Crush Liberalism's new home!

THE MOVE IS COMPLETE!

Please update your bookmarks to the new home of Crush Liberalism:

http://www.crushliberalism.com

No more having to remember ".blogspot.com" or even the new destination of ".wordpress.com"! If you don't update your bookmarks, that's OK, since you can just click on the link in this post to whisk you away to my more lush accommodations!

I'll probably be experimenting with different color and image schemes over the next few days, but aside from that, everything is ready to roll, so comment away!

PROS: New layout, new commenting mechanism (i.e. NO HALOSCAN!), better reliability that both Blogger and Haloscan, easier to remember domain name...what's not to like?

CONS: Only one, really, that I can think of: the Haloscan comments from prior posts can't import. They'll still be here at Blogger for posterity, if you just really want to see what you or someone else has said over the last three years. Then again, who wouldn't want to occasionally take a walk down Memory Lane and see the punking that navywife and her ilk received? :-D

UPDATE: Changes coming soon

Haloscan sucks. Period. If you leave a comment, you may get a message telling you "The service is unavailable" or something to that effect. It's been happening a lot lately (along with other problems from a moderator's view) that are just unacceptable. So, I've finally had it.

I will be spending some time reviewing other commenting mechanisms before settling on one. I may even move this blog to Wordpress, and kill two birds with one stone (Blogger and Haloscan). Either way, I'm fed up with this. It's often frustrating enough to make me want to give this blogging thing up altogether.

UPDATE (7/26/2007 - 11:04 A.M. EST): I am sooooooooo at Wordpress! Once I figure out how to import the Haloscan comments to Wordpress, then Blogger will go the way of the Whig Party. Once that happens, I'll put a redirect here so you won't have to update your bookmarks.

UPDATE (7/26/2007 - 01:52 P.M. EST): After a lot of research, it looks like there is no easy way to import Haloscan comments into Wordpress. However, I think I'm going to leave this blog in place here on Blogger so folks can access prior comments if they want to. Rest assured, though, that every post I've ever made is now at Wordpress (just without the comments, that's all). Basically, in the next day or two, you'll see a post here with a link to Crush Liberalism's new home. Stay tuned! :-)

UPDATE (7/27/2007 - 08:32 A.M. EST): The domain has been registered, DNS settings are propagating, etc. In non-techie speak, that means I should be up and running today (possibly before lunch). STAY TUNED!

Light posting over the next day or so

Posting may be light over the next day or two because I've got strep throat, so I'll be in bed quite a bit. I'll moderate comments as often as I can, so please, keep the comments coming.

Absurd question of the day

The question posed on the cover of the Esquire magazine that tabbed Silky Pony as "Sexiest Woman Alive" is this: “Can a white man still be elected president?”

Let me think about that. Total white men elected president thus far: 43. Total who don't fall into the "white man" category elected president thus far: 0.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the answer to such a patently absurd question is "Yeah!"

Today's "Damn that global 'warming'" update

From al-Reuters:

The 2007 hurricane season may be less severe than forecast due to cooler-than-expected water temperatures in the tropical Atlantic, private forecaster WSI Corp said on Tuesday.

The season will bring 14 named storms, of which six will become hurricanes and three will become major hurricanes, WSI said in its revised outlook. WSI had previously expected 15 named storms of which eight would become hurricanes and four would become major hurricanes.

"Because the ocean temperatures have not yet rebounded from the significant drop in late spring, we have decided to reduce our forecast numbers slightly," said Todd Crawford, a WSI seasonal forecaster.
...
Despite the downgraded forecast, WSI still expects the 2007 season to be more active than last year, and added that storm-weary parts of the Gulf Coast could still be hit.

"We feel the general threat to the western Gulf is reduced slightly, with a corresponding increase in the threat to the eastern Gulf and Florida," Crawford said.

Let's see: after a busy 2005 hurricane season (blamed by various nutbars, including the Goreacle, on global "warming"), we were told 2006 would be just as busy as 2005. We got nothing, especially here in Florida. Then we were told that 2007 would be busy, and now we're being told that due to (** snicker **) colder than expected temperatures, 2007 is being revised downward.

Three exit questions: (1) At what point can we stop referring to these people as "experts"? (2) How have these shysters managed to convince people to keep paying them for their chronically wrong forecasts? (3) Considering that this has been an unseasonably cool year (some might say it's a cool cycle?), can we please get off the Chicken Littleism that the treehuggers have been spewing our way?

