Saturday, August 25, 2007

NLS falls for GoodByeFaisals misinformation campaign

Or is he being purposely disingenous? It's hard to imagine Ben is actually stupid enough to believe this stuff, but I certainly don't want to suggest he's perpetuating stuff he knows to be false.

Anyway, NLS reports "Gill's Employer Linked to Al Qaeda?":

Faisal Gill needs to drop out of this campaign.
UPDATE: Loudoun Insider has thoughts.

OK, the "WOW" is a link to GoodByeFaisal, the headline of which is: "Treasury Says Gill's Boss Alamoudi Funded Al Qaeda".

Of course, the implication is that "Treasury" has called Alamoudi "Gill's Boss", but they have not. And in fact, Alamoudi was never "Gill's Boss". In fact, AMC was never "Gill's Boss" either, and GBF is trying to take that false charge and an inaccurate relationship between Alamoudi and AMC at the time Gill was providing consulting services for AMC to suggest that somehow Gill was working for Alamoudi, which is a false charge with no evidence.

GBF also claims there is some "evasiveness" about what Gill did for AMC, but I've seen no such evasiveness. The contract for service was a small one, a few thousand dollars, and involved setting up meetings with administration officials. Gill was never the "chief lobbyist", AMC had their own employees for that, but it doesn't stop GBF from making the claim.

The funny thing is, JMarks has been making this charge for months, it's been on GoodByeKen, GoodByeFaisal, over in comments at BVBL, and even leaked into other more serious and factual blogs.

And yet NLS reports this as if it is something new? What, has Ben been living in an isolation booth somewhere? Seems hard to imagine.

See numerous posts over at FansOfFaisal for refutation of many of the baseless allegations made about Faisal and his service to our country as a valued member of the Department of Homeland Security. Faisal's boss at DHS has said great things about his service, and has endorsed him for Delegate.

The FBI investigated all charges against Faisal and found them to be baseless. Of course, that doesn't stop dishonest people from linking to old internet articles written BEFORE the investigations, to suggest the charges are still in question. It's just a little surprising to see NLS acting like stories like this are somehow news or news to him.

Friday, August 24, 2007

So Democrats never change their positions, even to right ones?

The folks over at Raising Kaine are "thanking goodness" (as if they know what "goodness" is, or that "goodness" is some higher power or sentient being that should be thanked) for "google", in that google makes it easy for even ignorant lazy people to collect data (whether accurate or not doesn't seem to matter much to those kind of people).

In their rant, they claim Republicans are being "Thwarted in Attempts to Erase Records". But in almost every case, all they have found is that Republicans have decided the abuser fees are unacceptable, and have decided to oppose them. This is a change for many of them, to be sure, but changing a web site to indicate your CURRENT position on an issue isn't "trying to erase records", it's trying to keep your positions accurate.

I can't even imagine a Democrat keeping their changed and unpopular position on an issue on their web site (although I imagine the folks at Raising Kaine are used to Democrats who put positions on their web site that are opposite their real positions, so maybe that's what has them confused about the honesty of the Republicans).

Here's selected details, from Lowell at RK, "Thank Goodness for Google!", who it appears mostly just took his post from Danae at the Democratic Party of Virginia, which makes this an official Democratic Party obsfucation:

(Danae): In this election year, Republicans candidates from Virginia Beach to Fairfax have found themselves on the wrong side of Virginia voters. But instead of dropping their views and aligning with the mainstream, many of them are trying to erase, edit, flip-flop and spin away their inconvenient pasts.

Actually, in almost every case, "dropping their views" is EXACTLY what the candidates have done, and they have changed their web sites to reflect their new views.

BTW, as much as it's fun to thank "google", Republicans know that there are actually NEWS sources of record that have their votes and positions, and those can't be altered (yet, as the Democrats haven't gotten around to implementing a 1984-style system of re-writing THEIR history). The idea that someone would try to "erase" a recorded vote is absurd.

Earlier this year, candidate Dave Hunt sent out a mailer proclaiming his "Five Point" transportation plan. This plan included point number two - "[increasing] penalties for dangerous and chronically bad drivers..." Now, in more recent mailings, candidate Hunt has sent mailers turning his five point plan into a four point plan.
As late as June 28th, 2007, candidate Marc Cadin had plastered his support for the 2007 Transportation Act all over his website. But as the summer grew hotter and the opposition to abusive driver fees grew louder, Cadin removed all mentions of the plan. Where he once "applaud[ed] the Republican General Assembly's passage" of the bill, there is now only silence.

