Andre Carson Shows Ass Again

6 Comments

Remember this tool?  Supposedly a former cop and intelligence professional, this is the same race-baiting, cowardly ignoramus who suggested that black legislators’ lives were in danger due to TEA Party protesters who obviously represented a “terrorist” threat to him and Congressman John Lewis.

He’s at it again, claiming Americans who demand a smaller, more accountable government (you know… those dangerous TEA Party Terrorists™) want to see blacks hanging from trees.  Oh yes, he did!


“Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second-class citizens,” he said. “Some of them in Congress right now with this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me … hanging on a tree.”

As a former “intelligence professional” this race-baiting Bag of Ass should know better than to use inflammatory rhetoric such as this.  Words have meaning, and in the intelligence field, you want to be as precise as possible about what you mean.  In this case, the New Civility™ has apparently reared its ugly head.  You know… the kind of civility that uses hyperbole to paint opponents as terrorists (because as you know, “terrorist” is the new buzzword that elicits the kind of emotion race-baiters use to get ignorami to vote for them), and then fall back on the old “Well, I was just speaking metaphorically” excuse to make a point.


His “comments respond to the frustration voiced by those in Miami,” [Carson's spokesman Jason] Tomcsi said. “People are frustrated by the inability of Congress to do something about the economy and get people back to work.”

Tomcsi said Carson believes “Tea Party members in Congress know when they vote against programs, they know who [sic.] they’re impacting. They have different priorities — their priorities are to protect millionaires, oil companies and tax cuts for the wealthy. Those people aren’t impacted by programs like child nutrition, Head Start, job training and job creation.”

Riiiiiiiiight.  Just a metaphor for taking a certain segment of the population off the government cheese… forcing them to take a certain amount responsibility for themselves and to stop blaming racism and the “rich” for every tiny wrong in their lives.

So is Carson admitting that blacks are the most affected by the removal of welfare?  And is he really claiming that removing blacks from the dole is somehow comparable to lynching?  That they can’t live without taxpayer funded government aid?

Who’s the racist here?

More Brit anti-gun retardery

7 Comments

Boris Johnson, the current mayor of London, is apparently absolutely intent on doing his part to raise a generation of hoplophobic cowards, dependent on the state for everything, including their very lives.  Apparently the skyrocketing crime rates and the continued persecution of those who take defense of themselves and their loved ones into their own hands is just not enough to satisfy the drooling Nanny Statist of London.

He wants to ensure that the children of England never even glimpse a gun, let alone the positive use thereof!  Showing kids that shooting is a sport. Showing them responsible use of firearms.  Showing them that guns can be used for recreation as well as self-defense, and that they aren’t the evil killing machines the politicians say they are.  All of that is bad.

Ergo, BoJo has decided to do his part to ensure that British kids are barred from watching Olympic shooting events next year if they receive a ticket to the Olympics via a government giveaway.

Want a (taxpayer funded) ticket, kiddies?  Well, then you won’t be getting into cool events – only ones approved by the politicians.


Children will be banned from watching shooting events under Boris Johnson’s Olympic ticket giveaway.

London schoolchildren are eligible for 125,000 Olympic tickets but these will not include any featuring guns, as Games organisers and City Hall fear a backlash from the anti-gun lobby.

Giving children tickets to the events, at the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, could have appeared at odds with Mayor Boris Johnson’s bid to quell teenage gun and knife crime.

To lower teenage gun and knife crime, Boris wants to ensure that kids never see safe, responsible use of firearms.  He’s obviously been listening to senseless parasites such as Danny Bryan.


Danny Bryan, founder of Communities Against Gun and Knife Crime said: “I agree with Boris. It is good kids should enjoy the Games but there’s no way we should glorify guns.”

No.  We should glorify government dependence and foster it in every aspect of life instead.  The government is the only entity qualified to protect you, feed and clothe you.  That’s why you should encourage the welfare culture – a culture that breeds vermin such as the Daveys and the Houghtons, who squirt out fuck trophies just to get more government cheese.  This same culture will also eventually rely on the state to protect them – especially when self defense is punished by law, even if you’re trying to protect your mom from attack.

