DADT Repeal Passed; Next Up: NAMBLA To Lobby For Repeal Of Laws Against Pedophilia

So, some sexual deviants will now allowed to serve openly in the United States Armed Forces.

I wonder how long it will be before NAMBLA (the "North American Man-Boy Love Association") opens an office in D.C. and gets its agenda in the Democrat platform?

UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

The Honorable Henry Hudson, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, has just ruled that the individual mandate in BarryCare is unconstitutional.

Here's Attorney General Cuccinelli's letter:

Dear Defender of Liberty,

Today, a federal judge in Richmond ruled the individual mandate of the federal health care law UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

In other words - we won!

This won't be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution.

I am still fully digesting the court's ruling, so I'll get back to you again later with more details, but I wanted you to hear the good news right away.

Thank so many of you for your support to become the Attorney General of Virginia, and your support since then. Today is a day to celebrate those same first principles that our founding fathers articulated over 200 years ago.

We are proud to defend their work and the same first principles today in the 21st century.

Stay tuned - and thank you for your support. 

Sincerely,

Ken Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General of Virginia

Congratulations to Attorney General Cuccinelli, and to all Virginians!  As a fellow litigator, I can attest to the fact that victory is sweet!

It's Completely Sick ... And I Can't Take My Eyes Off Of It

Apparently, a Huffington Post blogger, morally superior Liberal, and Columbia University professor maintained a three-year incestuous relationship with his own daughter!

Remember this the next time someone tells a West Virginia joke.

I can't wait for the depraved individuals who starts telling us how this was a relationship between consenting adults (apparently, the daughter was over 18 when the sexual relationship began) and that it's really none of our business.

Oops!  Too late!  Someone already did.

On "Hostage Takers"

So President Barry has compared "compared negotiating with Republicans to negotiating with hostage takers and said he only did so because of the danger that the hostage -- aka the American public -- would be harmed," according to the WaPo?

OK.  So never mind that President Barry can't bring himself to call Islamofascist terrorists "terrorists."  But now, he's calling the people elected by a goodly portion of the American electorate "hostage takers"?!?!  This guy's arrogance knows no bounds!

And I was under the impression that most Republicans want to stop the Obama tax increase for everyone, and it was President Barry who was holding the American economy and the middle class and poor he claims to represent hostage to his desire to increase taxes on the successful.

Frankly, President Barry's attitude on maintaining tax increases for the rich at the cost of the middle class and the poor reminds me a lot of the old National Lampoon cover, the one with the dog, the gun, and the legend "If You Don't Buy This Magazine, We'll Kill This Dog."

I wish I could reproduce it here, but I have only this link.

Perhaps the reason for his "compromise" is that he feared that the American people had figured this out, too.

Elizabeth Edwards

Didn't like her politics, but had to respect her courage in the face of adversity.

RIP.

UPDATE: And the first political ambulance chaser emerges.

Winners & Losers

The moonbats over at "Blue Virginia" list yesterday's winners and losers from ... well, the moonbat perspective.  Since they don't allow comments from people who aren't moonbats, I'll note my observations here.

The Rational will, of course, transpose the "Winner" and "Loser" labels, and ignore what is obviously highly ideological assessments of what happened yesterday.  However, one cannot help but hope that Virginia's leading moonbat gathering place will continue with the meme that anyone who opposes the far Left and its agenda is "ignorant," or "fearful," or "irresponsible" (a particularly bold word from people who are running deficits of more than $1 trillion annually).  Yeah, guys: that's the way to ingratiate yourselves and win voters' approval.

Of course, the most revealing characterization is in their fourth "Winner": "Voting against one's own self interest."  If there is a phrase which more aptly sums up the arrogance of the far Left, I haven't seen it.

And the most ironic?  "Denial," the tenth listed "Winner."  Yeah, guys, you go with that.  Please?

And then, there's the simply fanciful.  Number 7 among the winners is "Empty Suits," characterizing incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor as an "Empty Suit."  Again, bold words from a blogger who finds Tom Perriello --- perhaps the emptiest "empty suit" of the 2008 House freshman class --- to be a suitable Congress-critter.

And Number 1 among the "losers?"  Characterizing the entire Democrat agenda for the last two years as "accomplishments."  Uh, guys, apparently, a majority of voters consider Democrat "accomplishments" about as desirable as falling hindquarters-first into a marital aid factory; while I'm sure there's a contingent (mostly in the Democrat Party) who would find that appealing, it's a small-to-vanishing minority.

