This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Congress sucks

  • Frank: ACORN is Bush’s fault

    Reversing the statement that was put out by his office yesterday, Barney Frank has suddenly decided that what ACORN did was bad in regards to helping hookers and pimps set up houses of ill-repute in low income neighborhoods and staffing those houses with underage immigrants. However, he’s not ready to accept responsibility that he and his party are responsible for ACORN’s behavior nor funding. In fact, Frank, of course, blames the Bush Administration (Washington Examiner link);

    I very much disagree with the partisanship that has entered into this. ACORN was the recipient of funding throughout the Bush administration, with $14.2 million going from the Bush administration to ACORN through HUD. And I can attest that this was an entirely Executive Branch decision: No congressional action in any way, shape or form required that any of these funds go to ACORN as opposed to other organization. And I do not remember during the period from 2001 to 2006 when the Republicans controlled the White House, HUD, the House and the Senate, and ACORN was receiving millions of dollars, any Republican objection to this.

    Yes, I remember clearly that Republicans have always pushed for ACORN to receive federal funding. I also remember ACORN advancing Republican candidates in inner cities in exchange for Republican patronage. In fact, I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen ACORN representatives in Republican neighborhoods trying to convince the scotch and soda crowd to register to vote.

    How dumb does Barney Frank think we are?

  • Why even have a Stolen Valor Act?

    This from some guy named MOTHAX at The Burn Pit;

    Why won’t the US Attorney for CO prosecute Stolen Valor Act cases?

    September 23rd, 2009 by MOTHAX

    DuncanDoJ

    Protect the warriors; go after the phonies.

    Rick Duncan was a Marine with a compelling story to tell, and tell it he did, to anyone who would listen. A graduate of the Naval Academy, Rick had been in the Pentagon when the plane hit on September 11, 2001. Volunteering for duty in Iraq, Duncan rose to the rank of Captain, and although openly gay, was assigned to lead a Marine Battalion in the battle of Fallujah. During the house to house battles there he had a finger shot off and suffered a severe head injury that required a plate be put in his head. He returned to the states disillusioned with the war and became executive director of the Colorado Veterans Alliance.

    (more…)

  • Frank and Conyers order ACORN investigation

    The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal write this morning that Barney Franks and John Conyers have directed the Congressional Research Service to look into the ACORN stings – but not how you think.

    Franks actually didn’t vote when Congress voted to defund ACORN last week, apparently avoiding any embarassing entanglements. While Conyers voted for the measure, he later claimed that he did so “accidentally” making me wonder if he even fit to serve in Congress.

    The investigation for which they’ve called isn’t into ACORN, it’s an investigation into the two investigators, mr. O’Keefe and Ms. Giles;

    With respect to the child-prostitution sting, they ask the CRS to look into “conflicting allegations” about “the propriety of these activities”—by which they mean not the advice Acorn gave on getting away with crimes, but “the federal and state laws that could apply to such videotaping and distribution of conversations without the consent of all parties.”

    The Democratic duo also ask CRS whether the legislation defunding Acorn “could constitute an unlawful bill of attainder” by singling out the group—as if the refusal to continue providing federal subsidies is tantamount to punishing it for a crime. Such Constitutional scruples were not evident in March, when the pair joined all but six House Democrats (and 85 Republicans) in voting to impose a 90% tax on executives of AIG and other disfavored corporations.

    That’s what is most important, I suppose – I mean taping someone planning to commit crimes is much more important than the person planning the crimes, isn’t it? Of course, asking Conyers and Franks to recognize illegal activity is like expecting a fish to admit he’s wet.

  • Oh, that racism thing again…er, yet

    It’s hard to turn in any direction these days without doing something racist. Take Joe Wilson – he sparked a debate about whether Democrats want to give tax-payer funded health care to illegal immigrants. I mean, it’s an important question, isn’t it? Well, according to Hank Johnson, the Georgia Democrat, if someone doesn’t punish Joe Wilson and quick, it’ll bring back the post-Civil War Era. The Washington Post reports on Johnson like this;

    Rep. Hank Johnson, a black Democrat from Georgia, invoked the Ku Klux Klan in talking about Wilson’s behavior.

    Yeah, I guess they were a little ashamed to put his whole quote in print. Luckily, the AP didn’t have that problem;

    On the Democratic side, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., accused Wilson of instigating racist sentiment against the president and sending the signal that “you don’t have to bury it now. You can bring it out.”

    “I guess we’ll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside intimidating people,” Johnson, who is black, told reporters. “That’s the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude is not rebuked. Congressman Wilson represents it. He’s the face of it.”