This is what’s commonly called…

Comments Off

…a blowout.

RACE CANDIDATE VOTE VOTE% STATISTICS DETAILS
Member Senate of Virginia

(036)

Last Reported: Aug 23 2011 9:22PM EST

Jeffrey M. Frederick 3,655 68.83% Precincts Reporting:
    50 of 50 (100%)

Voter Turnout:
    5,310 of 102,176 active voters (5.196%)
    5,310 of 111,773 total voters (4.750%)

Votes by County/City
Tito A. Munoz 1,655 31.16%

Congratulations to Jeff Frederick for a well-run, classy campaign won entirely on the issues.

Maybe now Marta can put away these and begin to mend the fences she destroyed with her baseless, classless attacks on someone who is ultimately an ideological ally.

Another daft bint

2 Comments

What the hell is it with the Congressional Black Caucus?  They just can’t seem to get away from the victim mentality and the penchant for creating enemies out of large groups of people.  First, there was Maxine Waters jabbering incoherently about how anyone who happens to disagree with the CBC Marxist doctrine is a racist who needs to be investigated, and sending the Tea Party “straight to hell.”

Now there’s this daft bitch, who looks like a transvestite pimp from Chelsea, and talks like Jesse Jackson in drag.


“When you look at African American males, 40% of them are unemployed, those under 30 years of age. I understand exactly the entire nation must be involved in this recovery but the black community is experiencing a great recession. That’s what we’re experiencing,” Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) told MSNBC.

“And all of the growth in the past 30 years, we see it slipping away. From home ownership, the middle class; it’s slipping away from our hands. And it has a lot to do with many issues. Racism, shipping jobs overseas, access — no access to technology. You know, the digital divide is there and many of the new jobs that’s what it requires. So, we have a problem.”

No, the problem is not a lack of higher education or disproportionate crime rates.  I’m sure those are caused by racism too, because college diplomas aren’t being handed to African Americans, or because the taxpayers aren’t forced to pay for their college educations, or because cops are RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST and arrest black criminals more than they do whites, or….

It’s obviously the business world’s fault for not wanting to hire an employee with a criminal record.

It’s obviously law enforcement’s fault for… um… enforcing the law.

It’s obviously the justice system’s fault for finding a criminal guilty and sending said criminal to prison.

It’s obviously the taxpayers’ fault for not allowing the government to throw more money at failing school systems, despite the fact that pathetic FAILS such as the DC school system that has the second highest per capita spending in the country!

And it’s the Tea Party’s fault, because they’re obviously RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACist for pointing all that out and demanding some damn accountability in government spending!

Do I have that right, Maxine? Frederica? Jesse?

Look, it’s not just these dimwits’ fault.  They’re pandering to their idiot constituencies who will cast a vote for them as long as they’re told that the nation owes them, that it’s all Whitey McCracker’s fault that their lots in life are lousy and their failures can only be attributed to racism.

That kind of rhetoric is tough to beat.  Never mind that it’s racist in and of itself.  It tells African Americans that they can’t make it without government handouts.  It tells them they’re entitled to a job, an education and money by virtue of their skin color. It tells them they’re disadvantaged and unable to exist without policies that address those “disadvantages.”  And mostly, it tells them that no matter what happens, it’s not their fault.  Personal responsibility be damned! Their skin color entitles them to abdicate said responsibility and claim victim status!

If I were a black person, I’d be insulted. These politicians and race baiters quite obviously think their constituents are stupid.

You first, bitch!

Comments Off

Apparently, Maxine Waters doesn’t like the Tea Party much.

Interesting how the audience came to the meeting demanding what America can do for them!  As if they’re entitled!  And Maxine Waters foments the entitlement and then screeches her hatred for those who demand personal responsibility from the citizenry and fiscal accountability from their government.

“The Tea Party can go straight to hell,” she says.

You first, you ignorant, racist twunt.

And while you’re at it, take every Marxist fuckbat in Congress with you.

For a much less angry, calmer, and yet very effective take on the issue, let me introduce you to Indignant Conservative Mom’s letter to Waters.  Here’s a snippet.


