Liberal Blog attacks disabled pundit

(NOTE: This is another occasional posting by my "Liberal Bloger AI" (Artificial Idiocy) program.

Today, LBAI has detected a liberal blogger attacking a disabled pundit. A person with a disability has absolute moral authority, and to make fun of them in any way is one of the worst things a person can do.

So imagine the shock when Mosquito Blog, a well-known liberal blog and indicative of the mainstream of Democratic thought, found it funny to post a Youtube video which, in addition to the cardinal sin of calling a black man and a white women "tokens", and making fun of a Jewish person, made disparaging comments to a man who is confined to a wheelchair.

In the video posted at Mosquito Blog here, The disabled man's picture is displayed while a cheezy title is placed over him which says "Scary Lipless NeoClown".

As it if isn't hard enough being trapped in a wheelchair, the Democratic Party apparently thinks being "lipless" is something to laugh at. I expect the mainstream media to begin the public flogging of the Democratic Party leadership at any time, since the audacity of a blogger who clearly is intwined with the party to launch such a viscious attack on one of our less-fortunate citizens is shameful and must be punished.

LBAIP (Liberal Blogger AI Program)

Democrat Leader calls Evangelicals "Anti-Christian".

The Democrats last week tried to take official government action against a private citizen because they falsely claimed he called democratic soldier "phony".

Obviously, what a private citizen says is not nearly as important as what an elected leader says. So I expect to see the liberal blogosphere calling for Senator Harry Reid's resignation for this, from the Deseret News, Reid calls Evangelicals "Anti-Christian":

Reid also told reporters the Republican Party has been driven by evangelical Christians for 20 years. "They are the most anti-Christian people I can imagine, the people from the Christian far right."

While he was at it, the Democratic Leader also saw fit to attack the church's leadership:

Some past prominent LDS Church leaders wrongly pressed conservatism on church members, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday during a press conference at Brigham Young University.

The Nevada senator attacked President Bush and evangelical Christians while saying members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints need to worry less about abortion and gay marriage and more about health care, global warming, education and jobs.

He also called followers of the Mormon faith sheep, saying they were easily led down the "wrong path":

"Members of the church are obedient," Reid said, "they are followers in the truest sense of the word, and I think they've taken members of the church down a path that is the wrong path."

Trent Lott said something nice about his friend Strom Thurmond at Strom's 100th birthday party, and was run out of his Majority Leader post.

Shouldn't the Democrats be consistant and force Reid to resign for calling Evangelical Christians "anti-christian"? And for attacking church leaders and church members? It's not like we have to misinterpret what he said, he came right out and said it.

Democrat Leader Reid on a "better leader"

OK, I separated the two, so my points would not be confused. Also, I'll add this stupid disclaimer -- I do not speak for the Republican Party, and they don't speak for me.

Last week Harry Reid attacked Evangelical Christians, conservatives, and Mormon church leaders and members.

From the Deseret News, Reid calls Evangelicals "Anti-Christian":

Reid also told reporters the Republican Party has been driven by evangelical Christians for 20 years. "They are the most anti-Christian people I can imagine, the people from the Christian far right."

While he was at it, the Democratic Leader also saw fit to attack the church's leadership:

Some past prominent LDS Church leaders wrongly pressed conservatism on church members, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday during a press conference at Brigham Young University.

The Nevada senator attacked President Bush and evangelical Christians while saying members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints need to worry less about abortion and gay marriage and more about health care, global warming, education and jobs.

The leader of the Senate is dictating religious teaching to the church, and warning them that they have been too "conservative".

He also called followers of the Mormon faith sheep, too easily misled, too ignorant to have decided for themselves what they believed:

"Members of the church are obedient," Reid said, "they are followers in the truest sense of the word, and I think they've taken members of the church down a path that is the wrong path.

Reid contrasted these "bad leaders" who took members "down the wrong path", with his prime example of a good leader, one that would be welcome in the "progressive" wing of the party:

Look at Joseph Smith. Here's a man who was progressive, to say the least. He broke from the pack. He did things differently than they'd been done. He was against slavery. He wanted to start a national bank.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the man Reid thinks embodies the philosophy of the modern Democratic Party. NOTE: NONE of the following items include ANY aspect of the teaching or founding of the Mormon religion. So anybody who wants to accuse me of "attacking Mormons" can just forget it. This isn't about Mormonism, or even about what I think of Smith. I chose quotes on the points Reid made about being "progressive", "doing things differently", and "starting a national bank":

In March 1826, Smith was convicted after an alleged admission to being a "disorderly person" and an "impostor" in a court in Bainbridge, New York.[8]
...
To raise money, Smith planned a banking institution, which was called the Kirtland Safety Society. The State of Ohio denied Smith a charter to legally operate a bank causing Smith to rename the company as 'The Kirkland AntiBanking Safety Society' and he continued to operate the bank illegally and print notes. The bank collapsed after 21 days of operation in January.[13] During this time, Smith and his associates were accused of illegal and unethical actions.[14]
...
Eventually, lawsuits and indictments against Smith and his banking partners became so severe that, on January 12, 1838, Smith and Rigdon left Kirtland by dark of night for the Far West settlement in Caldwell County, Missouri. At the time, there were at least $6,100 in civil suits outstanding against him in Chardon, Ohio courts, and an arrest warrant had been issued for Smith on a charge of bank fraud.[16]
...
In February, 1844, Smith announced his candidacy for President of the United States, with Sidney Rigdon as his vice-presidential running mate. He also theorized a quasi-republican political system which he termed Theodemocracy and organized the Council of Fifty based upon its principles.
...
The city council, headed by Joseph Smith as mayor, responded by passing an ordinance declaring the newspaper a public nuisance designed to promote violence against Smith and his followers.[25] Under the council's new ordinance, Nauvoo's mayor, Smith, in conjunction with the city council, ordered the city marshal to destroy the paper and the press on June 10, 1844.[26]

So, Reid thinks a man who ran for President to establish a "theodemocracy" is a "good" example, as opposed to the moder leaders Reid criticizes for standing for the unborn and for biblical principles of marriage.

Anyway, I don't expect ANY liberal outrage, except maybe someone will complain about me "attacking" the man Reid tried to hide behind to protect himself from criticism. Reid attacked the LDS church for being too conservative, and needed someone with "absolute moral authority" to provide him cover for what he wrote.

In other words, Reid once again has used the typical liberal trick of using a foil to hide behind. He slandered evangelicals, he attacked former and current leaders of the church, he essentially called the church members ignorant, and wrapped it all up in the mantle of one of the church's revered leaders so that if anybody attacked him the democrats could cry foul.

Because as we know, Democrats hide behind other people, putting words in their mouths so if you call the Democrats on their lies, they will complain that you are "attacking" the person they are hiding behind.

If Wikipedia has any facts wrong, I apologize, and note that you can go directly to Wikipedia and edit the entries to correct them.

Trent Lott was run out of leadership by Democrats for an offhand comment at a BIRTHDAY PARTY when he said Strom Thurmond would have been a "better president" than his opponents. The left had no problem dredging up Strom Thurmond's past in order to attack Trent by pretending he was saying something more than he did.

Now Reid has attacked the modern LDS leadership and held up another man as someone who would be a "better leader". Should he have to resign, or will the democrats claim that any examination of the man Reid holds up as a "better leader" is off-limits?

Turkey Bombs Iraq in response to Democratic Attacks

Turkey is an ally, but the Democrats launched an attack against them this week. The Turks have now retaliated, shelling an Iraqi village.


Oh, I'm sorry, let me explain. This is a test of my new "Liberal Blogger" AI program (that's Artificial Idiocy, not Artificial Intelligence).

I'm thinking about switching to the "progressive" philosophy, because it's a lot easier and more fun. You don't have to check facts, if anybody argues with you you can call them a racist, a bigot, or worse, and you can attack anybody you want and nobody calls you on it.

In this case, since the Democrats did something stupid in condemning another country for something that happened 90 years ago, my LBAI function determined that anything bad done by Turkey can be blamed on the Democrats, for at least the next month.

How the Democrats use people for political gain.

From DailyKos through RK (no way I'm linking to DK):

...Graeme Frost's family actually proves the conservatives wrong, demonstrating in one crisp clear shining example that even if you do everything the American myth tells you to your family may still need a helping hand to get by!

On the economic message the Frosts own their own business and commercial property, have two jobs, work hard and own their own home. On the social front, they are a white nuclear family that goes to church and stayed married even after the incredible stress of two kids being severely hurt in a car accident that was not their fault. On the education side, they used government support (like vouchers) to opt out of public school and go to private school.

They work hard, own property, didn't divorce, had children, use private schools and they still need extra help from the government just to get by.

This goes against everything the conservative Republicans tell us about how to live our lives...

