Dems continue to jump the shark

Yesterday, they shut down the congress to the public so that they could discuss their Iraq-war conspiracy theories.

Today?
First, black Dem leaders are defending the people who threw oreo cookies at Michael S. Steele, a black Republican who is running for senate. In a statement (quoted in the Washtington Times) that could only have been written by a KKK member, Kweisi Mfume said:

There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names

In that case Mr. Mfume, you are one self-absorbed racist asshole.

Secondly, former president Carter comes out of his hobbit hole to attack Bush, in this AP article:

The Bush Administration's prewar claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were "manipulated, at least" to mislead the American people, former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday.

I'd love to ask Carter why Clinton also attacked Iraq, and supported the attacks on Iraq. At least initially, and then of course Clinton had to say that it was wrong because it was the Democratic plot line.
Anyway, its nice to see Carter shedding his nice-guy image and coming out as an even bigger partisan jerk then the rest of his party.
Its difficult though to see the Dem party jumping the shark in masse. What is going to be their 2008 election theme? "We're sane, again"? Its going to be really hard for them to step back from that cliff.

Don't believe the hype: Judy Miller is a liberal

A lot of people have suggested that Judith Miller is in bed with conservatives.
I want to kill that notion immediately.
Unless she has had a change of heart her later years, there is nothing in her past to suggest that she is anything but a liberal. From a biography on her:

Before joining The Times, Ms. Miller was Washington bureau chief of The Progressive, a monthly and the nation's second oldest journal, was heard regularly on National Public Radio, and wrote articles for many publications.

I just want to set things straight.

Judith Miller comes down with Hillary Clinton disease

I guess I'm not the only person who thinks that Judith Miller is holding out on us.
During recent grand jury testimony, she reportedly got a case of what I call "Hillary Clinton" disease. That's when you find your back to the wall, and suddenly, you "can't recall".

My own take on it is that after she was given a heads up by Libby on Wilson's wife, she went looking to other sources of information to find out Valerie Plame's name. Where would you go if you were a Washington journalist to confirm such information?
Why... to your fellow liberals.
That's my educated guess.
Anyhoo, this is what the Editor & Publisher had to say about her memory problems:

John Temple, editor and publisher of The Rocky Mountain News in Denver, also noted such surprise. "It is hard to believe that Judy Miller couldn't remember the name of the source that gave her Valerie Plame's name," Temple said.

Indeed.

And the headline says what???

The AP puts a different kind of spin on the Iraqis voting on their first real Constitution, with this headline:

Sunnis Appear to Fall Short in Iraq Vote

In other news, the AP appears to be upset that the Constitution might be approved.
Interesting, that.

Soldier on the "staged" press conference

I'm going to skip past the idea that suddenly, it matters to the media, that politicians are staging events with people friendly to their POV.

Although it is curious that they suddenly noticed.

Instead, I'm going to focus on this, the blog of a soldier who was actually there and being asked questions:

We were given an idea as to what topics he may discuss with us, but it's the President of the United States; He will choose which way his conversation with us may go.
We practiced passing the microphone around to one another, so we wouldn't choke someone on live TV. We had an idea as to who we thought should answer what types of questions, unless President Bush called on one of us specifically.

'Nuff said?
Probably not.

On Harriet Miers...

Let's talk Miers.

Since everyone keeps on saying that she's not qualified, I decided to look up her resume, before she met Bush.

CNN has a pretty decent article about her:

Miers, 60, has a string of firsts on her resume that track her quiet but steady march to the top echelons of power: first woman hired by her law firm in 1972, first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association in 1985, first woman president of the Texas State Bar in 1992, first woman president of her law firm in 1996.

But wait, that's not all. According to the Washington Post:
On numerous occasions, the National Law Journal named her one of the nation's 100 most powerful attorneys and as one of the nation's top 50 women lawyers.

But outside of that... she just worked for the President of the US for a few years.
Not much experience, I guess.

I'm a libertarian. Of course.

You are a Social Liberal (61% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (75% permissive) You are best described as a: Libertarian Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid

So much to catch up on.

This should be first. My father passed away on August 28th, 2005. He was a good man. He was the best man I ever knew, with a sense of nobility that most people can never attain.

He was sick for a couple of months, so I was given the gift of being able to say goodbye. Not everyone is given that gift. If you haven't done so already, make sure you let your loved ones know that you love them.

-John

About Katrina...

I just sent this in to the NYT, in reply to an editorial where they blamed Bush for a lack of response.

I'm not including the entire thing, but the bulk of it. I'm hoping that someone picks up on these ideas:

The New York Times addresses, briefly, the money that was “slashed” from the budget for New Orlean's levees. But the Times ommitted that the money was earmarked for a study on the levees- a typical government study- that wouldn't have been completed until 2006, and would not have changed a damn thing.

There are things that can be done, but those things will take fortitude and the backing of such institutions such as the New York Times.

• The city needs to be completely evacuated, and martial law needs to be instituted today. Anyone found looting should be shot. Its that simple. We need to ensure that the residents of New Orleans have something to go back to, and that lawlessness is stopped overnight. Moreover, we need to make it possible for the rescue crews to do their job, without threat of harm from predators.

