Good.

The Bush gang is trying hard to turn our miltary into the mob. I'm glad to see them pushing back.

The US has a one-party government now at the federal level.

Any predictions on how that's gonna go?

The appeal and sympathy goes without saying to the people and their countries troubled with the Tsunami effect.
However, repeated updates provide by the US “National” news media, add-nauseous, while in real- time the US Congress will be passing laws to Protect the President’s Men is also gloomy.

How amazing that Martha Stewart was sent behind bars with no evidence while DeLay and cronies are still free with pages of documented evidence.
Similar governmental proceedings were also accomplished during government transformations in European Countries less than 100 years ago.

Surely, there must be a tinge of fear among the ruling powers in D.C. Why else would they work so diligently to protect themselves?

Perhaps one of their many fears is…self-knowledge.

Imagine, having the knowledge that… if…they were just a ‘common’ hard-working tax paying person and were not certified to perform some of the ‘ethical’ maneuvers accomplished by a representative member in Congress…that… They would be out of a job and in jail, so fast, it would make their ‘heads’ spin.

They changed the rules so a tie in the ethics committee pretty much stops any investigation. The Republicans still managed to screw the people out of oversight. So much for the Contract for America, I guess those bastions of ethical behavior and accountability were only kidding.


Morals and values? Suuuuure, if you are Beelzebub.




Imagine that. But it's only a partisan attack. I wonder, was Tom DeLay's attacks on Jim Wright, which eventually cost him his carreer, were they partisan or was DeLay just going after an unethical crook?

lol

The House Commitee on Standards and Official Conduct found that DeLay didn't break the law or run afoul of House rules.

I thought Newt spearheaded the fact-finding effort into Wright.....

The Commitee on Standards and Official Conduct consists of.
Republican Democrat
Joel Hefley, Colorado, Chairman Alan B. Mollohan, West VirginiaRanking Minority
Doc Hastings, Washington Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Ohio
Judy Biggert, Illinois Gene Green, Texas
Kenny Hulshof, Missouri Lucille Roybal-Allard, California
Steven LaTourette, Ohio Michael F. Doyle, Pennsylvania

Majority Leader; admonished for participation in and facilitation of an energy company fundraiser (created an appearance that donors were being provided special access) and intervention in a partisan conflict using the resources of a federal agency

Too bad he wasn't making fundraising calls from the Clinton Whitehouse.

Rep. James C. Wright, Jr. (TX)(1989)



Comm. Print (April 13, 1989); H. REP. NO. 101-995, 101st Cong., 2nd Sess. at 3-6 (1990)


Preliminary Inquiry investigated: 1)Improper lobbying efforts on behalf of a constituent with whom Rep. Wright had an interest in a private gas well, 2) intervention in a matter before the Department of the Interior on behalf of Texas Oil and Gas Company, 3) improper use of campaign funds to pay for publication of a book for which Rep. Wright received a 55% royalty (Reflections of a Public Man), 4) improper use of government resources on the book, 5) improper use of a condominium in Fort Worth, TX (free and below=market housing from real estate developer George Mallick) and 6) exercise of undue influence with officials of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board on behalf of four Texas businessmen regarding the savings and loan crisis


Complaint filed by Member (May 26, 1988), Special Outside Counsel appointed; Preliminary Inquiry voted (June 9, 1988); report submitted by Special Outside Counsel (Feb. 21, 1989); SAV adopted, 12-0 (Apr. 13, 1989); report of Special Outside Counsel made public (April 17, 1989)


Rep. Wright announced intent to resign as Speaker on House floor (May 31, 1989)


SAV charged: 1) Rep. Wright’s book was sold at speaking engagements to avoid honoraria limits [R. 43 (1), R. 47(1), 2 U.S.C. § 441i],

(2) Rep. Wright received impermissible gifts from spouse’s employer [R. 43(4)] and (3) inadequate financial disclosure by Rep. Wright [R. 44]; resigned from House (June 30, 1989)

Rep. Richard Armey (TX) (1995)

H. REP. NO. 104-886, 104th Cong., 2nd Sess., at 19 (1997)

Improper use of congressional stationery [R. 43(11)]