Ward Churchill fired, MSM carries his water

From Hot Air:

U of C’s president recommended that they fire him — for plagiarism and fabricating data, remember, not for his politics — back on May 30 so it’s a fait accompli that the axe will fall. In so doing, the university rids itself of a PR disaster and “Chutch” finally gets the role he was born to play, that of the truth-speaking “brown person” whose dissent the man just can’t handle. Win/win.
...
Update: The school president and head of the board of regents went out of their way afterwards to emphasize that it was his ethical lapses that sunk him, not his political views. The AP headline: “Professor fired for 9/11-Nazi comparison.”

Nope...no liberal media bias!

Shrillary the "moderate" to attend nutroots convention

Spurning the "centrist" (in name, anyway) Democratic Leadership Council that her hubby was a part of, Her Highness is aligning herself with the Kos kooks by going to their annual tinfoil fest. From Michelle Malkin:

Hillary is worried about her left flank. How worried? She has made a decision to allow her communications director to go on The O’Reilly Factor tonight to defend Hillary’s upcoming appearance at the Yearly Kos convention.
...
Live by the nutroots, die by the nutroots. Hillary has proved a dumb investor before. Cattle futures, anyone?

It’s only a matter of time before she discovers how unwise her netroots investment is. Tinfoil, anyone?

From the '06 Kostards konvention. You just can't make this up!

Quote of the day

I wasn't kidding when I said that Silky Pony is a cornucopia of material. If it's not a $1200 'do or the cover of Esquire as "Sexiest Woman Alive" (or at least, close enough to the label to warrant a double-take), it's stuff like this:

At the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate Monday night, each candidate had to turn and say something about the man or woman to his or her left. Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) had this to say about the woman who spent eight years in the White House: “I admire what Sen. Clinton has done for America, what her husband did for America,” he said, facing Hillary Rodham Clinton. And then came the potshot: “Um, I’m not sure about that coat.”

Because salmon instead of coral is sooooooooooo "fashion faux pas"!

New host for "The Price is Right"

Fortunately, Rosie O'Qaeda wasn't chosen to replace Bob Barker. However, it looks like Drew Carey is going to be the guy. Bob Barker is said to be pleased with the choice, so if it's good enough for Bob AND it's not Rosie O, then it's good enough for me.

"Democrats Seek Session With Bush on Spending"

Isn't that sort of like wanting to meet with Ted Kennedy on sobriety? Anywho, from the Old Gray Hag:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, have asked for a meeting with President Bush to see if they can work out an agreement on spending bills for the fiscal year that begins in 10 weeks. But lawmakers from both parties said they saw no obvious way to overcome the current stalemate with the White House.

The House has passed 8 of the 12 regular appropriations bills for 2008, and Mr. Bush threatened to veto 5 of them, on the ground that they called for “an irresponsible and excessive level of spending.”
...
James P. Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, said, “The president is playing to his conservative base, trying to pick a fight with Congress over spending policies.”

It's a darned shame that Bush didn't have that same commitment to fiscal discipline when his party was running the show. Who knows? They may still have power today if it weren't for their "drunken sailor" spending ways.

Kos kooks are...moderate?

BEVERAGE ALERT! Put down your drink, lest it project from ye nostrils. From NewsBusters:

Sometimes when you see NPR's Juan Williams on Fox News, you are left scratching your head wondering what planet he lives on, and what the color of the sky is there.

Such questions must certainly have been raised in the minds of right-thinking "Fox News Sunday" viewers this morning when Williams suggested that the liberal blog Daily Kos "is now center."

I kid you not.

What precipitated this extraordinary lapse of reason on Williams' part was a rather accurate observation made by the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol concerning Democrat presidential candidates attending the upcoming YearlyKos convention.

Every Democratic presidential nominee is going to the Daily Kos convention. That's the left-wing blogger who was not respectable three or four years ago. The Howard Dean kind of sponsor. Now the whole party is going to pay court to him and to left wing blogs. Not a single one is going to the Democratic Leadership Council meeting in a couple of weeks. That's the organization that Bill Clinton was head of in the early '90s - that was supposed to be the new, more moderate Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has gone left and it will hurt them in 2008.

Makes sense, right? After all, the DLC was indeed crucial for Clinton's success in the '90s. Yet, the past two Democrat presidential candidates have shied away from this group, and its tenets, moving further to the left, and not winning their respective elections.

With this in mind, it seems quite reasonable to suggest that Democrat presidential candidates who follow Al Gore and John Kerry's leftist playbook rather than the successful, though disingenuous, moderate campaign of Bill Clinton will have a hard time winning in the general election.

