24 Things Democrats Apparently Believe Should Be Illegal To Burn

Waldo has posted what he believes to be funny: a list of 24 things that Republicans allegedly think it's OK to burn. I suppose that it's caricature, and that there are some pathetic Dems who actually believe some of his assertions. Soooooo, never one to let a good idea go unemulated....

1. The United Nations flag
   
2. "What We Believe" statements of Unitarian Universalists (if you can find them)
   
3. Tobacco
   
4. Coal
   
5. Oil
   
6. Ted Bundy, and assorted mass murderers
   
7. Crosses, unless they belong to Conservative Christians
   
8. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
   
9. Hillary's Plan for Socialized Medicine
   
10. Photographs of that great Democrat presidential trilogy --- Johnson; Carter; Clinton
    
11. Any feminist tome
    
12. Any socialist tome
    
13. Any communist tome
    
14. Supreme Court decisions which ignore the plain language of the Constitution in favor of "penumbras" and "emanations"
    
15. The U.N. Charter
    
16. Pictures of Karl Marx
    
17. Any Executive Order issued by a Democrat President
    
18. On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
    
19. Roe v. Wade
    
20. Richard Nixon's White House tapes
    
21. America's chemical weapons stockpile
    
22. The "Palestinian" flag
    
23. Rainbow flags
    
24. Gaza

And as a special added bonus, here's 24 things Democrats think you should burn:

1. The American flag
2. The Bible
3. The Torah
4. Monica's blue dress
   
5. Hillary's billing records
   
6. Any food with cholesterol
   
7. Teddy Kennedy's bar tab(s)
   
8. Any accurate history text
   
9. President Bush in effigy
10. Anything challenging the theory of evolution
    
11. Christian flags
    
12. Draft cards
    
13. Bras
    
14. United States Constitution
15. Declaration of Independence
16. Marriage laws
    
17. Aborted babies
    
18. Old people who vote Republican (exception for old people who were irresponsible and have no income other than Social Security; they vote Democrat)
    
19. The Contract with America
20. Ronald Reagan's immortal soul (see Ted Rall)
    
21. Deeds (symbol of anachronistic "private property")
    
22. The White House (when inhabited by a Republican)
    
23. Congress (when controlled by Republicans)
    
24. Israel
    

The Tragedy of Floods

If only places as unimportant as amusement parks were the ones hit by floods.

These are some amazing pictures from my favorite childhood amusement park, Knoebel's Grove, just outside Elysburg, Pennsylvania. My children love it, too. I knew it would be flooded, as a lovely little creek runs right through the center of the park.

What's even more amazing is the prediction that it should be mostly open tomorrow, and fully open by Saturday.

Word from Cloud-Cuckoo Land

According to Virginia Centrist, this is the timeline for America's surrender to the radical homosexual agenda©.

Aside from the obvious contradictions (how do most states recognize homo "marriage" when most states are "red states"?), can somebody please tell me what's "centrist" about advocating the perversion of the fundamental building block of human civilization?

Texas Mid-Decade Redistricting Upheld

Per Drudge, the Supremes have upheld the parts of a Texas redistricting plan engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom Delay that are most important to Republican partisans.

This was, of course, the last significant challenge remaining to this plan. To remind the reader, Democrats cried "foul" when turned the tables on them after winning a state legislative majority, and rewriting congressional district boundaries to benefit Republicans. You know: what Democrats have done for decades. 'Cept, in this instance, the Dem boundaries drawn after the 2000 decennial census resulted in a lopsided Democrat majority in the Texas congressional delegation, even thought Republicans were winning a fairly significant majority of all congressional votes cast. Democrats used drastic tactics to prevent a vote; one much publicized effort involved leaving the state to deny a quorum.

Of course, this was one of the bases for the Democrat hate campaign against Tom Delay.

This is good news for Republicans, and decreases significantly the chance that Dems will be able to win a majority of House seats in November.

I Hope This is Just a Sick Joke

It seems that brother Republitarian is on vacation, or has been hacked. If the latter, I hope this doesn't mean we won't be seeing him back soon.

Chairman Sean Receives Presidential Appointment

As reported elsewhere (by Ben Tribbett, and teased by Jim Reilly), PWC BOCS Chairman Sean Connaughton may have been/may be nominated today by President Bush to be the United States Maritime Administrator. It is a post subject to Senate confirmation.

Of course, that Chairman Sean was being considered for the job is perhaps the worst-kept secret in Prince William County. I heard of it at least weeks --- perhaps months --- ago, but was sworn to secrecy (I was told that, if it got out, the nomination could be scuttled), a pledge that I NEVER break absent compelling reasons. And frustrating Chairman Sean's ambitions for what some would doubtless mischaracterize as personal reasons is not a "compelling reason."

