Archive for October 2009
So it came about when some junior staffer on the House of Representatives Committee on Official Standards and Conduct – the House committee on ethics – had official House documents regarding the investigations of ethics violations on his/her personal computer. The file was lifted from a directory, shared out using P2P software and leaked online – picked up by the Washington Post and reported to the masses.
So, aside from the ethics investigations of Charlie Rangel D-NY, John Murtha D-PA, Jim Moran D-VA, and Peter Viclosky D-IN, more names were added to the list. At the risk of sounding overly partisan, let me name C.W. Bill Young R-FL, Todd Tiahrt R-KS, and Devin Nunes R-CA first, before naming Norm Dicks D-WA, and Marcy Kaptur D-OH. Oh, and there is Alan Mollohan D-WV, Jane Harman D-CA, Maxine “Take Over All Your Oil Companies” Waters D-CA, and Laura Richardson D-CA.
(btw – none of these people have been actually found guilty of anything…yet. They have been investigated for misconduct, some a couple more times than one)
Now, I’m not about to make this another Democrat witch hunt (I’d be satisfied if we just excoriated Rangel and Murtha for the ethical reprobates that they are), but I am wondering why there is a higher degree of ethics violations regarding Democrat members of Congress from a Congress that is overwhelmingly Democrat.
Is it just a matter that the Democrats are more sloppy in their abilities to keep their backyard clean, given that this staffer was probably a Democrat him/herself? Perhaps it’s because in order to create this sense of “transparency”, the Dems are outing their own people as sacrificial lambs to pushing the leadership closer to sainthood. Or maybe it’s because FOXNews is only reporting on all the unethical Democrats (while the mainstream media seems to be coming up short on Republicans that they can tie to the whipping post).
Whatever the reason, the scorecard shows that the Dems outnumber the GOP 3-1 for ethical investigations. Another overwhelming Democratic majority in the House, right? Perhaps I’m off my hinges, but if the Dems don’t want to get buried under a political landslide, they better stop with the sloppiness.
BTW – The staffer was added to the 9.8% unemployment rate, a rate that wasn’t supposed to go above 8% with all that stimulus money.
I haven’t written much lately – I’ve been in sort of a funk lately. And I don’t have a lot of write today that someone else hasn’t written or said already.
Today marks 45 years since Ronald W. Reagan gave a massive powerful 30 minute speech that articulates a problem in America that has not changed since Reagan gave this speech. So, instead of writing, I’m going to listen to Mr. Reagan.
Might you spend 30 minutes and actually listen to this? Are you willing to trade your freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state?
We have the ability, the dignity, and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny. I do not need nor want the government, through either tyranny or social program to determine it for me, unlike what those on the left tell me.
The reasoning: for “creating a new climate of international politics”. What this means, essentially is allowing foreign governments to have more of a direct say over American policy.
Before all of you start screaming at me saying, “for what?” or some other thing, hear me out.
For the last 10 months, Obama has been very interested in giving the world what it wants. Even during the campaign, he spent time telling foreign countries how bad America was and how much we have to change. In the early parts of his presidency, he did his “Apologize-for-America” tour, which probably put him on the radar of the Nobel committee. Obama is holding out Uncle Sam’s hat and telling the world, “here, take what you want”.
Of course, it’s not particularly reciprocative, since Obama’s charm failed to win over the Olympics and Obama got exactly nothing in return for the concessions that we made regarding pulling the missile interceptors out of Poland and the Czech Republic. His cheezy “Smilin’ Bob” smile while apologizing for all the pain we’ve caused has garnered very little in the way of helping America through it’s current crises. But I guess it gets him a big medal and a million-four to help him in his campaign efforts next year, or hand out to ACORN or those saps in Detroit chirping for stimulus money like starving hatchlings.