• No one, except authorized rescue personel, should be allowed back into New Orleans. The perimiter should be patrolled by the National Guard.

• Every available gas-powered water pump that can be donated should to be shipped to New Orleans, today. Ten pumps will not make a dent. A hundred pumps won't make a difference. But once the levees are repaired, a thousand pumps or five thousand pumps arrayed around the levee, and manned by volunteers, could speed up the rate at which the city would be emptied of water.

• We need to move the population of New Orleans out of the New Orleans area. Those people who can visit relatives should be transported there immediately. We need to spread out the population of New Orleans to areas that can help them, insteead of trying to ship food and shelter to New Orleans. Names of residents should be taken, and each family assigned an e-mail address with the New Orleans domain, so that they can receive updates on the status of the city. Then we can resettle them if and when New Orleans is emptied of water.

• A public works project should be instituted without the instrusion of unions into the process. Residents capable of work, should be put to work. Their first projects should be to clean and inspect those public buildings needed for basic services, like water and electricity. Then government buildings can be rebuilt and repaired, so they will be in place as the residents return. Schools can be repaired, so kids will be out of the way as their parents deal with rebuilding.

• Finally, every effort should be made to build up the floor of New Orleans. Essential buildings should be raised far above sea level, and a few large shelters should be built for the next emergency that are independent of outside electrical and plumbing needs.

There is enough space to criticise a lot of people at the end of this tragedy, starting with those people who choose to live below sea level in an area smack dab in hurricane territory. But the New York Times should focus on helping people now, not the casual placing of blame on their least favorite politician.

Scott Randolph writes one heckuva post

If you read no other post this week, go to ScottRandolph.net. Scott explains what it is that soldiers do, and a little bit about the concept of what it means to dishonour the fallen.

Soldiers know, when they enlist, that it is entirely possible they will be shipped out and never come home. It’s part of the job. The fact that people still walk in to recruiters’ offices and sign that piece of paper make them heroes. To imply that they are simple kids who didn’t know what they were getting into, or even worse, that they died for no reason, or an immoral reason, does a horrible thing. It strips their sacrifice of the honor that it deserves. Even though those folks sitting out there in the Texas fields claim to honor and support the soldiers, they obviously have been blinded by their own selfishness as to the real way to support them.

Amen, Scott.
These brave souls volunteer for a job that involves walking into harms way. Some people get upset when their job involves repetitive tasks. But repetitive tasks are the easy part of being a soldier. The hard part involves running into an area where people are trying to kill you, and trying to make sure that they don't succeed by killing them first.
That's honour. That's bravery. That's being a U.S. soldier.

Parents honour sacrifice of their fallen

Get a kleenex and read this editorial from Opinion Journal. Ronald Griffin lost Spc. Kyle Andrew Griffin, his son, in Iraq. After reading about Cindy, he contacted other parents who lost loved ones to guage their opinion. Here is one of the responses:

Karen Long is the mother of Spc. Zachariah Long, who died with my son Kyle on May 30, 2003. Zack and Kyle were inseparable friends as only soldiers can be, and Karen and I have become inseparable friends since their deaths. Karen's view is that what Mrs. Sheehan is doing she has every right to do, but she is dishonoring all soldiers, including Karen's son, Zack.

It amazes me how people who lost their loved ones can keep on giving.
That's the fabric of our country folks. Its how we value freedom above all else.

Mother supports war, and it was reported!

Somehow, a mother of a lost soldier actually supports the war. I know that sounds unbelievable, but she seems to know what it is that soldiers do for a living. CNN wrote:

At the funeral at Tri-County Baptist Church, Kathy Dyer delivered what she believed would have been her son's own message: "It has been with the greatest pride I have served ... fighting to preserve freedom."

Lance Corporal Christopher J. Dyer, you may rest in peace knowing that your mother is fighting to preserve your honor.

Matt Lauer was in Baghdad for the Today show, and asked a soldier for his thoughts on troop morale. After the soldier said that it was good, Matt doubted it, and asked for more. According to Newsbusters:

Asked Lauer: "What would you say to those people who are doubtful that morale could be that high?"

Captain Sherman Powell nailed Lauer, the MSM and the anti-war crowd with this beauty:

"Well sir, I'd tell you, if I got my news from the newspapers also I'd be pretty depressed as well!"

Yes, Captain Sherman Powell, you couldn't be more right. Matt has been interviewing the Hollywood and NY left for too long.

Okay, I promise... last one!

DS: What do you think true patriotism is?
CS: Seeing that there is something wrong in your country and in the world and trying to make the country a better place.

Later, she says, RE: Saddam:

CS: He was their brutal dictator. There are so many brutal dictators in the world and we are not removing them. We propped Saddam up and gave him weapons to gas his own people.
Besides, Bush gives the reason that we were attacked on 9/11 because 'they hate freedom and democracy', so why are we trying to force something on them that they hate? The country is demolished and so many people are dead for something they never asked for.

Okay, Cindy, which is it?
Are you for making the world a better place, or just letting dicatators be dictators?

