GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

Democrats still politicizing prosecutor firings

Democrats and their accomplices in the Leftmedia have raised such a ruckus over the recent firing of eight U.S. attorneys that the White House generously (and unnecessarily) offered to allow congressional investigators to privately interview presidential advisor Karl Rove, legal counsel Harriet Miers and other administration officials. Democrats, who are demanding that the officials must testify under oath in public, rebuffed the olive branch. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) told reporters, “It’s sort of giving us the opportunity to talk to them, but not giving us the opportunity to figure out what really happened here.” What he really means is that the administration’s offer does not give them a media opportunity to create the impression of a scandal-plagued White House.

House and Senate Judiciary Committees have already authorized subpoenas of Rove, Miers and others, though they have not yet been actually issued. Not backing down, White House press secretary Tony Snow said, “If they issue subpoenas, the offer [of interviews] is withdrawn.” Snow later added, “What they’re not going to get is the ability to create a show-trial atmosphere.”

Bingo. A show-trial is exactly what Democrats want. As Rich Galen quips, “The Democrats will spend some portion of their day, every day until 12:01 pm on January 20, 2009 trying to get Karl Rove to testify under oath about something so they can ask him about everything. As far as the Democrats are concerned, Karl Rove is Darth Vader, Voldemort and Professor Moriarty all rolled into one.”

In more overreaction, the Senate voted 94-2 to strip a Patriot Act provision for appointing new prosecutors without Senate confirmation. Also, calls for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ resignation have increased, even among Republicans. While the White House, and Justice Department in particular, certainly botched the PR of this episode, U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and no matter how high congressional blood pressure gets, that fact is immutable.

007 Valerie Plame testifies

Valerie Plame took time away from her million-dollar book project this week, appearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to claim that her name and career “were carelessly and recklessly abused” by the Bush administration. Plame fielded numerous softball questions from House Democrats, always looking for sympathetic sound bites with which to tar Vice President Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. At minimum, they want perception to be reality.

Despite Plame’s testimony, however, it is clear that the revelation of her identity was in no way a crime. The CIA has also been less than forthcoming on the matter of her status. A covert operative, which Plame claims she was, is one with “recent foreign service and active efforts to keep someone’s identity secret.” Plame was none of the above. She herself does not even know what type of “covert” agent she was. That might be why prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald never charged anyone with a crime for revealing her identity.

Plame has also changed her story. She testified last week that she was completely passive in the recommendation of hubby Joe Wilson for the Niger junket—that in fact a junior officer received a call from the Vice President’s office regarding yellowcake uranium and Niger and that another officer recommended Joe to investigate while Plame sat idly by sipping super-secret coffee behind her covert desk. However, Sen. Christopher Bond, who was present for her previous testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, said, “Friday was the first time we ever heard that story [about other officers involved]… If Valerie Plame’s memory of events has improved, if she would now like to change her testimony, I’m sure the committee staff would be happy to re-interview her.” What was that about “careless and reckless”?

Democrats want to give DC a congressman

Perhaps Republicans do have spines. A House bill that would give Washington, DC, a full-fledged representative was foiled by a GOP provision to repeal the DC gun ban (which was just overturned in court anyway). Democrats wanted a seat for the District of Columbia and one for Utah—likely to prevent a northeastern blue state from losing one in the 2010 census. DC already has a “Delegate” with full committee rights who can even vote on floor amendments, so long as the vote does not break a tie. Liberals have clamored to add representation for the overwhelmingly Democrat district for some time, and this plan mirrors their recent move to grant full voting rights to several American territories, also with large Demo constituencies. The White House and several lawmakers are against the move, stating that it is unconstitutional. Indeed, Article I, Section 2 clearly states, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States…” Try as it might, DC is not a state, hence the name “District of Columbia.” Of course, strictly construing the Constitution has never been the Left’s purpose: Just gaining and holding ever more power.

