Say Goodbye To Professional Football

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

Dear NFL Fan,

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Yours, Roger Goodell

Yours, Roger Goodell

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

David Englin: Virginia's Dumbest Delegate?

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

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

Nice soundbites, all.

Reality?  Not hardly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Broder, RIP

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

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

We will not see his like pass this way again.

RIP.

I Guess Principles Had Nothing To Do With It

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



Well, OK: there's one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ha.  Ha.  HA!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Enormously Sad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Is it Who's "Deranged"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democrat Congressman Calls For Union Violence

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

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

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

Sanctimonious.  Hypocritical.  A**holes.

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

What Wisconsin Is Really About

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Let The Foolishness Begin

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Another Democrat Smear Campaign

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

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

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

Why Did Mubarak Delay His Resignation?

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

Heh, heh, heh.

President Barry's New Theme

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

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

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

Now, there's a button I would wear!

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

"Blood Libel"? Yes, It Is

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

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

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

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

Or, as Governor Palin put it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sad News

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

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

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

From The Frontlines Of The Culture War

The news is not good:

And so the purges have begun....

It's just so ... Stalinesque.

NFL Pussification Continues Apace

An NFL game cancelled?  For snow!?!!?

Really no comment other than the title.

Bold Words

I guess I misread the headline.

I saw "Senate Play[s] Games with U.S. National Security," and thought for sure that I was about to read a post on the lame-duck Senate's vote to require the United States Armed Forces to enlist sexual deviants loudly proclaiming their deviance.

Alas, I misread it.  What it actually said was "Senate Republicans Play Games with U.S. National Security."  Apparently, it was a post on the efforts of most Senate Republicans to delay consideration of the new START Treaty --- you know: the one President Barry signed in April, but didn't submit for Senate ratification until just recently --- until the new Congress --- you know: a Congress with some actual electoral authority --- takes office in January.


Contrary to moonbat rhetoric, there may be some good and sufficient national-security reasons to not ratify this treaty.  Personally, I don't feel strongly one way or the other about the treaty on the merits.  Though I have substantial problems with a lame-duck Congress making substantial policy decisions which have utterly no urgency.  Of course, since Virginia's moonbats can brook no dissent, the children at "Blue Virginia" don't allow comments from those who dare to disagree with the talking points issued by President Barry's White House and other myrmidons.

Does the far Left even make the pretense of having an interest in free speech anymore?  Not at "Blue Virginia."