Please for the sake of “unity” and “civility” in public discourse, do not run again for office. I’m sure you and your pal Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee would have a grand ol’ time making sweaters, or scarves, or something that doesn’t involve you speaking in public ever again. Go to Hell? If you want to lead the way, then you first Rep. Waters.


What she said.

Ken Vaughn and the Second Amendment

2 Comments

A while ago, I introduced you to my friend Ken Vaughn, who is running for Congress in Virginia’s 11th District. While initially we thought he’d be running in the 10th, a bit of irritating redistricting has made him a candidate in the 11th. 

The district may have changed, but the man hasn’t. Let’s put aside the fact that Ken’s a friend, and focus on my pet issue – gun control.

A while ago, I sent Ken a survey I created to gauge his views on gun control and ultimately publish them here.  It’s time to do so.  While there are a few replies on which I would challenge him, Ken accurately reflects the views of a true gun rights supporter.  I’ll address my disagreements at the end of this article, but for now, here are Ken’s survey replies in their entirety – unchanged in any way.

Generally, what’s your view of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution? What was its intent? Is it applicable today?

Ultimately, the Second Amendment was designed to protect and preserve the individual right of self-defense in all forms. However, the lead-in clause, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” emphasizes the most critical reason for the Amendment.

The Founders recognized that the biggest threat to the individual was not from wild animals or the common criminal; it was from an organized army coming to take away the rights of the people and with the people being prevented from defending themselves. And the Founders were keenly aware that the army might be acting on the orders of the domestic government. Thus, in order to maintain a free state, the Founders knew there had to be a mechanism by which individuals could band together to defend themselves with short notice. This is the intent of a “militia.”

Whereas the body of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to control and fund the Army and Navy, Congress has no such authority over militia. The militia is intended to be a self-armed fighting force that answers to its individual members and thus is able to counter a government that tries to violate the will of the people. The Founders realized that this right would always be necessary to protect their Constitutional Republic, even 235 years later.

Is the right to keep and bear arms protected from infringement by all levels of government?
As initially written, it is debatable; however, the Fourteenth Amendment removes any debate on this subject. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Thus, the modern Constitution is clear. No state has the right to “abridge the privilege” of an individual to “keep and bear arms.”

Are there any gun control laws you consider constitutional?

An individual may be deprived of rights after following due process. As a result, I believe it is reasonable to require a background check when selling a firearm to determine if someone has been deprived of the right to keep and bear arms. This would address issues related to mental instability as well as criminal behavior.

Further, many rights are granted with age, on the assumption that individuals reaching a certain age have the maturity to understand the responsibilities that accompany those rights. Thus, it may be reasonable for states to define minimum ages for gun ownership.

How do you feel about licensing whether to carry concealed or own a firearm, in general?

I believe that this is a violation of the intent of the Second Amendment. While it may be a seemingly minor infringement, giving the government the ability to grant a license implicitly gives the government the right to deny a license. The Constitution is clear; the right to keep (concealed) and bear (visible) arms shall not be infringed (without due process).

How do you feel about attempts to close “the gun show loophole?”

This is largely an overblown issue. Any registered dealer performs a background check anyway for liability reasons; thus, the only sales that get through this “loophole” are sales between private citizens. Further, I believe it is foolhardy to try to regulate firearm sales between private parties. Any such law is likely to imprison well-meaning individuals while criminals will easily ignore the law. It would be better to focus on efforts to make it easy for individuals to check the background of a potential purchaser. Responsible people will be glad to use such a service, but requiring a lot of extra paperwork is not likely to solve any problems.

What gun control laws would you like to see repealed?

First and foremost would be the laws that prevent keeping and bearing arms when traveling by car throughout the country. This would include bans on guns within the nation’s capital, the national parks, and within the proximity of schools and other facilities, which unnecessarily result in criminal charges for non-violent and law-abiding Americans.

How do you feel about civilians owning military-style weapons? How about machine guns?

I believe the intent of the Second Amendment was to guarantee the right of the individual to provide for his own self-defense against an aggressor. Under normal scenarios, the individual only needs to be able to protect himself from another individual; this can be achieved without a machine gun.

