IF a crime was indeed committed (Valerie Plame part II)

IF a crime was indeed committed (in the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative) it is becoming more and more likely that Karl Rove was not the perpetrator. From the same Washington Times article that I referred to below (and linked here) it is reported that Mrs Wilson had not been on a covert assignment since her transfer to DC.

"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times. "

This Mr. Rustmann was Mrs. Wilson's supervisor in her early career. He also reiterated that it was common knowledge that Mrs. Wilson was employed by the Agency at it's Langley VA headquarters.

"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."

And over at the National Review, Clifford May suggests that the person who is responsible for "outing" Mrs. Wilson may have been her own husband. In an interview with David Corn (for the Nation) Mr. Wilson first raises the idea that his wife was "outed" as revenge for his speaking out against the Bush Administration, however, if you go back and read the Robert Novak column (that sparked the investigation to begin with) you will see that not once does Mr. Novak refer to Mrs. Wilson as an "undercover"operative.

Every day, new information is coming out on this case. Therefore, I think it is wise that we (in the words of the White House) wait until the grand jury has finished their investigation before we put anyone in jail.

THIS is the "world's greatest deliberative body"?

From today's Washington Post comes this little gem about a floor fight on whether or not to strip Karl Rove, Harry Reid and Dick Durban of their respective security clearances. The Republicans who proposed that Senators Reid and Durban be stripped of their security clearances (Reid for revealing on the Senate floor the contents of a classified CIA document on a Bush nominee and Durban for his abject stupidity in comparing US troops to Nazi's and Stalinists) have a certain point, the fact that this was even debated on the floor is a travesty! Don't our Senators have anything better to do, like passing a budget or voting on Presidential appointees? Don't the American people deserve a break from the partisan insanity? Come on people. You are supposed to be adults. Why don't you act the part?

Brutus and the Court

I read Joseph Sobran's column from Drudge. I don't always agree with him but I do much more often than not.
His recent column takes us from the Supreme Court vacancy, the Supremes decisions, and how we've arrived at a nation that the Founders would find absolutely foreign.
I've taken the liberty of posting it here in it's entirety (Brutus is the pseudonym from the Anti-Federalists.They were a group of men concerned about powers being given over to a central government and what they perceived as weaknesses in the Constitution. The Supreme Court was one. And the Anti-Federalists concerns were quite well founded):

BRUTUS AND THE COURT
June 30, 2005

by Joe Sobran

The U.S. Supreme Court has lately reminded us, in its decisions about government seizures of private property and about displays of the Ten Commandments, that it wields enormous powers that (1) are not found in the U.S. Constitution, and (2) may be abused with impunity. It’s high time we reopened the old controversy about judicial review.

Many controversies end prematurely not because one side is necessarily right, but because it wins elections, or a war, or just manages to get its view established as conventional wisdom. Eventually, people just stop debating very debatable things, and judicial review is one of these.

The argument over secession ended when the North won the Civil War; the argument over the New Deal ended because its programs were too popular to resist; Pearl Harbor suddenly put a stop to the debate over whether the United States should get involved in World War II. Yet the losers in these issues had strong points that were never adequately answered.

In the same way, mere custom has settled the debate over judicial review. Nearly all Americans have long taken for granted that the U.S. Supreme Court has a virtual veto over all legislation, Federal, state, and local. The Court has been claiming and exercising this power for nearly two centuries, and few Americans see anything questionable about it.

This means that one branch of government, unelected, unaccountable to the people, and appointed for life, may, at its whim, effectively change the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. The president can veto any act of Congress, and Congress may override his veto; but neither of the other branches has a similar control over the Court’s rulings, however wrong or even downright batty they may be.

The concept of “checks and balances,” parroted in civics classes, doesn’t apply to the Supreme Court. The justices are appointed for life “during good behavior,” and once appointed they are out of control. Furthermore, most of the laws they strike down are state laws, not Federal ones, and the state legislatures have no defense against them. So much for “checks and balances.”

The Court is often accused of “legislating from the bench”; but the power to edit the Constitution itself is far, far beyond any legislative power. In order to correct the Court’s mistakes, under the current system, it’s necessary to undertake the huge effort of adding amendments to the Constitution (or hoping that as the current justices die or retire, they may be succeeded by others who will reverse their decisions—slim chance of that!).

The power to strike down laws isn’t mentioned, or even hinted at, in the Constitution. The Court’s few powers are set forth in a couple of paragraphs. Judicial review isn’t among them.

