Is Inouye Unethical?
Jul 2, 2009 Political
Democratic Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii owns shares of Central Pacific bank worth between $350,000 and $700,000 which is about two thirds of his reported assets. The bank was in trouble and had applied for government assistance. The bank was not a likely candidate for assistance.
Inouye had an aide make a phone call to inquire about the bank’s application and bam, it is now set to receive $135 million dollars.
It is not uncommon for politicians to try to help the banks in their states. Even though there are rules they routinely break them or make exceptions in order to assist banks from their states. Hell, it isn’t their money.
It is also true that even if Inouye asked for the application to be approved that he did not break ethics laws the Senate establishes for itself. Of course, the rules they have are designed to allow them to be unethical.
But the fact that he has money invested in the bank gives the appearance that he used his political position and influence in order to personally benefit from an action that would not be available to the average citizen. Even if he only inquired, the fact that he personally benefits from the action is suspect.
It gives the appearance of impropriety and appearance is often the truth.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Nancy Pelosi Rams Through Legislation
Jul 1, 2009 Political
When the Democrats took control in 2006 Nancy Pelosi said they would be the most honest, open, and ethical Congress in history. The ethical part of that was shot from the start with sweetheart loans and tax evasion and a myriad of other ethical lapses. The American Spectator has a piece up entitled; ACES Up Her Sleeve.
In that article the authors, Jeremy Lott and William Yeatman, discuss that if there were any doubts about Pelosi breaking all those promises they were cleared up after her actions last week with regard to the Cap and Trade bill. Or as they put it; “Our refusal to accept her rhetoric was roundly vindicated last week.”
The Speaker chose to stifle the usual observances of deliberative democracy because open, honest debate would have attracted unwelcome scrutiny to her massive new energy tax.
Pelosi’s legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act, would raise the price of hydrocarbon energy sources like coal and oil thought to cause global warming, but which power 85 percent — 85 percent! — of the economic production in America.
A large energy tax during a deep recession is a political cyanide pill that 44 of Pelosi’s Democratic colleagues refused to swallow. That almost doomed the bill and in fact would have killed it outright Friday night if eight Republicans hadn’t voted with the majority of Democrats. (The final vote was 219 to 212.)
Likely there would have been many more Democratic “no” votes if Madame-Speaker and Energy & Commerce chairman Henry Waxman didn’t find creative ways to shorten or skip every step of that “How a Bill Becomes a Law” song.
The Democrats have been ramming things through at breakneck speed and they have been skirting the rules and procedures because if the legislation is given any time for public consumption then it will meet with the scorn of the people. The Democrats’ plan is to ram it through before we know what is in it and then have us accept the consequences because there is not much we can do.
This bill was nearly 1300 pages and NO ONE read it just like NO ONE read the stimulus. We keep seeing where things are popping up because of the stimulus and we keep finding waste as well as unintended consequences that cannot easily be overcome. For instance, the stimulus gave people a little more in paychecks. It was enough to disqualify some people for food stamps and other assistance because it pushed them over the income limit. If someone had taken the time to read it then maybe that could have been fixed by adding a line stating that the money was not to count toward welfare eligibility.
This is the kind of stuff that happens when they do not read the bills. They did not read the Cap and Trade bill and this one will be an economy and business killer. If this ever passes (and it has a better chance with Franken headed to DC, unless Kennedy’s term expires) then many businesses will move out of the country, our energy costs will skyrocket (Obama said they necessarily would), and many people will have to decide between eating and keeping warm.
It is an Obamanation and Nancy Pelosi ignored the rules in order to get what she and Obama wanted and of course, so they could take off for their WEEK long 4th of July holiday.
Obama said we needed to do these things this year (Cap and Trade, Health Care reform) and he says it is because it is urgent blah, blah. Nothing is ever so urgent that it cannot be read before it is voted on. Obama wants this rammed through and done because next year is an election year and he does not want bills that are unpopular among people in his own party hanging out there like an Al Gore chad. He does not want people to be reminded of the terrible things he is doing while he tries to keep all the seats he has. If they pass it soon they can enact it next year and the results will not be felt until after the election.
The transparent, open, honest, and ethical Democrats have been anything but and this is from Obama down. None of them have kept promises regarding posting bills for public review and none of them are following the procedures in order to do things.
They are doing what they want and they do not care about us, their concern is getting their agenda passed.
Perhaps the Hondurans have the right idea…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: criminal, ethics, ineptitude, Obama, Pelosi
On Ethics
Jun 25, 2009 Political
Yesterday, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford called a news conference to explain his absence from his office for the past week.
He then proceeded to explain that he had had an affair with an Argentinian woman that he had know for eight years. This affair began casually, and later escalated, which brings me to a question; Why can’t people keep it to themselves? What mental defect causes them to think they are above it all? Where are the ethics every one of them so loudly proclaim?
The man was married, with four children, and he was stupid enough to think that there would be no consequences for his actions? Perhaps he thought for a moment that he was a Democrat- that might explain his mistaken temporary insanity regarding consequences- they never seem to have to answer for any criminal behavior- their side just shrugs and goes on with their lives, while Republicans fall by the wayside, doomed by their own admissions and moral lapses.
