ask relevant question which must arise as a consequence of his radicalism and affiliations.

It is abundantly clear that the sub silentio radical agenda of the Pot. News and its publisher/editors and/or staff has failed the voters of the Occoquan District. One only hopes that they know just how radical Dion is --- efforts to disguise that fact to the contrary notwithstanding --- before they vote on Tuesday.

Snakes on a Campaign

Well, the Clinton spin machine is already in overdrive, trying to deny the campaign's complicity in a story that Barack Obama was educated in a madrassa (a fundamentalist Islamic school). As I noted earlier, the far Left blogosphere and others are in full attack mode against Fox, to avoid attributing responsibility to Hitlary and her campaign.

Now, they're expanding the wild accusations. You see, it isn't just Fox News that's engaged in this story, it's the whole Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy! Others are whining about it as "Smear Politics."

'Cept, I heard the editor of Insight Magazine on the radio yesterday afternoon, and he's standing by the story. Not, mind you, that Obama was educated for a time in a madrassa (which, even if true, it not likely to be disqualifying, particularly in light of the fact that he is apparently a practicing Christian... well, OK, a member of a United Church of Christ congregation), but that the source for the story was Her Thighness's campaign.

Of course, we all know the Clintons are paragons of the Truth and Virtue. They’d never float false information against a political rival. They'd never engage in the "politics of personal destruction." They'd never even do a background check on rivals or potential rivals.

Yeah. On Bizarro World. Does more than 900 FBI files ring a bell? Terry Lenzner? Remember the denials about "that ridiculous blue dress"?

It is an appropriate irony indeed that the Great Prevaricator popularized the phrase "the politics of personal destruction," in light of the fact that he and his minions have been its most practiced and prolific practitioners. It's fascinating to note that, whatever the status of the Clinton marriage, they at least retain their commitment in that regard.

And it is a sad commentary on Obama that he so fears the Clinton Attack Machine that, rather than attack the source, he attacks those who dare to tell the truth about the Clinton's sleazy tactics.

ATR's Statement On GOP Transportation Plan

This was forwarded to me by a friend:

Statement on Transportation Plans in the Commonwealth of Virginia

In light of the anticipated transportation plans for the 2007 session, Americans for Tax Reform has been asked about the implications of various proposals for signers of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Although the compromise proposal put forth last week merits additional information and further evaluation, there are components that may be of concern for taxpayers.

Based on the limited information available to us at this time, the proposed state-wide tax and fee increases, specifically the diesel tax increase, appear to lack offsetting tax cuts in the legislation.

As signers are aware, the Pledge allows for revenue neutral reform. This allows for tax increases when offset by tax cuts of equal or greater value. In order for a tax cut to qualify as an offset, it must be in the same piece of legislation as the tax increase and must go into effect at the same time as the increase. Previous tax cuts and potential tax cuts in the future do not meet the definition of an offset.

ATR is also seeking clarification with regard to the apparent disparity between the current and the proposed revenue-raising abilities of local authorities. While the proposed compromise effectively repeals the authority to raise the local income tax, it also seems to omit two key taxpayer protections that existed under the income tax authority: the voter approval requirement and the mandated five year tax sunset. Without inclusion of a referendum vote and a sunset, taxpayers cannot be sure that
their overall tax burden will not rise under the guise of reform.

After a preliminary review of the information available, only with the addition of offsetting tax cuts to the legislation, legislators could vote for the compromise plan and be consistent with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

ATR continues to seek and welcomes addition information and clarification.

Congratulations!

To the godfather of Virginia's Conservative blogosphere, His Honor, Judge Chad Dotson, who was approved today by the State Senate for a General District Court judgeship in his home county, Wise County.

I don't know what's scarier: that a blogger is now a judge, or that a guy considerably younger than I is a judge.

Getting older sucks.

'Course, now Judge Dotson will never be able to repeat that old joke --- first told to me by a friend now a judge --- asking "What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?"

Answer? "Your Honor."

However, to keep him humble (a characteristic not surgically removed until one becomes a Federal judge, with life tenure), he should contemplate it.

H/T to Waldo

Bloggers Already In The Bag For Hitlary

Fox News made an error, reporting that Barack Obama was educated in a madrassa. Turns out he wasn't. Turns out the source for this erroneous story was people connected to Hitlary Clinton.

Nevertheless, the far Left blogosphere and others are in full attack mode against Fox, to avoid attributing responsibility to Hitlary and her campaign. The Clinton Sleaze Machine rides again! Now with bloggers willing to sell their souls to defend Her Thighness.

I wonder how many of those who will now savage Fox News Channel were either silent about or supportive of Dan Rather's hit job on George Bush less than two months before the 2004 presidential election?

Incidentally, I haven't been able to confirm that Waldo was among those supportive of Rather. However, neither have I been able to find any comments attacking him for his reliance upon forged documents, either.