So where did this sweeping power come from? In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton, after assuring readers that the Supreme Court would be the “weakest” and “least dangerous” of the three branches, argued that it must necessarily have the power to nullify acts of Congress that violate the Constitution. This view has prevailed, but Hamilton didn’t face the problems that might arise if such a power were abused.

Others did, though. The pseudonymous “Brutus,” arguing against ratification of the Constitution, saw the danger of the judiciary very precisely and presciently: the justices’ power would be “altogether unprecedented in a free country. They are to be rendered totally independent, both of the people and the legislature, both with respect to their offices and salaries. No errors they may commit can be corrected by any power above them, if any such power there be, nor can they be removed from office for making ever so many erroneous adjudications.”

Brutus further warned that the Federal judiciary might overpower state courts and legislatures. And he saw nothing to prevent the Supreme Court from expanding its own power.

All Brutus’s dire prophecies have been fulfilled. Yet his arguments have never been refuted. Today we are paying the price for ignoring them.

The Court is out of control, and the only solution conservatives can think of is to appoint more conservatives, who will use their power with restraint. But that power itself is the problem. Giving it to “better” justices won’t solve it.

What will? Only, perhaps, a serious threat of impeachment would make the Court think twice before abusing its power. But this raises further problems, which I’ll address in a future column.

Read this column on-line at

“http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/050630.shtml”.

Copyright © 2005 by the Griffin Internet Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. This column may not be published in print or Internet publications without express permission of Griffin Internet Syndicate. You may forward it to interested individuals if you use this entire page, including the following disclaimer:

“SOBRAN’S and Joe Sobran’s columns are available by subscription. For details and samples, see http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053.”

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Was there are crime committed here?

OK - there has been much said in recent days about Karl Rove's supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame (as an undercover CIA operative). However as the USA Today reports, according to Joseph Wilson (the aggreived husband) Ms. Plame had not been working as a covery operative for quite some time. From the article:

"In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins. "

Andrea Mitchell of NBC News, grudgingly admitted on one of the Sunday shows that it was well known (in DC cocktail circles) that Ms. Plame was CIA and that she and Mr. Wilson were married. Mr. Wilson, himself, admitted today (in an interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN) that it was no secret that his wife was CIA.

All of which leads a reasonable person to ask, why all the fuss over what Karl Rove supposedly told Matt Cooper of Time Magazine. If it was "well known in DC circles" that Mrs Wilson was CIA and Mr. Wilson admits that she was not covert (how covert can you be working at CIA headquarters in Langley VA?) what harm was really done? Or could this possibly not be about Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson. Could it possibly be yet another attempt, by our friends on the far left, to "get" President Bush?

I'm sorry, which party again?

So, according to the Prairie Pravda, the Governor touts K-12 in the recent budget?
"Pawlenty signed a K-12 funding bill he said is "the best the state has seen in 10 to 15 years.' "
Which party is the Governor from again?
See what happens when you refer to the gridlocking Metrocrat Senate obstructionists as "The Legislature".
And even Jason Lewis weighed in on how the state K-12 education was being starved at over $10,000 per student per year http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5503334.html

Tax cuts lead to record revenue increases!

The AP is reporting (here) that surging revenue has lead to a $162 billion reduction in the deficit. "We're ahead of projections now," President Bush is quoted (in the article) as saying. What caused this surge in revenue, you might ask? The increase in revenue came from those "evil" corporations that don't pay their "fair share". It seems that those unfair "tax cuts for the rich" actually cause the rich to pay MORE in taxes this year, not less! Sigh....what is it going to take for our esteemed friends on the left to learn this simple truth!

India 59, America, ZERO!