This is funny on so many levels. First, most of the information in this post was the result of conservative bloggers who wanted to know the truth. The democrats didn't care about ANY of those things, or frankly any facts at all. The reason the DEMOCRATS chose Frost was that he had a 12-year-old that they considered brain-damaged, and therefore figured would make a good object of pity for them to sell their message.

In other words, the Democrats didn't care that they were hard-working, that they owned property, that they sent their kids to private school. They only cared that, to the DEMOCRATS, the Frost kids were damaged and therefore pitiable, and would make the perfect pawns for their national radio address.

As to the specifics, the Frost family is a perfect example of how the EXISTING SCHIP program works. The SCHIPS program was of course created by the Republicans, a fact that must irk the democrats so much they are willing to kill it in order to make a political point.

Meanwhile, there's a LOT of error in the Kos post:

...Graeme Frost's family actually proves the conservatives wrong, demonstrating in one crisp clear shining example that even if you do everything the American myth tells you to your family may still need a helping hand to get by!

No conservative I know thinks people never need help. We think guaranteed government handouts are harmful to society, and to the people they supposedly help. Some think you should use private charity, others are OK with government help. Further, it's not an "american myth", it's just life. Third, nobody can claim the Frosts needed this program, because nobody has enough information to be certain they couldn't buy medical insurance before the accident.

It is typical democrat to make the argument that just because people didn't do something, and it put them in a bad situation, that this proves something. If I decide to go rock climbing without the proper equipment, I might get trapped halfway up the mountain, and would need "help" to be saved. But I could have done more. The Frosts COULD have made different choices so that they had medical insurance for their family. They didn't have to go without, and expect others to pay for it.

On the economic message the Frosts own their own business and commercial property, have two jobs, work hard and own their own home.

This is all well and good. But we don't know a lot about their jobs. I don't WANT to know about it, but without more information it's absurd to claim they work hard. As I said, we wouldn't know any of this if someone hadn't done some research. But more is needed. Could Mr. Frost really not get a job with a company? Did he have to work for himself? Couldn't he get a group medical for employers, which would have covered his wife who worked for him as well? We don't know, because we don't have enough information. Democrats love to argue without facts, but I can't.

On the social front, they are a white nuclear family that goes to church and stayed married even after the incredible stress of two kids being severely hurt in a car accident that was not their fault.

I can only speak for myself, but that just rubbed me wrong. Why would we expect a couple to break up under stress? What's the deal with being "white" -- do Democrats suddenly have something against black families? I think the suggestion that a black family couldn't stay together, or that if your kids get hurt you'd expect a divorce , seems so very wrong.

On the FACTUAL front, while the accident obviously wasn't the children's fault, there is a lot we don't know about the accident -- but we know it was a 1-car accident involving a tree. We don't know if they were wearing a seat belt. I wouldn't "blame" them, I just bring it up because if they weren't wearing seat belts, than it's absurd to claim that they had NO fault, or that they did EVERYTHING right.

In a rational world we could just TALK about all these things, but I'm treading lightly because I'm discussing something with Democrats, who will no doubt launch personal attacks about any perceived slight I make about THEIR EXAMPLE.

On the education side, they used government support (like vouchers) to opt out of public school and go to private school.

That must really burn the democrats, it's why I think they are so upset, because we found out that their poster-family rejected the liberal public education system.

On a FACTUAL basis, I've read nothing that said they got "government support" for their private school. The liberals actually OPPOSE vouchers, and the only child that is getting government support is one of the injured children who has special needs. The other three children get some sort of "financial aid", but Maryland does not have a voucher program.

I wish the Frost family would record a national address asking for a publicly-funded School Voucher program, if for no other reason than the hypocrisy that would follow as the left tore them to shreds.

In fact, I'm certain what really has the left upset about the right's exposure of the frosts is that we've shown the Frosts to be a family that epitomizes everything the left opposes -- hard work, private school, property ownership, owning your own business and not offering health care for your workers.

They work hard, own property, didn't divorce, had children, use private schools and they still need extra help from the government just to get by.

Before they had their accident, they could have afforded health insurance. Because the SCHIP program exists, their options were somewhat limited (no private insurance company can COMPETE for people like the Frosts, since they could get free coverage). But there WERE affordable programs that would be within their price range, in general (if their children had pre-existing conditions beforehand that might be a problem, but since I'm not arguing to cancel medicaire and SCHIP we've got them covered in any case).

This goes against everything the conservative Republicans tell us about how to live our lives...

Actually, a lot of people who have argued against SCHIP have stated that they are in much the same circumstance as this family, but somehow managed to provide for their family, including purchasing health insurance. But this family decided they didn't need health insurance, and then when they had an accident the result made it too expensive to purchase it.

If however they had just bought a catastrophic care insurance, they would have been fine without government help. I'm not attacking them FOR getting help, I'm saying that the Frosts are NOT an example that proves anything other than that a hard-working family feels comfortable not buying health care for themselves because they know that if something goes bad the government will bail them out.

The only reason a program like SCHIP is affordable is that there are a LOT of families who still believe in taking care of themselves, not expecting everybody else to take care of them.

Frankly, you can hardly live in this country without getting something from the government. Of course, most of us pay taxes as well, and obviously a good number of us are NOT getting as much back as what we pay in taxes. But MOST of us actually make out, because so far the rich have been willing to essentially subsidize the rest of us, even while the Democrats attack them as being heartless.

Anyway, there are probably a FEW people who are mad at the frosts. But most of us conservatives are mad at the Democrats for exploiting this family.

Democrat Candidate uses office in attempt to effect election

This isn't the first time that Democrat Paul Ebert has done this. During the Republican primary for the 51st district a couple of years ago, he filed trumped-up charges against one candidate, in order to help his long-time friend (who I believe had NOTHING to do with it). After the election, the charges were dropped.

Now here we are a couple of weeks before the election, and Democrat Paul Ebert has threatened to "appoint a special prosecuter" to look into a government mailer from an elected official advertising a government meeting where a public vote is expected. From the Journal Messenger:

Prince William Commonwealth's Attorney Paul Ebert has questions about a mailer Supervisor Chairman Corey A. Stewart sent out this week. "It doesn't smell good,"

Stop sniffing the glue then.

Corey gets it exactly right:

Stewart said Ebert, who is a Democrat, is politically motivated.

Stewart said he had questions that he would ask the U.S. Department of Justice.

"I'm going to ask whether or not it's lawful for the county prosecutor to try to intimidate an elected official for doing his official duties by using the threat of a prosecution," Stewart said. "I think that's disgusting."

I hate doing this, since I can't read what Greg wrote about this, so of course I can't ENDORSE his comments, but given his headline I imagine he's got a good statement, so against my better judgment, you can check out what he said in The Teapot Tempest.

Liberal Blog Hypocrisy, just what you come to expect

A month or so ago, Raising Kaine had a conniption fit because Tim Hugo quoted a diary from their web site in a political advertisement.

The diary was from a long-time, well-known and respected Democratic Activist, Nate de la Piedra. He was a regular contributer and diarist at RK. He worked on the Campaign team of a democratic candidate for Hugo's delegate job. He's the executive directory of the "Next Generation Democrats".

But the left-wing blogs all thought it was shamful for a candidate to actually USE a quote from this respected democrat, who claimed that Hugo's opponent was a liar. They even found some so-called "unbiased" people to quote in an article for the Washington Post denouncing the use of what they called "unsourced" "anonymous" comments in political ads.

Now, here we are a month later, and the Democrats have been caught using a child to argue their case for SCHIPs. And they have been caught using a family that works hard, is not anybody's idea of "poor", and who already QUALIFIES for the existing program, to try to argue for expansion of the program to people a lot richer than they are.

And worse, they have been caught holding this family, and millions of other poor families, HOSTAGE, denying them the health care they need in order to blackmail republicans into supporting their rediculous new health care program for people making $30,000 MORE A YEAR than the Frosts, for "children that are over 13 YEARS OLDER than the Frost children.

Having been confronted with the evidence that the Frost family had choices, had money, is in fact a solid working family which normally the Democrats would attack mercilessly, the Democrats have responded by accusing the opponents of SCHIP of "attacking a 12-year-old-boy". Of course, they don't call him that. They usually call him "brain-damaged", or "disabled", or some other word meant to put him down, essentially attacking the boy to make him seem more pathetic so that we don't treat him like a human, but instead see him as something to be pitied.

Maybe the Frost parents LIKE the idea of democrats suggesting they are all pitiable himan beings, but I wouldn't put MY family in that position. Further, a political party that focuses on people's disabilities and difficulties to win through pity rather than through the power of their arguments is actually sad.

But to get to the point. In order to accuse the opponents of "attacking" the family, they are using ANONYMOUS COMMENTS in blogs!!!! And in fact, the left's lackeys in the mainstream MEDIA are quoting anonymous comments in a blog in order to suggest that ALL republicans are attacking them.