Not so surprisingly, Williams saw things differently:

What you described as left is now center. The majority of the American people, 70 percent, want us out of Iraq. In fact, if you asked Iraqis, 60 some percent of Iraqis say we're doing more harm than good in Iraq. There's a center here and I think what you're saying is they're playing somehow to the left.

Even if the only issue on voters' minds was Iraq, Williams' point would be way off base.
...
In fact, CBSNews.com's article on this poll stated that "Sixty-one percent of Americans surveyed think the war should be funded only if there's a timetable for withdrawal...while 8 percent think all funding for the war should be blocked, no matter what."

The Kossacks are part of that 8 percent who want funding blocked now no matter what.

Therefore, even on this one issue, it is specious of Williams to suggest that the folks at Daily Kos are either in the center or representative of the majority view.

Nice try, Juan.

The Kostards...centrists? In other related news, Hell freezes over.

Ninth Circus Court: Shell can't drill for oil, since it might piss off polar bears

From FNC:

A federal appeals court has ordered Shell Oil to stop its exploratory drilling program off the north coast of Alaska at least until a hearing in August.

The order, issued Thursday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, comes after the federal Minerals Management Service in February approved Shell's offshore exploration plan for the Beaufort Sea.

"Vessels currently located in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas shall cease all operations performed in furtherance of that program, but need not depart the area," the order said.

Opponents contend that the Minerals Management Service approved Shell's plan without fully considering that a large spill would harm marine mammals, including bowhead and beluga whales. They say polar bears could also be harmed, and they question whether cleaning up a sizable spill would even be possible in the icy waters.

As Van Helsing notes:

A hearing is planned for mid August in San Francisco to decided if Shell can go forward and provide us with some oil, after bidding $39 million for the offshore leases, and blowing who knows how much on court costs.

If not, no problem: we can just keep paying through the nose to buy oil from Arabs, who will spend the proceeds on madrasahs and weapons programs. Hopefully the polar bears and beluga whales will appreciate it.

Daily humor

Blue state lunacy, criminal alien edition

From WND (hat tip to Moonbattery):

Spring Valley, Mayor George Darden won't be facing state civil or criminal charges for hiring illegal aliens to work on an urban revitalization project in his village, but Department of Labor officials informed him yesterday that the $10 an hour he paid 10 men doesn't comply with the state's prevailing wage law and taxpayers will have to pay the illegals the difference of about $30 an hour.

Darden has been under fire this week since the White Plains Journal News reported a village employee from the Department of Public Works Tuesday using a village truck to pick up two day laborers from a popular roadside hiring site and driving them back to Main Street to clean out a building slated for demolition. The village employee said he was "following orders" when he transported the illegal aliens.
...
Darden acknowledged paying the men in cash. At a Tuesday news conference, he did not say whether taxes were withheld on their wages.

"To pay $10 an hour," said Sandoval, was "a lot of work for little money."

Now, thanks to New York's prevailing wage law, Sandoval and his fellow illegal aliens will be paid $40 an hour – including taxes – for their work.

Darden won't face prosecution for violating the state's wage law, said Chris Perham of the Department of Labor.

"This is a first offense and in such cases we explained the laws," Perham said. "After that first chance, we will hold you accountable to the fullest extent of the law."

Too bad they won't hold the criminal aliens accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

Shays drops profanity-laced tirade on Capitol cop

The sense of entitlement in D.C. is clearly a bipartisan one. From Politico:

On Thursday afternoon, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) got into a loud, angry dispute with a U.S. Capitol Police officer at the security checkpoint inside the entrance of the West Side of the Capitol. On Friday, Shays, a veteran lawmaker, offered a public apology for the incident and said that he wants to meet with the officer personally to reiterate how sorry he is.

Shays reportedly grabbed the officer during the dispute over whether the officer should allow a group of tourists to enter the building, said several sources. Tourists are not allowed to use the West Front entrance, but Shays was trying to bring the group through that entrance anyway. The officer refused to allow them in, and Shays then "yelled and screamed" at the officer, including using profanity, the sources said.

Freakin' wonderful...Shays is turning into the GOP's Cynthia McKinney! Hey, Shays, I've got a response for you in a language that you can understand: You, sir, are an a$$h0le!

Reid gets Clintonesque with meaning of "compromise"

From the LA Slimes:

Sen. Harry Reid offered his cooperation in December when the Iraq Study Group unveiled its recommendations with a plaintive call for a bipartisan effort to change the course of the war.

"Democrats will work with our Republican colleagues," promised the Nevada Democrat and soon-to-be majority leader, just weeks after an election that swept Democrats into the congressional majority on a wave of public frustration over Iraq.

