Dems Did It

Pelosi dodges FISA for wedding

The liberals running Congress are literally running from responsibility by adjourning early this week to avoid a vote on FISA. What pressing, urgent, selfless act of service to our nation could possibly trump the reauthorization of one of the pillars of our nation's national security?

Hint: it likely involves champagne, cake, and bad 80s music.

Michelle Malkin has more.

Economics 101

Democrat Budget Committee Member, Marcy Kaptur, apparently doesn’t know the difference between Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chairman.

In an embarrassing, but telling moment about the fundamental misunderstanding Democrats have about how to deal with America’s economic uncertainty, it just became certain that Democrats are failing Economics 101.

Click here to watch the uncomfortable exchange.

Carter casts stones

In a moment of incredible irony, Jimmy Carter accuses President Bush of being the "worst in history."

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

This coming from the former one-term president who left American hostages in Iran and prolonged the Cold War. Come to think of it, gas prices didn't do too well under his watch either...

Perhaps even more ironic was the purpose of the interview during which Carter made these comments:

He spoke while promoting his new audiobook series, "Sunday Mornings in Plains," a collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains, Ga.

With all due respect to the former president turned ranting raving lunatic, I think my family will look elsewhere for Christian resources and Bible lessons.

An exercise in futility

Question: How do you waste billions of dollars and endanger thousands of lives?

Answer: Let the Democrats parade in Washington.

Today the United States Senate took the audacious and unthinkable step of cutting off our troops in the field by passing a bill, supposedly to keep supplies moving to our solidiers in harms way, that has no - ZERO - chance of becoming law. They hamstrung the bill with so much pork and red tape that the President has no choice but to veto it. Their callous actions only prolong a real funding bill, which clearly demonstrates that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would rather see troops in the field without supplies than victory in Iraq.

Among the Democrat leadership in Washington, it appears there is no talk of "hey, let's give it all we've got and win this." It's all "OMG, if we support our troops, then how will we buy gas for our Gulfstream jets???" Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it appears that support for our troops to do their job in the field is taking a back seat to Nancy Pelosi's "shadow presidency" and her appetite for fresh Middle East cuisine.

The most telling reaction to Reid and Pelosi's childish behavior comes from Iraq, where a government spokesman condemned their action saying:

"Coalition forces gave lots of sacrifices and they should continue their mission, which is building Iraqi security forces to take over," al-Dabbagh said. "We see (it) as a loss of four years of sacrifices."

Thanks, Dems. Those of us watching from out in America hope you'll remember this foolish moment someday when you're flying around on your taxpayer-provided Gulfstream and read the story of the thousands of lives lost in Iraq. Hope that champagne loses it's taste, Ms. Pelosi. Your fellow countrymen and women, serving our nation with honor, deserve better.

Link: Iraqi spokesman criticizes Senate vote - Yahoo! News.

Is Pelosi a Felon?

Previously, we've discussed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to the Middle East as annoying, counterproductive, self-serving, and 'foolish.' But now, as this article from today's Wall Street Journal reports, Pelosi's trip may be much worse. It may be illegal.

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad..."

Could Pelosi's quest for an in with Big Oil be her downfall? Could her naive and juvenile attempts at diplomacy put Speaker Pelosi in prison?

UPDATE: USA Today is now covering the story of Pelosi's illegal trip to Syria as well.

"The Logan Act of 1799 sets out the punishment for unauthorized U.S. citizens who 'directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States.'"

Stay tuned...

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Pelosi 'Foolish'

For most of us out in America, a bad day is being late to work, your child being really sick, a flat tire... that sort of thing. For a Washington DC/ San Francisco liberal like Nancy Pelosi, a bad day is getting ripped a new one by the Washington Post. You can read the whole editorial on the link below, but the closing line pretty much sums things up:

Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

Link: Pratfall in Damascus - washingtonpost.com.

Pelosi Mucks It Up

Yet another reason Nancy Pelosi should stick to babysitting her grandkids. On the stir she recently created by telling Syria that Israel wanted to sit down for peace talks:

The Prime Minister's Office issued a rare "clarification" Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks.

According to the statement, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emphasized in his meeting with Pelosi on Sunday that "although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East."

And no, this isn't from Fox News. Nice try. It's from the Jerusalem Post.

Show me the Big Oil!!

For years Democrats have blasted Republicans as being in bed with Big Oil. Now we see Nancy Pelosi trotting around the Middle East taking her plastic smile and sucking up to every oil-rich sultan over there. Why? It's certainly not for diplomatic reasons. The House Speaker has no official diplomatic role and no authority to speak with foreign governments on matters of state.

So why is she there? Perhaps, since she recently asked for her own Pelosi One 747, she's hoping to sweet talk the Middle East into just a teeney bit more oil. Maybe then she'd get her own jet to fly her family around on the taxpayers' dime.

Pelosi's recent actions (and this picture) have brought to light the liberal hypocrisy which is the foundation of the Democratic Party more than ever before. We love the environment, they say, but we really love our jet fuel more...

And what do you think she said when asked "So... what do you think of George Bush?" As if the King of Saudia Arabia wants to hear Pelosi's petty gossip. As if America needed someone out there saying "See? We Americans hate America too."

But she'll try, that's for sure. Because Nancy Pelosi loves power. And apparently, she loves Big Oil.