It's good to change your position when it was wrong previously. At least these two aren't falsely claiming they OPPOSED the measure, like Senator Chuck Colgan (Democrat), who is never mentioned in this post of people "hiding their positions".

In her campaign mailings this year, Jeannemarie Devolites Davis has been quick to point out that she is the only state senator with a seat on the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, the board that determines taxation and funding for all regional transportation projects.
What Jeannemarie doesn't tell her constituents is she has only bothered to show up for meetings about half the time!

This isn't even a "change of position". Funny how after touting how "republicans" were erasing things, by their 4th name they were reduced to simply claiming that someone who says they are on a board doesn't show up all the time. Anybody who has been ON a board knows that showing up all the time is hardly a measure of clout.

Now, if they RK people had attacked her for voting FOR the new taxes, I'd be with them on that one.

Speaker Bill Howell's office has released statements passing the blame to everyone but Republicans about how abusive driving fees don't apply to out-of-state drivers The only problem for Republicans is that they previously handed all the credit to their own Dave Albo, then shifted the blame when the going got rough.

Having already run out of republicans who were announcing position changes, they now go the rest of the way to simply misleading statements. The "credit" to Dave Albo was for the transportation bill THEY passed, which included out-of-state drivers. Dave Albo isn't the one who removed out-of-state drivers from the bill, it was Democratic Governor Tim Kaine. So Howell is absolutely CORRECT that it's not the Republican's fault.

Well, not quite -- the Republicans COULD have voted AGAINST the change in the transportation bill, and then Kaine would have vetoed it and the Democrats would be blaming the Republicans for torpedoing the bill over a trivial matter of abusive driver fees.

You may note I have ignored the first person on their list, Tricia Stall. I simply don't know enough about that issue to speak to what they are claiming. My guess is there's a good story there if I had the time to dig it out.

Sunday, August 19, 2007

You can't turn off the derangement.

You'd think that with Karl Rove leaving, the vindictive leftists that make everything personal might have found some new target for destruction.

But I guess if you hate people bad enough long enough, you just can't turn it off. I don't know what it's like to be so filled with vitriol, hatred, and animus toward your fellow man, although I also don't know what it's like to think killing children is a natural, acceptable thing to do either.

And if you can convince yourself that kids aren't really humans if they just haven't managed to escape their killer's wombs yet, it can't be that hard to convince yourself that people who call themselves "republicans" also are somehow sub-human, and deserving of ridicule, scorn, disease, sickness, and death. I imagine there's a good number of lefties who, if on a jury for someone who tried to kill the President, would vote not guilty and give the guy a thumb's up.

Anyway, over at a VB Dems post titled Rove: Proof That You Can’t Undrink the Kool-Aid, their hatred of Karl Rove so clouds their judgment that they make a series of ignorant statements based on his interview with uber-"journalist" David Gregory -- starting with the bizarre notion that Gregory, who hates the President and never misses a chance to talk down to the administration as if he knows better, is somehow a stooge for Rove:

4. Rove actually gets testy with David Gregory, who after all works for him. Rove: “I understand, and I’m gonna get to your question, if you wouldn’t interrupt.” Gregory, like a chastised puppy: “Okay.”

Other choice items:

1. “In 2000 this President won an election that he shouldn’t have won.” We know, Karl, and we’re still not over it.

Hysteric hatred can cloud your thinking skills, but there's no way Bush should have been able to beat the democrats in 2000, because Clinton's administration had done a great job of manipulating the media and the markets to hide the horrendous economic bubble about to burst, and put off many hard choices like actually responding to a major terror attack on our military. But Al Gore was such a lunatic, even then, that Bush managed to win. Of course, despite the fact that at NO TIME in the entire election OR recount was Gore EVER ahead, the leftists still believe that Gore somehow won Florida -- after all, that's what the networks told them.

3. The Iraq War: “Yes, okay, fine, judge us by our performance, but let’s not be a society that says we’re going to judge things instantaneously, from moment to moment to moment.” Four and a half years, $453,413,000,000 and counting, and more importantly, 3759 American lives, 27,000 American wounded, untold Iraqi deaths and wounded. No WMDs. No link to 9/11. An unmitigated disaster. But wait, let’s not be hasty.