So a month ago using "anonymous comments" from a blog (which were in fact sourced DIARY entries from a well-known democratic activist who had actually RUN THE CAMPAIGN against Hugo's opponent and was in a unique position to know the truth) was considered unethical, but NOW using anonymous comments from a blog is proof that the "republican party" is attacking a family.

When called out on this, Richmond Democrat actually argues that since the commenter is a "regular" at the blog Redstate, he's in fact a "well-respected republican". Which is exactly the argument the liberal blogs rejected last month when lambasting Hugo. I note that in Hugo's case, the GUY was well-known, while in this case the guy is only "well-known" in his own mind and the minds of his fellow contributers at his blog, Redstate (which I don't read, but I might have an account at -- I posted a couple diaries there a while back to counter some inaccurate stuff at the blog).

I can tell you that at the sites I post to, nobody is praising Redstate OR this blogger, we are all lambasting him. Michelle Malkin had it right when she attacked him.

It is a sad, pathetic political party that singles out a couple of anonymous comments from a guy that his own side is denouncing , and falsely uses those comments to try to DECEIVE the public in order to drum up support for a bad idea they can't defend on the merits.

Frankly, I'm getting sick of politics, and it's crap like this, with people who I assume are at least mildly educated posting things that I know they can't possibly believe, simply to WIN.

I don't know what would be worse though, the thought that RD is faking his outrage to score political points, or that he is actually believes what he is writing.


I have strong convictions, a strong adherance to what I consider a conservative philosophy, and a desire to elect republicans for the most part, unfortunately because political party is important.

But I will not lie for anybody. I won't defend the indefensible. I won't write stuff that I know is stupid just to score political points.

I COULD do it. I'm very good at it. I could out-Jonathan-Marks Jonathan, I could out-Kos Kos, I could out-RK RK.

SOmetimes I wish I was a liberal, so I could lie and cheat and say whatever I want and pretend I care about people and argue to steal money from people I don't like to give it to other people I don't like but want to support my party. It's much easier to be a liberal, because you don't really have to think about anything -- you just write a speech and hand it to a 12-year-old to read on National Radio, and sit back in the knowledge that if anybody attacks what you said, you can just accuse them of attacking a 12-year-old.

Dems don't even see what they did wrong with the Frosts

The Democrats are STILL talking about how the "republicans" (defined as any comment by someone on a conservative blog) are attacking a "child", as if that's the story. Which it isn't, even the most vitriolic quotes posted from the blogs attacks the PARENTS, not the child.

But they just don't understand how disgusting it was for the elected Democratic Leadership (not some blogger wannabee in his basement) to write a speech for a 12-year-old boy to deliver on NATIONAL RADIO. No, that seems perfectly natural to them, to send a boy out to fight their battles for them.

I refuse to take blame for every statement of every person who might vote for people I support. Sorry. If the Democrats had to take credit for every comment and every post at every liberal blog, they'd be sitting in their own basements blogging, because they'd all lose their jobs.

But the simple fact is that in a nation of 300 million people, there are a surprising number of people who say things that most of us find abhorent. The "blog" "redstate" is known to be such a place, it is one of many "offensive" sites blocked by many major employers (along with DailyKos and Democratic Underground, for comparison).

Still, I'll say this -- the Frost family is a perfect example of why we DO NOT NEED TO EXPAND SCHIP. They were covered perfectly by the existing program, and the Democrats should stop holding them hostage and send the bill that Bush submitted, so he can sign it and the Frosts can have their medical care back.

BTW, nobody is "attacking" the Frost family for being a working family. Some of us think it's fine they get government assistance, others don't.

Anyway, if the Democrats think trotting out 12-year-olds who are covered under the existing program will convince republicans to change their votes on expansion of the program far beyond anything necessary, they are mistaken.

And if they think playing the victim card over their own hypocritical and disgusting use of a 12-year-old is going to make a difference, they are also mistaken. Someone has to send the message to the Democrats loud and clear -- stop hiding behind widows and children. Come out into the light and argue your point, if you have one. Don't send a boy to do your job for you.

The Virginian: Using Human Shields is the Work of Cowards

I've been talking this story because it disgusts me how the Democrats have demagogued the SCHIP program, how they've exploited a 12-year-old boy and tried to stifle any adult discussion.

Now I find that another Virginian blogger has done an excellent piece on the subject -- and I didn't even know this blog existed. It's "The Virginian", and the blog entry is "Using human shields is the work of cowards. The S-CHIP Controversy":

Using human shields is the work of cowards.

This is true whether it’s Islamofascists hiding behind civilians to carry out attacks on American troops, knowing that our rules of engagement forbid firing into non-combatants, or people who use women and children as cannon fodder to advance their own political ends.

Nevertheless, the urge to do so seems to be irresistible to the Left.

The author took an interesting tact, searching for Democrat's buzzwords like "for the children", or the joke headline "women and children hardest hit", finding MILLIONS of google hits for each.

He brings up one of the left's poster children, this one actually an adult, Cindy Sheehan. I wrote about her a couple of time, and received a lot of criticism from the left for it. But now it's OK to attack her because she turned against the Democrats. As The Virginian says:

As Maureen Dowd infamously described it, some people are awarded “absolute moral authority.” Unfortunately for Mo Dowd, she was describing Cindy Sheehan when she was being portrayed as “Mother Sheehan” by the Kossaks and the “Netroots” on the Left – a distraught mother of a slain soldier – who could do or say anything without fear of contradiction because of her status. That, of course was before Ms. Sheehan was exposed as a deranged supporter of Venezuelan “President” Hugo Chavez and a fellow traveller of the group that is camping out in Nancy Pelosi’s front yard. We don’t hear much from the Dowd crowd about “Mother Sheehan’s” “absolute moral authority” since she began attacking the icons of the Left from the vastness of the fever swamps.

I like how he uses a lot of links to stories to back up his post.

He discusses many of the Democrat's human shields, including many that I've mentioned in my previous posts. Then he gets to Graeme:

And today we have human shield Graeme Frost, push into the limelight by an unholy combination of parents and politician to be the poster child for creating a middle class health care entitlement for people earning as much as $80,000 per year.And people, who try to report the facts about the Frosts, people like Michelle Malkin, are vilified as “stalkers” by cretins who publish the wish that she should be shot.

(Richmond Democrat, note that last reference, in case you really are thinking only republicans are guilty of e-mail attacks).

Anyway, catch his post.

Hillary Clinton illustrates liberal hypocrisy.

Remember when Bush put a couple of still shots related to 9/11 in a campaign ad in 2004? Remember how all the democrats screamed about how horrible that was, how nobody should EVER make 9/11 political, how they would NEVER do such a crass thing?

Here is what Hillary said:

"The President has said in the past that he would do nothing that would politicize this terrible tragedy," Mrs. Clinton was quoted as saying in the Daily News on March 6, 2004, shortly after Mr. Bush’s ads were released. "I hope that they would be more sensitive going forward."

Well, now Hillary Clinton is running for President. And 9/11 is a pretty good selling point. So, she has made ads -- which include pictures of firefighters at the WTC, and a picture of Hillary. In her ad, the announcer says:

"She stood by ground zero workers who sacrificed their health after so many sacrificed their lives, and kept standing until this administration took action,"

Now, I think that's OK. I didn't criticize Bush, and I'm not criticising Hillary. But where are all the Democrats who thought this was so bad? I hear crickets.

Remember, the issue isn't that Hillary is using 9/11 images. It's that Hillary did so after arguing that doing so was evil. When people who say something is evil then do it, you have to question their hypcrisy.

Is Marks really psychotic, or delusional? You decide.

This was really funny. James Young writes a scathing attack on Jimmy Carter, saying:

Give the peanut farmer some credit: he knows from whence he speaks.

In other news, Bill Clinton calls Pope "a liar."

It was a brilliantly understated jab, a much more elegant way of saying "takes one to know one". Because Carter truly was a disaster.

Anyway, JM wrote about this. When I first read what he wrote, I assumed he was being deliberately obtuse, because JM's not know to be a stupid person (I can read the headline now -- "Gill Supporter says I'm Not Stupid"). JM attacked Carter viciously, and expressed shock that James Young would ever think Carter would "know" anything:

Yet Gill supporter Young seems to be something of a RINO himself. I doubt that Paul Nichols would ever praise Jimmy Carter the way Gill supporter James Young did today:
...
As I said, Jimmy Carter was the worst president of my lifetime. He gave a televised speech in 1979 in which he complained of a "national malaise." He then announced that he was firing half of his cabinet.