Good battle tactics key to overturning DC gun ban

As the dust settles from the Circuit Court of Appeals decision that struck down DC’s handgun prohibition law (sixth item), some interesting details have emerged about the lawyer behind the successful lawsuit and the legal tactics he used. Self-made millionaire Robert Levy is a staunch defender of civil liberties who has never owned a firearm and says he probably never will. Yet he felt so strongly that DC’s draconian gun laws infringed on residents’ constitutional rights that he used his own money to support the case, accepting no funds from outside sources. “I don’t want this portrayed as litigation that the gun community is sponsoring,” said Levy. His legal tactics in the case were also unusual. Levy and his co-counsel, public-interest lawyer Clark M. Neily, III, spent months carefully selecting a diverse group of plaintiffs that demonstrated how the law infringed on anyone and everyone. The group included three men and three women, four white and two black, ranging in age from the mid-20s to early 60s and with diverse backgrounds. Most important, all six fervently believed they had a civil right to arm and defend themselves.

While gun foes wail about guns and increasing crime (despite the abundance of facts to the contrary), Levy sees the issue differently. What matters to him is whether the DC statute infringes on personal liberties and the Constitution. May we all be as resolute in defending constitutional rights—even those we may not exercise.

Kennedy vs. Kennedy over mental health legislation

The only way Sen. Edward Kennedy could ever be considered pragmatic is when he’s compared to another Kennedy—in this case his son Patrick, a Democrat Representative from Rhode Island. The dread Kennedys are sponsoring competing bills to improve mental-health-insurance coverage by bringing it to parity with medical insurance plans. Currently, patients seeking such coverage face higher co-pays and stricter limits on coverage than those with basic medical insurance. Rep. Kennedy’s plan seeks to create a minimum scope of coverage.

Sen. Kennedy’s plan also addresses the imbalance, but less directly than his son’s bill. The Senator’s bill has been put together with the help of business and insurance experts, and it is considered more likely to become law. Regardless, there is something unsettling about the Kennedys writing our nation’s mental-health policy.

New and Notable Legislation

Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-SC) introduced the Government Waste Reduction Act (H.R. 1121), which would require that all increases in mandatory spending be offset with reductions in other spending. Rep. Barrett also introduced the Emergency Spending Control Act (H.R. 1122), which would more narrowly define what constitutes “emergency” spending.

Rep. Michael Conaway (R-TX) introduced the Federal Programs Offset Resolution (H.Res. 14), which would amend House Rules to require that any bill or joint resolution that creates a new federal program would have to also eliminate one or more existing federal programs of equal or greater cost.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Pork and war

House Democrats are big on controlling spending, or so they repeat loudly and often. They promised to rein in earmarks as a cornerstone of their vaunted first 100 hours. They acted to freeze spending at last year’s levels, and have frequently complained about the cost of the war in Iraq as part of their overall goal of unilaterally ending our involvement in the conflict. Most recently, the Demos have turned their eye toward military and civilian contractors, referring to a January audit report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction that revealed $4.9 billion in overpricing and wasted spending since 2003.

The House has voted to bring an end to no-bid contracts, and the Senate will soon be investigating war-profiteering charges. The scope of the problem is overblown, with more than 3,000 projects having been successfully completed, and only one percent now in question. (Would that any other government bureaucracy function as smoothly.) However, this faux distress over wasted government resources is not at the core of the liberal agenda; ending the war is their main concern. Fiscal responsibility is only a pawn in that scheme.

Democrats may be “concerned” about money being wasted in Iraq, but they have no trouble spending it hand over fist at home. It is no small irony that Democrats have added $21 billion in domestic pork spending to entice Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats to vote for an Iraq spending package that also includes Rep. John Murtha’s call for ending U.S. military involvement by September 2008. He apparently thinks that is when our terrorist enemies will lay down their arms and renounce all violence against us.

Gems in the spending bill include $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia, $500 million for wildfire suppression in the Midwest and $3 billion for continued Gulf recovery programs. In some cases, the money wasn’t even asked for. Time and again, liberals have been thwarted in their attempts to legislate a unilateral withdrawal, but their hope is that this new tactic, which flies in the face of their supposed concerns to curtail earmarks, will literally buy votes from corruptible and unprincipled fence-sitting lawmakers. After much arm-twisting by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, it looks as though the bill will squeak through the House, though the fate of a similar bill in the Senate is even less certain. President Bush has vowed to veto the “excessive and extraneous non-emergency spending.”