Eight bitter months and nine major Iraq-related votes later, the meaning of Reid's pledge has come into sharp focus: Democrats will work with any GOP lawmaker willing to vote for a mandatory troop withdrawal; other Republicans need not apply.

This bellicose, uncompromising legislative strategy — on display again this week as Reid refused to allow votes on nonbinding GOP-backed Iraq proposals — has been an obstacle to any real bipartisan compromise on the war all year. And it effectively ended any chance that a significant number of Republican lawmakers critical of the war would join with Democrats this summer on any Iraq-related legislation.

The Democratic strategy has yet to yield many tangible results. Just eight of the 250 Republicans in the House and Senate have joined with Democrats calling for a withdrawal.

Excellent leadership, Harry. For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.

Silky in Men's Vogue

Ace has the same reaction I had: Men's Vogue?

Men's Vogue?

Men's Vogue?

What the hell is that?

The hair, up close, is peppered with tiny strands of blond. Chestnut brown and so finely trimmed, mellifluous, smooth, and feathery, it could almost be a weave, the Platonic ideal as imagined by the Hair Club for Men. Along with the piercing blue eyes, slashing V-shaped smile, and a shimmering burgundy shirt tucked into stonewashed Levi's resting low on the hips, the hair completes the man: John Edwards, a populist Adonis, a golden god of a Southern Democrat.

Ah. I see.

The post (titled "John Edwards: Totally, Totally Not Gay") is about three weeks old, and I swear I don't know how I missed it. But this is just too much:

Silky: Sexist WOMAN alive? LOL!

Haditha Marine's father speaks with Abscam Jack

From the Freepers:

Haditha Marine Dad speaks to John Murtha

Throughout this Haditha investigation our family has believed in the innocence of our son L/Cpl Justin Sharratt- we knew he was innocent. There are things I do not understand and I would like to find the answers. We do not seek revenge, but we would like to see justice. In a conversation with Congressman John Murtha, my questions still remain unanswered. With the help of the American people, I hope to find justice.

On Wednesday morning, July 17th I spoke with Congressman John Murtha via telephone from his Washington, DC office. We had a courteous conversation. I knew what to expect from a career politician and Congressman Murtha did not disappoint. Mr. Murtha avoided answering the hard questions and I was unable to press him for the answers. I wanted the conversation to remain amicable and decided to let him speak and avoid a heated confrontation.

At no time during the dialogue would Mr. Murtha acknowledge the impending exoneration of my son. I pressed him to use the word exoneration but the best I could get was “things seem to have gone well in your son’s Article 32. The General is a fair man and I believe he will do the right thing.” I replied, “ Lt. Col Paul Ware presented a strong recommendation for exoneration and we are anticipating Lt. Gen James Mattis following this recommendation.”

Mr. Murtha asked me if I had served in the military. He recalled his visits with injured Marines, soldiers and sailors. He said he supports our troops and it is the war he does not condone. Mr Murtha believes combat operations in Iraq have put an enormous strain on our Armed Forces. The stress of combat situations has led our troops to kill innocent civilians. I pointed out to Mr. Murtha, “ Our Haditha Marines are innocent until proven guilty.” It seems he is again denying our Marines their Constitutional rights of due process and the presumption of innocence. Mr. Murtha replied that we have a Marine(Mendoza) testifying that innocent women and children were killed in Haditha. I retorted that he is again believing the reports of the media and Mendoza was granted immunity for his lies. Mendoza has changed his testimony at least two times. NCIS may have threatened him with deportation and denial of US citizenship. This time I scolded him, “ I witnessed their(NCIS) conduct first hand in my son’s Article 32.”

I questioned Congressman Murtha as to his statements of 17 May 2006. On national television, in front of millions of Americans, he stated “ Marines killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” I asked him why he denied these Marines their Constitutional rights of due process and the presumption of innocence. Again the Congressman used his experience to side step the answer. Mr. Murtha stated his intentions were to point out the stress our military was under in Iraq. He replied we would not win the hearts of the Iraqi people by killing women and children. I again snapped, “ Our Haditha Marines have not been convicted of killing innocents and are innocent until proven guilty.”