James decided to step up the attack, chiding JM for missing the point, and even "helpfully" explaining it in small words so JM could understand, in his post "Psychotic Racist Jonathan Mark: Certified Moron":

Yesterday, I noted Jimmy Carter's smear of Dick Cheney as "a disaster," implying --- but not saying outright --- that as the most spectacularly disastrous President of the 20th Century, Carter speaks knowledgeably about the subject of "disaster."

Apparently, I was too subtle for racist Gill-hater, and Democrat, Mark.

Mark uses partial and incomplete quotation to misrepresent my comment as "praise" for Jimmy Carter. In so doing, Mark cements his credentials as a certifiable moron.

I expected JM would now spring his own trap, explaining that he obviously knew what Young meant. But inexplicably, JM admitted he was clueless:

[Update III: Young now claims that his praise for Carter was "too subtle" and was not praise at all. Young faults me for not keeping up with his daily drivel sufficiently to appreciate his self-perceived subtle wit.]

First, given that JM is the one who READ Young's blog and wrote the post, it's funny for him to now claim it would be beneath him to do so. Further, remembering that Jame's new post is called "Psychotic Racist Jonathan Mark", it's hard to explain THIS update JM put up:

Update II: Young has now outdone himself. He removed the reference to me being a "racist psychotic," which is unfortunate. But he replaced it with even more extravagant praise for me: "racist Gill-hater, and Democrat, Mark...a certifiable moron."]

Apparently James had repeated himself from his title to his text, and decided to vary the text. Somehow JM was unable to see the title and thought Young had withdrawn the reference.

Swift-boating: Telling a truth that Democrats don't like

Whenever someone discovers an inconvenient truth about how the Democrats are deceiving us, there is a name for it: Swift-Boating. Oddly, the Democrats think this means everything's OK.

The latest blog to make this error is Richmond Democrat, in the post "TIME Magazine: "The Swift-Boating of Graeme Frost" ". To be fair to Time magazine, this wasn't a Time Magazine article, but an editorial by one of their writers.

In the editorial, the author properly uses the term "Swift-Boating" to indicate the divulging of facts about a Democratic plan to exploit a family for political purposes. The facts? The family sent their son to read a Senate Staff speech begging George Bush to NOT cut a program he had no plan to cut. The family didn't buy themselves life insurance. They don't send their kids to public school, but instead had found a way to send all four of their kids to expensive private schools, likely using financial aid. The father ran his own business, meaning he was the one who decided not to provide himself or his employees (which apparently was just his wife) with insurance.

We also learned that he owned the building his business was in, and he had a tenant paying rent for part of that building.

Of course, it's what we didn't yet learn that's important. It appears, but we aren't directly told, that the family made little attempt to purchase insurance before their tragic accident. But Maryland had a program they would easily qualify for under the existing, Republican-created CHIPS program, the one they joined when they needed major medical care. They could have been using the program for free to get access to full medical care including well-visits, vaccines, and a prescription drug plan.

The fully qualified for SCHIPS, but if they made a little more money, the Maryland program had a subsidized version which currently charges $57 a month for a family. They weren't close to losing this coverage.

In other words, we learned that this family, living comfortably in a house they own, with a nice kitchen, a nice new SUV, four kids in private school, two jobs, owners of a company and commercial property, were being fully serviced under the existing SCHIP program that President Bush wanted to continue.

They aren't the "poster family" for the Democrat's rediculous expansion of the program. And the only reason they don't have SCHIPs right now is the Democrats are holding them and the program hostage to try to get coverage for much richer families.

Families like the Freeper who did a little web research and discovered the truth. Not that this family was undeserving, or evil as a few are always want to scream on the internet. But that they were a perfect example of how the existing program did NOT NEED ANOTHER 35 BILLION DOLLARS.

But here's what Richmond Democrat had to say:

The story of the Republican Party's sickening political hit job against a 12-year old brain damaged child has gone mainstream.

First of all, this isn't a "political hit job" on anybody, much less a "12-year-old brain-damaged child". In fact, the only people I see disparaging the child or his abilities are democrats, who find it necessary to label the child as nearly incapacitated in order to sell their story. What person "defends" a family by making these comments about a 12-year-old? The Republicans aren't talking about the children, except to note they go to a good private school. It's the DEMOCRATS who disparage the boy, who drag him before the cameras as some puppet, to make a spectacle of him, just to score some cheap political points.

Of course, what political party is so bereft of ideas that it has to trot out 12-year-olds to make their case for them (albeit with their own prepared speeches)? That is the true shame of this.

TIME Magazine eviscerates the Republican Party and its scabrous cadre of hit bloggers.

It wasn't "Time Magazine", it's one writer's opinion column in Time Magazine. Lefties can't really tell the difference between opinion and factual reporting.

The father is right that it's a shame people write nasty e-mails. But it's laughable for RD to suggest this is a purely "republican" phenomena. The internet is full of people who anonymously send horrible things. You should read the e-mail I get for my column. I just ignore it, as anybody who writes in public has to learn to do.

However, I fault the father for one thing -- he has gone NATIONAL, to explain why we should pay for his health insurance, and in fact to argue that we should pay for people who make more than he does as well. He has made his family the "example", and it's irrational to suggest that, having done so, it's unfair for the rest of us not to examine his example and debate the merits of his case.

But this is how Democrats argue -- they pretend they are engaging in a real debate, but do so behind 12-year-old boys. When Republicans make the mistake of thinking Democrats actually want to discuss the MERITS of the issue, and start talking about it, the Democrats castigate them for "attacking brain-damaged-12-year-olds", or "9/11 widows", or whatever "victim" the Democrats chose to hide behind so they wouldn't have to argue the merits.

Does Richmond Democrat WANT to argue the merits of providing free health care to a family like the Frosts? Does he WANT to discuss whether a program that already served the Frost Family, and would continue to do so, really needs an extra 35 BILLION dollars to cover higher-income people?

Apparently not, he just wants to complain about anybody questioning why the Democrats drug a 12-year-old into an adult discussion, and then got mad when we tried to have the discussion anyway.

This is an enormous black eye for the Republican Party and right wing bloggers in general. The decision to harass a 12-year old was dubious, at best, but to get the facts of the case wrong?!

I'd love to see RD actually provide an example of what we got wrong. The Baltimore Sun already had to make several corrections to THEIR reporting on the family, all in favor of the facts as we learned them. The only mistake the original freeper made was to credit the family with paying for their own children's education -- it turns out they are getting someone else to pay for that as well. Why that's an argument in their favor, I don't know, it seems to just point out even more how much we already do for families like this.

It is true that some bloggers got facts wrong. I would note that not a day ago, the entire left-wing virginia blogosphere was calling a republican candidate, Holtzman-Vogel, a criminal for taking false tax credits. Oops, that story was a total fabrication. But you don't see republicans calling national press conferences to condemn them for their lies. The Washington Post screwed that up as well.

You'd like to think the Democrats were learn their lesson, and stop dragging 12-year-olds in front of them to fight their battles for them. But don't count on it -- it's what they know. Hide behind the children, the poor, the homeless, the downtrodden -- any human shield to protect them from criticism.

Meanwhile, who really cares about this family? The Republicans, and President Bush. We stand ready to pass and sign an SCHIP bill that increases spending by 5 billion dollars, and would fully cover this family for all their child's medical needs. Of course, we republicans already gave them a strong, growing economy where he, a self-described hard-working poor person, could in fact not only own his own home but also his own business. We gave them tax cuts, we GAVE THEM the SCHIP program. And we are ready to extend it for them.

The democrats are busy calling their children brain-damaged, and holding the family hostage so they can get a big tax increas on poor smokers to give medical "insurance" to people making up to $80,000 a year, and to 25-year-old "children". All part of taking over the health care system, which will destroy it.

Don't expect R-D to apologize for HIS attacks on the child. It's not part of the liberal playbook.

Richmond Democrat mis-assigns credit for exposing the Frost story

At Richmond Democrat and other lefty blogs, they are trying to steal the thunder from the bloggers who really did the work digging up the facts about the family the democrats shamelessly exploited for political purposes in the SCHIP fight, giving it instead to some senate staffers.

In RD's post, Smoking gun found!, he tries to take the credit away from good bloggers like the Freeper icwhatudo and give it to some senate staffer, when the only credit the staffer gets is that he pointed out the story to a liberal-blind media:

On Monday morning, Don Stewart reportedly sent an email with the following text to reporters:
Seen the latest blogswarm? Apparently, there’s more to the story on the kid (Graeme Frost) that did the Dems' radio response on SCHIP. Bloggers have done a little digging and turned up that the Dad owns his own business (and the building it's in), seems to have some commercial rental income and Graeme and a sister go to a private school that, according to its website, costs about $20k a year ‹for each kid‹ despite the news profiles reporting a family income of only $45k for the Frosts. Could the Dems really have done that bad of a job vetting

NONE of those facts were generated by this staffer, they all appeared days ago on the Free Republic web site, in a post about the subject. After a week of arrows by the democrats and frantic digging by the media, every fact in that original post has been proven true except for one, and the Baltimore Sun has actually discovered MORE things about the family.