Member filed complaint on behalf of an outside organization (June 2, 1995); Rep. Armey admitted violation; complaint dismissed (June 13, 1995); public letter to Rep. Armey and press statement (June 14, 1995)

Majority Leader; Comm. strongly recommended Member take necessary steps to insure familiarity with House Rules; Comm. re-issued guidelines concerning the use of stationery

Rep. Tom DeLay (TX)(2004)



Public Statement (Oct. 6, 2004)


Solicitation and receipt of campaign contributions in return for legislative assistance, use of corporate political contributions in violation of state law, and improper use of official resources for political purposes


Member complaint filed (June 15, 2004); Comm. unanimously adopted recommendations of Chairman and Ranking Minority Member (first and third allegations resolved by public letter and second allegation deferred due to state grand jury investigation) (Oct 6, 2004)

something about a tie, davis?




Majority Leader; admonished for participation in and facilitation of an energy company fundraiser (created an appearance that donors were being provided special access) and intervention in a partisan conflict using the resources of a federal agency

Or a Chinese (money) Laundry.

Investigation into Voting on Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2003 (2004)

H. REP. NO. 108-722, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2004)


Member received communications linking support for the congressional candidacy of his son with his vote on the Medicare bill (Nov. 23, 2003)


Investigative Subcommittee established (Mar. 17, 2004); Subcommittee unanimously adopted report (Sept. 29, 2004); Comm. unanimously adopted Subcommittee report (Sept. 30, 2004); report referred to House (Oct. 4, 2004)


Report admonished Rep. Tom DeLay (TX) (improperly linked personal interest of a Member with effort achieve a legislative goal); Rep. Candice Miller (MI) (threatened to retaliate against a Member for vote); and Rep. Nick Smith (MI) (public statements risked impugning reputation of the House and failed to cooperate with Comm. investigation)

If we're gonna list them all we may be here a while.

The House Commitee on Standards and Official Conduct is absolutely worthless. They have been so corrupted by corporate and other lobbyists' money, it's a joke. They may as well dismantle it completely because now it's just a cover for unethical activity and caaaashing in.

Most of the Republicans from the Contract for America days have sold out completely. There are a few left but their voices aren't heard.

By the way, did you know Mr. DeLay used an abused children's charity to funnel money directly to the RNC for their convention? 25% went to the RNC, 75% went to the charity. If you donated $100,000 it got you a dinner with DeLay and his wife. Buy some influence and get a tax write-off to boot. On top of everything else, you don't even have to count it towards the federal limits on giving to campaigns because most of the money went to the charity. How great, but the liberal media eite didn't get in on that one, they were too busy with important shit like Janet Jackson's boob.

But then again, bill Frist has the same deal going. I think Daschelle had one too.

You can cry allegations and tell me DeLay was cleared, it doesn't matter. He's been cleared by those with a financial interest in keeping him in power. He's a damned crook and I hope he doesn't get away with it.

Did you know he funneled a shitload of money ILLEGALLY to the Texas state Republicans from the national party?

Have you read any of the ALLEGATIONS against him?

The Democrats are dirty too, that's why they can't go after DeLay. But that doesn't mean he's clean.

Rep. Richard Gephardt (MO) (1996)



H. REP. NO. 104-886, 104th Cong., 2d Sess., at 23-24 (1997)

Complaint alleged inadequate financial disclosure (series of land sales and financial agreements regarding property purchased and exchanged in North Carolina )[R. 44], Internal Revenue Code violations [section 1031 of the I.R.S. Code] and violated campaign finance rule [R. 43(6)]

Complaint filed by Member (Feb. 2, 1996); additional information obtained from Rep. Gephardt; Rep. Gephardt amended 1991 and 1992 Financial Disclosure Statements (Sept. 27, 1996); complaint dismissed; public letter released (Sept. 28, 1996)

Minority Leader; letter noted that F.D. amendments were filed more than three years after the original form was filed, amendments reflected gross rental income in the range of $25,000 to $50,000 and resolution of the matter had been delayed pending documentation from Rep. Gephardt’s attorney

LMAO Okay davis, I'll keep that in mind next time you broadcast that I'm a shill for the Republican party and Bush and that you have no respect for me because I'm a hypocrite.