Giving Cindy Sheehan the finger

One more post about Cindy, that kinda puts her all into perspective. This is a Daily Kos interview by someone who calls themselves Darksyde -insert joke here- with Cindy. Here is an excerpt:

DS: Well, some would say that removing a brutal dictator who tortured his opponents and their families, committed genocide, and giving the people of Iraq a shot at freedom and democracy has some value. How do you respond to those points?
CS: He was their brutal dictator. There are so many brutal dictators in the world and we are not removing them. We propped Saddam up and gave him weapons to gas his own people.
Besides, Bush gives the reason that we were attacked on 9/11 because 'they hate freedom and democracy', so why are we trying to force something on them that they hate? The country is demolished and so many people are dead for something they never asked for.

Cindy actually suggested that the majority of the people of Iraq were the people that Bush was talking about, when he said that they "hate freedom and democracy".
This is truly a "blond moment" on her part.

Cindy; Bush wasn't talking about the masses. He was talking about the Bathists, and the people that the MSM affectionately nicknamed "insurgents." They don't want freedom in Iraq, because if Iraq is free, they lose power.

Moreover, anyone who suggests that the people of Iraq didn't want democracy are outright racist.
The last time that argument was used, was prior to the Civil Rights Act... when Americans in the South tried to suggest that black Americans wouldn't know what to do with the right to vote, and did they really want it anyway?

And this is where irony comes in:
People like yourself accuse GWB of being a power-hungry facist. Yet, he's trying to spread democracy to a country in the Middle East, and you're attacking him for it. Moreover, you suggest (strongly) that the people of Iraq don't like democracy.

Well, that's not true. And at least one woman would like to give you the finger.
(photo by Andrew Parson)

-John

But he agrees with her. Really.

To everyone who insists that the great majority of Cindy Sheehan's friends& family support her, this article on Daily Kos:

I have lost almost every friend that I had before Casey died. My husband and I are separated, because he doesn't support my activities, although he knows the war is a lie.

To everyone who insists that we should listen to the troops, and their families:

We live near an Air Force base and our economy depends on war. It is a very conservative, republican community. White upper-middle class.
They believe that Bush is keeping our country safe and that I am a traitor for speaking out against a President during time of war.

Just keep this in the back of your mind, folks... this is what she actually thinks.

-John

On Cindy Sheehan

In case you don't know who she is, Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Casey Sheehan, one of our brave soldiers who lost his life in Iraq on April 4, 2004.

President Bush visited with her shortly after her loss. Back then, Cindy said:

I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.

Now Cindy hates GWB, and she's literally camping out in a ditch outside of his ranch in Crawford, Texas, asking to meet with him again. She has become a liberal cause celeb, and she has a website www.meetwithcindy.org
How does someone change their opinion of GWB by 180 degrees within a year?
I decided to do a little web research.

First of all, I wanted to find out where Meetwithcindy.org originated. It looked like someone had created it overnight, and I was right. When I did a whois, I found out that it was born on August 8th, 2005.
So then I traced the name of the person that it is registered to: David Swanson, of Maryland.
The great thing about the progressive left is that they are all about touting their achivements. It makes their movements easier to trace on the web.

David Swanson has a few other websites, including:
afterdowningstreet.org Where you'll find a link to meetwithcindy.org
Lets Try Democracy (also known as davidswanson.org)

Who is David Swanson? If I have the same Maryland David Swanson, he was the communications director of ACORN from 2000 to 2003, and is the media coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association.

According to the Radio Left website, he is the media person for the Progressive democrats of America. And surprise, that website also has an article about Cindy Sheehan.

Now I'd like to give Cindy a little bit a leeway on her loss. I really would.
But she's a little nuts.
I'm not just saying this because of her 180 degree turn on GWB, or the fact that she doesn't want to try to explain it, every time someone in the media asks her about it. And I'm not just saying this because, you know, she's camping out in a ditch outside of someone's home demanding to speak to them.
Although that is kinda nutty.
I'm saying this because when you see her and hear her, you just instinctively know that she's a nut.

But now (from Drudge Report) comes a subtle confirmation from her family, who have obviously been trying to give her some room to live with her sorrow:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

I love that phrase: "silently, with prayer and respect." Man, that says it all. How many people out there are silently supporting GWB, with prayer and respect?

Anyway, now you know a little bit about the background of meetwithcindy.org, and why she's suddenly interested in the Downing Street memos, and why her newest, bestest friend is a guy named David Swanson. Who, as far as I can tell, is just a little bit to the left of Eleanor Clift.

Don't like GWB? Spray paint their car!

And now, for someone who is completely idiotic...
We've all seen the bumper stickers by those who hate GWB.
Now there are the people who are so insane, that they feel the need to deface people's cars who have a GWB bumper sticker on them. According to Reuters, after several cars were defaced in a parking lot, the police set up a sting:

Police set up a bait car with a pro-Bush bumper sticker, parked it at the airport with a surveillance camera, and waited. On July 1, the camera recorded a man spray-painting over the bumper sticker with an expletive.

Investigators traced the license plate of the suspected vandal to Fecteau, 42, who turned himself into police last week and was released after posting a $5,000 bond.

Fecteau is Lt. Col. Alexis Fecteau. No doubt, he will soon become the liberal darling as another (rare) example of a member of the military who hates Bush.

Air America is taking money from Boys & Girls???

Its too bizarre to be true. Yet, it seems like it is.