I believe this conversation was the first step in obtaining justice for Our Haditha Marines. I did not expect Mr. Murtha to admit to or apologize for any wrongdoing in his role to railroad my son and his Marine comrades. The American people now know that his unfounded and untruthful allegations were used to further his political agenda. It is my intention to ask the Congress of the United States to censure Representative John Murtha and hold hearings to explain his conduct in respect to the Haditha incident. I will ask the American people to question his blatant disregard for the Constitutional rights of Our Haditha Marines. I will campaign to the voters of Pa Congressional District 12 to oust Representative Murtha from his elected office. The American people deserve better, we must demand better representation from our elected officials.

What a despicable human being Abscam Jack Murtha is! Kudos to Mr. Sharratt for putting Murtha in his place, even if Murtha is too vile and stupid to realize it.

38th anniversary

Old Soldier reminded me of this yesterday, so my apologies for being a day late (story of my life, huh?). Yesterday was the 38th anniversary of Chappaquiddick, where, as you all know, Ted Kennedrunk killed a woman in his car by allowing her to drown while he wandered up the road and pondered the political ramifications of his actions. Full details here, if you can stomach it.

I do not ever wish physical harm on an American politician simply because they are ideological opposites. As much as I detest Reid, Pelosi, et al, I do not wish ill upon them. Having said that, God forgive me but I find myself wishing ill on Ted Kennedrunk every time that pickled murderous windbag opens his ample cakehole and bloviates about anybody being morally bankrupt liars! The fact that many on the left gravitate towards this cretin is proof positive of the inherent depravity of those people.

Headline of the day

File this under "things I couldn't make up if I tried", from the Montgomery Advertiser. Headline: "Local Obesity Conference Draws Large Crowd"

Quote of the day

From the San Franistan fishwrap:

Democratic Senate leaders knew going into Wednesday's procedural roll call on their proposal to withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq that they didn't have the votes to win, but victory wasn't their goal.

What else is new?

Olbermann's "chickenhawk" slur turned on him

Ace does a wonderful job of ripping the mind-numbed leftist myrmidons' "chickenhawk" reflex, in light of that little-watched MSNBC moonbat's recent rant:

Olbermann's Theatre of the Absurd ends with his calling upon Bush to go to Baghdad and fight "his war" himself.

Again, the chickenhawk charge -- one should be willing to fight wars one advocates, yes?

But the trouble is that part of Olbermann's, and the entire left's, schtick is that they're really super-tough guys after all -- not cheese-eating surrender monkeys -- because, while they don't want to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq, they're just totally gung ho to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and, now, Pakistan. In fact, the subtext very often seems to be that it's just the stubborn President Bush who is preventing them from grabbing a rifle and hopping on the next plane to Waziristan.

Question for Mr. Olbermann:

When, Sir, can we expect word of your enlistment? To fight in what is, by your own admission -- nay, bold proclamation -- what is in fact your war?

Breaking the MSM embargo, Ralph Peters finally makes the point I've been making for years.

The intelligence report in question said, in essence, that, after the devastating blow we struck against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the terrorists have regained some strength in their safe haven on Pakistan's Northwest Frontier. It doesn't say that al Qaeda is stronger than ever - although that's what the Dems imply.

In 2001, al Qaeda had a country of its own. Today, it survives in isolated compounds. And guess which "veteran warrior" wants to go get them?

Sen. Barack Obama. Far too important to ever serve in the military himself, Obama thinks we should invade Pakistan.

Go for it, Big Guy. Of course, we'll have to reintroduce the draft to find enough troops. And we'll need to kill, at a minimum, a few hundred thousand tribesmen and their families. We'll need to occupy the miserable place indefinitely.

Oh, and Pakistan's a nuclear power already teetering on the edge of chaos.

Barack Obama, strategist and military expert. Who knew?

I don't believe any Democrat actually wants to fight wars against Al Qaeda, or anyone else, anywhere at all. But they claim they do, they advocate for huge invasions of 100 million strong nuclear-armed countries, and of course they vote for any stray declaration of war that should reach their desks within 60 days of an election.

So if they are all gung-ho to finally "finish the job Bush wouldn't" in Islamabad and Karachi, I trust they know we need more troops -- and the army does in fact permit liberals to serve openly as such. There is no "don't ask, don't tell" rule about being a leftist jagoff, I can assure them all.

So:

When's the big sign-up day all you super badass warriors have planned? Is it a big surprise you're waiting to spring on the rest of the country?

I trust they're just waiting to receive and read the new Harry Potter book, and then they'll be training to storm the beaches of Southern Pakistan presently.

No thinking required for Olby and his ilk.

Dems side with terrorists and trial lawyers over American security

Feel free to question not just their patriotism, but their sanity. From Hot Air:

Whose water are the Democrats carrying on this? It seems to come down to two suspects — trial lawyers or the mau mauers at CAIR. Or both.