For Russia, better late than never

Russia seems finally to have come to its senses regarding the Iranian nuclear program. During the last three weeks, Iran and Russia have been engaged in a public food fight over supposedly missed payments for the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, which is scheduled to begin operating late this year. Russia has not yet delivered the plant’s fuel rods, and said it would withhold them until Iran has paid in full. Iran insists it has paid, but can’t find the receipt. While our default is to doubt anything the Iranian regime says, it strains credulity to believe that oil-rich Iran would allow its crown jewel to go down the drain over a few rubles.

Finally this week, the truth began to leak out. Russia is apparently using the fuel rod delivery to blackmail—excuse us, we mean persuade—Iran to play nice with the UN Security Council and suspend uranium enrichment. Russia and China have long given Iran political cover at the UNSC. In fact, the Bushehr NPP is exempt from the terms of UNSCR 1737 due to Russian insistence that this cash cow remain in operation. However, even the Russians apparently have limits on how much miscreant behavior they are willing to support, and Iran seems to have exceeded them.

It remains to be seen how long Russia will hold Iran’s feet to the fire, and especially how far Russia will go in supporting a new round of sanctions if it comes to that (which it surely must in the near future). Any responsible Russian behavior is better than what we’ve seen over the last three years regarding the Iranian nuclear program, and we’ll take it any time we can get it.

Nuclear reliability

The use of the other “n”-word—that is, “nuclear” —anywhere near the Beltway will likely elicit, well, a nuclear reaction. The latest example of sanctimonious outrage arrived on the heels of President Bush’s request for $88 million for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), an initiative to modernize our aging nuclear stockpiles. According to The Washington Post, a “prestigious scientific committee” is asking the administration to “develop a bipartisan policy regarding the size of the future stockpile, testing and nonproliferation” before pressing forward with plans to rejuvenate U.S. nuclear warheads. This recommendation is nothing more than a stalling tactic by the “surrender now” community to prevent modernization of U.S. nuclear deterrent capability.

Ever at the ready with its white-flag national-security mindset, The New York Times also condemned RRW, denouncing it as nothing more than a “jobs program” for nuclear scientists. However, the facts are that the U.S. has not fielded a new warhead design since the early ‘80s, and the current stockpile is approaching obsolescence. No, to the Leftmedia, RRW is nothing more than a make-work scheme for Los Alamos nuclear scientists.

The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens best describes what is really at issue: “The problem with nuclear weapons today can be summed up as follows: They are going out of fashion where they are needed most and coming into fashion where they are needed least.” No doubt Iran and North Korea, among others, are all for “development of a bipartisan policy” for U.S. nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, we can bet their modernization efforts need no further study.

Whistle blown on FBI lapses two years ago

Additional details have emerged regarding the FBI’s apparent lapses in reporting on its data collection efforts during terrorist investigations. As The Patriot reported last week, an audit of FBI records found many cases where data collected on individuals exceeded requests and/or was not properly reported to Congress or an oversight board.

This week, a top official in the bureau’s Communications Analysis Unit, Bassem Youssef, said he raised concerns about this problem with superiors soon after he was assigned to the unit in 2005, informing them that the bureau had frequently failed to document national security needs properly when obtaining personal information without a court order through the use of “national security letters.” Mr. Youssef also said his superiors had initially minimized the potential problems this would cause. On the other hand, complicating the situation is the fact that Mr. Youssef, born in Egypt, is suing the FBI for discrimination, charging that FBI officials have improperly suspected his loyalties in part because of his Egyptian origins. If Youssef’s charges are true, it’s an indication that parts of the FBI bureaucracy have not taken to heart the post-9/11 lesson to change its culture to become a more effective, and legal, law-enforcement agency.