Air America is known for its cash flow problems. So if this story is right, they took a loan from a Boys and Girls club.

In early 2004, the directors of the nascent Air America network were scouring the nation for potential contributors to its start-up. One of the network's directors, Evan Montvel Cohen, appears to have partially solved the problem by arranging loans from the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club that eventually totaled at least $480,000, and possibly more.

Cohen was also on the board of Gloria Wise, so he arranged for the loan.
Only the rest of the B&G club didn't seem to know about it. So now the feds have become involved, and they've suspended the $10 million of grants that the B&G club normally gets, because of bad use of their finances.

Wierd... huh?

The left is finding new ways to be petty

Why is Bush bad for America?
Because he is obsessed with excercise. No, I'm not kidding.
The LA Times own Jonathan Chait is in a huff:

Earlier this year, an airplane wandered into restricted Washington air space. Bush, we learned, was bicycling in Maryland. In 2001, a gunman fired shots at the White House. Bush was inside exercising. When planes struck the World Trade Center in 2001, Bush was reading to schoolchildren, but that morning he had gone for a long run with a reporter. Either this is a series of coincidences or Bush spends an enormous amount of time working out.

Uh huh. And he always smells good. What's that about?

American press reminded of how a totalitarian government works

Andrea Mitchell of NBC is in a huff today.
She was treated rudely by the government of Sudan.

Now before this gets misinterpreted, I'm not saying that Sudan was right for treating her bad. It just amazes me how our journalists think that they are protected by the first amendment, even when in Sudan. Andrea said, according to Yahoo:

"I would rather see them live up to their promises," she said. "What they did to me is not important. They can't control my life."

Andrea... you were not in the U.S.. You can't claim that our government should protect you, all while criticizing the way the government goes about taking down dictatorships. When you are in Sudan, they can control your life. It was only the incredible power of the US defense industry that kept you from becoming a sex slave in a Sudanese prison, today.
Please sleep on that.

Writing an Op-Ed, NY Times style

Whenever I talk to people about the NY Times, I focus on what they read in on the editorial page. Not the page that is written by guests, but the one that is written by the actual editors, containing the opinion of "the paper." As I've pointed out to many people, you can find out just how liberal the NY Times is by reading their editorials.

But sometimes, you can get how liberal the NY Times is by reading their Op-Ed pieces too. Particularly when the NYT re-writes the Op-Eds to change the tone.

In this case, the following correction appeared in the NY Times

The Op-Ed page in some copies yesterday carried an incorrect version of an article about military recruitment. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, 'Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday,' nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a 'surprise tour of Iraq.' That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error.

Curious?
Sure, you would be. I mean, how would they incorrectly get the impression that Phillip Carter, the person writing the article wrote: "Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders..."
Or the phrase "surprise tour of Iraq"
See, this is the thing. The NY Times called him up and suggested those phrases. Let me repeat. The NY Times called him up and suggested those phrases.
Its pretty clear to me that they wanted to make him sound bitter about being called up on reserve. This is how the NY Times defended themselves against such a charge:

"We try to clarify and improve copy," said Mr. Shipley. "We do this for the benefit of our contributors, many of whom are not professional writers. We do not impose language on them - if they want something out or something in, we accede to their wishes. They have final sign-off"

They don't ty to impose language on them? They clarify copy? Bullshit. Adding in the phrase "Imagine my surprise" is not "clarifying," and the editors at the NY Times know it.
But Carter didn't bite. He said "no" and the NY Times meant to change it back to his original wording. Only they forgot to, and the article went up online. Carter caught it, and told them to kill it before it went to print.

This, the NY Times did, and much to their credit.
What isn't to their credit is that they are suggesting wording in a piece that clearly changes its meaning. If you never believed that they were liberal before, this should at least give you pause.

By the way...

...has anyone noticed that since Rove was named in the investigation, there's been no push for a shield law?
Is anyone surprised?

Hillary worried about hidden sex...

...And this time, it has nothing to do with her husband.
According to the NY Times, in an article called,
Clinton Urges Inquiry Into Hidden Sex in Grand Theft Auto Game :

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is calling on federal regulators to investigate the latest version of Grand Theft Auto, a popular video game series that allows players to go on simulated crime sprees.

And...

...Mrs. Clinton expressed concern over reports that anyone who used a free code downloaded over the Internet could unlock sexually graphic images hidden inside the game...

I love how the left always accuses Republicans of being uptight about sex, but when the left wants to run for office, suddenly they have a moral compass on such things.
Remember when Gore's wife Tipper wanted to get rid of music with dirty lyrics? I do.
I guess that's what Democratic wives do. They get upset about all of that nasty stuff (that their hubbies are engaging in.)
Anyway, as we all know Miss Hillary Rodham, its "just about sex." Sound like a familiar phrase?

Things that make you say, WHAT???

Apparently, there is a group planning to march on Washington August 13th, regarding prisoners. Not prisoners in Gitmo, mind you. Although I'm sure they got their inspiration from the "Close Gitmo!" crowd. These people want prisoners released from jail.
"What?", you say.
They want prisoners released from jail. Here is the best line from their statement:

This is a day for us to meet each other, and show our leaders that we demand justice.