You Forgot a Couple

It seems that "phriendlyjaime" over at Raising Dough ... er, "Raising Kaine," has list a couple of dozen reasons why he/she's "pro-choice." Now, never mind that many address things like rape and incest, "hard cases" which, while horrible, rarely result in pregnancy. Never mind that he forgets about the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, the appropriate time for the exercise of "choice" is when one chooses to engage in the behavior which causes pregnancy. Never mind that his/her criticisms of those opposing abortion on demand are nothing more than caricatures. And never mind that the same people who believe that women should have the "choice" to kill their children in the womb vigorously oppose any efforts to give parents the choice in where and how to educate their children.

It seems that "phriendlyjaime" has forgotten two of the most important reasons why he/she is "pro-choice":

"phriendlyjaime" is "pro-choice" because he/she hates the Constitution, and finds it necessary that unelected judges write their personal preferences into the Constitution in lieu of resorting to that inconvenient process of actually amending the document.

"phriendlyjaime" is "pro-choice" because he/she (probably rightly) lacks the confidence in his/her ability to persuade the majority of Americans and/or legislators of the worth of his/her position.

I am pro-Life, but I would have a lot less contempt for partisans for abortion on demand if they would stop bastardizing the Constitution to achieve their policy preferences. I would have a lot less contempt for partisans for abortion on demand if their "argument" did not rely upon the same kind of "substantive due process" reasoning that earlier generations of Liberals railed against when it was used to strike down economic regulation.

The simple fact of the matter is that, if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade, the issue would merely be thrown back to the State legislatures to decide each State's policies regarding abortion.

Isn't it ironic that so many of those who wax demagogic about their faith in "democracy" have so little faith in their ability to prevail through the democratic process with regard to their commitment to abortion on demand.

New Cog In The Democrat Smear Machine

Apparently, smears are going to be the primary stock in trade of Virginia's Democrat lawmakers as they seek a majority in this year's legislative races.

The tag line is "Paid for and authorized by the Virginia Joint Democratic Caucus."

Beyond Dion's Misrepresentations

As both regular readers of this space know, we now have two instances of serious questions having been raised about the honesty of Jeff Dion, who is the Democrat nominee for Occoquan District Supervisor. One involves his biographical claim about his custody status. Dion has not chosen to respond to the serious questions raised here and elsewhere, notwithstanding his blogosphere presence and repeated invitations to do so.

The other involves his role as a Cub Scout Pack Leader, notwithstanding the Scout's long-standing prohibition against practicing homosexuals from leadership positions.

It is becoming readily apparent what Dion's behavior in this regard tells us about his character and honesty. Without answers to these questions, it is almost beyond question that one must conclude that he is a fine student of the Great Prevaricator aka Bill Clinton, whose every statement needed to be parsed for hidden meaning and shadings. Remember "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"?

But as a practicing homosexual seeking public office in local government, one must also ask what impact Dion's proclivities will have on his performance of his public duties, if elected. Some have pointed out that his involvement as an adult Scout leader notwithstanding his deviant sexual activities demonstrates that he "seems to have decided that what HE wants to do is paramount."

Interesting point. And in light of it, one is entitled to ask how "what HE wants to do it" will affect his performance of his public duties, if elected.

One of the elements of the continuing far Left/radical homosexual war on the Boy Scouts has been to attack their access to public facilities. Soooo, if elected, will Jeff Dion support these attacks, if launched in Prince William County and/or Virginia? For instance, local Cub Scout packs use Leesylvania State Park for their annual summer Day Camp. I don't believe that the County has any role in use of that facility, but there are likely many County facilities frequently used by the Cub Scouts and the Boy Scouts. Will Dion support efforts to deny access of Boy Scouts to public facilities because of their beliefs in God and regarding homosexual behavior? Will Dion seek passage of so-called "non-discrimination" ordinances designed to protect practitioners of deviant sexual behavior, which have been used to discriminate against the Boy Scouts? Will Dion seek to deny to the Boy Scouts access to charitable donation campaigns because of the BSA's constitutionally-protected views and leadership policies with respect to homosexuals?

These are the types of attacks which have been launched against the Boy Scouts by partisans for the radical homosexual agenda. The question is, will Dion support such efforts as Occoquan District Supervisor? Will Dion attempt --- like so many other partisans for the radical homosexual agenda ---to enlist the awesome power of government to abuse the Boy Scouts?

UPDATE: One commenter on a previous thread said that "Dion may be gay, but that doesn't make him a pedaphile (sp). Nate hit the nail on the head when he said that Dion is doing the right thing by being active in his son's life."

Well, he's probably not. But that doesn't address the point of other people's sons in his charge. Leslie Carbone made the point about five years ago, asking:

Is the hypocrisy of today's cultural elites limitless? Is the Pope Catholic" After years of haranguing the Boy Scouts of America for refusing to place young boys in danger of sexual abuse, the liberal intelligentsia is now condemning the Catholic Church leadership for doing exactly that.

Carbone went on to note that:

But what if the church had exercised the zero-tolerance policy now demanded in the first place? Would it have dodged the criticism it now endures?