Yes, if hatred has clouded your judgment, you could well believe that a war started in March of 2003 resulting in an entirely new government for a country of 25 million people should be easy and accomplished in 4 years. Or that it can be fought without any loss at all. You might also actually believe that all the WMDs dissappeared the moment Bush invaded, and yet not think it was a GOOD thing that there are no more WMDs in Iraq. And you might still think that "link to 9/11" is the only thing that matters in the world, as if there are no terrorists other than the 19 that died on the planes, plus Osama Bin Laden.

History will judge the war for the Middle east, but it will be DECADES before it is won or lost.

5. Part of the Bush doctrine lives on. “If you harbor a terrorist, you’re as culpable as the terrorist.” “We use all the tools against terrorists.” Gee, I thought the Bush doctrine was about the right of the world’s only superpower to wage pre-emptive war.

Because if you are deranged enough, you would believe your own hype that Bush can't spit and chew gum at the same time, and therefore couldn't possibly have a foreign policy that includes BOTh stricking the terrorists BEFORE they blow up our buildings (that's what "pre-emptive war" means, in case you are wondering whether the leftists would prevent the next 9/11), and could also include going after those who harbor terrorists, or using tools to attack terrorists.

Fortunately, there are sane people in our government who are doing all of those things, because the leftists haven't taken over.

6. Valerie Plame: Rove denies his role as a confirming source for Robert Novak, despite what Novak and others said. “My recollection is that I said ‘I heard that too.’ If a journalist had said, I’d like you to confirm this, my answer would have been, ‘no.’” Only in the twisted mind of Karl Rove …..

Armitage outed Valerie Plame, as did Joe Wilson. But Armitage isn't a "friend of the administration", and facts aren't all that useful to leftists.

8. Why did he blow off a congressional subpoena? Well, he and Harriett Miers said “we’d be happy to go up there and visit with them.” Much harrumphing about the Constitutional separation of powers and the Founding Fathers, who supposedly “wanted to insulate the judicial, the executive, and the legislative from each other in this respect.” I seem to remember that the Founding Fathers, anxious to avoid a King, created three co-equal branches of government, with checks and balances. I also seem to remember, during Watergate, that the Nixon equivalents to Miers and Rove did testify before Congress, despite claims of executive privilege.

Even when they are right, the derangement of impure hatred blinds them to the truth. As Rove said, the Founding Father created 3 branches of government, with separation of powers. The "checks and balances" are in the powers each branch was assigned, NOT in the ability of one branch to harass another branch. And it is funny to see the Nixon administration cited favorably by anybody as a measure of how things should be done constitutionally.

Of course, the very idea that there is a congressional need to investigate why people who serve at the pleasure of the President were fired is just another sign of how blind hatred can lead people to bizarre beliefs.

9. Speaking of Nixon, Rove has fond memories of his time in the sub-basement of the RNC during the Imperial Presidency, carrying buckets for the plumbers: ”It was a fun time.”

I'm not sure the Republican National Committee ever had a "sub-basement". That term usually applies to the White House. It is another sign of the searing effects of hatred on one's capacity to think straight that would lead liberals to mistake the executive branch of the Government with a political party's national committee.

10. Stay tuned for the perp walk ….

last year, a close cousin to DailyKos, the Democratic Underground, was awash in the reports from "truthout" that Karl Rove was going to be marched from the white house in chains. Of course, that was also the desire of another purveyor of hatred and loathing, the aforementioned Wilson, who hated Bush so much he risked his wife's life by outing her as an agent -- by confirming the story for the media that was previously only "confirmed" by anonymous leaks that could be cast into doubt. Nobody was going to doubt when Wilson blabbed about his wife.

Of course, there was no "perp walk" then, since nobody had committed a crime. And there will be no perp walk now, just the end of the career of another man who made the mistake of trying to serve the public good on the "wrong" side, thus earning the apparently permanent emnity of a group of liberals who are awash in hatred, anger, loathing, and bitterness.

Saturday, August 18, 2007

The politicalization of everything

UPDATE: As noted in comments, this post, while I stand behind my sentiment for what should be taught, was too "personal" in it's focus -- especially since it was based not on the original words of the teacher in question, but rather someone else's interpretation.

I've tried to update this a bit to tone it down, but decided for now rather to simply put this apology and disclaimer up here where it can be read. I've made some changes, but reserve the right to do more later.