    Yeah, like when Black “leaders” threatened that George W. Bush was going to bring back slavery. That was just political rhetoric, I suppose.

    Jimmy Carter joined in the hyperbole, too. Jimmy Carter, who supported “racially pure neighborhoods” in 1976. The video from Hot Air;

    Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

    Watch Jimmy Carter tap dance away from his “ethnically pure neighborhoods” remark in 1976. It looks like he’s still tap dancing away from it.

  • Interview with SC’s Joe Wilson

    John Hawkins of Right Wing News did an interview last night with Republican Congressman Joe Wilson who told President Obama “You lie” at the President’s address to Congress Wednesday night. Here are some highlights;

    “Person after person came up and they were very encouraging. So many of them, not all, but so many of them said that what I said is what they were thinking. “

    “We’ve received several thousand donations. Of course, we’ve also got a circumstance where my opponent with the benefit of MoveOn — they can raise much more money.”

    “I was looking at all of the amendments and I knew that the Democrats had defeated the enforcement amendments about illegal aliens and these would be the amendments that would provide for verification of citizenship. That’s the wording and I’ve actually read the 1,000 page bill. The references to the illegal aliens in the bill didn’t have any enforcement. It was simply fluff. “

    Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades reminds us that Democrats booed President Bush at his 2005 State of the Union Address. Does that make Wilson right? Nope, but all of this false outrage is a little too dramatic – especially after the last eight years.

    I listened to a black “journalist” on the local news last night ask the audience rhetorically whether Wilson’s outburst might be racism. Sometimes political opposition is just political opposition.

  • Massachusetts Senator needs to read the Constitution

    Former Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on Fox News Sunday and reminded us all why we miss him (Wall Street Journal link);

    Mr. Cheney described himself as being isolated among advisers to then-President George W. Bush, who ultimately decided against direct military action.

    “I was probably a bigger advocate of military action than any of my colleagues,” Mr. Cheney said in response to questions about whether the Bush administration should have launched a pre-emptive attack prior to handing over the White House to Barack Obama.

    “I thought that negotiations could not possibly succeed unless the Iranians really believed we were prepared to use military force,” Mr. Cheney said. “And to date, of course, they are still proceeding with their nuclear program and the matter has not yet been resolved.”

    He went on to criticize the Obama Administration for beginning a witch hunt against CIA agents who extracted intelligence from our more reticent enemies;

    “It’s clearly a political move; there’s no other rationale for them to be doing this,” the former vice president said of the Obama administration review.

    Mr. Cheney was particularly critical of Mr. Obama’s statement that he had not influenced the attorney general’s decision, and charged the president with waffling on his earlier pledge not to unearth old allegations. “I think he’s trying to duck the responsibility for what’s going on here, and I think it’s wrong,” Mr. Cheney said of the president.

    Of course, this raised the ire of the only Senator from Massachusetts, who happened to appear on another show on some lesser known and lesser watched network.

    “Dick Cheney has shown through the years, frankly, a disrespect for the constitution for sharing of information to Congress and a [dis]respect for the law and I’m not surprised that he’s upset about this,” Kerry told me this morning on “This Week.”

    I’d like the only Senator from Massachusetts to point out for the rest of us where in the Constitution it says that the Executive branch of government needs to share information with the legislative branch. Well, other than this line;

    [The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient….

    The only Senator from Massachusetts obviously isn’t well read and probably doesn’t even understand his duties and responsibilities. Massachusetts is obviously poorly served by their lone Senator, who until recently, voted the way his mentor told him to vote. Obviously, thinking for himself isn’t one of his strong suits.

  • Is Kennedy eligible for burial at Arlington?

    Susan asked the question, and she deserved an answer. So here’s the regulation from Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations;

    Sec. 553.15 Persons eligible for burial in Arlington National Cemetery.