BTW, the one thing that was wrong in the original post was a conjecture that the family actually paid for their private school. Turns out that just like their health insurance, someone else is footing the bill for their kid's eduation.

Meanwhile, RD continues the lie that people are attacking the kid. It you read the above e-mail, you can see that the only people attacked are the Democratic leadership for not vetting the family.

Of course, I can see why Democrats would think that telling the facts about the family is an "attack". After all, the family sends their kids to private school, a definite democrat no-no, and the father has his own business which isn't unionized, he actually owns property, and his business didn't provide health insurance for his employees.

In other words, this is exactly the kind of family democrats attack all the time. So when the Republicans point out these qualities in the family, the Democrats naturally think it's an "attack".

Now, there HAVE been attacks on the family (I imagine some evil commenter has even attacked the kid, but I haven't seen it). And the family has attacked people who oppose expanding SCHIP. But the real story is that this family is a perfect example of why the SCHIP program works as is and doesn't need to be expanded.

Lowell shills for Rishell, poorly

Meanwhile, the RK folks are doing their best to pollute the blogosphere with false spin, in the hopes people will continue to be fooled into voting for Democrats. The liberals are very good at this game -- they have to be, because they've got nothing to offer in the way of a positive message.

So Lowell picks up on Rishell's "he's being mean to me" theme, in the post Why is Jackson Miller So Angry?:

It's not often you see a candidate act this angry on camera. Usually, they try to be smooth and polished...but not Del. Jackson Miller (R-50). Why is Del. Miller so angry at Democratic challenger Jeannette Rishell? Any psychologists in the house?

Oh, I know!! pick me!! pick me!!

Could it be because Jeanette Rishell has been lying about him repeatedly?

What do I win?

Actually, watch the video, Miller is polished, and forceful, and it is clear he has a righteous anger over the false claims and attacks. But it isn't an "angry speech", not anything like a typical James Webb diatribe, for example.

I was going to add that I guess the democrats don't understand being angry at people lying about them, because they are usually on the giving end of the lies, not the receiving end. But then I remembered they compete in primaries.

I've noticed a lot of democrats with Miller signs in their yards. I don't think Lowell can save this one.

Rishell's Campaign Posts YouTube Video Blasting -- Rishell

This is the funniest thing I've seen in a while from a campaign. At the Committee of 100 debate, Jackson Miller presented a two-minute lambasting of Rishell's deceptions and lies, going through her campaign literature showing where she falsely attacked him, and recounting stories from people from the district who have spoken to her and heard her say different things.

It was a devastatingly accurate and profound put-down of her negative campaigning. So what does the Rishell Campaign do? It PUTS THE SPEECH ON YOUTUBE!!!

Oh, and they labelled it "Jackson Miller Angrily Attacks Jeanette Rishell". I guess they are going for the batttered candidate vote?

How bad a move is this? Well, I'm posting the video. Think I'd do that if I thought it helped Janet? BTW, this isn't a speech delivered "angrily", but I'll let you decide that for yourself. On the other hand, I'm not surprised a man of integrity would get a little forceful when he's defending himself against lies.

That a candidate would actually run a video of herself being called out for lying repeatedly about her opponent, in the mistaken notion that his indignation at being lied about would help her get votes.

RK: Defending Child Abuse

Lowell at RK is defending child abuse. That is, the abuse of children by the Democrats to try to score political points. In his breathlessly-named post
"I'm registering Independent tomorrow.", Lowell finds somebody somewhere who has fallen for the democrat's deceptions and claims to be switching to an independent.

If you look at the site, you'll see that his following is already the rabid left, and many are surprised to learn he's still a republican -- so I'm guessing this "conversion" isn't much of one, except maybe he never bothered to change his registration.

The part though I want to highlight is this, from Lowell:

What did Graeme do? Well, he had the audacity to ask President Bush to sign the children's health (SCHIP) bill. Thanks to SCHIP, Graeme "was able to get the medical care he needed after a serious car accident caused severe brain trauma, paralyzed one of his vocal chords and put him in a coma." Here's what Graeme had to say:

The implication is that Graeme had a message. But he didn't. The speech Graeme gave wasn't his, it was written for him by a Democratic Senate Staffer. Doesn't mean it didn't reflect what he believed, doesn't mean the kid didn't agree with it -- but it wasn't his words. It was a Senate speech, delivered by a 12-year-old so that if anybody fought the program, they could be attacked like what is happening now, for "going after a 12-year-old".

Now, it is true that there are comments on the internet that attack this child, and they are deplorable. Commenters are unregulated and say nasty things about just about everybody, and they exist on the left and right.

But the argument being made against the Frosts has NEVER been directed at the child. Nobody in a position of authority has said ONE BAD WORD about Graeme or his sister. Nobody is TALKING ABOUT THE 12-YEAR-OLD.

We are TRYING to talk about the SCHIP program. It's not our fault the Democrats drug some kid and his family into the conversation. We know WHY they did it, because they can't defend their policies, so they use emotion to try to smear anybody who disagrees with them. But it's the Democrat's fault.

And let's look at what the Democratic Leadership said through the kid's speech that they wrote:

My parents work really hard and always make sure my sister and I have everything we need, but the hospital bills were huge. We got the help we needed because we had health insurance for us through the CHIP program.

Well, that's not really true now, is it? The kids needed health insurance, and neither parent made sure they had it. But you know what? Even though the parents FAILED to provide what the children needed (health insurance), a Republican-created program, SCHIP, was there to pick up the slack for them.

And you know what else? The President requested a FIVE BILLION DOLLAR increase in this successful program, the program which is it's current form made up for this family's lack of planning for a medical emergency. And if the Democrats had passed the bill that Bush requested, this family would STILL BE COVERED. They were well within the bounds of the existing program.

Most of us on the right are arguing that the FROSTS are the perfect poster child for the President's position. They were covered under the existing rules, and the only reason they are NOT COVERED TODAY is that the Democrats are using them as hostages, human shields to try to blackmail the President into signing the bill, or more representatives to vote for the bill.

If the Democrats wanted to be intellectually honest, they at least could have found some family that currently did NOT qualify for SCHIP, but needed it, rather than a family who already benefited from the existing program and just needed the Democrats to re-authorize it.

If we had a Republican majority in the house, this family, and millions like it, would be covered TODAY by a functional SCHIP program. But because the Democrats are in charge, those families are at risk, because of the Democrats attempts to socialize medicine and pay for it on the backs of poor people who just want to smoke a cigarette.

So when Lowell says:

Despite Graeme's powerful plea, President Bush ended up heartlessly vetoing the children's health care bill, absurdly claiming that it was too expensive, even though it was only a tiny fraction of the cost of even one year of the Iraq war. Now, Congress is working to override the veto, and we'll definitely be watching to see which Virginia Republicans vote with Bush and against children on this one.

Remember that Bush WANTED to give Graeme his SCHIP program, but the Democrats refused. As to "absurd claims", the absurdity is the Democrat's new position that if we have to spend money on the Iraq war, they should get to spend the same amount of money, and more, on a host of new programs.

Because the fact is, IF YOU WANTED to increase our already bloated spending by another 35 billion dollars, and tax the poor smokers to do it, there are a dozen other programs which would be of greater benefit to society than providing SCHIP money to adults and upper-middle-class wage-earners.

Because we already spend a lot more on programs like SCHIP, Medicare, and the like than we do on the Iraq war.

RK scaremongering on Tax Rates

Lowell at RK is a pretty smart guy, so I'm guessing he understands that property taxes are based on a combination of the tax rate and the property value.

However, every year many citizens are confused by mixing up the "Tax" with the "Rate". Generally it's politicians that try to confused us, but in this case Lowell is happy to do the job so long as it hurts Republicans.

From "Tax Rate Heading Up "Substantially" in Prince William County ":

It will be very interesting to see what the Republican-dominated board in Prince William decides to do with regard to the tax rate, and what the reaction is.

For years, our assessments shot through the roof, and a few local politicians made a big deal out of "lowering" our property tax rate, as if they were saving us money, when in fact our taxes were going up.

Last year, Stewart and the board raised the rate, but lowered the average tax. They were able to explain it easily enough, and there was little negative reaction except from people and organizations who couldn't get the county to take more of our money and give it to them.

So, I expect that if the board holds the line on the average TAX paid, it won't matter what the tax rate is set at.

On a policy note, the cost to the county of servicing a house is not based on it's current assessment. But the tax code already adapts for this by "automatically" resetting the tax rate each year based on the total taxes collected. The Board must vote only if they want to change that adjustment.

Last year the board tried a tax rate that would have saved substantial taxes. This provided the residents and the board with a set of well-defined decisions about spending, and while many programs were added back, the result was a tax decrease for the average homeowner.