Text starts here:

I won't debate here who is to blame for politicizing everything, but it's clear the democrats have mastered the art.

Latest example, through "raising kaine" from "democratic central" (not that liberal bloggers don't regurgitate a message or anything), Go Read Teacher Ken:

There's a wonderful post on Raising Kaine, which is cross-posted with DailyKos, from TeacherKen, a/k/a Ken Bernstein, who is a public school teacher, in which he talks about teaching and how the act of teaching children -- challenging them to think, to justify their opinions -- is inherently a political act.
I'd just as soon a public school teacher would see teaching my children as an inherently educational act, not a political one. Democratic Central quotes TeacherKen as saying:

I teach in a public school, seeking to empower the future generations in the hope that the democratic republic from which I have benefited for most of my life will still be there long after I die. I can think of nothing more important for me to do. Teaching is my essential political action.
I hear some of the results of teachers who like to make teaching into a "political act" when my children come home from school, saying "I heard Bush is evil", or "why do the republicans want to destroy the environment". Teaching should be an educational action. There are facts that should be the basis for rational thought, and teaching should instill those facts in our children, not the political opinions of teachers who post at liberal blogs about how they think the most important job they have is to brainwash my children in their lunacy.

It's possible this particular teacher meant something else by the use of the term "political act". He speaks of wanting to teach critical thinking skills, and letting his students make their own choices. These are good things, but not what most people mean when they mention politics.

I'm surprised at a liberal teacher wanting to teach facts, or critical thinking skill. While that would truly "empower future generations", it would be very detrimental to the liberal lunacy of the current democratic party. Better to have children brainwashed that everything is political, and republicans are evil. Can't have people who can think and reason for themselves, they don't make good democrats.

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Abusing the Reckless Driver Fees

I opposed the transportation bill. I opposed the reckless driver fees, the host of other fees and taxes, the regional taxing authorities, the refusal of our government to spend general revenues to benefit Virginians by fixing critical road problems.

I've previously written that, in order to get around the stupid artificial division of government responsibility for transportation versus every other responsibility, we should raise the gas tax, but repeal all the other new taxes from two years ago, making a revenue-neutral switch from money going into the general fund to money dedicated for transportation.

I actually think that would be a good idea, but proposed it more to show the absurdity both of asking for more taxes when we have a surplus and we are raising government spending by leaps and bounds, and of treating different streams of money as tied to different needs of the people.

Anyway, a lot of politicians are now opposing the reckless driver fee part of the tranportation bill, which in my mind is probably the least objectionable part of the bill. I understand speeders -- I've been known to speed. But Reckless Driving is a serious offense, and contrary to popular opinion, is not generally a charge people are convicted of if all they are doing is speeding, unless their speed really puts people in jeopardy.

The objection to the fees makes me wonder if Virginians in general, and democrats in particular (who seem nearly united in their objection to the fees), really hate following traffic laws and expect to break them with regularity.

But I don't mind the objections. I do mind politicians pretending they were opposed to this before, when they voted for it, or said they would. Thus, my column for this week was titled "Abusing the Reckless Driver Fees", in which I lament how politicians are abusing the fees for their own political purposes. Excerpts follow:

I drive a Prius. That doesn't mean I can't drive fast. Last month Al Gore's son was arrested going over 100 mph in his Prius. But I do try to keep within reasonable limits. I don't weave in and out of traffic, speed in residential neighborhoods, run red lights, or tailgate. I am unlikely to be ticketed for reckless driving.

Maybe that's why I'm not worked up over Virginia's new "Reckless Driver" taxes. But apparently many Virginians plan to do some of those things on a regular basis. I say that because people are extremely concerned about these fees.
But really it was a way to raise taxes that wouldn't be obvious, and so might not raise objections. I'd rather the taxes be obvious and apply to everybody on the roads.
Worse, while the original bill taxed every reckless driver using our roads, Governor Kaine amended the measure to exclude all non-residents (which oddly means that if you and the illegal immigrant living next door with a Maryland license are both caught going 95 on 95, you'll pay and he won't).
If you read old articles about the transportation bill, you will find many people praising the bill, and many attacking the bill. But almost none of them mention the "reckless driver" fees. It just was not something anybody seemed upset about, and any politician who now tells you they knew it was a bad idea is just trying to trick you to get your vote.