While this is doubtless a disappointment to those who failed to see the humor in my suggestion that he be appointed as Transportation Secretary, this is mixed news for PWC taxpayers. On one hand, they will have the opportunity to elect someone other than an entrenched faux fiscal conservative unwilling to challenge the tax-and-spend bureaucracy, and claims to have "lowered taxes" --- actually, merely lowering property tax rates --- while relying upon skyrocketing home values to result in a net increase of the average household's bill by 50-60% or more.

On the other hand, perhaps Chairman Sean recognizes that the housing bubble is becoming flaccid, and that budgets in his remaining term might have to actually raise tax rates or --- Horrors! --- trim spending. Given his pathological inability to do the latter, and his disingenuous history of doing the former while denying doing so (a disease particularly prevalent among his Repubmocrat apologists), there is little doubt as to which option he would choose. Taxpayers may therefore face a double hit: lower property values; and higher tax rates to continue the spending spree.

Of course, the Connaughtonites who credit Chairman Sean for everything, including this morning's sunrise (bad example; I haven't seen the sun for days), will doubtless blame any Republican elected to replace him for a flattening housing market, even though the inflation in housing values was obviously not sustainable.

In any case, congratulations, Chairman Sean!

Now, what about that GOP primary to replace him....

Fairfax County Schools Official Charged In Pennsylvania

Came across this interesting story in the hometown paper.

It seems that Warrenton resident and Fairfax County schools official Steve Wilcox was charged Thursday with stealing nearly $28,000 from the Southern Columbia School District during his tenure.

There were not details about his role in the Fairfax County schools (a search on the FCPS website returned no results), or whether he will suffer any adverse job action because of the pending charges.

Britney Spears Watch

I wish I could be this funny. The boys' sitter must've thought I've gone 'round the bend with my laughter as I read it. I really wish....

It is also best not to wear a denim miniskirt so short that when seated it practically disappears beneath the protuberance of one's pregnant belly, producing an image that is more gynecological than fashionable. Instead of making a statement about the sexiness of impending motherhood, it suggests that the mother-to-be appears to be unfamiliar with the usefulness of a full-length mirror and the term "ho-gear."

Pregnancy cleavage can be a beautiful development, but serving up one's bosom like melons at a picnic is aggressively self-indulgent, enormously distracting and, unless you're auditioning for a spread in Penthouse, unnecessarily vulgar.

The article goes on in the same vein, with equal hilarity, but to quote more of it might start raising copyright issues.

I saw part of this interview, and when I spotted it, it was like train wreck: I couldn't take my eyes off of it.

Connaughton for Transportation Secretary

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, one of the few original members of the President's Cabinet, resigned today.

Please note the time, and that you read it here first (because somebody has to do it). Given all that has been said among one element of the Virginia blogosphere, there is little doubt that the best qualified person for the job is --- you guessed it! --- PWC BOCS Chairman Sean Connaughton.

Why Do They Hide?

An interesting sentence appeared in today's WaPo article on Northern Virginia Republicans:

In Prince William, moderates bruised from primary challenges in the past two elections called a meeting last month to discuss how to distance themselves from the party's right wing.

Who are these "moderates"? Why aren't they identified? Do they feel the need to hide? If so, why? And if they are elected officials like PWC BOCS Chairman Sean Connaughton, aren't they responsible for what is identified as "a widening divide with voters on such issues as traffic and taxes"? After all, they've been raising taxes for years in PWC.

Out of Town and In Trial

Looks like I'm missing all of the fun.

For those who've mentioned "missing" me (with every shot so far, no doubt), I'm in SoCal in a week-long trial. Will return on Saturday, 17 June.

Taking a Dirt Nap

The best news from the War on Terror in a long time is that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist leader in Iraq, was killed last night.

He is now enjoying his Eternal Reward. However, given his location, his 72 virgins all look like Betty (Goldstein) Friedan.

Update: NoVATownhall has a great bon mot on the subject here. To quote Chad Dotson, "Heh."

Interesting Concept

The dependably far Left moonbats over at Raising Kaine --- specifically, Josh --- have a post up asserting something to the effect that "Gay Marriage is how Republicans say forget about Iraq."

Of course, Iraq is how far Left moonbats say forget about our war against the family and American values.

I Think Not

Well, it seems that our friend young Vince Harris has started a petition as follows: "Steve Chapman & Fasil Gill are suing Black Velvet Bruce Lee and Greg Letiecq.

"Sign this to urge Chapman to STOP THE LAWSUIT!"

He urges people to sign it. Please note the absence of my name. As I've said below, this should be played out in the courtroom, where one side or the other may well be mightily embarrassed by the outcome. Aside from that, why would these people believe that they would have any influence with Chapman? After all, most have proven themselves so very interested in his well-being.