I expect the same next year, unless the voters pick Pandek. Then we'll be back to a budget that sharply increases our TAXES, with the onus on those who want to keep their money to independently try to find where the county staff hid the unnecessary spending.

It's much better for all of us if we start with less, and then add programs on a case-by-case basis, than if we allow every program under the sun to be buried in department budgets.

Dems Demagogue SCHIP

Update: From On High has covered the Frost story, in the posts Here's where we come in and Republicans would do well to watch and learn. Check it out.


Haven't seen much in the local blogs, but there's big talk about the family of the young boy who the Democrats trotted out a couple weekends ago to read their talking points against Bush's veto of their SCHIP expansion.

SCHIP is a medical insurance safety net for poor children, which Bush wanted to maintain with a budget increase. The Democrats decided to spend an extra 35 billion to expand the program to cover "children" up to 25, "poor families" up to $82,000, and illegals. When Bush vetoed their attempt, they blamed him for killing "the program", when they could easily pass a bill that would maintain the program at it's current levels (plus Bush's 5 billion additional spending).

So the Democrats, true to form as Ann Coulter called it, decided to use an SCHIP child to be their spokesperson, since then any attack could be deflected.

Except now it comes out that the family isn't as poor as made out. In some ways they are much better off than most of the smokers who the Democrats were going to force to pay for the insurance expansion.

But focusing in the family is such a "Democratic" thing to do. The whole idea of pushing a particular child on the nation to sell a program smacks of emotionalism substituting as policy. Of course, it's "fun" when the Democrats trot out a bad example, which they do all the time.

Just for a few: In 1994, Hillary posed with Kathleen Bush, a poor child suffering from undiagnosed maladies, who ran up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. Only much later did we find that the child was being poisoned by her mother for publicity, publicity the Democrats were all to happy to provide. Her mother eventually was convicted.

In 2000, Gore brought out "Winifred Skinner", an elderly woman who had to collect aluminum cans to buy food. But it turned out she didn't do that at all, but just was saying she figured other people had to do it.

in 2004, Kerry brought out "Mary Ann Knowles", who had breast cancer and supposedly had to work through her chemotherapy because we didn't have a paid Family Medical Leave. But it turned out her employer provided excellent benefits, with a well-paid long-term disability, but she decided to work through her chemo to make extra money.

And of course we know about Jesse Macbeth, who the Democrats trotted out to tell about war atrocities he and other soldiers committed in Iraq -- but it turned out he had never been to Iraq, and had washed out of basic training. He was just convicted of lying to get benefits.


SCHIP either is a good program, or not, regardless of this one family. EXPANSION of SCHIP is either necessary or not, regardless of this one family.

Finding this one family could have afforded insurance seems not to matter to proving SCHIP should be cancelled (although it's a sign that people who should take care of themselves are using our tax dollars so they can buy bigger houses and better things).

But the Democratic Leadership CHOSE this family to be their poster-family to prove how dire the situation is for the country, and how necessary an expansion of SCHIP is.

We now know that this isn't the case. First, the family didn't really NEED SCHIP because they had plenty of capital in their house, they own a business and a pretty decent commercial building, they both have jobs and could certainly get jobs with health care.

More importantly, this family, and these kids, actually BENEFITED from the SCHIP program as built by and funded by the Republican Majority. The President has called for increased funding to continue the program. This family only makes $45,000 a year, and would therefore continue to qualify under any incarnation of the program.

So Graeme is a perfect example of how the CURRENT program is working fine, and doesn't need to be expanded to illegals, 25-year-old, and upper-middle-class families.

This story just shows how rediculous the Democrats are being holding up the program to try to benefit illegals, adults, and rich people at the expense of people like Graeme -- if they had their accident NOW, they'd be without health insurance because of the Greed of the Democrats.

It's time for the Democrats to authorise the modest spending increase the President has authorised, so that families like this one don't have to worry about SCHIP being held as a political pawn by Democrats who want a campaign sound bite instead.

I haven't provided links for anything in this story. I've got links, but it's all pretty well known stuff. If commenters suggest otherwise I'll add them.

Another Lying Democratic Candidate -- Chris Brown

You know you've messed up when your opponent offers to send your mailers to the voters, but Chris Brown's mailers are so bad that Jeff Frederick has offered to do exactly that:

Many of you have mentioned to me or my staff that you aren't getting mail from Chris Brown. I don't know if it is because you've inadvertently discarded it with junk mail, or if you just aren't on his mail list. Either way, if you haven't seen it, I wanted to provide you with just one example of the misinformation he is spreading.
...
If you're only getting our mail, and thus, only seeing our reaction to something you have no idea what the object is of that reaction, then feel free to let me know, and if you'd like, we'll be happy to share Chris Brown's negative mail with you.Then you can decide who is being more honest and keeping things respectful (he referred to me in one mailer as a "highway robber").

I don't know if the Potomac News has bothered to write this one up yet, but Chris Brown has a whopper of a false advertisement against Jeff here.

In fact, it has multiple obvious errors in addition to the general misinformed message.

Here is the ad:

Here's the claim: "Jeff Frederick is an active member of an organization that supports a new 34% sales tax that would lead to HIGHER TAXES ON EVERYTHING".

The first problem is simple absurdity. A new 34% tax? So now it would be 39% sales tax? Even the flat value added tax isn't proposed to be that high, and that replaces the income tax. What they MEANT to lie about was a "34% tax INCREASE", not a "new 34% tax". So my first message is, if you are going to lie, at least get the lie right.

The second problem is a simple referencing problem. They give a web site reference: http://virginiaclubforgrowth.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=198

Problem is, that page doesn't exist. In fact, I've checked just about every permutation of numbers I could think of that they could have messed up, and can't find a page that matches.

Where's Raising Kaine and that Dr. from South Carolina to tell the Washington Post how we've hit a new low because a candidate is providing a web reference that doesn't even exist? Silence is very telling, isn't it?

Which leads to the 3rd question -- who is this group that is advocating a 34% sales tax? Apparently, it's the Club for Growth. Except that the Club For Growth opposes sales taxes. Since Chris Brown's mailer doesn't give a name, and since the web reference is invalid, it's really impossible to tell, which I guess is meant to make it harder to verify that his claim is a lie.

Which brings us to the big whopper of a lie -- that Jeff Frederick would ever be supporting a sales tax increase on "everything". Jeff Frederick could be "accused" of many things, but supporting tax increases? Chris Brown of course has pushed tax increases, but projection is hardly a good thing in a candidate.

Of course, with Chris Brown I could have chosen any number of mailers and done the same analysis. In one he claims Jeff has done nothing about Illegal Immigration. In another he said Jeff voted for the Abuser Fees, which is absurd as Jeff actually voted against the entire house bill, even BEFORE Tim Kaine restricted the fees to Virginians.

So that's a 3rd Prince William race in which the Democratic Party delegate has run a blatantly false mailer. Is it something they teach them over at the DPVA (I note this mailer is actually done by the Democratic Party of Virginia)?

Fox News used "Phony Soldier" in May of 2007.

In May of 2007, Fox News ran a story about Jesse Macbeth, a hero of the left who was discovered to have made up most of his false claims.

In the story titled "Phony Soldier Charged With Making Up Claims of Atrocities in Iraq", they reported:

SEATTLE — A man who tried to position himself as a leader of the anti-war movement by claiming to have participated in war crimes while serving in Iraq is facing federal charges of falsifying his record.
...
Organizations that opposed the war, including Iraq Veterans Against the War, posted videos or statements containing Macbeth’s claims on their Web sites. In one videotaped interview, a skinny, stuttering Macbeth, dressed in a camouflage jacket, described slaughtering hundreds of people in a mosque: “We would burn their bodies ... hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque,” he said.
...
"He approached us in early 2006, posing as a war veteran. He seemed very emotionally distressed about his experiences,” said Amadee Braxton, a spokeswoman for Iraq Veterans Against the War, based in Philadelphia.
...
Macbeth admitted falsifying the documents because he was homeless and wanted to “sucker” anything he could out of the government.

If Media Matters and the elected Democratic Leadership had a "phony soldier" search filter watching so they could denounce people attacking our troops, they missed this one. Which is too bad.

Because if they had read the article, they would have known that Macbeth was a phony soldier who was used by the left to attack our troops and falsely accuse them of war crimes.

Now THAT would have been something worthy of a speech on the Senate Floor. Senator Reid actually defending our troops against a real smear.

But of course, at the time this story came out, Reid was busy claiming we had lost the war. He was in no mood to defend the troops, he just wanted them to admit defeat and come home. His party members were more interested in attacking troops for "murdering civilians in cold blood" than defending them against false charges of doing so.