    (a) Any active duty member of the Armed Forces (except those members serving on active duty for training only).
    (b) Any retired member of the Armed Forces. A retired member of the Armed Forces, in the context of this paragraph, is a retired member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, or a Reserve component who has served on active duty (other than for training), is carried on an official retired list, and is entitled to receive retired pay stemming from service in the Armed Forces. If, at the time of death, a retired member of the Armed Forces is not entitled to receive retired pay stemming from his service in the Armed Forces until some future date, the retired member will not be eligible for burial.
    (c) Any former member of the Armed Forces separated for physical disability prior to 1 October 1949 who has served on active duty (other than for training) and who would have been eligible for retirement under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 1201 had that statute been in effect on the date of his separation.
    (d) Any former member of the Armed Forces whose last active duty (other than for training) military service terminated honorably and who has been awarded one of the following decorations:
    (1) Medal of Honor.
    (2) Distinguished Service Cross (Air Force Cross or Navy Cross).
    (3) Distinguished Service Medal.
    (4) Silver Star.
    (5) Purple Heart.
    (e) Persons who have held any of the following positions, provided their last period of active duty (other than for training) as a member of the Armed Forces terminated honorably:
    (1) An elective office of the United States Government.
    (2) Office of the Chief Justice of the United States or of an
    Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
    (3) An office listed in 5 U.S.C. 5312 or 5 U.S.C. 5313.
    (4) The Chief of a mission who was at any time during his tenure classified in class I under the provisions of 411 of the Act of 13 August 1946, 60 Stat. 1002, as amended (22 U.S.C. 866, 1964 ed.).
    (f) Any former prisoner of war who, while a prisoner of war, served honorably in the active military, naval, or air service, whose last period of active military, naval, or air service terminated honorably and who died on or after November 30, 1993.
    (1) The term “former prisoner of war” means a person who, while serving in the active military, naval, or air service, was forcibly detained or interned in line of duty–
    (i) By an enemy government or its agents, or a hostile force, during a period of war; or
    (ii) By a foreign government or its agents, or a hostile force, under circumstances which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs finds to have been comparable to the circumstances under which persons have generally been forcibly detained or interned by enemy governments during periods of war.
    (2) The term “active military, naval, or air service” includes active duty, any period of active duty for training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty, and any period of inactive duty training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty.
    (g) The spouse, widow or widower, minor child and, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Army, unmarried adult child of any of the persons listed above.
    (1) The term “spouse” refers to a widow or widower of an eligible member, including the widow or widower of a member of the Armed Forces who was lost or buried at sea or officially determined to be permanently absent in a status of missing or missing in action. A surviving spouse who has remarried and whose remarriage is void, terminated by death, or dissolved by annulment or divorce by a court with basic authority to render such decrees regains eligibility for burial in Arlington National Cemetery unless it is determined that the decree of annulment or divorce was secured through fraud or collusion.
    (2) An unmarried adult child may be interred in the same grave in which the parent has been or will be interred, provided that child was incapable of self-support up to the time of death because of physical or mental condition. At the time of death of an adult child, a request for interment will be submitted to the Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery. The request must be accompanied by a notarized statement from an individual who has direct knowledge as to the marital status, degree of dependency of the deceased child, the name of that child’s parent, and the military service upon which the burial is being requested. A certificate of a physician who has attended the decedent as to the nature and duration of the physical and/or mental disability must also accompany the request for interment.
    (h) Widows or widowers of service members who are interred in Arlington National Cemetery as part of a group burial may be interred in the same cemetery but not in the same grave.
    (i) The surviving spouse, minor child, and, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Army, unmarried adult child of any person already buried in Arlington.
    (j) The parents of a minor child or unmarried adult child whose remains, based on the eligibility of a parent, are already buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

    [42 FR 25725, May 19, 1977, as amended at 59 FR 60559, Nov. 25, 1994]

    The short answer is “yeah, because he spent two years in the Army and got an honorable discharge and then got himself elected to Congress” (paragraph (e)(1)).

    Added: Can Adam Kokesh get burial at Arlington if he gets elected to Congress? Nope – he got a General Discharge.

  • What economic problems?

    Ya know how folks are always saying that the only reason recruitment and reenlistments are so high in the military is because there’s a bad economy and fewer job opportunities – so the military doesn’t need to pay retention bonuses? In fact, retention bonuses were the first thing that Murtha targeted last December when he started looking at military budget cuts.

    With an unemployment rate reaching 10%, Congress feels the need to pay bonuses to their aides, though according to Stephen Dinan of the Washington Times;

    A month after they voted to punish some corporate executives for taking hefty bonus payouts, members of the House of Representatives quietly gave their own staffers a new potential bonus by making even their top-earning aides eligible for taxpayer dollars to repay their student loans.

    The change, which took effect in May, means House employees earning up to $168,411, or the top level, are now eligible for government-funded subsidies to help pay down their student loans.

    House officials defend the change as a job-related benefit necessary to keep the government competitive in the hiring market – the same argument corporate chieftains used to defend their own pay scales.

    Can you imagine how tough it must be to make those college loan payments on a meager $188k pay check? It’s no wonder Congress thinks that people making $65k need government health care.

    But I guess Congress keeping some drone to fetch their over-priced coffee employed is more important than keeping that trigger-pulling buck sergeant whose troops would follow him into the bowels of Hell and back.