Under the worst-case scenario, the aggressor might be an organized army. However, I believe that this is one of the reasons why the founders included the statement “a well regulated militia.” The assumption is that a community would band together to fend off an invading army.

In fact, it would be inappropriate to allow an individual to own sufficient weaponry to single-handedly defend himself against an army. Allowing such a situation would encourage every criminal to have such protection against the police at which point, there would be anarchy rather than a constitutional republic.

The correct balance is not for an individual or small group to have a huge amount of firepower in a single weapon, but rather to have every individual equipped with sufficient firepower to provide for his or her own self-defense. Thus, an invading army would arguably have to kill every last person to declare victory. This would certainly be a hollow victory if the army were domestic to the country.

While I can respect other opinions, I am inclined to say that fully automatic weapons should be restricted to the military.

How do you feel about the Gun Free School Zones Act?

School shootings were virtually unheard of before the law was passed, averaging fewer than one per year nationwide. We are now averaging more than 10 incidents per year. While I believe this is largely attributable to other factors, it does demonstrate that:

1.    The law has not worked.
2.    When you ban guns, only the criminals will have them.

I do not claim that violence would decrease if guns were allowed, nor do I think it would increase; I think there are other reasons for the increase in violence. However, I do believe that the law violates our rights. Given the poor track record of this law, it seems clear that it should be repealed.

How do you feel about peaceable, law-abiding citizens being unable to carry their firearms on federal property?

In general, I believe average citizens should be allowed to have firearms wherever they go. The only exceptions would be in environments where an accidental discharge could result in a massive disaster affecting a large group of people, for example, on an airplane. In these environments, I could see restricting the possession of guns to authorized personnel.

How do you feel about American citizens who are placed on watchlists (without judicial oversight or reasonable proof of guilt of any type) being denied their right to keep and bear arms?

The Constitution is clear; the government does not have the right to deny anyone their rights without due process.

Tell me your views on the following:

•         Attempts to raise the legal age for owning a handgun from 18 to 21 years?

I believe 18 year-olds should have all of the rights and responsibilities of every other adult.

•         Attempts to limit handgun purchases to one per month?

I believe this is unnecessary and arbitrary.

•         Attempts to ban .50 caliber firearms?

I believe this is unnecessary, but within the right of a state to impose in claiming that this is military-grade ammunition (i.e., I don’t agree with the argument, but I will concede it is within a gray zone).

•         Ammunition bans?

The Second Amendment protects the right to self-defense, which necessitates both the base weapon and the ammunition. I believe any outright ban would be unconstitutional.

How do you feel about background checks? Constitutional? Effective at preventing crime?

As discussed above, I believe that background checks are constitutional to the extent that they merely ensure that the individual has not had his or her rights removed through due process. I believe that there are at least some cases where they can be effective when adequately applied, in particular with the mentally ill. However, I believe this decision should be left to the states.

Other thoughts.

Ensuring second amendment rights for all Americans is an important issue, but I believe the two biggest issues facing our country are the national debt and improving private sector job creation by growing our economy. I agree with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, that our national debt is our biggest national security threat and that we cannot solve our debt problem unless we repair our national economy. Nonetheless, I am concerned about how gun rights have been eroded over the years, and the above answers reflect my beliefs on this topic and should provide an idea of how I will vote when various Second Amendment issues arise.


For the most part, Ken and I are in complete agreement.  Our skyrocketing debt is one of the biggest national threats we face today.  But as you can imagine, our views couldn’t be more different on military-style weapons.  So in the interest of ensuring you hear both sides of the issue, here’s mine.

The Second Amendment doesn’t just guarantee an individual the right of self-defense against an aggressor.  It also guarantees that an individual has the tools necessary to stand up to a tyrannical government should it become necessary.  As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28

In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense.

The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo.

Realistically, of course, one person has no chance against an army, even if said person has an automatic weapon.  But the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people have the means and the right to stand up to a tyranny, and automatic weapons provide just such a means.

Secondly, automatic weapons are legal now. I’ve shot them, and so has my son.  Crimes committed with them are few and far between.  According to GunCite (the information is a bit dated, but overall I imagine this hasn’t changed a whole lot):

In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the ATF. About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies.