They want justice. This isn't sarcasm, folks. Its not my idea of a bad web joke. They are going to Lafayette Park and they are going to march. Felons, and friends of felons. It should be a great time. Who wants to go? I do! I do!
But wait. ... There's more:

On July 12, 2005, David Losa of FACTS (Families to Amend California's Three Strikes) will embark on an epic Bicycle Journey for Justice, a 3,000 mile ride from his home in Santa Barbara, CA, arriving in Washington D.C. just in time for the FMI March on Washington.

I sincerely hope it doesn't happen. But wouldn't it be funny if his bike was stolen on his way to this event?
Normally, I think its a blast to go to these types of events, and take photos of the nuttier people in this world. But I will not be attending this one. I... uh... have laundry to do.

Yet more evidence clearing Rove

After Rove spoke to Matt Cooper, the journalist from Time magazine, he zipped off an e-mail to Stephen Hadley, a deputy national security advisor. According to My way news:

"Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote in the e-mail to Hadley.

Note: Cooper called Rove. Just as Novak called Rove.
Already, this makes it harder to argue that Rove was calling around to reporters and telling them that there was a spy they needed to report on.
But wait. There's more.

"When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."

Meaning, its exactly what Rove has said; that he was correcting the lie that Wilson was propagating about Niger. Wilson said that Iraq wasn't trying to get uranium from Niger in an editorial. Rove told the reporter that he was wrong.

This whole story is completely collapsing in on the left, and its pretty funny to watch. As more and more evidence escapes that Rove is innocent, the left has changed their strategy to adapt.

Now the argument is that it wasn't Rove, but the "Bigger Picture" of our involvement in Iraq, etc. Etc. Etc.

Another words, how were they to know that they were going off the deep end? Again?

The Rove thing explodes. In the face of liberals.

But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.

That article, in itself, should close the door on whether Rove outed a CIA agent.
Its been a pretty funny day watching liberals tripping over their own feet, backpedaling.

So let's do a quick overview of what we've learned.

The left felt that it was Rove who outed Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent.
But Victoria Toensing, one of the people who helped write the law, doubts that charge in a NY Times article:

"She had a desk job in Langley," said Ms. Toensing, who also signed the supporting brief in the appeals court, referring to the C.I.A.'s headquarters. "When you want someone in deep cover, they don't go back and forth to Langley."

Toensing also said that "We made it exceedingly difficult to violate" the law.

There are a lot of people calling for Rove's firing. The NY Times said:

Mr. McClellan and Mr. Bush have both made clear that leaking Ms. Plame's identity would be considered a firing offense by the White House. Mr. Bush was asked about that position most recently a little over a year ago, when he was asked whether he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer's name. "Yes," he replied, on June 10, 2004.

This is the actual text of what the president said:

Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

That's not exactly the same as a simple "Yes," but I digress.

The New York Times has started to refer to her as Valerie Wilson, instead of Valerie Plame. Curious, that.

Mr. Bush's comment came nearly two years after he suggested that he would fire anyone in his administration who had knowingly leaked the identity of the operative, Valerie Wilson. Her naming has led to a federal grand jury investigation.

Huh. So after Rove says that he didn't name her, she is suddenly Ms. Wilson. Yep.
Up until a few days ago, the NY Times kept referring to her as Valerie Plame. Now, suddenly, she's taken on her hubbies name by the press?

Oh, and just for reference, this is what the Washington Post said about Wilson's claims a while back:

He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

More later, when I have time to type in all of my links.

The "Shield" problem, and the Plame leak

I took a journalism class or two at a local community college.

I say this, because I don't want to sound flippant about the "need for confidentiality" when it comes to reporting. I think that far too often, the concept of reporter privilege is overused. For that matter, I don't get it in the first place. Why should a reporter have any greater ability to keep something confidential then an ordinary citizen?
Yet, some liberals are now arguing for a "shield law" that will protect reporters from having to reveal their sources.

While thinking about this, I read an article today about a journalist named Cooper who is going to reveal his source. The source gave him the go-ahead, so now he's going to talk to the judge.
I believe that the liberal demand for a "shield law" will depend on the name that he gives the judge.
A number of reporters are saying that the source was Karl Rove. I think this is ridiculous, because I can't see two liberal organizations protecting Karl Rove, even if they *did* promise confidentiality. However, if Cooper emits the words "Karl Rove", I don't think that liberals will continue to argue for a "shield law."
On the other hand, if Cooper says "Wesley Clark" or "Joe Wilson", or someone liberal, the demand for a shield law is going to explode overnight.

That's my prediction. Let's see what happens.

Mainly, for when Rove had planes flown into buildings

Sometimes you read something on a blog, and you think to yourself...
"Are they serious?"

The headline from Proud Liberal

karl rove: worse than osama bin laden

This, from a person who claims to be into "Peace, tolerance, and the common good"

Proud liberal not only thinks that Rove is responsible for the Plame leak (as the press has blithely jumped on that bandwagon), but he/she thinks he was ordered to do it:

Rove and his collaborators should quickly resign and face prosecution for betraying their country, but given their sense of personal entitlement impeachment is probably the best we can hope for.

Uh huh. yeah. right.
Man, I cannot wait for the 2008 elections.