But if they had read the story, as Rush Limbaugh did, maybe they would have felt the same outrage Rush had for "phony soldiers" pretending to be Iraq vets so they could make videos to be used as recruiting videos for our enemies. Maybe they'd have understood the urge to stand up and denounce these phony soldiers who claimed our troops killed women and children and hung their bodies from the rafters of Mosques. Maybe they'd have taken to the floor of the house and senate to denounce those who gave Jesse Macbeth a platform to spout his hate-filled lies against the men and women fighting and dying in Iraq.

Instead, they were silent. Not a word against Jesse. Not a word against the IVAW for putting him in their programs. Not a word against the official left-wing blogs of whom they are members, which repeated Macbeth's lies to demoralize the troops and help destroy the support for them at home and abroad.

And when Rush defended our soldiers against Macbeth's attacks, the Democratic leadership, instead of joining him and admitting their own side's culpability, sought to hide their involvement by attacking Rush for calling them out, by putting words in his mouth he never said, and making speeches condemning him for things they KNOW were false, both in fact of the transcript, and in what they know of Rush's support for our military.

That's the real story here -- how the left propped up a phony soldier (and Macbeth isn't the only one), so willing to believe that our troops were capable of the atrocities Macbeth told of.

And they wonder why they are considered anti-troops? A Republican hears Macbeth and assumes he's lying until it's proven true. Apparently most Democrats here Macbeth and believe he is telling the truth, find it perfectly rational that our troops are murderous thugs and war criminals who would kill innocent civilians in cold blood, including women and children.

And worse, when the liars are revealed, there is no outcry from the left, just a few people erasing blog entries and purging membership rolls. Because for the left, and too many Elected Democrats, the person my be a fake, but the story is still "accurate".

11th district gets it right - each appeals step needs new signatures

(Credit to SkepticalObservor for covering this earlier).
I wasn't going to comment on this. It's not that interesting, as it's inside politics, and since I don't read BVBL anymore (because he's afraid to let me) I was unaware that anybody was in disagreement with the unanimous decision of the 11th district.

But apparently there are a few people like Greg who can't read a plan, don't have a clue about what requirements are, can't believe anybody would actually enforce rules, and are certain that they should be listened to anyway.

Specifically, the RPV plan (that's the rules for the Republican Party of Virginia) state in Party Plan, Article X, Section B(1-4).:

1. Any Chairman of an Official Committee or twenty (20) percent of the members of an Official Committee may request a ruling or interpretation of the State Party Plan from the General Counsel. The General Counsel's determination shall be binding unless and until overturned upon appeal, either to the Appeals Committee or directly to the State Central Committee.

2. The Appeals Committee shall consist of the State Chairman, all of the State Vice Chairmen and a General Assembly Committee Member appointed by the Joint Republican Legislative Caucus. The State Chairman shall promptly convene this Committee when necessary, either in person or by telephone, and shall participate in its deliberations and decisions.

3. In the event of an appeal to the Appeals Committee and a concurrence by a majority of that Committee with the Ruling or interpretation of the General Counsel, it may be further appealed to the State Central Committee, whose decision shall be binding in accordance with Article X, Section C.

4. All appeals, under sub-sections 1, 2 and 3 of this section must be made in writing within thirty (30) days after the decision appealed from and the appeal must be accompanied by a petition signed by at least twenty-five (25) Party members (except as provided below) of the respective Unit, Legislative District or Congressional District affected.

When an appeal involves a mass meeting, party canvass or convention, then for purposes of this paragraph the term “Party members” shall mean mass meeting participants in the case of a mass meeting; canvass voters in the case of a party canvass; or delegates in the case of a convention. If fewer than one hundred twenty-five (125) persons voted in such mass meeting, party canvass or convention, then the petition shall be signed by at least twenty percent (20%) of the voters at such mass meeting, party canvass or convention.

There was an appeal from a convention to the 51st district committee, which had 25 signatures from the convention. That appeal was decided.

Then there was an appeal of THAT decision to the 11th district committee. Unfortunately, that appeal was not accompanied by any signatures relevant to the appeal, but instead by the same signatures obtained for the earlier appeal.

I say unfortunate because ANY legal representation would have explained this. We all remember the fun we had when Chapman missed his filing deadline. This is about the same. There's little sympathy here for people who can't follow simple instructions, especially when they are so sure they know what they are doing that they don't take the time to ask what they should do.

After all, Becky Stoeckel wasn't their enemy, and she obviously knew about this as she was part of the unanimous vote. All they had to do is ask here what was needed for a valid appeal. Some of the people complaining now laughed about McQuigg asking Kopko to ensure her petitions and other paperwork were in order -- maybe instead of laughing they should have taken the lesson and done the same.

But I want to move beyond the obvious rule, and ask -- does it make sense? The answer is a resounding yes, for three reasons.

First, as was made clear by an e-mail released by an 11th district attendee, the appeal sent to the 11th district was NOT the same appeal that was sent to the 51st district. The first appeal asked for the convention to be overturned, for votes to be thrown away, and for the loser to be declared the winner. 25 people who signed a petition were signing on to that request, to appeal to the 51st.

The appeal to the 11th district was NOT to overturn the convention. Instead, it was to get the 11th district to fix the record the 51st appeal wouldn't fix, and to "clarify" the rules about overvotes.

Given the entirely different nature and effect of the 2nd appeal, it would be absurd to assume that the 25 people who had signed the first appeal would agree with the 2nd appeal.

Second, in addition to the appeal itself being different, the time and level of appeal were ALSO different. The first appeal was to the 51st district, and made at a time in which it possibly made sense to some people to throw out the results and put a different candidate up for election.

The second appeal was to a different organization, and was much later in the process. In fact, one member of the Lucas team suggests that the team knew it was too late to overturn the election and that was why they changed the appeal. In any case, it's quite possible that some of the 25 people were willing to take a shot at an appeal when there was time to make a difference, but would NOT support an appeal in August asking to overturn the election. Requiring a petition signer to be bound to their signature beyond the appeal they initially supported would be unfair.

But couldn't we just allow them to "withdraw" their signature? Well, interestingly enough, there is NO provision in the party plan for that. Which is another clear sign that new signatures are needed, because if the original signature COULD be used for subsequent appeals you'd need a procedure for withdrawing them. And in fact, the party plan covers this, by requiring the petitioner to re-obtain the signatures. This ensures that every signer has a chance to withdraw their support.

Lastly, the argument carrying over signatures assumes that those who signed were only interested in the outcome, or in supporting the candidate, rather than in the truth. Because there WAS an investigation, a study of the rules, and a decision rendered at the 51st district level. It could well be that those signing the petition would be satisfied by that decision, and would not support an appeal of that decision. Some could have really wanted an investigation just to make sure nothing untoward happened, and be satisfied when the investigation was done.

So, by the rule of law, and by common sense, you must get a new set of signatures to accompany each new appeal. Appealing the decision of the 51st district committee is different from appealing the decision of the convention. New appeal, new signatures. It's simple.

The new appeal itself deserved to be rejected on its merits, and would have been had it been properly filed and supported. It requested an advisory opinion which is not in the perview of the 11th district committee, which has little authority to cast binding decisions on future conventions.

This is not to say we don't need clarification. It's just that an appeal to the 11th district wasn't the proper venue for that. Instead, we need to submit a request to the RPV to add language to the Party Plan to clarify the overvote correction process, to ensure that no candidate ever again tries to throw pout PARTIAL votes in an election to their own benefit. I think it's clear the RPV plan already prevents that, but since some disagree let's write it in bold letters -- we don't throw out valid votes to effect the outcome of an election.

Artic Ice Melt caused by Global -- blowing?

According to NASA, the cause of the Artic Ice melt is not a rapid rise in temperature, but rather an unusually strong wind (as reported by AccuWeather's Global Warming Gang):

Anyway, in a news release from NASA Monday, a group of scientists have determined that unusual winds caused the rapid decline (23% loss) in winter perennial ice over the past two years in the northern hemisphere. This drastic reduction is the primary cause of this summer's fastest-ever sea ice retreat in recorded history which has lead to the smallest extent of total Arctic coverage on record.
...
"Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," said Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

Of course, we can always blame the wind on Global Warming. I wonder if NASA will lose it's funding now. :-)

Wow, Two for Two -- another Dem lies to the voters

SkepticalObservor has the story.

This is the 2nd candidate that the Potomac News has called out for false advertising.:

You would think a candidate for the House of Delegates would check her facts before creating and sending out an expensive, glossy mailer attacking her opponent.

But if you are talking about the Democratic candidate for the 50th district of the Virginia House of Delegates, Jeanette Rishell, you would be wrong.

Their summary paragraph was devastating:

We don't know how much money Rishell spent on the mailer, but we do know that she should have done more research before throwing that money, and any chance she had of winning this race, down the drain.

I guess she won't be getting their endorsement.