Democrats are trying to pull a provision from a homeland security bill that will protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leadership aides.

The legislation, which moves to a House and Senate conference committee this afternoon, will implement final recommendations from the 911 Commission.

Rep. Pete King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the bill after a group of Muslim imams filed a lawsuit against U.S. Airways and unknown or “John Doe” passengers after they were removed for suspicious behavior aboard Flight 300 from Minneapolis to Phoenix on Nov. 20 before their removal.

“Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement,” Mr. King said in an interview last night.

“This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists,” Mr. King said.

“I don’t see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity,” Mr. King said.

Republicans aides say they will put up a fight with Democrats when the conference committee begins at 1 p.m., to reinsert the language, but that public pressure is also needed.

The story notes that Democrats like Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson opposed the “John Doe” protection out of fears it would lead to racial profiling. Because, of course, racial profiling is so much worse than losing a city full of innocent people.
...
Update: It’s just breaking that the Democrats actually spiked the John Doe proposal in committee. They have exposed to Americans to more terrorism and the threat of lawsuit at the same time. They really ought to reap the whirlwind for this.

If the Democrats get their way, ordinary Americans like Brian Morganstern will have to weigh the threat of lawsuit when they decide whether to trust their gut when they see or hear something suspicious. Some will choose to avoid the lawsuit, and Americans will die.

As for me, I am John Doe.

As am I.

Plame lawsuit chucked to the weeds

From My Way News:

Former CIA operative Valerie Plame lost a lawsuit Thursday that demanded money from Bush administration officials whom she blamed for leaking her agency identity.

Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to disclose her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband's criticism of the administration.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments.

Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

Plame's lawyers said from the beginning the suit would be a difficult case to make. Public officials normally are immune from such suits filed in connection with their jobs.

Plame's identity was revealed in a syndicated newspaper column in 2003, shortly after Wilson began criticizing the administration's march to war in Iraq.

Armitage and Rove were the sources for that article, which touched off a lengthy leak investigation. Nobody was charged with leaking but Libby was convicted of lying and obstruction the investigation. Bush commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term before the former aide served any time.
...
Though Bates said the case raised "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials," he said there was no legal basis for the suit.

Lawyers have said courts traditionally are reluctant to wade into these types of cases, particularly when Congress has established other resolutions.

In this case, Bates said, Congress passed the Privacy Act to cover many of Plame's claims. Courts have held that the Privacy Act cannot be used to hold government officials personally liable for damages in court.

Bates also sided with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs.

"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory," Bates wrote.

"But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials," Bates said.

The suit was dismissed "purely on jurisdictional grounds", huh? Well, as Texas Rainmaker (himself an attorney) points out...:

For the reasons given above, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to their four causes of action asserted directly under the Constitution.

Put that in your bong and smoke it, Mr. and Mrs. Wilson.

Quote of the day

BEVERAGE ALERT! Put down your drink pronto. You have been warned! From Newsbusters:

Most of Dan Rather's pontifications on today's "Morning Joe" rolled off my back, as I flipped between his performance and that of Tiger Woods over the closing holes at Carnoustie.

But something made me sit up and take notice. At 8:34 A.M. EDT, Rather suddenly blurted out: "I'm big on personal responsibility." And yes, he managed to do so without laughing.

Oh. My. God (insert deity du jour here).

This is the same guy who put demonstrably fake documents on the air in his bid to bring down Bush a few weeks before the presidential election of 2004, then stood by as Mary Mapes and three other high-level executive henchmen took the fall, then just last year continued to stand by the since debunked "fake but accurate" story? Dan freakin' Rather was trying to convince us that he's all about "personal responsibility"?

I am marking on my calendar that Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 1:50 p.m. EST, I have officially seen everything.

Big Dem donor is a "staunch Republican" in eyes of reporter

In the spirit of Bubba, I opine that "it depends on the meaning of the words 'staunch' and 'Republican'"! From Michelle Malkin:

Great catch here by Warner Todd Huston at Newsbusters on a Chicago Sun-Times reporter’s magical transformation of a big Democrat contributor into a “staunch Republican.” Presto change-o:

Why is it that every time the MSM writes a story about a supposedly “staunch Republican” who is vocally supporting the opposing Party, we have to wonder of its veracity? Maybe it’s because there always seems to be a few little problems with the claim of “staunchness” on the part of the MSM’s favored Party hopper du jour? And in this case, the Chicago Sun-Times story titled “GOP lawyer sold on Dems” by Jennifer Hunter, we have no better assurances than we ever do that the claimed “staunch Republican” is either very “staunch” or very “Republican.”