For example, Senator Colgan says he opposed the idea. It's true he is pushing a large gas-tax increase. But in a February article about the bill, his objection was not to the reckless driver fees, but rather to additional home sales recording fees, which he said were too unreliable.
Colgan also said "I'm just concerned about legislation that doesn't have out-of-state vehicles pay for the roads." But while Colgan voted against the original bill, after Kaine amended it to exempt out-of-state drivers, Colgan switched and voted for the bill.
At least he's not attacking another person for their vote. In May, candidate Bruce Roemmelt penned an op-ed for this paper attacking Delegate Bob Marshall for voting against the bill. Roemmelt said he "would have voted for the transportation package." He never mentions the reckless driver fees.

But now Roemmelt says those fees are wrong,and claims "I knew that before the voting public made its opposition to the abusive driver fines clear." Well, if he did, he didn't mention it when he said he'd vote for the bill that contained those fees.

Roemmelt says there's "a difference between grandstanding and leadership." I agree. Leadership is voting against a bad bill. Grandstanding is attacking your opponent for that vote, and later claiming you knew the bill was bad and you'd vote to repeal it.

I wish I didn't have to excerpt my own column, please click through and read it all.

Reckless Driving fine complaint Madness already started

Says Howling Latina, on her blog where she is afraid to allow general user comments:
The Washington Post front-pages a story about the hardship abuser fees are creating for poor Virginians who must now pay these exorbitant fines to the state. The article features a poor woman who was speeding on her way to the hospital because she was having labor pains.
The labor pains were coming, so Jessica Hodges got going. The 26-year-old bank teller from Burke sped toward Inova Fairfax Hospital, but before she got there, the law got her -- 57 mph in a 35 zone. Reckless driving.
Grreat going, co-sponsor Del. Scott Lingamfelter. You can be real proud of your handywork!
Generally, speeding recklessly to a hospital is a really bad idea.

If it is an emergency, it is much better to call an ambulance. Not only will they get you their safely, AND without risking the lives of others, but they can actually treat you before you leave your house.

She's lucky. If some poor kid had run into the street while she was speeding down the road, she'd be looking at a little more serious charge.

But apparently Democrats are really upset that they can't put all of our children at risk with their out-of-control driving habits, and they can't wait to blame Republicans for making them pay more for their law-breaking.

Meanwhile, the Post story has more information:

Hodges's labor pains subsided -- they turned out to be a false alarm -- but the agony from her ticket is mounting. She was found guilty of the July 3 offense and given a $1,050 civil fee on top of a judge-imposed $100 fine and court costs, making her one of the first to be hit with Virginia's new "abusive driver fees," which have been greeted by widespread public outrage.

"It's crazy," said an unregretful Hodges. "Having a baby's more important. Of course I'm going to speed."

So it turned out she wasn't in labor. But she was driving while in labor, and going recklessly fast. And she is unregretful. If she had been regretful, I'm betting the judge would have allowed her to plead to a lesser charge, although a woman experiencing labor pains driving over 55 mph down local streets is a danger to everybody.

Of course, those additional facts do lessen the "sympathy" we'd have for this woman. And while she says she'd speed again, maybe after she pays some of these new fees, she might reconsider whether it's worth it to put us all in danger next time she thinks she's in labor. Although given her selfish attitude, that may be too much to hope for.

I oppose the fees, as I oppose the transportation package, but this story almost makes me glad for the fees -- this is exactly the type of person I don't mind seeing pay for our road system.

NOTE: I updated this extensively because in my original I had missed that she had already been convicted, and that she wasn't actually in labor.

Sunday, August 05, 2007

When did Faisal move to his latest house?

When it comes to individual districts, I'm not sure how important it is how long a candidate has lived within the boundaries, given that the boundaries move around, and the issues that face us our generally common within a region.

But I think it's perfectly fine to ask where a candidate lived, and how long they lived in the district.

We should however give accurate answers to those questions.

Now, I've had no contact with Mr. Gill, so I have no idea where he has lived over the last decade or so. I know he's lived in this area, because he's been in the PWC republican committee for some time now. But beyond that, I'd love to have asked him this question, but it's very late.

So I just used the county tax records and some internet searching to find out when he bought his last house.

Why am I doing this? Because GBK has a post which says in part:

Fact. Gill moved into HOD-51 in order to run. That was after Stewart, et al persuaded McQuigg to give up her seat and run for Clerk.