ROFL... the Democrats are dirty too........

You think anything at all will happen to DeLay? You think they tried to change the one rule to benefit him for fun? You think they won't use the new tie rule to their full advantage????

jesus man, what the hell is wrong with you?


lol, what a maroon.

Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (IL)(1994)



H. REP. NO. 103-873, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess., at 8 (1994)

Indicted for mail fraud, wire fraud, witness tampering, concealing a material fact, false statements, embezzlement, and conspiracy (May 31, 1994); complaint alleged conduct charged in the indictment violated R. 43(1), R. 43(3) and R. 43(8)

Member complaint filed (June 30, 1994); Comm. deferred action at request of U.S. Attorney (Aug. 17, 1994)

Defeated for reelection (Nov. 1994)

He already decided not to fight to keep his leadership post.

lol .. The democrats are dirty too....

Yeah, and I can see you're sooo worked up about that fact.

Hypocrite.

Shill.

So do I have to preface my criticisms of Republican with a list of Democrats and their obvious shenannigans?? lol

How many times do I have to mention Clinton pardoning Rostenkowski or the Daleys of Chicago being crooks? How many times do I have to diss Clinton as a whoredog who could shove NAFTA up his hillbilly arse?

Should I roll out a long list of Democrats for you?

I'm glad you finally did your own list. I asked for it when I started this thread. I hate politicians and I hate crooks.


It just so happens these major corporate whores in the Republican party have the potential to seriously screw up our country up for decades and BAD. They have a near lock on power. In the 90s they were fiscal conservatives. Now I have no idea what the hell they are, except greedy, bought and paid for whores. $$$$$$$ has changed them 180 degrees.

You want to defend these crooks? go for it. Contract on America maybe.


Vanderbilts, JP Getty, Asters, they want a new American aristocracy. THERE'S your elite for you Limbaugh.

Not getting all worked up into a lather is a far cry from defending people, jackass. Money made them do a 180? You say that as if you were a supporter of the Contract With America.
Quick, name two tenents.

Anything that has been done, can be undone, Chicken Little. Go cry to mama.

On the one hand you cry that the GOP is changing the House rules, and on the other hand you say both parties are so dirty that in essence they are blackmailing each other. So no action is taken. Then you offer to roll out a list of dirty democrats. Well, which is it? If the rules don't matter anyway, why get worked up over them being changed? If nothing ever gets addressed, how is it that there are pages and pages of actions taken against congressmen that violate the rules, including three of Mr. DeLay? Get your story straight. Do you really sit there and believe that others don't see through your inconsistencies?

The reason I'm so pissed is because your golden boys got themselves elected by using religion, lying and portraying themselves as more moral than Democrats. That is a load of grade A horseshit and if they have to change ANY, I said ANY ethics rules to keep themselves from being investigated, they prove they are bunch of no good lying pigs.

I love it when you rightwankers get on your high horse of morals and values then get knocked right on your fucking ass because you know those dirtbags aren't moral and they only have situational values.

I listen to Newt Gingrich cry about the unethical behavior of Democrats FOR YEARS, but now that Republicans control the purse strings and are cashing in big time, I'm supposed to be quiet? lol.


Yo HI, if you're tired off having morals and values thrown in your face already, how the hell are you going to take the next four years?

Answer my question, deflecto.

GFY. I've had it with you rightwing apologists. You are the reason Republicans get away with this bullshit. Hope and pray throughout the 90s for a chance for Republicans to clean up congress, return honor or dignity to the White House and what do we get?

Justifying torture of prisoners and changing ethics rules to prevent accountability.

You're part time morals make me want to barf.

Nader was right, he just couldn't get elected. This country has gone to the dogs.

You want me to lay out what I liked about the Contract for America?

The fiscally responsible parts. I don't think the morality parts can be legislated. Inspiration comes from within.

You are making a mountain out of a molehile davis, ESASW. He told a congresswoman that her son's bid for congress might be jeopardized by her vote on a certain piece of pending legislation? SFW? That means he's saying he would work against his election. Not illegal. Only the saying of it is.BFD.

And it's Contract With America.

