Clean-Up on Capital Hill

Remember last year when all those Democrats won elections because of things like this?

Topping the agenda for both House and Senate leaders is ethics reform. Having campaigned strongly on the issue of congressional ethics, the Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate promises to pass ethics-related legislation soon after Congress convenes in January 2007. Both the House and Senate proposals have included stricter controls on members of Congress’ interaction with lobbyists, a ban on travel, meals or gifts paid for by lobbyists, and the end to the practice of anonymous earmarking. These measures may be broken up and debated individually rather than as part of a broad ethics bill.[1]

America was tired of unethical politics and strong-armed tactics, and the Democratic Party promised to clean up congress if elected. Voters took them at their word, and gave the democrats control of both the House and Senate.

But it didn’t take long for members of both the House and Senate to show that democrats are really no different than republicans when it comes to the subject of congressional ethics. In May 2007, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee on defense, became enraged when Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich) introduced legislation to cut $23 million in funding from a project in Murtha’s district.

On the floor of the House of Representatives Thursday, Rogers alleges, Murtha – upset by Rogers’ aggressive attempts the week before to kill the project in Murtha’s home district – said something along the lines of “I hope you don’t have any earmarks in the defense appropriation bill because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever.”
…
Rogers said he replied by saying, “This is not the way we do things here” and “is that supposed to make me afraid of you?”
…
“That’s the way I do it,” Murtha said, according to Rogers.
…
The House code of official conduct states that a congressman “may not condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a congressional earmark … on any vote cast by another member.” [2]

That seems to be the way Senator Barbera Boxer does it, too. Earlier this month, South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint brought forth an amendment to cut an earmark by California Senator Dianne Feinstein.

The pork here revolves around the West Los Angeles Medical Center, though this is no average veterans’ facility. Donated to the government in 1888, the center is 387 sprawling, prime real-estate acres in the middle of tony West L.A. More than twice the size of the National Mall, it is surrounded by the mansions and playgrounds of the city’s elite, including the Bel Air Country Club and the Beverly Hills estates of Sylvester Stallone, Barry Bonds and Tim McGraw (to name a few).
…
the Department of Veteran’s Affairs set up a process in 2002 to study its infrastructure and rationalize its facilities, it designated the West L.A. center as one of 18 sites that might be downsized, any extra land being used to produce more revenue for veterans’ needs. Under law, 108 acres of the L.A. site can’t be touched, but the remaining 200-plus acres sit in the middle of a highly desirable real estate area and could yield significant financial gain. The VA has yet to make any decisions, but according to government estimates, even a modest reuse of the property-say leasing out excess acreage-could result in an extraordinary $4 billion for better care for veterans everywhere.
…
Ms. Feinstein, who in the last election received some of her largest donations from the rich area, has been only too happy to come to its defense. She honed in on the military construction and veterans affairs bill-a sensitive spending vehicle that few Republicans would dare vote against, and that President Bush would be loath to veto. She then slipped in an earmark provision that would bar the VA from disposing or leasing any of the ground. Thus a potential $4 billion worth of help and aid for our nation’s veterans goes bye-bye in the name of preserving a view for those Hollywood actors who play veterans in the movies.[3]

And how did Senator Boxer react when her fellow California senator’s earmark was challenged?

California Sen. Barbara Boxer rose in righteous indignation on the Senate floor, and fizzed that she would never dream of leveling such a direct “attack” against South Carolina. The point of this speech was to remind her Senate colleagues that what’s hers is hers, and that the penalty for voting against her and Ms. Feinstein’s California pork would be the targeting of projects in their own states. They got the message. In the final vote, only 25 senators had the courage to put the nation’s veterans above Ms. Feinstein’s scenery, including just one Democrat (Sen. Russ Feingold).[3]

Apparently, the only change the democrats have brought to congressional strong-arming is the arm that is used.

And this isn’t the first time Dianne Feinstein’s name has been attached to the subject of congressional ethics. In March 2007, Feinstein was forced to resign as head of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. The subcommittee is responsible for “appropriation of billions of dollars for specific military construction projects”

She [Feinstein] wielded quite a bit of power and succeeded in steering hundreds of billions of dollars in military contracts to companies partially owned by her wealthy husband, Richard Blum. One company alone earned $792 million from military construction and environmental cleanup projects approved by Feinstein’s committee and another $759 million.[4]

Ironically, her removal from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee allowed her to take on a new challenge: Chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration. As chairman, Feinstein will oversee “matters relating to the following subjects:”

Congressional organization relative to rules and procedures, and Senate rules and regulations, including floor and gallery rules.
…
Corrupt practices.
…
Federal elections generally, including the election of the President, Vice President, and Members of the Congress.[5]

It’s a good thing we have ethical democrats like these to clean up Capital Hill. And I hear we can look forward to even more in 2008!

Lucky us.