The Boy Scouts of America didn't. The BSA has come under constant fire for its policy of prohibiting homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters. While not all homosexuals are child molesters and not all child molesters are homosexual, there is a strong enough correlation to mean that the BSA's policy is prudent and responsible. Although homosexuals constitute only about two percent of the population, they represent one-third of child molesters. "The Gay Report," the 1979 work of homosexual researchers Jay and Young revealed that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed admitted to having had sexual relations with boys ages 16 to 19 or younger. Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover sees a "substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia. Rather they argue that pedophilia is an acceptable aspect of sexuality, especially of homosexuality."

It's easy to see why serving as scoutmasters is attractive to homosexual child molesters. Such a post provides easy access to lots of young boys away from their parents, on such excursions as the camping trips that are a staple of scout life. Though the BSA annually bars hundreds of homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters, a nationwide investigation of child molestation in the Boy Scouts found that more than 2,000 boys had reported molestation by adult Scout leaders who slipped by the ban during 1971 to 1991. Lifting the BSA's ban on homosexual scoutmasters would surely only increase this number.

Those of use who object to Dion's lying about his deviant sexual behavior in order to evade the BSA's prohibitions are being savaged by the far Left. One has to wonder how many of them have attacked the Catholic Church for its failure to respond appropriately to abuse by priests. Indeed, one has to wonder whether, in both cases, their criticism is rooted not in concerns about children, but in attacking traditional institutions they loathe.

UPDATE: Well, at least one far Left blogger has decided to attack by unsuccessfully arguing that a candidate's honesty is not an issue of importance to voters. He entitles his piece "On Obfuscation of Issues." While he is doubtless learning much about the theory and practice of the obfuscation of issues in law school, I'm pretty sure that how a candidate's private perversions affect his public decisions is always an issue important to voters.

And, of course, note the scrupulous silence from the far Left to this post.

To Whom Else Is Jeff Dion Lying?

Well, at least one answer is: the Boy Scouts of America.

As regular readers know (both of you), I have discussed at length Dion's the suggestion on his website that he "lives in Lake Ridge with his two children." As I understand it, Dion "lives in Lake Ridge with his two children" in the same way that I live in Montclair with Maureen Caddigan. That is, we both live in the community, but in separate homes (our spouses and children would likely object were it otherwise). Nevertheless, I have nothing more than my impressions, and those that have been reported to me, yet Dion has had plenty of opportunity to either disabuse me of my misimpression (in which case, he would immediately receive a public apology and retraction), and has failed or refused to do so, notwithstanding his monitoring of the blogosphere.

I received an e-mail today which indicates that Dion is acting as a Cub Scout pack leader. Cub Scouts are, of course, part of the Boy Scouts of America, a program in which I have more than a passing interest, as an Eagle Scout myself, and as the father of one Cub Scout, and one soon-to-be Cub Scout.

As it turns out, one witness reports that Dion is Cub Master for the local Cub Scout Pack at Antietam Elementary School in Lake Ridge. But is anything more well known than the Boy Scouts’ prohibition against homosexuals? The Boy Scouts took a case to the United States Supreme Court and won to protect their right as a private organization to hold their leaders responsible for their choices and to demand that they adhere to basic moral standards (Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)). The BSA has since reaffirmed this policy.

A lot of questions are raised by this. After all, notwithstanding local press silence, Dion is apparently well out of the closet ... except when it comes to his campaign. The metro area's homosexual newspaper, the Washington Blade, has reported on his candidacy under the headline "Gay Va. lawyer eyes county seat." He has been endorsed by the "Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund." Another widely-read blogger has --- when not attacking with innuendo and guilt-by-association a prospective Republican candidate for Delegate whose law firm is representing another former Republican candidate in a libel suit --- reported at length on his deception and his preference. Yet while Dion's website biography prominently mentions his attainment of the rank of Eagle Scout --- presumably before he made public his sexual activities inconsistent with the Scout Oath and Laws --- and many of his activities (including the fact that he "volunteers for the PTA," an organization associated with the ultra-Left National Education Association teachers' union, which not only doesn't care about the moral values of Scouting, but actively opposes them), it pointedly does not mention the fact that he acts as a Cub Scout leader. Curious, indeed, since such a credential would presumably endear him to the family-oriented voters of the Occoquan District. Presumably, that is, if they remained unaware of his personal choices inconsistent with the values of Scouting.

So Dion is, once again, not telling the whole truth. Not to the Boy Scouts of America, not to the local leaders to whom he is responsible, and likely not to the parents who entrust their children, at least temporarily, to his care.

This is a candidate who asks the voters for his trust? This is a candidate that the Democrats asks voters to trust?

Curious, indeed.

UPDATE: A commenter over at BVBL has offered proof that Dion is, indeed, the CubMaster. Click on the link at the bottom to find out who is the CubMaster of the Pack.

Some on the far Left are trying to claim that this is about "mean spirited gay bashing" and intolerance. About the former, they're wrong. I never publicly commented upon Dion's perversion until he became a public figure and started offering public information which seemed --- to some acquainted with him --- specifically designed to leave voters with an entirely different impression of basic facts about him. However, it is absolutely true that it's about intolerance.

Of course, the "intolerance" that it's about is intolerance for those who misrepresent themselves.