Why can we not actually have people in office who say what they mean, and do what they say. Why can we not have people in government who are actually good examples, instead of ” unindicted co- conspirator”, or “disgraced former_______” (fill in the blank).
This is not a new problem, nor is it limited to one party or the other. The entire House of Representatives once bounced more than 8,331 checks at their own bank- heck they forced it to close, and then when they had pledged to fix the problem, they promptly kited an additional 4,325 checks. And yet, none of these people had to pay an overdraft charge, as you or I would have.
Thomas Jefferson said, “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” And that is just what the politicians are doing, on a scale larger than ever before, racking up a staggering $11,000,000,000,000 in national debt, with each family’s share coming in at $116,000.
Just say no- our interest payment to service this debt will be about $26,000,000,000- that is 26 billion, per month. You might be forgiven for thinking that the head of the Treasury Department could do the math, and tell the rest of the politicians, ” Hey- perhaps we should quit while we’re behind, instead of really behind,” but noooooo. Turns out, he is math- challenged.
He’s supposedly the right man for this job, and yet he can’t figure out his tax bill, even though his employer, the International Monetary Fund, had done the math for him, and even cut him a check for the right amount, and made him sign an affidavit saying that the check was to be used for his payroll tax. How stupid is he?
Oh, and let’s not forget Charlie Rangel, the Congressman from New York who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, the committee that actually writes the tax code. Apparently he’s not smart enough to read the code he writes, and failed to pay taxes ($75,000) in rental income from his villa retreat at the Punta Cana Yacht Club in the Dominican Republic. His excuse was that he didn’t know the tax applied to rental properties in the Dominican Republic. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
At least that is what the IRS tells us ordinary people- if it was we who had “forgotten” our tax obligations, we would be subject to the full might of the IRS in its quest to get “their” money from you.
The fact that there are serial lawbreakers in government today is a sorry state of affairs- why we tolerate them is beyond me. I personally do not care what party they claim to be from, as far as I am concerned, they belong to one class only- criminals. Where are the ethics they profess to have? Why do we tolerate these people working for us? Would you employ a known thief to clean your house? A car thief to detail your car? Why give known thieves the keys to our treasury?
James Madison is rolling over in his grave. “[Congress]… can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny… If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty.”
Ethics, like the Constitution, are not fluid things, but are supposedly the bedrock of our behavior, and should be doubly so for the politicians- after all, they are supposed to be representing We the People, a large group that needs good representation, not just someone who shows up for the perks. If we tolerate these crooks in our midst, we get the government we deserve.
Samuel Adams said that those who prefer the “tranquility of servitude” had best be prepared to “crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.”
He also said, in closing, “May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: deficit spending, ethics, liars, politicians
Religion- What’s it good for?
May 10, 2009 Political
There’s always been a tug of war over religion- which one is the right one, does it offer eternal life, does it exclude belief in, or tolerance of other offshoots of that religion or others? Just what HAS religion done for us, humanity? What has it done TO us? Does the one out weigh the other in a positive way? A negative way?
All of these are thorny questions, ones that not everybody has handled with grace and tolerance- witness the schism between the S’hia and Sunni sects of Islam. Each one holds the other to be apostate, and thus an enemy of true Islam, and this goes back to one small thing- when Mohammad died, he did not leave a will, directing the continued rule of Islam in one direction, thus leading to two different interpretations of the same religion, and conflict over the disparity between the two.
The same sort of schism with Christianity- first was the Catholic church, with its eventual corruption (the selling of blessings, etc) that led to the schism that Martin Luther fostered, that became Protestantism, with Lutheran, Episcopalian, and Methodist sects of Christianity.
And then you have the Mormons, and Quakers, and others, oh my.
We won’t even get into the Eastern religions in this discussion, not that they are not important, but for this discussion, they are not germane to the conversation.
“Religion is the opiate of the masses”, was a favorite maxim of the communists, as they attempted to leach the religion out of their citizens, but for all their atheistic rant, they never quite kept the faith out of everyone’s life. So why? Why does religion hold such sway over people? What does religion do for the people?
For starters, religion grounds people, gives them a reason to go through another day, despite what at times seem like insurmountable odds. Belief in a higher being gives many people some solace in times of need. To those who do not believe, it might be a useless waste of time but to those who do believe, the peace that this belief brings is, no pun intended, a Godsend.
But let’s get down to the nitty- gritty here- just what has Religion done for people over the years?
The obvious thing is that the Ten Commandments has given us a baseline for our acceptable behavior towards other people, and started us on a pathway to a society that has laws that punish the defendant, and compassion towards the victim. Virtually every major religion has a version of these commandments, that give us a pathway to civilized behavior. This is a good thing, otherwise you have no society at all, as everyone is out for themselves, and if there is no God, and no afterlife, what is the use in following laws?
Some might say that this is the case now, but I would say that this is because not enough people have taught their children well. Religion has not been the problem- not teaching the religion has been the problem. Part of this is the disintegration of the family, where a father or mother is absent, and the children do not have a parent set that reinforces the laws and codes of behavior that the child is expected to adhere to. The phrase “God- fearing” is often used in a negative connotation to the adherence of the Commandments, but this is really a positive in the scheme of things.