It’s Enough To Make Your Head Spin

The almost fanatical flip-flopping of the anti-war left never ceases to amaze-or confuse. Its talking points of yesterday are ignored and replaced by others today, which will probably be replaced by yet another set tomorrow. So how can anyone really tell which day’s rhetoric is the day to actually believe? Frankly, it’s enough to make your head spin.In 2005 we heard about General John Riggs. Riggs was demoted and forced to retire for what the military claims was allowing “outside contractors to perform work they were not supposed to do, creating “an adverse command climate.”"

But some of the general’s supporters believe the motivation behind his demotion was politics. Riggs was blunt and outspoken on a number of issues and publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and needed more troops.

“They all went bat s- – when that happened,” recalled retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner, a one-time Pentagon adviser who ran reconstruction efforts in Iraq in the spring of 2003. “The military part of [the defense secretary's office] has been politicized. If [officers] disagree, they are ostracized and their reputations are ruined.”[1]

Evidently, Riggs and other generals had warned Rumsfeld about his initial strategy to invade Iraq, and Rumsfeld did not listen to them. John Kerry agreed, in a 2006 interview with self-proclaimed “antidote to right-wing talk” Taylor Marsh.

The whole Republican policy on Iraq, according to Kerry, is one of “deception,” because “they don’t tell the truth” … “they don’t listen to generals” … “Rumsfeld didn’t listen,” with Kerry’s blistering critique opening on to his adamant insistence that the plan he has offered is a plan for victory.[2]

But we’ve heard all of this for quite a while, haven’t we? It’s certainly considered common knowledge by the anti-Iraq War advocates. Rumsfeld has been admonished for years because he did not listen to his generals. Then came Professor Allan J. Lichtman.

Lichtman writes:

On the cusp of General David Petraeus’ report on the “surge” of American troops in Iraq we should recall one of the most important if neglected lessons of the war in Vietnam: Don’t listen to generals.[3]

This statement is followed by 9 paragraphs, citing the lessons of the Vietnam War, as to exactly why we should not listen to generals.

Not dizzy yet? That’s good, because the ride on the merry-go-round isn’t over yet.

Take the veterans returning home from Iraq telling their stories, and even blogging from the battlefield, for example. Iraq Veterans Against The War was founded “to give a voice to the large number of active duty service people and veterans who are against this war, but are under various pressures to remain silent.” They call for the “immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces in Iraq.” Obviously, these brave men and women have been there, and know better than any of us who have not. We should listen to them. [4]

Likewise, the families of many Iraq War veterans are speaking out against the war.

Gold Star Families Speak Out is a chapter of Military Families Speak Out, is comprised of members whose loved ones served in the military during the period including the build-up to the war in Iraq (fall, 2002) to the present, and have been killed or have died.

We believe the best way to support our troops is to BRING THEM HOME NOW and to take good care of them when they get here.[5]

Certainly the sacrifices of these families outweigh the opinions of anyone who has not sacrificed. We should listen to them.

However, there are some Iraq War veterans and families who speak out in support of staying the course in Iraq. Some of these people have appeared in an advertising campaign sponsored by Freedom’s Watch. The ads feature soldiers who have lost limbs and families who have lost loved ones.

But according to the leftist blog site Daily Kos,

The ads, if you haven’t seen them, are disgusting. [Emphasis by original author] They exploit soldiers and 9/11 famalies [sic]. As usual, they blur the line between terror and Saddam; and say with certainty that leaving Iraq will lead to more 9/11s.[6]

You see, these veterans and families who have sacrificed are being exploited for political reasons. We should not listen to them.

And then there are groups like Vets For Freedom, who are lucky if they can get anyone important to listen to them.

The opposition can easily entice a sitting lawmaker to attend rallies and events; 23 senators and 57 representatives attended an anti-war candlelight vigil Tuesday night organized by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, an umbrella organization that represents roughly 9 million anti-war activists.

The only senators who would meet with the pro-surge veterans were those who already shared their view. The real targets – war opponents or wobbly supporters – sent a first wave of senior aides to shield themselves from the pitch.[7]

If senators won’t listen to these guys, obviously we should not listen to them, either.

How’s your head now? Experiencing any signs of vertigo yet? Better hope not, because tomorrow is another day, and you can be sure that the cant carousel still has a few more turns left in it. Round and round it will go. And where it will stop, nobody knows.

Intervention

I have been taking part in an interesting discussion at another blog concerning the Iraq War. I am severely outnumbered, but that just adds to the interest. During a fairly heated debate with a particular individual, the claim of over 1 million Iraqi civilians deaths was given. This is certainly not my opinion. As proof of the rediculous claim, this web site was offered. This is where it really gets interesting.justforeignpolicy.org offers this counter as a running estimate of Iraqi civilan deaths.

Here is some of what you will find in that “explanation“:

The Lancet study already demonstrated that, as of July 2006, the deaths caused by the U.S. invasion of Iraq rivaled the death toll of the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Our update suggests that it has now surpassed even high estimates of deaths in Rwanda. (Note that this does not even include Iraqi deaths attributable to the 1991 Gulf War or the sanctions imposed on the population between the two wars.)

Realization of the daunting scale of the death and suffering inflicted on Iraqis should add urgency to efforts to end the occupation and to prevent such “pre-emptive” invasions or “interventions” in the future. The American people need to rein in their government and create a new kind of foreign policy, one based on cooperation, law, and diplomacy rather than violence and aggression.