-John

Happy Birthday America

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

-The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

My father is probably the man responsible for helping me appreciate the above quote. As a great fan of the founding fathers of our country, he explained to me how much they were putting on the line. These were men of privilage. They could have gone on to live comfortable lives, but instead, they risked it all for the dream of freedom.
On the other hand, I don't think I really got it until recently. Its hard to go back in time 200 years and imagine what that was like. Its too abstract. There are no pictures of it happening. Until January of 2005.

I don't want to violate APs Andrew Parson's copyright, but I want to link to his photo, here.
This year, Iraq's citizens proved the pesimists wrong. They went out and risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honour on the road to freedom.
Its difficult for me to comprehend the shift in mindset of these brave people. Up until recently, they lived in constant fear of a brutal regime who would torture people who were suspected of speaking against the ruling party. And I'm not talking about "Gitmo torture." I'm talking about having your ears, arm, or tongue cut off, electric shocks to the genitals, and/or having your daughter raped in front of you. This is the type of torture that you can't believe existed, until you see the photos of those who are missing ears and hear them tell their stories through tears.
Yet, in the face of terrorists who threatened to behead anyone who voted, the Iraqi people did.

In our country, a good vote turnout is 40% of the populace.
In Iraq, their turnout was between 60% to 70%.

Some people complain that we need to get out of Iraq. To those people, I ask why our own soldiers who are in Iraq are so committed to this cause. When polled, the vast majority of those men and women in service to our country support giving Iraqis a chance at freedom.
Our own brave soldiers are risking their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honour to help Iraq become a country free of tyranny.
That is nobility.
That is a higher calling then our own selfish interests.
Its something to be damn proud of.

On this July 4th, I celebrate the freedom to sit here comfortably on a nice chair, in front of my nice computer, and spout my opinion to the world on a network for speech, that was originally a network for the department of defense.
I celebrate the people who are thousands of miles away; wearing my countries colors, with sand in their food and a 110 degree temperature in the daytime, 90 degrees at night. Despite the random bombs and mortars, criticism and pessimism, those men and woman say that we need to finish the job. I celebrate their honour.

Finally, I celebrate the Iraqi people. I sincerely hope that someday soon, they celebrate their own version of the 4th of July. I hope to see them dancing in the streets again, as I did when they voted, dancing to the tune of freedom.
Let freedom ring.
Let freedom ring.

-John

SC's remaining 8 and Time's bias

I was reading Time magazine's article on the remaining 8 Supreme Court justices, and it sounded like there was some kind of media bias going on. But it took me a moment to nail it.

The conservative justices are described as... conservative justices. A sample:

• "who leans conservative" (Rehnquist)
• "A favorite son of the conservative movement" "has attempted repeatedly to strike down Roe v. Wade" (Scalia)
• "...has earned a reputation as a conservative" (Thomas)

The liberal justices are listed as:

• "a pragmatist..." "...preferring to consider the impact of law on the lives of everyday people" (Breyer)
• "...known for her commitment to striking down laws that treat men and women differently" (Ginsburg)
• "most influential moderate" (Souter)
• "A true independent" "but he always considers the effects of a ruling on society" (Stevens)

Kennedy was listed as:

• "A moderate..." "...seems uninterested in making larger political statements."

Now granted, under Breyer, it says that he "...often sides with the liberal wing of the Court: Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Stevens" but it struck me how every conservative was specifically listed as conservative. The other justices "consider everyday people", are moderates and independents.

This is pretty much the template for the way the media covers conservatives. We are conservative. They are considerate, and are independent thinkers.

-John

Another reason why I dig President Bush

He gets nailed all of the time by liberals for "not paying attention to servicemen," or not "caring" that they die.
But as the Washington Times points out, when he visits the families who lost people in the service, he goes in there without a television camera.

Now we all remember the previous president. Think he would do the same thing?

-John

Liberals; Conservatives can hear you

I'm walking down Clark today, taking photos, when I pass an older guy who is talking on his cell phone. He's completely unaware how loud he is, or that anyone might overhear what he's saying.

Its taken me 54 years to realize this, but when Republicans argue, they're didactic. They have no point. They just ask questions.

I don't think he knows that the meaning of didactic is. I looked it up on Webster to make sure I knew:

1 a : designed or intended to teach b : intended to convey instruction and information as well as pleasure and entertainment
2 : making moral observations

Its true that his Republican friends were trying to teach him.
That's why they ask him questions. I do the same thing with hardcore liberals. I ask them simple questions that I already know the answer to. For instance:

• If the war was all about oil, as you insist, then why didn't we just lift the embargo on Iraqi oil?
• Do you think that Iraqis want a free and democratic country?
• If we were to leave Iraq now, what do you think would happen?
• If it was Bush who created the WMD threat out of thin air, then why did Clinton bomb Iraq when he was in office?

Liberals, of course, know the answers to all of these questions. They just can't say the answers out loud, because it would really screw up their talking points.

Speaking of questions, the Environmental Republican has some great ones about my buddy Karl Rove. When Karl said

Conservatives saw the savagery of the Sept. 11 attacks and the prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the Sept. 11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers...

...some liberals weren't sure if he was talking about them.
The Environmental Republican has a test that may help clear things up.

-John

Update: Eminent domain visits Justice Souter

This is brilliant... positively brilliant!