BUSINESS & ECONOMY

Take two trillion and call us in the morning

Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office David Walker called 2003’s Medicare prescription-drug benefit “probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.” Walker notes continued social-welfare expansion will cripple the government, which would be able to pay only the interest on the mounting debt and some entitlement benefits by 2040. Drug benefits for 78 million retiring baby boomers will run up an $8 trillion tab over the next 75 years—not counting the other $20 trillion for Medicare. Of course, if Democrat proposals to reduce cost-savings incentives are passed, the debt burden could nearly double.

The financial Armageddon described by Mr. Walker is the result of irresponsible politicians who promise social-welfare benefits the nation cannot afford. If politicians had strictly construed the Constitution in the first place, the nation would not now be hurtling toward the cliff of fiscal annihilation. We at The Patriot hope voters demand real reform before it is too late.

Hope for healthcare

There is still hope for healthcare. One of the highlights of President Bush’s State of the Union address was his proposal to give equal tax treatment to both employer-provided and individually purchased healthcare. (For background, see The Patriot’s coverage—“The President tackles healthcare.”) The President’s proposal would simultaneously reduce unequal tax treatment of health care, reduce the number of uninsured by as many as 15 million and save both government and taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. No other proposal aspires to such fiscal responsibility.

Despite being controlled by Democrats, the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) recently gave high marks to the plan. Its own estimate is that it would save taxpayers $333 billion over the next decade. Predictably, Democrats are banging on their highchairs in protest, insisting that the plan is dead in the water. However, if the Democrats do kill the President’s financially sound idea (now endorsed by the JCT), Republican presidential candidates will have been handed a powerful weapon for their 2008 arsenals.

Union interests trump free market?

Political promises of fiscal responsibility and immunity to special-interest groups aside, the Democrat controlled Congress recently bent its knee at the altar of union interests, and the sacrificial lamb was none other than the hardworking American taxpayer.

In a move receiving virtually no coverage from the mainstream media, the House recently passed the 2007 Water Quality Financing Act, which expands the scope of the Davis-Bacon Act to the tune of $14 billion over four years. A darling of organized labor, Davis-Bacon mandates that the government pay workers on federal construction projects a “prevailing wage,” a term basically synonymous with “union-determined wages.” This allows unions to inflate their own wages well above market value while shutting out competition from non-union firms that simply cannot foot the bill of paying union-level wages.

The WQFA expands Davis-Bacon’s requirements to include state-funded construction projects and thus further lines the pockets of organized labor by essentially eliminating competition from non-organized workers. Hardest hit among these workers are low-income laborers, primarily minorities, who find themselves artificially ousted from market competition.

As is always the case with federal mandates, Congress may place the order, but the bill goes to the American taxpayer, and both individuals and small businesses take the hit to keep union coffers filled.

CULTURE

Eagles’ mission accomplished

As the Washington press corps fawned over the horde of hateful hippies gathered in DC last Saturday to voice their support for our enemies, the Gathering of Eagles also descended and gave voice to the silent majority. Patriots who actually want our nation to win the war against Jihadistan showed their support with thousands more counter-protestors than protestors. The National Park Service estimated 30,000 Eagles, though the Leftmedia didn’t seem to see that many. Ironically, the so-called “peace” protestors were organized by ANSWER, a communist group whose icons include such peace-loving people as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, who together murdered as many as 100 million people.

The Eagles concentrated on preventing desecration of the Vietnam War Memorial. For its part, the anti-American crowd advocated the impeachment of President Bush and placed a pink tiara that read “Women for Peace” on the Lone Sailor statue at the Navy Memorial. Some waved American flags upside down and carried signs reading “9/11: It was an Inside Job,” “Who Would Jesus Bomb?” and “The Rapture is Not an Exit Strategy.” Nonetheless, counter-protestors behaved themselves and demonstrated that the anti-war cabal doesn’t speak for all Americans.