That is most certainly false. According to the PWC tax records, Faisal bought the house he lives in on December 12, 2005, almost a year before McQuigg announced her intention to run for the Clerk's position.

If Faisal bought the house because he could predict the future, maybe that's another good reason to vote for Faisal Gill for delegate :-)

Saturday, August 04, 2007

Going after the Catholic Church on Immigration

One of the major splits in the traditional "moral conservative" coalition is immigration, where a good number of Catholic churches put their desire to help the needy and reach sinners with their message above their desire to punish lawbreakers.

I'm not saying that any particular church is supporting illegal immigration, just that you can't count on the same level of unity on the immigration issue as you might on the gay marriage issue or the abortion issue.

Anyway, the local Catholic church, All Saints, allowed an hispanic advocacy group to hold an event. Some anti-illegal immigrant advocates consider this group in a very bad light. The alternate poster at BVBL has decided to make an issue out of the tax-exempt status of the Church, because one speaker at the event was a school board candidate. From Mexicanos Sin Fronteras at All Saints:
Greg reported below on a speech given by Manes Pierre, candidate for PWC School Board, at All Saints Church in Manassas. The text of the speech may have been disturbing, but not nearly as disturbing as the fact that the speech was allowed to take place at all.

To have non-profit status, religious organizations must refrain from involving themselves in elections.
The poster continued, citing what he felt was the terrible wrong done by the church, as I excerpt here (see original for full text):
the IRS states that a religious organization places their non-profit status in jeopardy if they, “participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

If one candidate is invited to speak at a given event, all must be. If one candidate, or group, is allowed to hold a political event at a church, all must be allowed to have access to the church.

It doesn’t matter that the church wasn’t hosting the meeting, nor that the church had nothing to do with Mexicanos Sin Fronteras.

It would appear that All Saints no longer has the option of making itself off-limits to political groups and candidates, at least for this election cycle.

Moreover, if any candidates have been prevented from holding an event at the church recently, they could file a complaint with the IRS, which could result in the church (All Saints, not the whole Catholic Church) losing its non-profit status.
The poster calls for action:
This is not an idle threat. As I mentioned, the IRS has been cracking down on churches that step over the line for the past couple of years and some churches have lost their non-profit status. When this happens, it usually means the church must shut down. All Saints is a big, healthy institution, but I doubt it could survive if it had to start paying taxes on Sunday collections, at least not without help from the diocese.

Father Cilinski (All Saint’s Pastor) has, in the past, been very careful about protecting his Church from this type of misuse, as he should be. I agree with his position that a church is not the right place for political activities. But it looks like he trusted the wrong folks. Whether he likes it or not, All Saints must now allow political activities on its property. I hope he is talking with a church lawyer to limit the damage.
I am relatively certain the poster overstates the problem. The IRS is cracking down on churches who are advocating in elections. A candidate in a non-partisan election speaking at a non-church meeting about an issue wouldn't likely be any concern, even if he mentions he is running for office.

If it was otherwise, no group could meet in a church and invite any political leaders to address them if there was an election.

But that's really for the lawyers. I'd never advice anybody to take MY advice on the issue.

The interesting thing to me is, is HSM now going to take on the Catholic Church? They've shown no problem taking on any other groups, but the Catholic Church? Sure, they aren't quite the power they were even a few years ago, but they are still the Catholic Church. I don't think you really want to be making enemies out of the Catholic Church.

We'll see if any of the more "activist" HSM folks try to sic the IRS onto All Saints. But I'll say this -- if the congregation of All Saints decides that a politician is associated with a group that is trying to hurt their tax-exempt status, it will be VERY BAD for that politician.

This just reinforces my position that elected officials should avoid being associated with advocacy groups of ANY kind. Advocacy is for those of us who have no power, to influence our public officials. Public officials just put themselves at risk by joining or even associating their names with groups they can't control.

If HSM starts to be seen as anti-immigrant, anti-hispanic, and anti-Catholic, those politicians who thought it was a great idea to join the group won't be able to run far enough fast enough to escape the disaster that will overtake them.

"Independence Day" movie, my take's different from Democratic Central

Democratic Central watches Independence Day (an enjoyable enough movie):

It's on cable tonight, and every time I see it, I thank God that the aliens had a computer that used Mac OS, had the same wireless protocol, and didn't have anti-virus software. But how did Jeff Goldblum know that?