Anybody that was a supporter in '94 knows that the dems used the terms on and for, with derision.

People been saying that shit ever since I can remember, way back when Heck was a pup.

It's been generally true too.

Arf.

duhhh... I meant it in the spirit of derision.

Obviously, then you can't feign dismay that more of it didn't get passed. You were the opposition.

I did not approve of the morals parts.

Remember talks of a balanced buget?

Republicans don't. I supported those parts of the platform at the time.

I find it ironic that the rhetoric of the Republican revolution under Gingrinch has changed soooo much.

Don't you? I mean seriously, like McCain said, they're spending money like drunken sailors.

It smells of blatant opportunism and hypocrisy.

I gotta go conquer the Chinese. They get a horde bonus, but I think I can win anyway.



Generals Zero Hour.

I don't like pork barrel spending. I like military spending. Don't forget Gingrich is gone, and he isn't backing this current crop as much as you would have us believe. I'd be interested to know how many remain from the class of '94. I know my rep is still in.
And stop cussing at me you punk ass bitch, or I might just sharpen my focus.

Hold off on conquering the Chinese for a minute, davis. What you gotta do is find that Andrew Ferguson piece in The Weekly Standard (that C-SPAN claimed was linked wholly on their site) about Indian gaming and HOW CONGRESS WORKS. He wrote it off e-mails and the Congressional Record, I believe. He is very "conservative" which is not to say nuevo-Republicano. He says this one-party government bodes ill.

Find the piece. Giddyap! This is a horse worth riding in on, methinks.

I've often said I'd love to have two viable parties from which to choose.
The Libertarian Party, and the GOP. The democrats picked their base years ago. I'm not part of it. I've never voted for a democrat, and probably never will.

Good for you and your Contract for American party.

So you are totally partisan. I could never do that. I have never supported Democrats completely. Never. I have always voted the candidate. I've never voted a straight Democrat ticket ... before this year. That dickhead lying, two-faced war monger Bush has aliented me completely. Congress is a close second. There are only a hand full of honest Republicans.

I supported the Afghanistan invasion, but Iraq was the biggest foreign policy disaster in my lifetime.

Republicans have proven themselves as liars and total corporate opportunists. Democrats are just about as bad. Fearing the label of "unpatriotic", they rolled over and allowed Bush to decieve us into war. No oversight, no responsibility, no debate at all. Now those who failed miserably have been promoted. Nice.

They used 9/11 as a political tool to seize power and I despise them for their mushroom cloud fear mongering.

Then they get into office using morals and values as false advertising but need to change the rules to protect their own from investigations. I'm not only talking about the DeLay thing. You think Eagleburger was chosen to head the phony whitewash bullshit investigation into how intel was used in the lead up to the war because he was non-partisan?

Now everything is super secret and no one is allowed to know anything. You trust them, I don't. AT ALL.

The new American fascists.

Allow me. Somebody needs to deal w/those pesky Chinese and davis is just the man.

"A Lobbyist's Progress- Jack Abramoff and the end of the Republican Revolution."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...05/022nwtca.asp

"...For Abramoff and Scanlon, the wrong kind of news has only intensified in the last couple months. In September and then in November, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held hearings on the pair's relations with a half-dozen Indian tribes who had hired them. Indian tribes have become big clients on K Street, believe it or not. In 1988, Congress authorized, and then established regulations over, casino gambling on Indian reservations. The result, from a lobbyist's perspective, couldn't have been happier. Gambling had two main effects. It made some tribes very rich--Indian casinos bring in as much as $30 million a month--and it permanently entangled those gambling tribes with a Washington bureaucracy that seemed, to an outsider anyway, at once all-powerful and impossible to understand. In hopes of not getting squashed by the sozzled federal giant it's gotten in bed with, a gambling tribe eager to defend its interests may spend $20,000 a month or more to retain the services of a Washington lobbying firm.