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 ‘ban’ on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio.

In Targeting Guns, [Gary] Kleck cites the director of ATF testifying before Congress that he knew of less than ten crimes that were committed with legally owned machine guns (no time period was specified). Kleck says these crimes could have been nothing more than violations of gun regulations such as failure to notify ATF after moving a registered gun between states.

Crime Involving Illegally Owned Machine Guns

Again in Targeting Guns, Kleck writes, four police officers were killed in the line of duty by machine guns from 1983 to 1992. (713 law enforcement officers were killed during that period, 651 with guns.)

In 1980, when Miami’s homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a “machine gun Mecca” and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Although there are no national figures to compare to, machine gun deaths were probably lower elsewhere. Kleck cites several examples:

Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic.

A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.

 16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with “the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations” were machine guns.

The point is that many people own machine guns. There are organized machine gun shoots that take place every year, and there are few issues that occur when automatic weapons are in civilian hands.

My point is that it is not only wholly appropriate for regular citizens to own automatic weapons, it’s also fun, and making them pay fees and jump through bureaucratic hoops in order to own one is abuse of government authority.

My other slight point of contention is the background check.  I just have an issue with submitting to a background check in order to exercise a fundamental right.  Additionally, a person’s mental health is a private matter. I realize we want to keep guns out of the hands of crazies, but requiring a background check to include psychiatric information is a violation of doctor/patient privilege.  Additionally, a prohibited person is far less likely to come into a gun shop and submit him or herself to a background check. It’s much easier to purchase the firearm on the street – cheaper and more convenient.  I don’t see background checks as being an effective deterrent against a prohibited person purchasing a firearm.  The only thing they would do is prevent a prohibited person from purchasing a firearm LEGALLY.  And overall, I don’t think forcing a law-abiding citizen to undergo an intrusion such as this is worth it.

I know there are very few politicians with whom I will agree 100 percent.  Ken states his views clearly and logically, and regardless of whether we agree on these issues, I still believe in him and in his potential as a future Congressman.

Politics as Usual

10 Comments

I’ve never blogged much on Virginia politics.  I know what the issues are. Having lived and worked in Northern Virginia for the past 13 years, commuted 90 miles from Stephens City to Washington DC and worked in both DC and Northern Virginia, I’m intimately familiar with the transportation issues, as well as jobs and economic challenges.  Now that I’ve moved to Arlington, those issues have become even more relevant to my life.

That said, I still haven’t blogged about Virginia issues. My interests have always been national. That’s why it’s unusual for me to delve into the world of the Virginia primaries that are going to take place on Tuesday (August 23rd, for those of you who aren’t sure).  I’ll be honest. It’s not my district.  I live in the 31st.  Ergo what goes on in the 36th District does not affect me directly.  However, what happens in Virginia overall does affect me, and I have an interest in ensuring the best, brightest and most focused candidate goes to Richmond.

Rob has already blogged about Tito Munoz and Jeff Frederick.  He’s exposed Tito’s near obsessive Hispandering and his baseless attacks on Jeff.  I sat by and watched and agreed.  This race shouldn’t be about ethnicity. It should be about issues.  Issues such as the perpetual Northern Virginia gridlock and job incentives and taxes.  Not about who which candidate is “the real Latino,” as one of his zealot supporters put on her Facebook page recently.  And not until one of Tito’s frothing fans came over here and attacked me personally, did I decide to take a more active role in blogging about this race.

I’ve been aware of Jeff Frederick for quite a while.  In 2003, the National Rifle Association saw it fit to endorse Jack Rollison over Jeff Frederick.  Jack Rollison, who saw fit to call Virginia members of Virginia Citizens Defense League and Gun Owners of America “extremist and milita-esque [sic.].”

At the time of the endorsement, Rollison wasn’t even an NRA member.  Jeff was.  But Jeff wasn’t an establishment candidate, and Rollison was.  You can guess how quickly Jack Rollison ran out and joined the NRA when that little tidbit came out!

Nonetheless, despite the establishment being completely against him, Jeff won, and he continued to do what was best for the people, not what was best for the politicians.  The establishment didn’t like that.