The claim that President Barry actually had "a strategy for reaching out to Republicans" (Loser #7) is worth a belly-laugh.  Right: if you consider the demand for abject surrender to be "reaching out."  President Barry's idea of "reaching out to Republicans" is similar to the Great Three's strategy of "reaching out" to Hitler and Tojo.

Get over yourselves, guys: demanding unconditional surrender is not "reaching out," except with the point of a sword.  And if you're going to do that, you'd better make sure your sword is bigger.  Last night demonstrated that President Barry's is not.

And if he hews to his current course, the demonstration in 2012 might be even more pointed.

Wonderful

One has to imdagine that most of these individuals are affiliated in some way with the University of Virginia.

If so, this is Exhibit A for defunding that institution.  Clearly, the taxpayers of Virginia aren't getting their money's worth.

British Sub Runs Aground

Yet another story for the unfortunately-named file.

Sadly, the officer in charge of this vessel apparently failed to acquire the attributes of the vessel's name: HMS Astute.

Krystal Ball: "Exhibitionists Deserve Representation, Too"

Well, it was inevitable: First District Democrat candidate for Congress, the unfortunately-named Krystal Ball, is playing the victim card.  "lowkell" at Blue Virginia calls it "fiery," and "passionate."

"Delusional" would be more accurately descriptive.

It's actually a pretty amazing piece, especially insofar as it reveals Mrs. Ball's woeful lack of qualification for public office.  Or as someone with a firm grasp of reality, for that matter.

She invokes California Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, and the campaign of Jerry Brown, which was apparently preparing to peg her as a "whore" with the approval or at least acquiescence of the candidate, without managing a word of condemnation for Brown himself.

Of particular interest is this section:

[T]hese photos were released by a right-wing smear blog with close ties to my opponent. I don't believe these pictures were posted with a desire to just embarrass me; they wanted me to feel like a whore. They wanted me to collapse in a ball of embarrassment and to hang my head in shame. After all, when you are a woman named Krystal Ball, 28 years old, running for Congress, well, you get the picture. Stripper. Porn star. I've heard them all. So, I sat in my husband's arms and cried. I thought about my little girl. I couldn't stand the idea that I had somehow damaged the cause of young women running for office. I couldn't stand the idea that I might shame my family, my friends or my supporters in some way.

The tactic of making female politicians into whores is nothing new. In fact, it happened to Meg Whitman, one of the world's most accomplished business women, just last week. It's part of this whole idea that female sexuality and serious work are incompatible. But I realized that photos like the ones of me, and ones much racier, woeuld end up coming into the public sphere when women of my generation run for office. And I knew that there could be no other answer to the question than this: Society has to accept that women of my generation have sexual lives that are going to leak into the public sphere. Sooner or later, this is a reality that has to be faced, or many young women in my generation will not be able to run for office.

Let's deconstruct this a little.  "[T]hese photos were released by a right-wing smear blog with close ties to my opponent."  "right-wing smear blog"?  Ball is non-specific, so it's a little unclear about whom she is talking.  I first saw them on Black Velvet Bruce Li, and then, Virginia Virtucon (those have since been removed).  I may even have been referred to the former by no one's Republican, Ben Tribbett (with the wonderful title, "KRYSTAL BALL PICTURES AS CHRISTMAS DOMINATRIX RELEASED!").

Now, I myself have on occasion pegged BVBL as a "smear blog" (ask Faisal Gill), but so far as I know, it hardly has "close ties" to Rob Wittman's campaign.  Virginia Virtucon?  Well, maybe close ties, but "right-wing"?  I guess only in the fevered imagination of the moonbat far Left, where everyone to the right of Teddy Kennedy is "far right," and which finds so appropriate a representative in Krystal Ball (witness her references to "marriage inequality [code for defining "marriage" as, well, marriage], failing schools [oblivious to or ignoring the fact that the far Left and its teacher-union allies have controlled them for decades], an often-tainted food supply [whatever she is talking about; perhaps eggs distributed during Obama's administration?]," etc.

After all, she writes as though the Great Prevaricator's impeachment was about someone's "private life," rather than the truth: that it was about a President's perjury and obstruction of justice.  Ah, if only Richard Nixon had been so shameless!  She writes about how the Great Prevaricator's wife's "expression after she had to face the entire country with her private life exposed for the world to see."