Logan Darrow Clements of Freestar Media has offered to build a hotel on the land that is currently owned by Supreme Court Justice Souter. He sent a letter to the Code Enforcement Officer of Weare, New Hampshire, proposing his development:

Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, "Kelo vs. City of New London" clears the way for this land to be taken by the Government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare.

Justice Souter joined the majority opinion of the court, in Kelo v. New London. Justice Stevens defended development plans that use eminent domain, in this way:

Petitioners contend that using eminent domain for economic development impermissibly blurs the boundary between public and private takings. Again, our cases foreclose this objection. Quite simply, the government’s pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties.

If Logan Clements gets his way- and I hope to God that he does- I will save up every penny that I have and visit this place:

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Consider the following; if this development project were to be accepted by 3 of the 5 members of the Code Enforcement Officer, in the town of Weare, it would be challenged by Justice Souter. At some point, Justice Souter would find himself arguing against the very same principles that he agreed with in "Kelo v. New London." Even if Logan Clements failed, it would be great to see Souter try to explain the subtle differences between "Kelo v. New London" and "Souter v. Weare".

So brilliant. So completely brilliant.

-John

The NY Times wants to attract... well... you know...

...us Republicans.
But they really can't say "Republican" without the term "extreme" next to it. Its hard enough for them to say the word "conservative".

According to Editor and Publisher, executive editor Bill Keller wants to cover more... ahem, conservative things. Whatever those things are.

He also said that he endorsed the internal committee’s recommendation "that we cover religion more extensively.... This is important to us not because we want to appease believers or pander to conservatives, but because good journalism entails understanding more than just the neighborhood you grew up in."

This just gives me a few funny visuals in my head. I keep picturing a bunch of reporters, palm recorders in hand, walking up to people who are coming out of a church and asking, "So. What goes on in there?"

Or maybe they'll go to a NASCAR event, and wander around, asking- "So. Republican. Right?"

Or an army base. Oh wait, they don't do that unless they know that a soldier has done something wrong, or that a conscientious objector is on the base, or a soldier has declared himself to be gay and wants to stay in the military.

Anyway, I can't wait to read the new, more balanced, New York Times.
Tee hee hee!
That just makes me giggle to type that.

-John

Eminent Domain, and Kelo v. New London

Let's talk about the most recent supreme court ruling, Kelo vs. New London, and how the liberals of the Supreme Court have once again made government your daddy.

For those of you without the time to research this yourself, I'll sum it up here.
But first, let's introduce the players:

• The biotech company Pfizer. They make tons of medicines you use, including Listerine, Rolaids, Sudafed, and Visine.
• The New London Development Corporation (NLDC). The Supreme Court ruling includes this description: "a non-profit organization whose mission is to assist the city council in economic development planning. It is not elected by popular vote, and its directors and employees are privately appointed." The NLDC home page has the following quote- "...Economic development is a community's best opportunity to create wealth and expand the tax base."--Michael Joplin, President, NLDC
• A woman named Claire Gaudiani, who worked for the NLDC. She's a professional do-gooder and philanthropist. A one time French literature teacher- then president of Connecticut College- she promotes her good deeds heavily. She wrote a book called "The Greater Good".
• Susette Kelo, and 8 other petitioners named in the Supreme Court ruling who own property in New London. Susette made considerable improvements to her house after buying it in 1997, and likes it for its waterfront view.

Claire Gaundiani was bought into NLDC to help them revitalize the waterfront area of New London. In their first meeting, they came up with the following goals:
· increase the city's tax base,
· increase the number of jobs, and
· improve the quality of life for New London residents.

Around 1997, Gaundiani and the NLDC tried to convince Pfizer to build their new research facility there, but Pfizer had already narrowed their choices down to several other sites.
The NLDC hired Wallace, Roberts, and Todd, an urban design LLC, to help them out.

The scope of work included development of the state's fourth biotechnology incubator, the refurbishment of the historic Fort Trumbull on the former NUWC property as a new state park; and the productive reuse of the remaining NUWC site. The work plan also included the purchase and environmental abatement of an adjacent scrap yard, upgrading the area's utilities and infrastructure, improving the odor control and other systems of the city's wastewater treatment plant, and the acquisition of numerous surrounding residential and business properties.

In January 1998, Pfizer was convinced, and they announced plans to build in New London.
Now we have to read the fine print of NLDC's plans: "the acquisition of numerous surrounding residential and business properties."

The NLDC didn't plan on hold outs, people who actually wanted to stay on their waterfront property. Or maybe they did?

Either way, according to the Supreme Court, "There is no allegation that any of these properties is blighted or otherwise in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area." According to the SC, this was legal under Connecticut law. A "statute expresses a legislative determination that the taking of land, even developed land, as part of an economic development pro-ject is a “public use” and in the “public interest.”"

Now this is where things get icky. It used to be that the government could sieze land only if it was for "public use." But the SC has ruled that it can also be used if it serves the "public interest."

Another words, if your property isn't bringing in enough tax money, the government can take it. That was the legal loophole that was used to take the land of those 9 land owners.

This was just plain wrong. If this doesn't get your attention, you either don't own land or you never dreamed of owning a home.
There are so many people in this process to be annoyed with.