The thing is, Obama is listening more to the world, to foreign governments than he is listening to the American people. More than 50% of Americans are fuming over this health care nonsense and Obama could care less, even when two million Americans show up on his doorstep to personally deliver the message. General McChrystal in Afghanistan has requested 40,000 additional troops to buttress the effort there, an effort that is becoming increasingly demoralizing, given the fact that we can’t take Sun Tzu’s teachings to heart and actually win the war in Afghanistan. But Obama has demonstrated that he’s not very willing to make any serious waves and would rather that we lose the Afghan effort through futility – similar to how Vietnam was brought to an end.
The world likes what Obama is doing, so much that they give him the Nobel Prize and he accepts it as a ‘call-to-action’. The reasoning: for “creating a new climate of international politics”. What this means, essentially is allowing foreign governments to have more of a direct say over American policy.
Now, we’ve sat back in abject shock as other high profile figures in America – figures interested in eroding American sovereignty like Jimmy Carter and Al Gore get the award, an award which now carries the credibility of a plastic, Chinese-made adornments we find at Big Lots or Wal-Mart. And why? Because these recipients, like the rest of the world, don’t believe that America deserves to be a sovereign nation. They simply see America as the problem, not the “city on the hill”, to which Reagan was referring. So you can capitulate to terrorists (Carter) and promoting in to kook science (Gore) and be recognized by the socialistic powers that be. It’s Chicago politics on an international scale.
So yeah, I guess Obama deserves his Nobel Prize. And he can wear it like a badge of honor like the ego maniac that he is.
But does America really deserve Obama? That’s the question. Perhaps we’ll find out in 2010 and then in 2012 when Americans go back to the polls to give their real response to Smilin’ Barry.
So, this week, President Obama is travelling to Denmark to make the case about why Chicago should be the host for the 2016 Olympic Games. And despite that the ground commanders in Afghanistan are patiently waiting for needed reinforcements to help the effort against the Taliban, this little stop-off is higher on the priority chain.
This is the first time in history that a sitting president has ever joined the delegation to bid for a US city for the Games. And while I’m not opposed to seeing Chicago get it, I question the presence of the President and First Lady in this bid.
1) This is a classic payback play. As we all know, Obama came out of the Chicago political machine. What a better payback than to bring the Games to Chicago, flooding the city with billions of new revenue. I would wonder though, if Barack Obama would provide the same amount of tenacity if the USOC had chosen, say, Phoenix, Arizona as the candidate city? I grossly doubt it.
2) The way I see it, this is “low hanging fruit”. Obama has done nothing really in his first 10 months of his presidency of note, which seems to me this would allow him to claim victory for something since the Dems stand to lose next year in the 2010 elections.
As I write this, I’m listening to Chicago give its presentation, and they are making the case that Chicago is a “city that loves to have fun” and “a playground”. They’re making the case about how the city will support the IOC, how they will exclusively focus on the effort in the schools and societal programs, how it will leverage companies like Google to revolutionize the technological connection and how it will have a zero carbon footprint. To me, it sounds like a great big infomercial, but I hope they get it.
Now I grew up in that area of the country and am quite familiar with Chi-town. There are a lot of cool things in Chicago and as an American, seeing the Games come there would be a great thing. After all, I bet we could do a whole heck of a lot better than they did in Beijing, with their fabricated fireworks and lip syncing girls.
Michelle Obama is up now, addressing the delegates. She mentions how honored she is to be there yet just earlier, mentioning how she’s sacrificing for the kids. She’s making the case about how she was raised in South Chicago, and how her dad inspired her, nearly implicitly singing the song about how we need the Games to make a change that her dad didn’t live to see.
Okay, I’m impressed. Not really.
Now, President Obama is making his comments, speaking in the way he always done, as campaigner-in-chief. He recounts the story of how he came to the city and how the city reminds everyone of how great and diverse the city it is. And yes, it is.
Well, they’re taking questions now, so I’m going to wrap this one up. We’ll see tomorrow if the trip that the Obama’s made to Copenhagen made the difference and whether it was worth the shift in priorities. Maybe the President will now turn his attention and bring in the reinforcements for Afghanistan and win that one.