Sun-Times writer Hunter dug up a supposedly “staunch Republican” named Jim Ronca, a trial lawyer from Pennsylvania. Mr. Ronca, claims Hunter, is “certain of one thing: He is not going to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election.”

But there is more than that. He also says he’ll financially support Democrats, and he makes this announcement as if this is somehow an earth shattering rebuke to the GOP, or so the Sun-Times wishes us to believe.

Here is the kicker from Hunter’s story:

“I’m not only going to vote Democratic, I’m going to financially support the Democrats,” Ronca said after a luncheon forum of the American Association for Justice, featuring Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Joe Biden. “The Republicans in Washington are an embarrassment.”

Judging from his public donation record, though, this “staunch Republican” also apparently believes that Republicans everywhere else are an “embarrassment,” too. Check out the majority of his political contributions:

$1,000 Harris Wofford (Democrat, PA) 6/22/1994
$250 Charles Oberly (Democrat, PA) 10/3/1994
$500 Edward Kennedy (Democrat, MA) 11/16/1995
$250 Stewart Greenleaf (Republican, PA) 12/29/1999
$250 Patrick Casey (Democrat, PA) 6/3/2000
$500 Ron Klink (Democrat, PA) 6/13/2000
$500 Ron Klink (Democrat, PA) 9/15/2000
$500 Arlen Specter (Republican, PA) 11/5/2001
$500 Allyson Schwartz (Democrat, PA) 3/30/2004
$2,000 John Kerry (Democrat, MA) 5/27/2004
$500 Allyson Schwartz (Democrat, PA) 8/23/2005
$1,000 Bob Casey (Democrat, PA) 9/13/2006
$500 Bob Casey (Democrat, PA) 9/30/2005
$500 Bruce Braley 9/5/2006

Conservatives on the Internet asked Hunter to explain. Her reaction? A column complaining about: 1) how mean the Internet watchdogs are; 2) how readers should blame her editor, not her; and 3) how one registered Republican just decided he’s supporting Hillary, so no one should complain about her embarrassingly inaccurate description of Ronca as a “staunch Republican.”

The thanks you get...

Is it possible that Republicans are fed up with Bush and the party's current "leaders" to the point that they're leaving the party? Of course it is! But to define a Democrat trial lawyer who has been giving the majority of his money to Democrats before Bush got elected as a "staunch Republican" is disingenuous and a bastardization of the English language that ol' Bubba can appreciate.

This is a dishonest tactic often seen with the left: they pretend to be Republicans or disenfranchised former Republicans so as to give themselves a level of credibility to which they are not due. No self-respecting Republican would vote for any of the Marxists masquerading as moderate Democrats, even if he hated Bush and other Republicans so badly that he's counting down the days until January 20, 2009.

"Libertarians and the war"

Excellent column by Randy Barnett in Opinion Journal. Please read the whole thing, an excerpt of which is here:

While the number of Americans who self-identify as "libertarian" remains small, a substantial proportion agree with the core stances of limited constitutional government in both the economic and social spheres--what is sometimes called "economic conservatism" and "social liberalism." But if they watched the Republican presidential debate on May 15, many Americans might resist the libertarian label, because they now identify it with strident opposition to the war in Iraq, and perhaps even to the war against Islamic jihadists.

During that debate, the riveting exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul about whether American foreign policy provoked the 9/11 attack raised the visibility of both candidates. When Mr. Paul, a libertarian, said that the 9/11 attack happened "because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Mr. Giuliani's retort--that this was the first time he had heard that "we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. . . . and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11"--sparked a spontaneous ovation from the audience. It was an electrifying moment that allowed one to imagine Mr. Giuliani as a forceful, articulate president.

The exchange also drew attention to Mr. Paul, who until then had been a rather marginal member of the 10-man Republican field. One striking feature of Mr. Paul's debate performance was his insistence on connecting his answer to almost every question put to him--even friendly questions about taxes, spending and personal liberty--to the war.

This raised the question: Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war? The simple answer is "no."

First and foremost, libertarians believe in robust rights of private property, freedom of contract, and restitution to victims of crime. They hold that these rights define true "liberty" and provide the boundaries within which individuals may pursue happiness by making their own free choices while living in close proximity to each other. Within these boundaries, individuals can actualize their potential while minimizing their interference with the pursuit of happiness by others.
...
But here is the rub. While all libertarians accept the principle of self-defense, and most accept the role of the U.S. government in defending U.S. territory, libertarian first principles of individual rights and the rule of law tell us little about what constitutes appropriate and effective self-defense after an attack. Devising a military defense strategy is a matter of judgment or prudence about which reasonable libertarians may differ greatly.
...

Please, read it. It's great stuff!

Silky Pony botches analogy about poverty

The Breck Girl, he of the $1200 'do and energy hog multi-million dollar mansion, tries again to relate to the "common man" in the "other America" in which he doesn't live. From BTN:

Silky Tells Matthews That Being Poor Is Not Being able To Eat At Restaurants
07.17.2007 - 04:03 PM | Greg Hengler

Chris Matthews really strokes the Silky Pony's mane here. First, Silky is invited by Matthews to debate on Hardball against other Dems but his Silkiness says that he will agree to only if ALL candidates will be invited. This coming after the secret conversation caught on live mic between the Silkster and Hillary. How fair of him. Next, Silks answers Matthews' question: "Tell the people what it's like to be poor?" Silky tells the cliff notes version of his often-told story of leaving a restaurant as a young lad after his father saw how he could not afford to eat there. That's poor! Not eating out. Wow, if Silky keeps on his "Poverty Tour" everyone will be able to eat at Spago's.

This guy is a virtual cornucopia of material for the blogosphere, isn't he?

Terrorism involved? Nah, couldn't be!

From Ace:

Large Cache of Weapons Discovered In Dallas Apartment Near Federal Building; Fundamentalist Christian Sought For Questioning
—Ace
Well, I assume he's a fundamentalist Christian. They keep telling me those are the sorts of violent zealots who stock up on Armageddon levels of firepower.

Given that the tenant keeps traveling back and forth to the Middle East, I can only assume he's part of some sort of Biblical/Left Behind Christotourism travel package.

Anyway:

Federal sources tell CBS 11 News that law enforcement officers have confiscated a large cache of weapons found in an apartment near the federal building in downtown Dallas.
...
Police are still taking inventory of all the weapons seized. Among those discovered were two AK-47 rifles, an Uzi 9 millimeter submachine gun, a TEC-9 submachine gun, a 40 millimeter ordnance launcher, a handheld ordnance launcher, and about 500 rounds of ammunition.

Police seized the weapons even though they say it's possible for all of them to be legal.

Child pornography was also found in the apartment, which could lead to criminal charges.
..
Authorities tell us the tenant travels to the Middle East frequently and just returned from there this morning.
...
However, authorities say there is no reason to suspect terrorism as a motive.

Nah, no reason at all.

Just because a pedophile likes to stock up on machine guns and ordnance launchers doesn't mean he's all about terrorism, now does it, you judgmental b#stards? For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.

$1 mill for mystery project

Anyone tired yet of the "culture of corruption" hypocrisy? Me too. From Politico:

What's a paltry one million dollars to a member of Congress?

Well, apparently not enough to know if an organization about to receive that big block of cash actually exists.

Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, the fiscal crusader who's never met an earmark he likes, questioned Democratic Rep. Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana on the House floor Tuesday about whether the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure actually exists - since, hey, it's getting like a million bucks or something.

Visclosky, who chairs the spending subcommittee responsible for the project, had to admit that, well, he didn't have a clue.

After a lengthy back-and-forth, Flake, complaining that his staff couldn't find a website for the center, asked Visclosky, "Does the center currently exist?"

"At this time, I do not know," the Indiana Democrat replied. "But if it does not exist, the monies could not go to it."

As if that wasn't bad enough...

And who could possibly be the sponsor of such an earmark? Yes, you guessed it, the man Republicans love to hate, Pennsylvania Democrat John P. Murtha.

Despite the money's uncertain destination, the House rejected Flake's measure to strike the funds, 326-98. And the Visclosky bill also sailed through, 312-112.

As I said, what's one million dollars to a member of Congress?

UPDATE: I failed to report last night that a certificate filed with the requested funds says the money is actually earmarked to Concurrent Technologies Corporation, a nonprofit technological consulting firm. A brief search of campaign finance records shows CTC President and CEO Daniel R. DeVos, of alternately Central City and Johnstown, Pa. has contributed $7,000 to Murtha's reelection campaign since April 2002.

Abscam Jack, still crazy after all these years. Quite a deal for Abscam Jack and DeVos, wouldn't you say? DeVos gives Jack $7k for his re-election campaign, and gets a nice cool million (not a dime of which is out of Abscam Jack's pocket) as a return on his investment. I guess it's a good thing we've got those principled, uncorrupted Dems running the show now, huh?