This week’s ‘Braying Jenny’ award:

“As an American of conscience, I declare my independence from every bomb that was dropped. I declare my independence from every civil right violated. Sadly, I declare my independence from the leaders who let this happen.” —former Rep. and erstwhile assaulter of U.S. Capitol Police Cynthia McKinney attending the anti-war protest

Another look at embryonic stem cells

The Washington Post recently called for President Bush to “untie the hands” of scientists and allow expanded research into embryonic stem cells (ESC). The Post’s proclamation that “it is not wise to bet that American scientists will be able to make large breakthroughs using only non-embryonic stem cells, which show less potential” confirms that, once again, facts have become subservient to media lies and the Left’s agenda.

While the Post would have its readers believe that ESC research holds exponentially greater promise than adult-stem-cell (ASC) research, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), the truth reveals otherwise. Citing a recent article by leading ethicists Robert George and Rev. Thomas Berg, NCPA notes many prominent stem-cell researchers agree that advances in their field may be anything but imminent, and research has proven the value of alternate, non-controversial methods not involving the destruction of a human embryo. Moreover, although ESC proponents cry “religious right” at the first sound of opposition, George and Berg assert that, beyond religious concerns, ESC research raises the question of doing evil to achieve good. Furthermore, while liberal scientists and their media mouthpieces claim the search for cures as their primary purpose, the truth is that many ESC researchers would destroy an embryo for far less “noble” causes, such as general research into cell and tissue growth and development.

Although science is supposed to be the search for truth through the observation of facts, facts that don’t support the agenda of the left simply don’t count.

Mr. Gore goes to Washington

Do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do Al Gore—he of the 10,000-square-foot Nashville mansion that uses more energy in a month than the average American household uses in a year—testified before a joint hearing of two congressional committees on Wednesday. All too predictably, Oscar-winning Albert droned on about the “true planetary emergency” of global warming global warming global warming… oops, the record player got stuck again. After skipping the Republican opening statement, Gore took extra time to hyperbolize with the usual alarmist language. “The planet has a fever,” Gore whined. “If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, ‘Well, I read a science-fiction novel that told me it’s not a problem.’ If the crib’s on fire, you don’t speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action.” Texas Rep. Joe Barton of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, for one, wasn’t buying it: “You’re not just off a little, you’re totally wrong.” If only Gore would take that to heart, the day could be chalked up as productive.

World ends, polar bears hardest hit

Environmentalists have been in a tizzy ever since seeing the now famous image of polar bears “stranded” on a melting iceberg. As usual, facts are not just exaggerated; they are turned upside down. A study of polar-bear numbers in Canada’s eastern Arctic reveals that the animals are doing quite well, thank you very much. Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist for the last 20 years, says, “There aren’t just a few more bears. There are a [heck] of a lot more bears.” Global warming alarmists continue to insist that the bears are in danger from warming and that “deniers” simply “have a clear interest in hunting bears.” As for the famous photo, even environmentalist Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union admits that polar bears often travel on icebergs. At least they’re not burning fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, at the Berlin Zoo, “animal-rights” activists are calling for a baby polar bear (“Knut”) to be killed—because zoo workers are raising it instead of its mother. “The zoo must kill the bear,” said activist Frank Albrecht. “Feeding by hand is not species-appropriate but a gross violation of animal protection laws.” We in our humble editorial shop are left utterly confused. Are we to help “stranded” polar bears but kill their young?

And last…

A recent report on literacy in Washington, DC, reveals that about one third of swamp-dwellers are functionally illiterate, compared to one fifth nationally. Functionally illiterate adults have trouble with normal tasks, such as reading maps or instructions, or filling out job applications. The State Education Agency conducted the study as part of a four-year, $4 million adult-literacy initiative, though it sounds to us as if 36 percent of DC residents lack any initiative whatsoever. This one might go in the “Keen Sense of the Obvious” file, but we’re going to point it out anyway: Congress is located in DC. So are lobbyists, who apparently had to name their road “K Street” just so they could read the sign. And any district whose citizenry vote upwards of 90 percent Democrat is bound to have some trouble with the whole literacy thing.

Veritas vos Liberabit—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot’s editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families—especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty, while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan.)