Mrs. Ball represents the far Left's penchant for revisionist history, too, apparently forgetting that Hillary Clinton, too, was shamelessly lied to by her husband, even if you accept for a moment that her response after he finally came clean wasn't all about maintaining her proximity to power.

"they wanted me to feel like a whore."  I guess Krystal Ball actually owns a crystal ball.  Either that, or she's engaging in the far Left's tried-and-true tactic of attacking the motivations of her opposition, and attributing the motives that serve her interests.

Perhaps, just perhaps, dear Mrs. Ball, they wanted to point out that you're irresponsible: irresponsible for that behavior; irresponsible for allowing it to be photographed; irresponsible in your choices about those with whom you associate.  Perhaps Howard Stern should run for Congress, too.

And please don't try to wrap yourself in the mantle of "female sexuality," and fevered femi-Nazi caricatures of Conservatives.  I truly believe that most Conservatives don't give a rat's rear-end about your private sexual behavior, or that of most people.

Which raises the question: from where did the photos come?  Who released them?  Who had them in their possession?  Ball asks "How did this happen?," but on a broader level, complaining that "Politics is a nasty game," without expressing any interest in who it was who actually brought them into the public sphere.  No; she'd rather attack the messenger.  And as "nasty" as at least one party she attended?  Hmmmmm.....

And surreal in the extreme is her assertion that:

[P]hotos like the ones of me, and ones much racier, would end up coming into the public sphere when women of my generation run for office. And I knew that there could be no other answer to the question than this: Society has to accept that women of my generation have sexual lives that are going to leak into the public sphere. Sooner or later, this is a reality that has to be faced, or many young women in my generation will not be able to run for office.

Really?  That's quite a commentary of women of Ball's generation.  Are so many of them really equally irresponsible and exhibitionist?  After all, I recall the news in the Eighties when a hard-core porn star won a seat in the Italian Parliament, but that was Italy, after all, and her campaign, if memory serves, was more of a lark, akin to Mary Carey's run for California Governor in the Gray Davis recall.

And as the father of a 25-year-old stepdaughter, I somehow doubt "that women of [Ball's] generation have sexual lives that are going to leak into the public sphere."

But Ball expresses no interest in "how" it happened, instead trashing her enemies broadly, playing the victim card.

Perhaps the real lesson here is that Ms. Ball chooses her "friends" as wisely as she chooses her behavior.  And in both cases, neither commends her for a seat in the United States Congress.

Now, an internship in the Clinton White House?  That's another question entirely.

Is Debbie Wasserman Shultz The Most Obnoxious A**hole In Politics?

One could certainly draw that conclusion from Shultz's (D-FL) interrupting performance against Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor on this morning's Fox News Sunday.  I was hoping to link to the video, but when I Googled her name and "Fox News Sunday," one of the first things that came up was a transcript of another rude, interrupting performance by the Congresswoman from March.

Perhaps she has just been channeling Algore.

On the other hand, perhaps it's just another indicator of Democrat desparation.

Yes, Amending The Constitution IS Possible

Apparently, Virginia's moonbatosphere is in high dudgeon over Governor Bob McDonnell's endorsement of a constitutional amendment permitting two-thirds of the states to reject or "nullify" a Federal law or regulation.  The moonbats over at "Blue Virginia" (AKA "Don McEachin's Press Office"; can't do an effective link, but just search "McEachin" using the site's search function) opine "So much for Bob McDonnell understanding what the Civil War was all about."

Recall, of course, that this was the same site that --- indeed, the same author who --- savaged Bob McDonnell for daring to point out that:

McDonnell said he did not include a reference to slavery because "there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia.

Here's how "lowkell" responded to that bold and controversial statement:

WTF?!? Slavery wasn't one of the "most significant" parts of Virginia history? My god [sic, unless, of course, "lowkell" is referring to his god, i.e., big government"), what did they teach this guy at Pat Robertson's law school?

In response - and rightly so! - "The proclamation was condemned by the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus and the NAACP. Former governor L. Douglas Wilder called it "mind-boggling to say the least" that McDonnell did not reference slavery or Virginia's struggle with civil rights in his proclamation." I agree strongly with the Legislative Black Caucus and Doug Wilder; McDonnell's airbrushing of slavery and the civil rights struggle is completely outrageous, shameful, and unacceptable.

Funny, but I missed "lowkell's" reference (at least back in April) mentioning that nullification was "what the Civil War was all about."  Perhaps he was "airbrushing" it at the time.