Among the twelve who have as of this writing are James Martin, Ben Tribbett, Anke W. Cheney, and Virginia Centrist. Three of these four surprise me. I was under the impression that they had (and almost always demonstrate) higher standards than the savaging which provoked the lawsuit. As for the fourth, well, let's just say at least this commentator wouldn't be surprised if she were caught up in this lawsuit. After all, she was part of a Parrish campaign which was, at a minimum, complicit in the felony charges filed against Chapman shortly before the 2005 primary, and later dropped. And the savaging that Chapman suffered at the hands of the prior incarnation of the BVBL website had all the earmarks of a well-organized, well-financed opposition research operation.

One can only hope that neither the campaigns of Jackson Miller or Carroll Weimer had any role in it. If the ultimate GOP nominee did, then he will have handed the Democrat nominee a powerful weapon, and will suffer a grave, if not fatal, self-inflicted wound.

UPDATE: Interesting. The link to Vince's post no longer works, and it seems that he has removed the post.

Interview with Steve Baril

Novatownhall has a great interview with former GOP candidate for Attorney General and Hampden-Sydney man (Class of '77) Steve Baril. Worth a read.

A Bad Idea?

Well, as various comments posted around the Virginia blogosphere will tell you, I am reserving judgment on the merits of the lawsuit filed today by former 50th District House of Delegates candidate Steve Chapman against the blog "Black Velvet Bruce Lee" and its contributor and/or former contributor. Let's start with a few basic facts.

1. The fact is, I don't know all of the facts.

2. The fact is, virtually everyone commenting on the matter does not know all of the facts.

3. The fact is, so many of those commenting on the legal merits of the suit are doing so anonymously/pseudonymously, so it is virtually impossible to judge their credentials to do so. Anonymous/pseudonymous commentary is always immediately suspect, because it is impossible to judge the biases and/or training underlying the commentary.

4. The fact is, most of those commenting anonymously/pseudonymously are doing so with such bile and hatred that it is difficult to imagine that they (like the ever present and bilious AWCheney) are not personally invested in the matter, and hide their identities with good cause (i.e., they have much to hide).

5. The fact is, rantings and commentary about the merits of the suit, the identity of Chapman's attorneys, and possible ethical violations, and possible conflicts of interest in the fact that Chapman once served as a Jury Commissioner are so many nonsensical smears, as most of their authors apparently lack the courage of their convictions to take action upon their assertions, especially those made against Chapman's attorneys. Of course, to do so, they would have to reveal their identities (at least to those accused), and put their reputations on the line. It is little more than cowardice. And while I say this with some reservations, as an attorney who does not charge a fee for his services, legal free advice is frequently worth exactly what you pay for it.

With all that having been said, Chapman's actions may well be ill-advised. The burdens placed upon litigants raising his cause of action are, to the best of my recollection from Constitutional Law (taken in college, law school, and taught once), severe. Politically, his action might be disastrous. 'Fact is, Chapman may have made the assessment that he has nothing to lose, and possibly much to gain. Of course, those are assessments best made by those involved, and those who know all of the facts.

Which, as I have said previously, above and elsewhere, excludes virtually everyone commenting in the blogosphere.

This is a battle best fought out in the courts. Suffice it to say, if Chapman's suit succeeds, there will be plenty of people around the blogosphere who will need to decide upon how they want their crow prepared. If it fails, it will be a sad denouement giving succor to those whose best response to the issues Chapman championed in a nearly-successful run against long-time incumbent Harry Parrish --- a campaign which failed perhaps only because Parrish's campaign advocated the filing of felony charges ultimately dismissed --- is "He's a bad guy!"

Both the cowardly BVBL and Greg Letiecq responded to the lawsuit by saying "Bite me." Serious legal advice (i.e., that rendered by those with a stake in the matter other than their own desire to provoke controversy) would likely counsel a more temperate approach. For it is quite possible that Chapman will do precisely that, and that the bite that he takes will be out of the posteriors of those he is suing.

Chapman Out of the Race?

Young Vince is reporting over at Too Conservative that Steve Chapman is out of the race for the 50th District. Some of his commenters suggest that he missed a filing deadline.

If true, this will give aid and comfort to the hatemongers who suggest that Chapman lacks the competence to justify his candidacy. The requirements for filing for office in Virginia are, to the best of my recollection, not onerous.

On the bright side, it will remove the raison d'etre for at least one website that comes to mind.

UPDATE: Well, you read it here first. I said that "it will remove the raison d'etre for at least one website that comes to mind," and --- sure enough --- all of the hatemongering on the aforementioned website has been taken down, and its original owner has disappeared. For as much as he (or she; that site had all the class of the original smear campaign orchestrated by Parrish primary campaign manager Anke W. Cheney and consultant Kenney Klinge) portrayed Chapman as "pathetic," it turns out to have been Black Velvet Bruce Lee who is even more pathetic.