Claire Gaudiani, who likes to talk about the greater good. Claire; you blew it... big time. I will forever think of you as the person who thinks that the greater good is when I have to move for your dream project to come to completion. If you agree, contact Claire.

The NLDC, who actually has a "social justice" person on their staff, whose responsibility it is to look out for the little guy and the "underprivilaged". That kills me. Great joke, guys. I think you should tell the CEO of NLDC what you think of their plan to condemn the house of the little guy for the corporation. Talk about people who lost the purpose of their mission.

Finally, Pfizer. Yeah, I know its their only job is to be responsible to their shareholders. But lets be real, here. If we give corporations the green light to use government to remove our homes, so that they can work in a comfy neighborhood, then we're all screwed. If anyone should have stopped this from reaching the Supreme Court, Pfizer should have. They could have whispered into the ear of the NLDC "That's not necessary. Let those people keep their homes. We'll build there anyway" But they didn't. This is from Pfizer's website on "Corporate citizenship":

Citizenship defines our role in local and global communities and how we strive to conduct business responsibly in a changing world.

As I said before, Pfizer makes a host of products: Benadryl, Listerine, Neosporin, Purell, Rogaine, Rolaids, Sudafed, Visine, and Zantac. I'm boycotting those products. I think you should too. Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to let them know.


I think Justice Thomas, in his dissent, said it best:

Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases con-struing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In myview, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government’s eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause’s original meaning, and I would reconsider them.

-John

Rove quotes Al-Jazeera, who quotes Durbin

My good buddy Karl fired a shot over the bow of liberalism Wednesday, as written by the NY Times:

"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

It needed to be said, out loud, by a Republican... just to let liberals know that we have their number, and we're not afraid to call it.

Told of Mr. Rove's remarks, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, replied: "In New York, where everyone unified after 9/11, the last thing we need is somebody who seeks to divide us for political purposes."

Charles had to leave the press conference early so that he could return to the mock impeachment trial of George Bush.

That was sarcasm folks. I think.

No oil on the Downing Street memos

The war is all about Oil. That's what we were told by liberals from day one.

Sure, we had an embargo on Iraqi oil, but our goal was to get their oil. Or control it. Or stop them from selling it. Something like that. The explanations on the left were always jumbled and vague, but libs were telling me that Bush wanted Iraqi oil to keep the price of gasoline down, so that he could get re-elected. (Others argued that Bush wanted to keep Saddam from selling oil, kinda the flip-side of the other argument. No matter.)

Now along comes the Downing Street memos. The left claims that these documents truly reveal what George W. Bush was thinking- concerning Iraq- before we went to war. When I read the memos, I noted many things... but one glaring omission caught my attention:
There is no mention of oil in any of these memos.

Oil wasn't discussed in the Downing Street memo, or in the Straw memo, or in the Meyer, Manning, and Rickets memos. You would think (according to the left) that the memos would at least mention how Bush was slobbering to get hold of all of that luscious crude. Maybe just a short passage of "oh, and Bush wants Halliburton in there by sundown." You know, something that would detail how this war was all about oil?

-And what are the memos about?

WMD. Not oil, but WMD, and what happens, politically, if the soldiers were attacked on the first day of the war by WMD. What happens if Kuwait is attacked by WMD? Israel?

There is the memo where Wolfowitz wants a fully functioning democracy. Another passage where Condi says that Bush doesn't want to make a decision until he gets input from the Prime Minister. Another passage has Bush saying that if they take military action, "failure is not an option." (You probably didn't read that in your local paper.)

But nothing about oil.
Yeah, I know that won't change anyone's mind. The "oil war" is their mantra whenever a Republican goes to war. Its their propaganda, their button that they put on their bookbag. They would have to make new signs if they actually were convinced, and those thick markers are really expensive.

But it has to leave libs secretly wondering; 'How did he forget to talk about oil in those meetings?'

I need to catch you up on my latest observations. Please bear with me.

When Newsweek apoligized for getting the Qu'ran story wrong, it seemed a little late to me. I wondered, Can you really flush a Qu'ran down a toilet?

It turns out you can't.
Unless a Qu'ran is the size of a matchbook cover.

-John

It started about a month ago.
I posted one of my usual rants/ genius observations on a political BBS, when someone accused me of repeating Republican talking points.

I'm okay with that. I understand that democrats really don't think that Republicans can think for themselves.

So I'm making it easier for them to read my posts. I'm "letting them know" up front that I'm "repeating what Karl Rove told me to say."

If you think my posts are brilliant, credit me, knowing that I'm only at the bidding of that evil genius. If you think I'm off base, pity me for merely repeating what my master said. -And if you are actually Karl Rove, then you're having one hell of a laugh now, just as you've been having for the past 5 years.

My real name is John. I am a 40 year old Republican who lives in Chicago. I volunteered for the Republican party for the first time last year, after CBS defended an obviously forged memo for a week. That astounded me. The reaction of Democrats confounded me then, and the actions of Democrats disturbs me today.

I start this blog as a source of information for Republicans. I trust that it will keep me honest when I'm wrong. I want to amuse you, inform you, and make you think. -And if you are a Democrat, and I score a bullseye, don't worry. Its just Karl Rove at work again.

-John