Fast forward to today.  Today Jeff Frederick is running for the state senate against Tito Munoz.  Munoz, who was propelled into the spotlight during the 2008 elections by the McCain/Palin campaign.  Munoz, who has the support of some of Virginia’s most established politicians – George Allen, Prince William County Supervisor Mike May and Fairfax County Supervisor Pat Herrity.  He also garnered the endorsements of a Citizens United affiliate and FreedomWorks. Fair enough.  I’m not questioning Tito’s conservative creds.  He appears to be pretty conservative – for less government, lower taxes, etc.

But then again, so is Jeff Frederick. As he admitted in the debate I have posted below, he and Tito are pretty similar in their conservative views, and I dare say, Jeff has quite a few details about what he believes and about his record on his site.  And quite a few endorsements, including (finally!) the NRA, VCDL (that saw it fit to endorse Jeff with the knowledge that he has been the true pro-Second Amendment candidate during his entire career), Americans for Prosperity, the Tea Party Express, and others have stated that Jeff is the best candidate to represent the 36th in Richmond.

So what’s the difference between the two?

As far as I can see, the big one is character.  Only one candidate has repeatedly (and hypocritically) attacked his opponent.  Only one candidate has barely focused on the issues affecting Northern Virginia today, but chose instead to focus on the non-issue of his opponent’s business practices, that were not only legal but were similarly practiced by the accuser himself.  Only one candidate made his ethnicity an issue in this race.  And that candidate was not Jeff Frederick.

I met Tito Munoz once at a Republican function.  He seemed a nice, genuine enough guy.  I appreciate the fact that he’s an immigrant who built a business here in the United States and has become a success.  I appreciate that.  But after seeing the way he conducted his campaign and the short debate below, I believe there’s only one candidate who is the right man for the job of taking on Toddy Puller in the next election.

And that man is Jeff Frederick.

<object height=”412″ width=”486″ codebase=”http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0&#8243; classid=”clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000″ id=”flashObj”>
http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1

A few things I noted in this debate, as someone who worked in public affairs and broadcasting for nearly a decade.

1 – Tito started to lose his cool.  He obviously has a temper and he very nearly pitched a tantrum on this show.  If there’s one thing I do know, it’s that you never allow your opponent to ruffle you!  NEVER!  But it was quite obvious that when Jeff Frederick pulled out concrete, paper evidence that Tito attempted to take advantage of the same types of federal programs for “disadvantaged” minorities that helped make Jeff Frederick’s business a success, Tito began to lose it.

2 – Tito doesn’t understand the difference between federal and state affairs.  When called on the carpet by Jeff about his references to federal issues, Tito tried to save face by mumbling inanities about how state senators should work together with Virginia’s senators in Washington… uh… yeah.  OK.  This isn’t the first time Tito got confused, either.  Maybe he needs to actually understand the job before pretending he’s  the right candidate for the job.  I’m not the only one who thinks so.  Greg Letiecq blogged it as well.

3 – Tito’s claim that Virginia needs a candidate who is there to serve the people, not make a name for himself seems spurious coming from someone who has been calling himself “Tito the Builder” and making public appearances in a Halloween costume and began to believe his own hype after Palin pointed the spotlight in his direction.

4 – And my final issue with Tito’s performance is the implication that somehow Virginia’s 36th District Senator somehow needs to treat immigrants differently and bond with the immigrant community in order to be a good representative of the people.  I disagree.  I’m an immigrant.  A legal one.  I don’t want preferential treatment. I don’t want my representative to bond with me as an immigrant. I want my representative to bond with me as a human being who has needs and rights just like any other.  I am not different because I’m an immigrant. I have the same rights, I face the same challenges, and I have the same values as others who were born in America.  And I’m sick and tired of politicians trying to pander to immigrants, making them feel different, special and somehow deserving of special attention.

Enough already!

As far as I can see, Tito Munoz is simply not ready for prime time. He doesn’t understand the job, he plays typical attack politics and he has likely alienated a lot of people with these tactics. Whoever is advising him should be fired, and Tito should go back to the drawing board and learn a bit more about the people whom he seeks to represent.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: