The Grapes of Ass

• Abortion continues against the wishes of many States
• Sodomite and lesbian "marriage" is now legal in Massachusetts (and coming soon to a neighborhood near you)
• Children who pray in public schools are subject to prosecution
• Our schools continue to teach the discredited theory of Darwinian evolution
• The Bible is still not welcome in schools except under unconstitutional FEDERAL guidelines
• The 10 Commandments remain banned from public display
• Sodomy is now legal AND celebrated as "diversity" rather than condemned as perversion
• Preaching Christianity will soon be outlawed as "hate speech"
• Fathers are denied equal rights under law in cases of child custody
• Our right to keep and bear arms continues to be INFRINGED
• Private homes are now subject to arbitrary government seizure

Initial goals:

1. 2,500 members in our Phase One counties by September 30, 2006.
2. Work several local political campaigns in 2006 (election goals set at that time).
3. Move thousands more members into South Carolina by September 30, 2008.
4. Complete Phase One by end of 2008.

Then, they're gonna secede from the Union, or as they put it, "Institute constitutional reforms returning proper autonomy to the State by 2016 regardless of illegal edicts from Washington, D.C."

South Carolina can have the lot, as far as I'm concerned.

Update 7/17): The group is, not surprisingly, the brainchild of a Neo-Confederate.

Bloody Hell

The Linkin' Dumbass Debates

TBogg has the scoop on dumbass Jeff Jarvis' latest effort to promote his ever irrelevant blog. Jarvis proposes "Let's you and him debate, for the benefit of my traffic."

Jarvis of course claims the high road. Maybe he can liven things up by accusing one or both of his conscripted debaters of outing those Iraq the Model guys and placing their lives in jeopardy. He hasn't done that in a while.

Seems there is already a debate going on, at another, most respectable, website. And since Jarvis won't be preoccupied with refereeing a Yost/Lovelady scuffle, let me invite him to debate Prof. Glenn Reynolds here at Roger Ailes. Your topic, Jeff: "Resolved: My claim not to be a conservative is more unconvincing than Glenn's." Winner takes on Mickey Kaus.

The law was meant to crack down on what the act's congressional authors called "conscious and pernicious" disclosures of agents' identities, rather than disclosures arising from casual conversation or other circumstances.

...

Congress "did not intend for government employees to be vulnerable to prosecution for an unintentional or careless spilling of the beans about an undercover identity," wrote two Washington lawyers who helped draft the law, Victoria Toensing and Bruce Sanford, in an analysis of the Plame case this year. "A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker."

Toensing, a deputy assistant attorney general under President Reagan, sees hurdles for Fitzgerald and strongly believes no crime was committed. In an interview, she said she doubted Plame qualified as a "covert" operative, and she said the CIA was "cavalier" about protecting her status. Plame's CIA position was "cocktail circuit talk" around Washington, Toensing said.

The wishes and dreams of the spinmeisters who "helped draft the law" are entirely meaningless. They are not members of Congress; they did not vote on the law; their opinions do not reflect the intent of Congress. The staute says what it says. And it doesn't say "pernicious," or contain an exception for "careless."

Every journalist who quotes this pair is conciously revealing him or herself to be an useful idiot for the Administration. Consider the consequences of using drafters' opinions as evidence of legislative intent: Our current laws would be interpreted by taking testimony from the lobbyists for the pharmaceutical manufacturers and credit card companies who write the legislation.

This idiot also provides no specifics regarding Toerag's purported doubts and recycled blather about the cocktail party circuit. He should either provide facts or leave Toerag's uninformed wishful thinking out of the article.

Further, he might want to point out that the concepts of "cavelier" and "cocktail chatter" aren't found in the statute and aren't relevant to application of the statute. The issue is whether the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal the agent's identity as a covert agent, not whether those measures succeded or were sufficiently pursued.

Then there's this:

Prosecutors have all but ignored the law. A national security law expert at Syracuse University law school, William Banks, said he could find no published legal decision interpreting the law.

Some think the law's dormancy reflects government employees' care to protect agents' identities in recent years. Others say the dearth of prosecutions shows that Congress intended to outlaw only very specific misconduct.

And yet others say their pets control their thoughts and order them to kill.

Those four sentences provide no information from which a reader could make an informed decision about whether "prosecutors," either individually or as a group, have "ignored" the law" or, if so, their reasons for doing so.

I realize journalists for daily papers have to be generalists, without expert knowledge on every subject on which they write. But you might expect them to have the minimal ability to question the assertions of a partisan hack offering opinions and unsubstantiated claims in the service of her party.

Grand Old Police Blotter: Duke's Down Edition

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), a Vietnam War fighter pilot whose house was raided by the FBI this month in an investigation of his ties to a defense contractor, announced yesterday that he will not seek reelection but will serve out his term.

"I learned in Vietnam that no one person is more important than the mission, and I do not intend to forget that lesson now," the eight-term House member said in San Marcos, Calif.

Nice try. You made yourself a hell of a lot more important than the mission when you took in hundreds of thousands from lobbyists and enjoyed the rewards all by yourself. You thwarted the mission, robbed your comrades-in-arms and joined the enemy forces. Maybe the feds can go easy on you and let you do your time in Fort Leavenworth.

Of course, Cunningham's fellow Republicans think Duke was doing the Lord's work:

Friends said Cunningham and his wife, Nancy, made the decision and were not pressured by Republican leaders. Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a statement that Cunningham's "career in Washington was defined by straight talk and hard work," and that with his announcement, he had done "for his party what he has always done for his country: He put the interests of others above his own ambitions."

Reynolds added, "And since you won't be using that donor list, Randy, mind if I take a quick peek?"

In other scumbag news, right-wing wacko Zell Miller is repaying over 100 grand in public funds he pocketed while Governor of Georgia. And Zell's a piker compared to Governor Predator. The Californian musclehead is collecting millions for "editing" muscle magazines, while vetoing laws disfavored by the magazines' advertisers.

Poor, Poor Pitiful Me

That sound coming from Las Vegas is the high-pitched whine of the Cash-Strapped Nevada Chickenhawk:

[Nathan] Taylor argues that the state's Republican delegation should have helped him fund the national Young Republican convention held last week at Mandalay Bay.

"I've got bills at the hotel I can't pay," said Taylor, a 29-year-old political science senior at UNR who said he had to quit his food service job and drop classes to plan the convention.

Taylor estimates that the convention, attended by about 600 people from around the nation, is at least $10,000 -- and up to $25,000 -- in the red.

As the chairman, he said he'll personally have to cough up the cash.

"It's a really sad day when my congressmen and my senator, who are sitting on millions, can't cut me a check for $25,000," Taylor said. "I don't think I'm asking for much."

That is sad.

I hear the Army is hiring, Nate. Given the time and effort you put into the convention and your experience in the food service industry, I'm sure your "two recent lung surgeries" won't pose any impediment to service.

If the military isn't interested, I'm sure Mandalay Bay could put you to work as a bellhop. (Lift with the knees, man!)

Meanwhile, Nathan is putting a positive spin on the convention, declaring it successful:

YRNC2005 would like to thank all of our sponsors and supporters for assisting us in hosting a successful YRNC2005.

Contributions can be mailed to:

YRNC2005, Inc.
c/o Nathan Taylor
P.O. Box 34779
Reno, NV 89533

For more information, you can email us at info@yrnc2005.com, or you can reach us by telephone at 775-741-4430.

You can show your support in the same way that Nate supports America's troops. Send Nate an e-mail stating that you either have sent, will send, or plan to send him a check, or have participated in events or projects supporting the sending of a check to him. (Note: Planning to send a check is not tax-deductible.)

Update: Jo Fish and Atrios support Nate, too.

In a victory for opponents of multiculturalism, Vanderbilt University has decided not to appeal a decision from the Tennessee Court of Appeals that bars the university from replacing the name "confederate" from a dorm room. CNN reports that in May the Court held that either the name, "Confederate Memorial Hall," be left alone or that the group that financed the building, the Daughters of the Confederacy, be reimbursed at a sum of $50,000. The administration at Vanderbilt decided to drop the matter, despite disagreeing with the outcome. This is another example of the egalitarian impulse running rampant in the South, where multiculturalists attempt to subdue Southern heritage in the name of creating "a more welcoming environment." This is a victory for those traditionalists hanging on to their heritage and progeny.

The wanker Pylman is (or was) the editor-in-chief of the Cornell Review. And it shows in his writing.

Sowelled Out

Thomas "Kidneys on Ice" Sowell shares some profound random thoughts with us:

Usually I like four-star hotels better than five-star hotels. The four-star hotels tend to be comfortable and attractive places with amenities, but without the pretentiousness and fussiness of five-star hotels.

...

Now that Samatha Brown on the travel channel is overseas doing programs about outstanding hotels in Europe, I hope she will continue on to Asia and do a program on my favorite hotel in the world, the Shangri-la in Singapore.

At least Sowell managed to avoid plugging his book in this column. That seems to be SOP for wingnut pundits these days.

The rest of the column contains such gems of wisdom as

Many people are so preoccupied with the notion that their own knowledge exceeds the average knowledge of millions of other people that they overlook the more important fact that their knowledge is not even one-tenth of the total knowledge of those millions. That is the crucial fallacy behind the repeated failures of central planning and other forms of social engineering which concentrate power in the hands of people with less knowledge and more presumption.

Reading letters from liberals makes me fear that they are going to dislocate their shoulders from patting themselves on the back so much. The way they tell it, the reason they differ from others is that they are so much more compassionate, aware, concerned, nuanced, sophisticated and -- yes -- just plain smarter.

You might want to cut back on those pills, Tom.

Mouthpiece of Crap

What do we make of this?

Matt Cooper's lawyer, referencing the statements of Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, in the Wall Street Journal:

And in there, right at the end of the article about this matter is the following statement: "Mr. Rove hasn't asked any reporter to treat him as a confidential source in the matter," Mr. Luskin said, who I understand is Mr. Rove's lawyer. "So if Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source, it's not Karl he's protecting."

Luskin to National Review:

"Look at the Cooper e-mail," Luskin continues. "Karl speaks to him on double super secret background...I don't think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the name of Wilson's wife."

Yes, I know the weasel-minded distinction that Luskin's trying to make. It won't fly.

A confidential source is someone who asks for confidentiality before providing -- becoming a source of -- information. Which is what Rove asked of Cooper. Whether Rove wanted, wished or even asked Cooper not to quote him anonymously, he was a confidential source of information, and he asked to be treated as such. Even more importantly, it's irrelevant to Rove's criminal culpability.

Watching Scottie Lie

Scottie, Tuesday:

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Any individual who works here at the White House has the President's confidence. They wouldn't be working here if they didn't have the President's confidence. That's why I stepped back from this and talked about it in the broader context.

Now, these questions are coming up in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I stated long ago, you all will remember, that the investigation is continuing, I want to be helpful to the investigation, I don't want to jeopardize anything in that investigation, and that's why I made a decision and the White House made a decision quite some time ago that we weren't going to get into commenting on questions related to that investigation.

The New York Times, Tuesday:

"A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House now says its official position is not to comment on the case while it is under investigation by a federal special prosecutor, said Mr. Rove had gone about his business as usual on Monday."

The Washington Post, today:

"No one has asked him what he told the grand jury. No one has deemed it appropriate," said a senior White House official, who would discuss the Rove case only on the condition of anonymity. "What you all need to figure out is, does this amount to a crime? That is a legitimate debate." Still, some aides said they were concerned about the unknown. "Is it a communications challenge? Sure," the official said.

Questions to Scottie: Does Bush have confidence in the White House officials who are speaking to the press about the Rove case anonymously, in violation of Bush's directive? Will he fire them?

The New York Times reporter didn't write a story about the Valerie Plame case and had a waiver from her source in order to talk about it to the grand jury. But she insisted on going to jail anyway. Speculation is mounting that Miller is protecting herself -- that Miller was herself a source of information about Plame that made it to several Bush administration officials and was then recycled to columnist Robert Novak. He, then, disclosed Plame's employment by the CIA and her role in arranging for her husband Joe Wilson's mission to Africa to investigate the Iraq-uranium link.

This would help explain why Miller didn't write a story about the case. It would be difficult for Miller to write a story when she was so deeply involved in how it developed. Disclosure of her role then or now would be extremely embarrassing.

Wilson had written a column for the Times bashing the administration's Iraq policy and it would have been natural for Miller to write something when Novak's column was published. But Miller didn't write anything. Why? Defenders of the Times have used this fact to allege that the special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, is out of control and that free-press rights are in danger. But there could be another explanation of Miller's behavior and why Fitzgerald wants her testimony. She could be the key to exonerating Bush administration officials of possible violations of the law against knowingly disclosing the identities of covert intelligence agents. If they were simply passing along information from Miller or some other journalist about Joseph Wilson's wife, then they can't be accused of deliberately disclosing classified information about Plame's identity.

Protecting yourself by going to prison -- it's crazy enough to work.

Kincaid doesn't clearly identify what Miller is protecting herself from. If we inhale Cliffie's crack and assume that Miller is refusing to disclose her source to protect herself from the embarassment of having providing Plame's name to innocent Administration officials -- wouldn't those officials have already told Fitzgerald that they got the information from Miller and thus weren't passing official secrets? Wouldn't such officials not only waive "the privilege," but demand that Miller testify?

And if Cliff is speaking about protection from criminal prosecution (although he doesn't identify a law under which Miller could be prosecuted), Miller could simply assert her own Fifth Amendment privilege and stay out of prison while refusing to testify.

Of all the idiotic theories advanced by the Bushlickers in re: Plame, I've yet to see one more moronic.

Hundreds of Townhall readers have already started by donating. We asked them why and here's what a few of them said:

Barbara of California writes, "Because Supreme Court is a permanent position and I am especially concerned in obtaining a constitutional-minded individual."

Michael from Idaho writes, "We NEED a judge that will not politicize the Constitution, but ENFORCE it true meaning--the meaning our Forefathers intended it to mean."

Robert of Nevada writes, "I want a strict Constitutional constructionist on the Supreme Court. No more Ginsburgs, O'Conners, Stevens, et al."

Clownhall.com -- Fleecing the feeble-minded since 1995.

el-Brent Bozell Strikes Out Again

"I say this because a couple of years ago, I spent an evening plying him with liquor in a bar and still couldn't get his tongue wagging."

Next time try using a washcloth first, Brent.

In other news, the Deviant Ben lashes out at the producers of Average Joe, who so cruelly dashed his last, best hope for happiness.

My favorite bit of chinless Ken Mehlman's big whiff of an attempt to discredit Ambassador Joe Wilson:

Vice President Cheney: "I Don't Know Joe Wilson. I've Never Met Joe Wilson.... And Joe Wilson -- I Don't [Know] Who Sent Joe Wilson. He Never Submitted A Report That I Ever Saw When He Came Back." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 9/14/03)

Anybody?

Anybody?

An actual screenwriter and blogger, John Rogers, weighs in on the question of Hollywood's alleged "Blue State Bigotry." It seems like a definitive debunking to me.

Rogers also has a nice critique of Mrs. David Frum's imaginary adventures in the screen trade.

This, they say, is what the First Amendment is designed to protect:

A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House now says its official position is not to comment on the case while it is under investigation by a federal special prosecutor, said Mr. Rove had gone about his business as usual on Monday.

Without the unrestricted right to conceal the identity of such frauds, we would no longer be a free nation.

Also note the ample space given to know-nothing Rove apologists, Victoria Toerag and Bruce Sanford, to spin their tired tale of how the law doesn't apply. The NYT could have saved the effort and simply reprinted their op-ed piece from the Times. Or their op-ed piece from the Washington Post. Or the address of the Judy Miller fan club.

Thinks

Scott McClellan: "I picked the wrong week to give up slapheaded whores."

Kudos to C-SPAN, for replaying the entire briefing. (Now get it posted on the website.)

The NYT has the paper trail.

P.S. to the corps: Here's your next question: "Has Rove recused himself from the selection of the next Supreme Court justice? If not, why not?"

Bigotry in Tinseltown

Michael Kinsley, the genius behind the wikitorial, has invented a new form of crap, the anonymously sourced op-ed piece.

In yesterday's edition of the L.A. Times, wingnut actor Govindini Murty, best known for her role as "Don Quixote's 'Donna'" in the Lance Peverly classic, "Tilt," and a one-off appearance in the remake of the classic Canadian T.V. series "Viper," complies the anonymous whinings of her right-wing pals, who just can't catch a break in Hollywood:

A conservative writer/director friend was developing a script last year about the Iraq war and the capture of Saddam Hussein. My friend says that after $500,000 was spent developing the project, the studio head pulled the plug because, as he put it, any movie depicting the capture of Hussein might help Bush.

...

A screenwriter friend who has written a number of big family movies described how stifling it was to sit in on story sessions and listen to executives rant for hours about President Bush. As my friend put it: "George Bush had nothing to do with the movie we were making, yet the executives would rather complain about politics all day than figure out how to make our project better." When asked why he didn't say anything, my friend responded: "If I did, I'd be fired."

No names are given for these victims of the "new Hollywood blacklist."

But the biggest victim of all is Ms. Murty herself:

And my husband, Jason Apuzzo, and I wanted to make a film that depicted the realities of Islamo-fascism. Our script featured positive and negative Muslim characters (I was to play the lead positive Muslim character), and did the rounds of various independent production companies.

The script received great feedback but encountered a stumbling block when creative executives expressed concern that our Muslim terrorists "weren't sympathetic enough." They wanted us to "explain the terrorists' motivations more."

The Apuzzo-Murtys wanted to make a film, but their script gets rejected by independent studio executives. What are the odds of that happening? Especially after the pot was sweetened with the much-demanded acting services of Govindini Murty.

And unnamed executives are quoted... in actual quotes. What more proof do you need?

I'm sure that Jason Apuzzo, Ph.D.'s Islamo-facism script was as nuanced as his unfinished 2002 student film classic, San Pedro, "the tale of a hard-boiled bounty hunter (actor John Barrett) who seeks a cursed Chinese statue that threatens to expose Gore's Chinagate connections during the 2000 presidential election."

In that epic, Murty plays the role of the "lead positive immigrant maid." (Her breakout performance earned her the following review: "I went and took a leak and when I came back she was still vacuuming!")

Dr. Jason dedicated his student flick to Rush Limbaugh and George Lucas, and is no doubt crushed by the fact that George turned to the dark side on the war on terror.

It appears that the Apuzzo-Murtys have been pedalling their sob story for over a year, on wingnut websites. Because the executives crushed their dreams, they were forced to abandon their project and make a low-budget, "hardcore" thriller in which they "ma[d]e fun of liberals, the INS, even Clinton." (That direct-to-landfill masterpiece also starred John Barrett as a bounty hunter and was funded by less-liberal backers: Apuzzo's daddy and some credit cards.)

As no one has taken interest in Murty's other scripts, "an epic set in ancient Egypt" and "a romantic comedy, a melodrama, and an epic of ancient Rome," it's safe to conclude that Hollywood liberals also hate romances, comedies, melodramas, epics and ancient Romans and Egyptians.

It's bigotry, I tell ya. And kudos to Kinsley for re-exposing it. Except for, you know, the identities of any of the bigots.

(Link via Kevin Drum)

CNN changes its name to HHQ; Anderson Cooper changes name to Heywood Jablome.

Jumping to Conclusions

Some people reading the Newsweak story aren't paying attention.

Craig Crawford:

1.) [Rove] leaks to Time's Matt Cooper in such a way that he avoids the law's intent requirement for criminal liability (today's Newsweek notes that Cooper's email shows nothing indicating Rove knew or revealed that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent, only that she worked at the CIA).

Wonkette:

Things in Michael Isikoff's piece naming Karl Rove as Matt Cooper's source that we didn't already know:

-- Rove didn't break the law: "Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative."

First, violation of the law doesn't require the leaker to tell the leakee that the CIA agent was undercover, it only requires the leaker to disclose the identity of the agent, with knowledge that the agent is undercover.

Second, the prosecutor isn't limited to what the leaker said to a particular leakee to prove that the leaker knew the agent was undercover. That knowledge can be shown numerous ways: from people who informed the leaker of the agent's undercover status, from other people who were told by the leaker that the agent was undercover, from documents the leaker wrote or read, pre-leak, that refer to the agent's undercover status, etc. Further, Rove may have told Cooper more than Cooper said in the e-mail to Duffy. (Which is why Cooper's testimony is needed.)

Third, it doesn't matter if Rove knew Plame's name. He identified her as Ambassador Wilson's wife. If I said George W. Bush's wife was an Oxycontin addict (and it wasn't true, etc.), Mrs. Bush could successfully sue me for defamation even if I "didn't use Laura Bush's name." Rove identified a specific individual by description, that's all that's required.

Joshua Marshall has a much better grasp of the issues presented.

On a related matter, Susan Madrak at Suburban Guerrilla points out an error in my previous Rove post -- Rove's mouthpiece would not be present during the grand jury questioning and thus lacks first-hand knowledge of Rove's testimony. Of course, he'd debrief Rove after the fact and, if he was doing his job right, would prepare Rove so throughly beforehand that Rove would be spouting the "correct" answers robotically. But he would not have eyewitness knowledge of Rove's testimony.

Update: Pint-sized Republican hack Mickey Kaus gets it wrong too, and tries to cover his wee hack ass by having it both ways:

Without identifying her by name, Rove mentioned Wilson's wife's employment but did so in order to get reporters to pay less attention to Wilson's report, not (at least on the surface) in order to blow Plame's cover or retailiate against Wilson (and "stifle dissent"). ... Does that get Rove off the legal hook? I think it should -- if Rove didn't intend the info to become public and trusted the reporters he talked with to be responsible. Rove's problem is that the statute doesn't seem to require an intent for the info to become public for there to be a crime; it only requires an act of disclosure. Specifically, it punishes anyone who "intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information." Matt Cooper would be such an individual.

Kaus tries to acquit Rove, but runs afoul of the language of the statute. But he still lacks the honesty to admit Rove's excuse doesn't get Rove off the hook. Consumers of legal services in California should be grateful that Kaus is not practicing law.

Blown Again

I truly do not wish harm to anyone, not even someone guilty of reckless stupidity. That said, is it going to take an impaling or decapitation by a flying stop sign to end the pointless spectacle of having cable "journalists" stand outside in high winds?

Hurricane Dennis has already killed 32 persons in Cuba and Haiti, according to CNN. Any voluntary additions to this death toll will not be equally tragic.

Frogmarch to the Right

Fitzgerald must proceed with the prosecution; he's got the evidence of a crime, as Newsweak reports. But what the hell is this?

A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.

What the hell is this bullshit? The disclosure of Plame's identity (as the wife of Joseph Wilson) was the friggin' crime. It was disclosure of information to Cooper. Under the law, it doesn't friggin' matter (1) if there was an organized effort; (2) whether Rove intended for Cooper to publish; or (3) whether Rove's motive was to knock down a rumor. Repeat: None of those things friggin' matter. The only possible issue left is whether Rove knew Plame was a covert agent. The e-mail is silent on the matter -- although the fact that Rove didn't want his name connected to the leak strongly suggests his guilt in that regard.

This passage also illustrates the abuse of anonymous sources. If the source isn't Rove's attorney (who is quoted on the record elsewhere in the article), then there's no way he or she has first-hand knowledge of what Rove told the grand jury. So this jackass is simply providing uninformed spin - making an argument based on the language of the e-mail. Why should Newsweak give someone with no knowledge, but only spin, a promise of confidentiality?