I was listening to Bill Bennett this morning on AM1280 The Patriot and heard about an editorial in the NY Times. It was written by an Indian ex-pat (his parents moved to America in 1977). What was quoted was how, at 14, in India he was near the bottom of his class in mathematics. But when he arrived in America, much to his parents surprise, he was at the top of his American school class in math. Same for English. And shockingly, the same for American history, especially the American Revolution!
The specific paragraph:
"When I moved to Queens, in New York City, at the age of 14, I found myself, for the first time in my life, considered good at math. In Bombay, math was my worst subject, and I regularly found my place near the bottom of the class rankings in that rigorous subject. But in my American school, so low were their standards that I was - to my parents' disbelief - near the top of the class. It was the same in English and, unexpectedly, in American history, for my school in Bombay included a detailed study of the American Revolution. My American school curriculum had, of course, almost nothing on the subcontinent's freedom struggle. I was mercilessly bullied during the 1979-80 hostage crisis, because my classmates couldn't tell the difference between Iran and India. If I were now to move with my family to India, my children - who go to one of the best private schools in New York - would have to take remedial math and science courses to get into a good school in Bombay." ( www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/text/index.html then "A Passage From India" [registration required]).
And as I wrote yesterday, MN education gets a huge spending boost.
And to achieve what?
Go to www.edwatch.org/ and get involved. This is something you really can do "for" the children ,not "to" the children.

What a winner - MN Care

I can't tell you how thrilled I am that MN Care is getting more money - ok I am being very sarcastic.....Let me tell you about my turn with MN Care.

Two years ago, during the height of the scandal driven telecom downturn, my husband lost his job with the local Bell Operating Company. No worries, we said - I still had my job with one of Ma Bell's comeptitors and as long as I have my job we have benefits. Well, last year I lost my job. I was downsized. The problem was my husband had still not been able to find a full time telecom job. Oh he was getting temporary and part time jobs, but nothing with benefits and my new job wasa 3/4 time working for one of those "evil" small business owners that makes over $200k a year. My new job was due to the extra money that he got due to those nasty Bush tax cuts (another rant for another day). However, he can not offer benefits. No worry we said - we are making enough to buy our own (or so we thought). Now my husband and I are both in good health, but due to family histories we are not the "prime" candidates so our rates were much higher than the sales rep quoted. After 6 months of scraping and barely making it, we decided to swallow our pride and apply for MN Care. There was one problem. In order to be eligible for MN Care, you had to have existing health insurance and if you can afford to buy your own insurance you obviously don't need MN Care!!!!! In other words, even though doing the responsible thing (having our own insurance) was bankrupting us, we could not get into this program for "those in need" because we were already buying our own insurance. HUH?????

Thankfully, due to God's grace and mercy my husband did get a new job in telecom with full benefits so we are ok but my close call with the bureaucracy was more than enough to get me to realize that these programs are nothing more than an employment project for the inept. MN Care needs to be cut drastically as it is not helping the citizens of Minnesota. I know from experience. Instead we need to work on bringing insurance rates down so that everyone can afford insurance. A key part of that is tort reform. Capping the amount of rewards that a jury can issue will help the insurance companies cut their costs. It will also help bring the costs of health care down by reducing hospitals costs and doctors costs and drug manufactures costs and...get the idea. If we help the medical industry reduce their costs of doing business, then our out of pocket costs for having insurance will go down making health care more affordable for all!

How it's supposed to be-

When we moved to the suburbs when I was 4, I remember going back to Minneapolis to visit Grandpa and Grandma. I remember on one visit looking south down Bryant Avenue from 24th Street and seeing that the elms on both sides made an arching tunnel across the street as far as I could see. And when I visited my grandparents over the years, I noticed the tunnel on all the city streets. And then Dutch Elm Disease struck. And the battle was on. But after much success, the battle waned until recently.
Today, I read this story www.startribune.com/stories/484/5499641.html . I noticed that this was true neighborhood activism. That the players went door to door to alert and inform their neighbors. They didn't go to the Feds. They didn't go to the state. They did it themselves. They did go to the Mpls. Park Board to encourage them to make a statement, but didn't hit them up for money.
Good for them for what they're doing and how they're doing it.
Now, if we could get people to stop stealing from their neighbors by force of law to promote state welfare and all attendant ills and go about true welfare reform through truly compassionate means...

You obviously don't give or care enough. (or the Reds have become Green)

In case you thought the G8 was a waste of the attendees time, and your money:
www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=7030

Not if, but when-

We heard about the London terror bombings and remembered 9-11. And I now hear some people snidely comment "That's the best they can do?" I'm not so smug.Nor that arrogant. Always remember, these people are true believers and fully believe that killing non=Muslims is truly their god's will.
Fox News had a special outlining the connection between Muslim terrorists and street gangs. One gang held out for special note is MS13, a very violent street gang originally out of El Salvador. It's worth noting MS13 is no longer considered a crime problem but a national security problem. And today, I read in WorldNetDaily that a month after 9-11, George Tenet told the President that there was intelligence that at least two suitcase nukes were in the United States in the hands of Al Quaida operatives (www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203 ). It also appears that the conduit was over the Mexican border with the assistance of MS13. And yet:"However, it is worth noting that Bush failed to translate this policy into securing the U.S.-Mexico border through which the nuclear weapons and al-Qaida operatives are believed to have passed with the help of the MS-13 smugglers. He did, however, order the building of underground bunkers away from major metropolitan areas for use by federal government managers following an attack."
And the left only worries about the thermostat settings and properly handled Korans at Gitmo.