No wonder he (or she) has hidden his (or her) identity.

Chapman Launches Strike

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill called plans for a campaign against Italy an attack upon "the soft underbelly of Europe." In what can perhaps best be called an attack upon the descending colon of the Virginia blogosphere, Ben Tribbett reports that Steve Chapman's lawyers have launched a shot across the bow of the hatemongers who have made innuendo and belittlement of Chapman their mission in life, almost as though he has stalkers.

Were I to engage in the dime-store psychology that motivates some commenters, I might conclude that they are indulging their own frustration over Chapman's showing against the Revered Harry Parrish, He Whom They Worship. After all, if someone as contemptible as Steve Chapman gets 45% of the GOP primary vote, doesn't that say as much about Parrish and his performance in office as it does about Chapman?

UPDATE: Another question arises. Bravado to the contrary notwithstanding, the hatemongers are offering considerable detail about all their work and effort in getting dirt on Chapman: multiple FOIA requests; trips to the Court Clerk's office (we can surmise); etc. In short, all the earmarks of a opposition research operation. The question which arises is, On whose behalf? All of this effort demonstrates a either a serious mental disorder (if I went to all that effort to trash Chairman Sean's character, I would be accused of having an "unhealthy fixation"; oh, wait, that accusation has been leveled), or an operation on someone's behalf.

I'd have a lot more respect for Jackson Miller and Carroll Weimer if they'd denounce this behavior.

Does McCain Pay Attention?

While I didn't see or here it myself, my understanding is that John McCain opposes the Federal marriage amendment because it isn't necessary, and it infringes on the rights of the States.

Tell me again why this guy is qualified to be President? To be sure, McCain's got the sophistry down necessary to be a successor to Bill Clinton. Then again, we knew that when he supported "campaign finance reform" allegedly justified by the corrupting influence of money in politics, but refused to identify a single colleague allegedly corrupted by money in politics.

As for the marriage amendment not being necessary, I know he was out of the country for awhile, but surely Roe v. Wade must ring a bell. You know: the decision where the Supremes struck down the laws of fifty states regulating abortion? So either McCain is oblivious to the judicial threat to marriage, or he's simply ignoring it. Either way, his notion is disingenuous.

As for "the rights of the States," they're entitled to their own laws, not their own language. In English, marriage is the union of one man and one woman. That certain state and/or federal judges don't understand that fact is one reason why it's both necessary and appropriate.

Let's Play the WaPo Game

Some of my conservative friends lament the fact that I am a daily reader of Pravda on the Pot... er, the Washington Post. But aside from the "Know thine enemy" theory, and I.F. Stone's famous comment that "What makes The Washington Post a great paper is the fact that you never know on what page you'll find the Page One story," the Post is an endlessly entertaining journal.

Take today's tertiary editorial, for instance. Entitled "Running Against Gays," it bemoans the fact that protecting the institution of marriage from the radical homosexual agenda and the linguistically-challenged is "picking on gays and lesbians." Never mind that the fight was "picked" by partisans for the radical homosexual agenda, or the other factually dubious assertions. I was fascinated by the penultimate sentence, which asks "What exactly is the problem that requires upsetting 200 years of constitutional norms?" The editorial then asserts that "The question answer itself."

What a stupid "argument."

But you can play "The WaPo Game," too!

All you need to do is recall a ruling of the imperial Federal (or State) judiciary, and then ask the question.

Let's play together!

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), finds a heretofore unknown right to abortion on demand in the Constitution. "What exactly is the problem that requires upsetting 200 years of constitutional norms?" Or for that matter, many more centuries of the Common law?

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), strikes down what Justice Potter Stewart (dissenting) calls "an uncommonly silly" law against selling contraceptives to married couples. "What exactly is the problem that requires upsetting 200 years of constitutional norms?"

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), strikes down laws criminalizing homosexual (and heterosexual) sodomy. "What exactly is the problem that requires upsetting 200 years of constitutional norms?" To say nothing of the norms of 5000 years of civilized society.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), strikes down segregation laws. "What exactly is the problem that requires upsetting [58] years of constitutional norms (Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) ("separate but equal" is constitutionally permissible))?" And arguably, nearly 200 years of the constitutional norm of institutionalized racism. (Well, OK, I'll grant you that one).

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), strikes down the "legislative veto," by which one House of the Congress could reverse the actions of an administrative agency. "What exactly is the problem that requires upsetting 200 years of constitutional norms?" OK, actually, about fifty years of congressional/administrative practice.

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), upholds limits on free speech in the political process. "What exactly is the problem that requires upsetting 200 years of constitutional norms?"

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), striking down organized prayers in the government schools. "What exactly is the problem that requires upsetting [184] years of constitutional norms?"

C'mon! You can play, too!