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