If you have a fear of God and/ or his Judgement, your obedience to the Commandments may be reinforced, and you might be better able to resist the myriad temptations in life. God, in effect, becomes another parent, one who never grows old, or dies. Praying is just having a conversation with God- and everyone needs someone to talk to, even if, at times, the talk is all on one side. God is nothing if not a good listener.
Atheists often denigrate me and my faith, poo- pooing the beliefs of the Christian peoples. That’s all well and good, for I am not evangelical. I think that God has provided the book, but there will always be people who do not want to read, so I am fine with their atheism, except when it gets in my face.
That’s not socially acceptable, or very gracious, but I have come to expect ungracious behavior from some, as well as ridicule, to which I simply reply that if I am wrong in my belief, I simply lose some time in my life, but if they are wrong, they risk losing eternal life. That’s a gamble I wouldn’t take.
Do you feel lucky, punk? Well. do you?
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
The Search For The Republican Soul
Apr 29, 2009 Political
The defection and betrayal of Arlen Specter this week has brought about a questioning of what is a Republican. What, or who, makes up the Republican party. This is similar to what went on in the brains of liberals in 2000, who have now defined the Democratic Party, a long search in the deserts of the mind, a trek through limitless nothing, looking for one good idea. They feel they have found it in Social Engineering.
The Republicans have a similar trek they must make, a soul- searching hike to find a set of tenets and ethics they can use as a moral compass.
Arlen Specter has no compass- this is seen by how easily he changed parties, not once but twice. I have had fish that flopped less. He is a politician of convenience, and that is the worst type to have in office, for you cannot count on him to stand for anything, but apparently he WILL kneel to any fakir who promises continued employment. The man is 79 years old- it used to be that when a politician became too infirm for the rigors of the office, he would begin to groom someone to gracefully take his place if so elected. Senator Byrd became the poster child for Dementiacrats- too old to know better. Senator Kennedy is another. Now Arlie has joined the viagra set, and good riddance.
Meanwhile, the confusion on the Republican side continued, with the soul searching reaching new lows. Several people stating that the Republican Party has been hijacked by “Southern good old boys”, a liberal definition that the wandering Republicans have chosen to repeat, as if it was the truth. These talking heads maintain that these ‘Good old boys” are closing the “Big Tent” philosophy, telling some that they aren’t really Republicans, and the party has no place at the table for them. There may or may not be some truth there, but I am guessing that it depends on what the definition of conservatism is determined to be.
If conservatism is used to exclude people who have variants of conservative views, then yes- the Republican Party will shrink and become less relevant. For example, a person may believe in the right to life, yet recognize that Roe v. Wade is a law. It is not a law that is liked but it is a law. I have a friend that believes in pro- choice, but he firmly prays that people will make the right choice.Is he a conservative? I believe he is, but some in the party might disagree.
The facts are that the Republican Party can not be a Monolithic one idea, one dogma party- not everyone thinks the same, nor should they.
A northern Republican has different concerns than someone in Arizona, or North Carolina. It is impossible, and certainly not desirable to have everyone think exactly the same.
However, there are certain core principles that should be key to any Republican’s thought processes, and central to this is the tenet of Small Government. Government just makes a problem worse, and private enterprise is the best solution. Always.
The main things Government has to do is provide Security, and infrastructure. For the latter, the States should take the lead, for the states know better than the Federal government what the people need. It takes a real delusional ego to think that Washington knows what I need, better than the county or state does. Real. Delusional. Ego.
Republicans need to reaffirm that it is opportunity that makes America great, and no one should be restricted from this opportunity. Americans, no matter the color, have the energy, and we have the brains to do wonders, but if we are being held down by government restrictions, nothing gets done, and we are all the poorer for it.
The thing that people need to know is that the party will be loyal to it’s central themes. If conservatives are for smaller government, then conservatives can not be hypocritical, and wallow in the public trough, gobbling up taxpayer’s money. Republican does not mean Democrat Lite. Ever.
Conservatives have to know that ALL government money is OUR money. The government doesn’t earn a dime, has never earned a dime, and will never earn a dime. The government exists to serve us, and every government hack is someone we hired, and who works for us, plain and simple. This is something that people in government, whether Senators, or bureaucrats never believe. The sense of entitlement begins at the government trough.
There should be an easier process to eject politicians from office, returning them like the defective Chinese melamine infused products they were supposed to protect us from. They didn’t do their jobs there, did they? Anyone hear of any government employee being fired because of that? No? Neither have I. Has anyone been fired for allowing salmonella into the food system? No? Why not?
The problem in a nutshell is that many conservatives nowadays do not identify with the Republican Party, and it’s not because we are bigots, or narrow- minded, but that the Republicans in office forgot who they were, and tried to be like the Liberals, and for what? Are they who you really wish to emulate?
If you do not stand for a principle, you will end up kneeling because of convenience. Just like Arlen Specter.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: conservatism, ethics, specter