And the winners are...

So, we have a budget deal.How wonderful. So, who won:
Oh, goody. The 9,000 non-essential state employees are back at work (well, not work, but employment).$900,000,000 in possible savings lost to the real workers in the state, the taxpayer.
Education (and I use term quite liberally-pun intended), so there is an increase the money wasted so little Michael and Matthew and Jessica and Ashley will be taught that evil white men founded America, the country that is responsible for all the world's evil. The winners? The teachers union.
Minn Care-that wonderful program that you'll notice that the taxpayer pays for by that 2.5% addition to the bottom of your physicians bill (a few years back my Mom (who is a widow) asked me what this 2.5% addition was at the bottom of her doctor bill. I told her. She said "I need to pay my own bill and for insurance and pay for others too?") This part of the government is out of control and absolutely unsustainable according to the governor. The winners? Non-producers/takers in the state.
And a question to any and all the legilastors and Governor Pawlenty: What program was cut? And I mean REALLY cut? Eliminated? Not just spending not as much as was planned! With the fact that the state budget has more than DOUBLED from 10 years ago, there wasn't a single program that could be eliminated? There wasn't 10% of the non-essential workers jobs that could have been eliminated? None? Anyplace?
And the losers in all this? The taxpayers. The providers. The job creators and real wealth producers.
Wait a minute. There is ray of hope for the taxpayers...they got the re-opening of road side rest areas.
Note to all wealth creators, job creators and real workers-Be sure to stop at a road side rest area and leave a message about the budget deal.

P.S. Just read the article in Pravda on the Mississippi about the poor non-essential 9,000.
I heard someone who works in the private sector say that he'd never expect the legislature to argue for his job. Plus, he would never be assured that he would get his job back if he were laid off. And all the non-essentials knew they'd be going back too work. Not so with laid off employees in the wealth creation sector.
P.P.S.-From todays Pravda editorial proving that the left can't spend it fast enough and no amount of money is ever enough "None of those things could be said about the skimpy budget that Pawlenty proposed six months ago. "

The religious right vs. the religious left.....

We had one of those sermons in church today that was designed to speak on multiple levels. The main level was relying on God for everything, but it is one of the sub levels that hit me the hardest. For months prior to the last Presidential election, you heard the arguements that put God on both sides of some pretty basic and divisive issues - abortion and homosexual marriage. Now before anyone gets their hackles up - I am not going to say either side is "right" or "wrong", instead I am going to make so general observations on those that try to bend religion to suit their point of view. It was put to us in this manner, Christ's followers are his sheep and those that claim to follow him but spend all of their time butting their heads against his word (twisting it to suit their current needs) are goats.

The Bible consists of many different styles of writing - instructional, narrative, historical and poetic. You would not read a poem with the same mindset that you would read an instruction manual, nor would you read a historical tome with the same mindset that you would read a narrative story. One of the "instructional" passages states that a follower of God should not commit murder. To me that seems to be pretty straightforward, basic instruction - don't murder other people! Which is why it stuns me to see people who profess to be Christians who try to twist Scripture to justify murdering another human being - whether it be abortion or killing abortion doctors!

The main point of the sermon was "what are you after?" Are you following Christ's path for inner peace or the world's peace (or a piece of the world)? Are you joyful in his eternal path or are you looking for utopia today? Are we desiring Christ's companionship and approval or are we desiring the world's approval and companionship? In the long run - that is what we Christians have to figure out for ourselves. Are we in it for the world's approval or His? WWJD is a nice little marketing scheme, but think about it. What we know about Jesus we can find in the New Testament. According to that, would Jesus approve of the abortion of a "pre-born" child or would he be one to fight for that child? His Word has the answer. Would Jesus support gay marriage? Again the NT gives you a pretty clear picture of what He sees marriage as being?

You can't be Catholic and support abortion the Pope says. What say you? Are you a sheep or a goat?