And there it is. The 1991 Gulf War was an “intervention.”

Evidently we should have minded our own damn business while Iraq steamrolled through Kuwait, shot missles at Israel (who had no troops involved), and eyeballed Saudi Arabia. Then we should have minded our own damn business while Iraq continued to build up its WMD program that the sanctions and further bombings are largely accreditted for removing. I have no doubt that had things happened that way, justforeignpolicy.org would still condemn our “pre-emptive invasion.”

What you won’t find in that explanation are the words “terrorist,” “suicide bomb,” “sectarian violence,” or even “civil war.” In fact, you won’t find them anywhere on the entire web site. It’s as if we are getting blamed for every death in Iraq. I can assure you, in the discussion I was in-we (and the UK) are. And I am the only person using the words above.

To argue against the number given, I will refer to the one voice who supported my stance:

In order for those figures to be correct, an average of more than 600 deaths per day has had to have been maintained for every single one of the 1500 approximate days the U.S. military has been on the ground.

I believe that says enough.

That is just some of the garbage that is being fed, devoured, and regurgitated by the leftosphere.

Forgotten Fruits

Supporters of illegal immigration attempt to justify their demands by identifying with the great civil rights movements in American history. From “We Shall Overcome,” to “Grapes of Wrath,” Illegal immigrants and their supporters exploit the memory of these movements while ignoring some of their most fundamental beliefs and struggles.

Dolores Huerta is one such supporter with selective memory. Huerta is a long-time union organizer who co-founded the United Farm Workers union with legendary labor leader Cesar Chavez. She recently spoke out against “Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-San Diego, for his tough stance on immigration enforcement.” [1] The fundraising event was held to raise money for the Pajaro Valley Cesar Chavez Democratic Club.

Thursday, Huerta focused her attention on immigration reform, urging the crowd to keep up the pressure on Congress. She praised the Watsonville City Council for establishing the city as a haven for the undocumented earlier this year and the AFL-CIO for taking on the Department of Homeland Security’s plan to crack down on businesses that hire undocumented workers. The labor organization is part of a coalition that filed a lawsuit to block the plan Wednesday in federal court in San Francisco. [2]

Dolores Huerta is conveniently forgetting an event that took place 35 years earlier.

In 1973, the UFW organized a march through the Coachella and Imperial valleys in Central California to the United States-Mexico border to protest growers’ use of illegal immigrants as strikebreakers. The thousands of marchers were joined by the Reverend Ralph Abernathy and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale.[3]

Huerta and other proponents of illegal immigration ignore the fundamental fact that Cesar Chavez was against the very thing they are using his name to support. That’s right, folks. Cesar Chavez was against illegal immigration. He fought to raise wages for farm workers, and knew that illegal labor would undercut honest workers and forces wages down.

Other supporters of illegal immigration like to compare their struggle to that of the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. They sing “We Shall Overcome,” as they march with Jessie Jackson and other African-American icons. However these people are ignoring an important difference between the plights of African-Americans and illegal immigrants. Black immigrants were originally forced to come to America and live their lives in bondage. Illegal immigrants are not. They come here more than willingly, and then demand the freedoms of an American citizen.

Some blacks bristle at the comparison between the civil rights movement and the immigrant demonstrations, pointing out that black protesters in the 1960’s were American citizens and had endured centuries of enslavement, rapes, lynchings and discrimination before they started marching.

Others worry about the plight of low-skilled black workers, who sometimes compete with immigrants for entry-level jobs.

And some fear the unfinished business of the civil rights movement will fall to the wayside as America turns its attention to a newly energized Hispanic minority with growing political and economic clout. [4]

Even Jessie Jackson is not above exploiting the name of the legendary Martin Luther King Jr.

Mr. Jackson, who addressed the immigrant rally on Monday in New York, echoed those views. He noted that Dr. King, at the end of his life, focused on improving economic conditions for all Americans, regardless of race. And he said the similarities between African-Americans and illegal immigrants were too powerful to ignore. [5]

There may be similarities, but Jackson himself said that Dr. King fought for “Americans, regardless of race.” Illegal immigrants and their supporters seem to forget that basic concept-they are not Americans. And Jackson is forgetting one of the early concerns of the NAACP:

W.E.B. DuBois, a founder of the N.A.A.C.P., and other prominent black leaders worried that immigrants would displace blacks in the workplace. [6]

And that concern appears to be justified:

…nearly twice as many blacks as whites said that they or a family member had lost a job, or not gotten a job, because an employer hired an immigrant worker. Blacks were also more likely than whites to feel that immigrants take jobs away from American citizens. [7]

It is easy for illegal immigrants and their supporters to ignore history in a society that places such little value on its struggles and lessons. Iconic figures and movements are exploited with little regard for their true beliefs and values. Children and adults alike are force-fed falsified myths by those they trust who have talked the talk and walked the walk.

Sadly, the hardships and harvests of Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement and Cesar Chavez’s farm workers movement have become forgotten fruits.