Democrat's Problem -- having to lead is too hard for them

When the Republicans were in their 4th decade of minority status in the house, a lot of conservatives were beginning to wonder if they weren't just happier in the minority, because they didn't have to be responsible for anything and could just snipe at the majority and sit back and whine and complain.

Once the Republicans took the majority, they were expected to accomplish something. And they actually did, for some time, but after a while some of them were more about keeping their jobs than doing what we elected them to do.

Well, the Democrats used that to great advantage in 2006, promising to get things done, to do everything better, smarter, faster, whatever. One great example was the appropriations, with the Democrats jumping all over the Republicans for failing to complete all the appropriations bills before October 1st deadline.

Well now it's a year later, the Democrats are in charge in the house and senate. And they have done almost nothing. For example, not a SINGLE APPROPRIATIONS BILL has been sent to the President for a signature. NOT A SINGLE ONE.

Meanwhile, their base, which expected to be repaid for their support, is getting really mad at them for not getting us out of Iraq, not getting Bush and Cheney impeached, and a host of other things they expected but are never going to get.

So it wasn't surprising to see this blog entry from some guy named Brad, a self-professed democrat, who says he's giving up blogging: "Bye":

I’ve talked for months about why I feel the Democratic party is the best solution for America, and I can’t say I believe that as forcefully any more. They are in no way worse than Republicans, but after nearly a year of a Democratic majority that was supposed to rein in a runaway executive and put the nation back on the right track, we are now even worse off than we were when Republicans controlled Congress.

Ouch. I've actually been relatively happy with Congress because they've only screwed up a few things. Having accomplished almost nothing is the best I could hope for from the liberal leadership, and I've gotten my wish.

Brad's littany of horrors continues:

The Democrats have conspired to legalize illegal wiretapping (once an impeachable offense) and they’ve allowed Bush to send even more troops into Iraq, escalating a war they were given a mandate to end.

I'm thankful for both of these accomplishments.

I’ve defended Democrats on this blog for too long. In my opinion the Democrats currently in both houses of Congress (with some notable exceptions) are not part of the solution; they have only so far furthered the same old problems. I can no longer with good conscience defend them as a group.

Sorry Brad, but you've learned what we conservatives already knew -- you can't trust the Democrats in congress to do what they say. They often lie to get elected. In conservative districts they pretend to be conservative, in liberal districts they say they'll toe the liberal line, but once in office they will do what they will.

In this case, enough Democrats know that the war is important that, while they were happy to ride into a majority on the backs of the anti-war liberals, they had no real intention of ending the war.

Look at the big 3 democrat presidential candidates. Not ONE of them will promise to get us out of Iraq in their FIRST 4 YEARS. So much for the "mandate to leave Iraq", we aren't talking about out in a year. Under any likely Democrat president, we will probably still be in Iraq in 2012. Again, this is only right, I'm glad they won't commit to a date to leave, but it's not what they promised to get elected.

I know there are republicans who say whatever to get elected. But I find most will tell the harsh truths, and sometimes it will cost them if their opponent will lie to be elected.

So Brad is not going to blog anymore, and I can't say I'll miss him because frankly I have no idea who he is and I've never read his blog before. He closes:

I also remain convinced that such broad-based blogging about politics is useless without a massive net to cast. I don’t have that. Big ideas were my focus, and big ideas are what are for some reason incompatible with this modern political state. This has never turned out to be quite what I wanted it to be, and that’s okay with me. It’s time to move on.

Oh, OK, that's not how he closed. He did say that, but then he went on to explain how he's starting up a NEW blog to attack Eric Cantor.

Because as a liberal, he's learned a lesson. Big ideas were his focus, but big ideas are meaningless in the liberal world. So he's going to do what liberals do best -- Run a personal smear-site against a republican politician.

It's sad to see RK quoting Media Matters as a credible source

when they have no credibility. But here a diarist at RK quotes from a "study" done by Media Matters that even a cursory glance shows is worthless.

the RK Diary is titled "Study finds strong conservative bias in Virginia Media". The title itself is spin, as even if the "study" wasn't hopelessly flawed, it didn't find a strong bias, just a bias.

But here's what RK had to say about the "study":

This is not surprising, but it's disturbing nonetheless: "When it comes to nationally syndicated columnists, Virginia's daily newspapers are dominated by conservatives, leaving progressive voices behind."

You know you are being fed a line when they compare "conservatives" vs "progressives", without even mentioning "liberals". Now, conservatives know that progressives are just liberals too ashamed to admit it, but "progressives" are insistant that there's a difference between "progressive" and "liberal", so therefore there must be a third "liberal" category -- and yet Media Matters couldn't find a SINGLE LIBERAL syndicated columnist.

RK continues:

In sum, Virginia newspapers lean heavily conservative in their editorial slant. So much for any "liberal media bias" in Virginia! Sad to say, this is the case nationally as well:

But wait. We KNOW that there's a lot of liberal editorial writers in Virginia, so how could this be? The secret is in the 1st sentence above: "Nationally Syndicated Columnists".

Yes, they simply compared "nationally syndicated columnists" to determine "editorial slant". In other words, this isn't a study of the editorial BOARD of the papers, or any of the local editorial writers. It's just about NATIONAL writers.

To show how stupid this is, my local paper, Manassas Journal Messenger/Potomac News, is listed twice (because it's kind of two papers). Both show 100% PROGRESSIVE, 0% CONSERVATIVE. Well, I write for that paper, so I know they have SOME conservatives. And in fact liberals are always writing to the paper to complaing about how many conservative opinion pieces there are.

But at this time, the paper apparently only picks up progressive NATIONALLY SYNDICATED columnists. At one time they had Kathleen Lopez, who I would have called conservatives, but I guess she's not being picked up any more.


Now, why is it that the papers showed a bias toward national conservative columnists? There are a lot of possibilities. If a paper wants to be balanced, and their editorial board is liberal, and their own columnists are liberal, they might pay for a well-known national conservative writer to "balance" the paper. Under the Media Matters/Raising Kaine standard, a paper which was entirely progressive, but with only local writers, who decides to pick up George Will, would count as a 100% CONSERVATIVE paper. Not very intellectually honest.

The study also complained that papers with bigger circulation had more conservatives. Well, that's easy to explain -- conservative writers attract more readers, who buy more papers, because they make more sense.

Also, there is a well-known liberal/progressive bias in the news industry. That means that for every conservative writer who could be promoted to the opinion pages, there are 9 liberals.

This means that it is very likely that a newspaper will have a couple of good opinion writers that are progressives, but also very possible they will not have any conservatives.

So they are likely to pick up a nationally syndicated conservative, to make up for their own lack of conservatives on their staff.

This would mean that if you are just measuring NATIONALLY SYNDICATED COLUMNISTS, you'd find more conservatives than liberals, since there are far fewer conservative columnists to go around, so the ones that are good will be syndicated a lot more often.

Let's face it, the New York Times doesn't need to pick up any nationally syndicated progressives, it's got a dozen of it's own to promote.

A real study would have evaluated the editorial BOARD of each paper, and then measured column inches each week devoted to conservative and liberal writings. In the MJM, I'd call the editorial board "progressive", and say about 2/3rds of the columns are biased toward the left, and 1/3rd to the right. Which actually is better than the "study" suggested (100% progressive).

Media Matters is the same group that just published two false claims about talk show hosts, both of which were believed by an all-too-"progressive" media willing to buy anything bad about conservatives. They are the group headed up by a guy who was essentially run out by conservatives after writing the screed "The Real Anita Hill". Liberals knew he was a liar then, but now that he lies for them he's A-OK.

Is Paul Nichols afraid of enforcing other laws?

We know that Paul Nichols is afraid to step up enforcement of laws against hiring illegal immigrants, saying ""Our jails would be full of small contractors … if someone started enforcing this."

Meanwhile, we know that Democratic Presidential Candidate Jonathan Edwards is worried about enforcing other laws, from the article Edwards Predicts Doom for African-American Males:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said if he isn’t elected president, the population of African-American males is likely to either wind up in prison or dead.
...
"We start with the President of the United States saying to America, ‘we cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”

Paul Nichols is a big fan of John Edwards, having given thousands of dollars to his campaign, also covered in the blog entry "Will Nichols require government-forced doctor visits? "

So, does Paul Nichols agree with his favorite Presidential Candidate John Edwards that if we enforced the laws, every African American would end up in jail?

We know he thinks that every small contractor hires illegal immigrants and would end up in jail if we enforced jail time for hiring illegals.

We know Edwards thinks that if we keep locking up criminals, every African-American will end up in jail.

So does Nichols think black males would all be in jail if we enforced the law, like all small contractors would be in jail if we enforced illegal immigration laws?

Watch Democrat Presidential Candidate John Edwards call every African-American male a criminal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ja22CHEI6w