And so much for --- huge surprise here --- moonbats "understanding what the [Constitution] is all about."  Perhaps, when you have judges who are willing to defy the plain language of the Constitution to enact your policy goals, you forget that amending the document is the anticipated way of doing things.

Article V of the Constitution specifically provides:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; ...and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Soooo, amending the Constitution is permissible --- and was even anticipated --- by the Framers.  Indeed, many of them were in the first Congress, which proposed twelve amendments, ten of which were adopted as the Bill of Rights, and one of which was eventually adopted as our latest amendment.

Whether the proposed amendment is a good idea is an eminently debatable point, and a different question entirely.  And as constitutional conservative, I am skeptical of any effort to amend the basic law of the land.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the moonbats from the far Left bothering to address the issue on the merits.

Did Anyone Else Wonder...

whether President Barry was tempted to agree with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when the latter tried to blame the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, on a conspiracy involving President George W. Bush?

Actually, I would have had more respect for the former if he'd just 'fessed up, and said something like "Listen, I'm willing to blame George W. Bush for a lot, most of which is not his fault.  But Ahmadinejad's accusation is too insane even for me."

Cable TV Idiocies

About seventeen months ago, I finally yielded to the advertising, and decided to switch from Comcast for my cable television, and go with Verizon, which was offering FiOS in my area for cable TV, telephone (for which I already had Verizon), long distance, and Internet.

I may have made a mistake.

I came home early today, and saw that one of my favorite shows, NCIS, was on Sleuth, a channel we watch fairly regularly.

My FiOS guide informed me that I was not subscribed.  To a channel I had for the last 17 months.

Sooooo, I called Verizon, went through the idiotic computer (which seems designed to discourage actual communication), and finally was told that my package had been changed, and I no longer had it.

Of course, it was a channel offered when I signed up for a two-year, no-cancellation package.

I wonder if anyone else is contemplating a class-action lawsuit against Verizon for its unilateral breach of contract?

Using Stupidity As A Strategy

Aside from the fact that Democrats rely upon stupidity (economic ignorance; moral vapidity) to advance virtually their entire agenda, it's certainly fascinating to watch the recent contretemps over the impending execution of Teresa Lewis.

Aside from the reliance upon mistranslations --- the Commandment is "Thou shalt not murder," not "Thou shalt not kill"; then again, why should we be surprised that the far Left can't get the Bible right? --- and self-serving statistics --- if you're worried about "deterrence," every person upon whom the death penalty is imposed is effectively deterred from murdering again --- most of today's most vocal anti-death penalty types simply have no shame. They're arguing, in essence, that because Lewis is "borderline retarded," she should not suffer the ultimate penalty for her crime.

So once again, we're treated to the win-at-all-costs, argue-what's-convenient tactics of the far Left.

If you oppose the death penalty, oppose it. For all reasons; under all circumstances. Kind of like the Catholic Church. I don't agree with it's position, but at least I can respect it as ethically consistent.

But spare us the pretensions that you're opposing it for the reasons you just happen to be citing on any particular occasion. It's as phony as, well, most Democrats' opposition to the Iraqi war.

That'll Teach Me

Remember that wonderful bumper sticker from the Reagan era? The one that says "I Don't Believe The Post"?

Should've known better. Yesterday, I posted a discussion of a WaPo article which said that the Governor's plan to privatize liquor sales in the Commonwealth (a good idea) included a tax increase (a bad idea).

And I shouldn't have believed The Post.

Turns out one of the people who reads this blog (God bless him! Nice to know somebody is listening) is Governor McDonnell's spokesman, Tucker Martin, and last night, Tucker sent me this e-mail (emphasis added):