At least, that's the way it looked until the Abramoff story broke in the Post, and the world discovered that the $20,000 figure was for chumps. Several things are striking about the Abramoff story, as it has unfolded in the Post and in the documents released through the Senate investigation. One is the sheer lusciousness of the numbers involved. First-tier lobbying firms in Washington might bill a total of $20 million in fees a year. The Senate committee has reported that Abramoff and his partner Scanlon split as much as $82 million in fees from six tribes over three years. That figure doesn't include the additional millions that Abramoff told tribes to donate to charitable and political organizations. Moreover, these fees were collected during a period when Congress was considering scarcely any Indian-related legislation at all...."

Protection money.


The "lobbyists" threatened the tribes with (non-existent) legislative threats, and then collected protection money.

It's dressed up prettier, but it's no different than any other protection racket.

Didn't that used to be one of the mafia's main gigs?

GOP deserves no praise for retreat on ethics rule



Whoa. Let's recap the action. The GOP:

• Overturned a rule approved two months ago that would allow Majority Leader Tom DeLay to keep his job even if indicted.

That's not statesmanship; that's correcting an outrage. Republicans didn't reverse the rule because it was the right thing to do. They did it because voters and Democrats gave them so much heat, they concluded they couldn't get away with it.

• Retained the code requiring members to conduct themselves "at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House."

Big deal. Were those who proposed ditching the code thinking it might be permissible, under special circumstances, at certain times of the year, in specified locations, to act in ways that disgrace the House?

• Approved a rule change that will thwart many ethics committee investigations.

Under the old rule, a tie vote on the ethics committee, which is divided equally between Democrats and Republicans, triggered an investigation anyway if the impasse persisted for 45 days. Not any more. Now committee deadlocks mean the complaint is not investigated.

Republicans have dubbed this the "protection of innocence rule." Common Cause President Chellie Pingree has a better term for it: the "party protection act." What it means is party-line votes automatically wipe out ethics complaints.

By their actions this week, the majority Republicans showed they have some sense of shame. But they deserve no more congratulations than a bank teller who doesn't steal from the cash drawer.

Behind the attacks on the ethics process are supporters of DeLay, the Texas Republican nicknamed "The Hammer." Last year, the ethics panel criticized DeLay three times: for his tactics in trying to win a colleague's vote, for leaving impressions of a connection between contributions and support for legislation, and for using federal agents in a Texas political dispute.

While DeLay lost ground this week, the fight isn't over. GOP leaders have hinted that they want to remove the Republican chairman of the ethics committee, Rep. Joel Hefley (news, bio, voting record) of Colorado, as retribution for rebuking DeLay. Ousting Hefley against his wishes would make a mockery of the ethics process.

It's not as though the current ethics rules are onerous. Consider what's still permissible on Capitol Hill:

•The revolving door. Few jobs in Washington are as powerful as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. So when Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., announced last year that he was retiring, a bidding war erupted for his services. Would he take over the Motion Picture Association of America? Or would it be the top job at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America? Tauzin, whose committee wrote the Medicare drug-benefit law, chose PhRMA for a reported $2 million a year. Tauzin is just one of many lawmakers who've gone straight from Capitol Hill to special-interest groups.

•Lobbying hardball. After the 2000 elections, Republicans hatched a plan to consolidate power not just on Capitol Hill but also along K Street, the Washington road that's home to most of the big lobbying firms. The K Street Project was born, in which the big trade associations were told to hire Republicans - or suffer retribution.

The ethics rules in Washington ought to be tightened, not relaxed. Backing away from committing the outrageous was the right thing to do, but it is no cause for the Republicans to crow.




http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...eatonethicsrule

The Cosa Nostra ("our own thing") first developed as an institution (i.e. a set of predictable and reliable relations and expectations) to replace a non-existent or malfunctioning (for locals) central or local government in Southern Italy. And, for better or worse, central governments in western Europe developed as "improvements" or "superior alternatives" on/of Mafia-like arrangements.

Interesting tidbit I hadn't known before.

That's it man. Taxing and tribute is all pretty much the same thing, paying for the "protection". Pay us to be protected from others and from us.

Thanks. Have you ever pondered the similarities between the above and the function of (usually kin-based) male-staffed "protection entities" for the women-folk?

"Pay us" to be protected from other (men) and from us

Food for thought.

Please stand on the street-side of the sidewalk and whisper that in my ear.

Seriously, folks, I think that analogy is stretched to the point the elasticity snaps.