Meanwhile, I watch it and am thankful that Reid and Pelosi weren't in charge of congress in the movie. Because they probably would have opposed the war. They certainly would have bemoaned how terrible the fight was going, how we were losing, how our good men and women were dying for a fight we shouldn't be in.

Oh, and Jeff Goldblum would probably have never developed his virus. Because he'd probably have been in jail for eavesdropping on the alien's communications, since they included a point inside our country.

But that's just a movie. On the other hand, if Reid and Pelosi and the current Democratic leadership had been in charge during the Revolutionary war, we'd probably have lost that as well, since they never would have allowed the domestic interception of letters like the one that revealed Benedict Arnold's plan, a plan which could well have won the war for the British.

Sorry, but while the President is upset that the Democrats were going to go on recess while this important surveillance program languished, he's being too kind -- the Democrats have been sitting on this for MONTHS already, months during which we've certainly missed more than one piece of critical communication. Forget "recess", the Democrats have been on recess pretty much since they took over -- a recess where they're the new bullies and they spend all their time pushing people around, instead of taking up the business of actually protecting this country from the next attack.

Thursday, August 02, 2007

Light Blogging

Being August, I'm into my summer posting schedule, which means that I'll only be posting occasionally, if I have internet access.

We just spent a few days at Dorney Amusement Park in Allentown, Pa. Nice park, long drive.

GoodByeKen attacks BVBL, claims non-existant "gag rule"

Jonathan Marks over at GoodByeKen has another one of his posts full of speculation without basis. Claiming PWCRC Prohibits Republican Bloggers From Criticizing Gill, John says:

Any blogger who continues to pubish anti-Faisal Gill material now that Gill is the HOD-51 nominee will lose his positions in the Republican Party. The Lee District Democratic Committee has a similar gag rule in place to prevent Democratic bloggers from criticizing Jim Moran.

I have no idea about the democrat committee, but as a member of the PWC republican committee, I can say that there has been no communication of a "gag rule", nor is there a need for one. As a member of the Republican Committee, whose purpose is to support all Republican candidates, I would expect to support all the candidates. People who actually vote in the Republican primaries or conventions pledge their intent to support all the republican candidates.

But there is no "gag rule". People aren't forced to be a member of the committee, they join BECAUSE they support the Republican party candidates. And yet every election, a number of committee members withhold support from some candidate or another, or give money to a democrat or another, or even on rare occasions actively campaign for some democrat. This is true in Prince William, it was true in Loudoun last year, it will be true this year.

The PWC Republican committee has not voted to remove a person from our roles in the years I've been a member. We've even had members who quit and ran against our candidates, and then returned and were accepted back into the committee. We certainly are discouraged from supporting other candidates, but there's been no "gag order", or any other order.

Greg over at BVBL has given John wide latitude over at the BVBL website to attack republican candidates. John pays him back by attacking Greg for kow-towing to this nonexistant gag rule:

If Greg L. continued to write anti-Gill material and publish it on BVBL under his own name then Greg L. could be kicked out of the PWCRC. Life is a series of trade-offs, and Greg L., who publicized Gill's deficiencies as a candidate for most of this year, can no longer play this role without sacrificing some of his long-term goals.

The suggestion that Greg needs the PWC republican committee is silly (frankly, I think Greg would gain credibility in his HSM role if he wasn't tied to a party). And the suggestion that Greg would submit to direction against his will is absurd. Anybody who knows Greg knows that, if he isn't writing about something, it's because HE MADE THAT CHOICE of his own free will.

To say otherwise is to demean Greg. What John is ignoring is that, while many Republicans thought Julie Lucas was a better candidate than Faisal Gill, Paul Nichols is no Julie Lucas, and on the issues, Republicans know Gill is on their side.

Greg said, and so far as I know still believes, that Lucas was more electable than Gill. But the key there is that Greg, and many other Republicans, want to elect a Republican. Unlike JM, it wasn't a personal dislike of Gill, it was the fear that Paul Nichols might win. So they supported Lucas, but they will now support Gill.

But the funniest part of JM's post was THIS LINE:

Someone told me that Greg Letiecg of is active in the Republican Party in PWC.

Somebody "told" him? JM has commented at Greg's site for months, and had to be clueless not to know that Greg was "active in the Republican Party". I don't think he's clueless, but I can't explain how he could now be suggesting he had no idea Greg was a Republican, or a member of the PWCRC.

Maybe he thought Greg went to our meetings for the fun of it.