I wanted to shoot these facts over to you, the article in the Washington Post this morning was incorrect. Hope this helps clear it all up.
* There is no 4% tax increase as part of the staff ABC privatization recommendation
* Newspaper reports that say this are incorrect
* Specifically, there is no 1.5% fee on all outlets that sell alcohol
* Under the staff recommendation all restaurants and hotels will have the option of paying an additional 2.5% "Restaurant Convenience Fee" that would allow them to buy discounted distilled spirits directly from private wholesalers and receive on-site delivery
* Buying direct from private wholesalers will save restaurants money, and on-premise delivery will add convenience
* But it is optional
* If they choose not to participate they will buy and pick-up direct from private retailers, just like they currently do with ABC stores
* Because of the benefits that restaurants would gain from dealing directly with private wholesalers we anticipate the overwhelming majority would choose to participate in the 2.5% "Restaurant Convenience Fee"
* The staff privatization plan keeps ongoing revenue to the state equivalent to what is received in the current monopoly set up
* The state is projected to bring in $324.2 million in FY 2011 from alcohol sales
* After privatization, under the staff recommendation plan, the state will bring in $301.8 million
* That is a slight difference of only 6.9%
* In the context of a $37.9 billion annual budget this is a difference of .059%
* Additional government reforms proposed by the Administration will easily fill that gap
* This ABC privatization plan keeps ongoing revenue to the General Fund equivalent to the current monopoly system
* It does not contain a tax increase, newspaper reports stating this were incorrect
* It will produce $500 million for transportation while eliminating an outdated government monopoly

J. Tucker Martin
Director of Communications

I hate to get things wrong, and unlike a newspaper "Corrections" section, I want to give this correction at least as prominent a place as the erroneous information posted here.

So, apologies, Governor. Mea culpa. And I really should have known better.

Bad Idea, Governor

Once again, an otherwise talented and attractive Republican officeholder proves the verity of Evans' (as in "M. Stanton") Law: "When our friends are in a position to be useful, they're no longer our friends."

Today's news provides word that the Governor is briefing legislators on his plan to privatize Virginia's liquor stores. Of course, Virginia is one of only eighteen states in the Union in which the state maintains a monopoly on the sale of the "demon rum."

Now I agree with the Governor: the Commonwealth shouldn't be in the business of selling liquor. For that matter, it shouldn't be in the business of any kind of business. For that matter, it should probably get out of the education business, too.

But never mind all that. It seems that the Governor's plan is meeting some resistance, largely from Democrat legislators and Senate Repubmocrats. Sooooo, what does the Governor propose? To placate his Democrat critics --- as well as those Republicans who foolishly support higher taxes --- by proposing a new bar and restaurant tax.

Now, I suppose that it would be just to tax alcoholic beverages consumed in bars and restaurants to make the sale of the Commonwealth liquor monopoly "revenue neutral." But is it just and fair to increase taxes (apparently, by 1.5%) on those who eat at McDonald's --- a practice which carries with it its own costs --- which does not serve alcohol? Or to increase taxes those who eat out at family restaurants but do not buy alcoholic beverages?

Sorry, Governor: ABC privatization is a good idea. But using it as a stalking horse for raising taxes generally should be a non-starter.

There's something --- oh, I don't know --- so Democrat about it.

Labor Day Crockery

Among those who believe that Labor Day is really --- or should be --- "Organized Labor Day," I found this little gem in today's E.J. Dionne column in the WaPo:

The union movement has always been attached to a set of values -- solidarity being the most important, the sense that each should look out for the interests of all. This promoted other commitments: to mutual assistance, to a rough-and-ready sense of equality, to a disdain for elitism, to a belief that ... individual rights did not stop at the plant gate or the office reception room.

Mr. Dionne might just want to consider the treatment by labor bosses of those who don't buy into the union myth before he promotes another one: how unions have promoted "a belief that ... individual rights did not stop at the plant gate or the office reception room."

And A Shout Out To My Friend Bwana!

No matter the outcome of this year's Hampden-Sydney/Bridgewater football game --- in recent years, it has foretold the Old Dominion Athletic Conference championship --- or even the game against long-time rival Randolph-Macon College (the coeducational experiment in Ashland), Hampden-Sydney men will take solace in this more important measure of educational quality.

Review of the list shows H-SC to be number eleven (11) among all Southern colleges in salary potential. H-SC is number two among Virginia colleges, behind only Washington & Lee University, and ahead of Virginia Tech, UVa, and William & Mary.

Indeed, H-SC fares well against more well-known and larger institutions such as George Washington, Johns Hopkins, SMU, Emory, Florida, Clemson, and Florida State.

Remember When....

We were told that Republicans shouldn't support a constitutional amendment defining "marriage" because it was a "a state issue"?

When Republicans take control of Congress, one can only hope that they have the wit to raise a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman again ... having learned yet again that you can never underestimate the perfidy of the far Left.

Gratuitously Misogynistic Humor

Great News:

CNN has just reported that BP has replaced the oil cap with a wedding ring.

It immediately stopped putting out.

More news at 11:00.

H/T to Boortz.