It's official: Dems will cut off our troops

Harry Reid and company announced today they will CUT OFF our troops in the field in Iraq. Regardless of where the war is, how we're doing, who's winning, or what our soldiers in harm's way need, the Democrats in Washington will ignore reality and pull the plug.

Then they'll go on the floor of the Senate and tell the world how much they support our troops. How this is for them. How even though military families support George W. Bush overwhelmingly, the troops (and their families) really love it when the Democrats cut their knees out from under them.

Hogwash. Malarky. Lies.

Call your Congressman, Senators, and especially that Harry Reid person to let them know we don't like it, we don't want it, and we don't support them.

Why? Because we support our troops.

Does Congress need Instant Replay?

This recent letter from Republican Leader John Boehner to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi underscores not only the mess she's made but the rediculous and hypocritical "rules" she's instituted. This letter is Boehner, in effect, throwing the coach's flag. Too bad they don't have instant replay. This one would clearly be overturned...

March 29, 2007

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C.  20515

Dear Speaker Pelosi:

The American people have every right to expect the highest ethical standards here in the people's House.  Yet, less than three months into the 110th Congress it has become clear that House ethics rules are hopelessly broken.  Members on both sides of the aisle are understandably frustrated because they know you can't "clean up Congress" with confusing rules that are as difficult to comply with as they are to enforce.

It is equally clear that until the ethics rules are repaired through a genuinely bipartisan process, they will continue to lack the credibility needed to ensure broad compliance, effective enforcement and widespread public acceptance.

As you know, sweeping changes to House ethics rules imposed at the start of this Congress were drafted in secret by the incoming Majority without consulting either the Minority or the staff of the nonpartisan Ethics Committee.  The new rules were then rammed through the House with no opportunity to carefully analyze the proposals or to improve them in any way. The consequences of this ill-considered approach are now being felt by Members and staff on both sides of the aisle:

• A staffer may attend an evening reception hosted by a corporation and consume shrimp, champagne, sliced filet and canapés....but may not accept a slice of pizza or a $7 box lunch provided by the very same corporation at a policy briefing the next day. [see Ethics Committee "pink sheet", Feb 6, 2007 (pp. 4-5)]

• Although Members and staff may play in a $1,000 per person charity golf tournament to benefit a local scholarship fund, they are prohibited from similarly helping the American Red Cross raise funds for Katrina victims by playing in its golf tournament - solely because the Red Cross employs lobbyists. [see Ethics Committee "pink sheet", Jan 19, 2007 (p. 7)]

• In order to go on a "first date" with someone who happens to be a lobbyist, a staffer must agree to pay for his or her full share of the lunch or dinner, as well as anything else of value, such as a movie, concert or ballgame. [see Ethics Committee "pink sheet", Feb 6, 2007 (p.2)]

• A Member may accept $200 tickets for the Final Four from Ohio State (public university), but not $20 tickets to a preseason game from Xavier University (private university). [see Gifts & Travel, House Ethics Committee, April 2000 (p. 37)]

• A Member may accept a $15 t-shirt or $20 hat from the Farm Bureau, but not a $12 mug or mouse pad.  Similarly, a $4 latte is OK - but a $4 sandwich is not. [see Ethics Committee "pink sheet", Feb 6, 2007 (p.5)]

• A Member who has his own airplane is prohibited from flying it for any purpose - official, campaign or personal - even at his own expense. [see Ethics Committee letter to Rep. Stevan Pearce, Feb 16, 2007]

• A staffer invited to a post-season barbecue for her daughter's soccer team may not attend once she learns that it will be held in the home of a player whose father is a lobbyist. [see Ethics Committee "pink sheet", Feb 6, 2007 (p. 2)]

• Although a Member may not accept dinner from a lobbyist who uses his own funds or those of his firm, he may accept dinner from the very same lobbyist using a credit card provided by his state or local government clients. [see clause 5(a)(3)(O) of House Rule XXV]

• A corporate executive who is not a lobbyist may not use his expense account to take a Member out to dinner, but may - in many cases - take the same Member to dinner using his personal funds. [see Ethics Committee "pink sheet", Feb 6, 2007 (p. 3)]

• A Member may not take a privately-funded trip if a lobbyist accompanies him to and from Washington; but the same Member may spend five days in Brussels discussing global warming with environmental group lobbyists -- as long as none of them are on the same flights to and from the meeting. [see Ethics Committee "pink sheet", March 14, 2007 (p. 2)]

It's no surprise that Members deeply committed to following the rules are confused and concerned by the current state of disarray in the House.

Making matters worse, the chaos inflicted on Members and staff by careless (or worse) Democrat rule writers has now infected the legislative process as well.  For example, confusion over the proper application of congressional earmark rules has made it possible for Democratic leaders to certify as "earmark free" a multi-billion dollar Continuing Resolution that any knowledgeable observer will confirm was laden with them.

Moreover, the failure of the House Ethics Committee to provide official guidance to Members seeking to comply with newly adopted earmark "conflict of interest" rules until after the deadline for submission of earmark requests had expired has unnecessarily disrupted the FY 08 appropriations process by delaying for more than a month processing of many Member earmark requests, and complicated efforts to make the earmark process more transparent.

This latter incident underscores the folly of Democrats rushing to unilaterally impose complicated and contradictory new rules on the House, and then denying an entirely reasonable joint request by the Chairman and Ranking Republican of the Ethics Committee for the additional resources the panel needs to carry out its added responsibilities to Members.

Sadly, Democrat leaders straining to legitimize their campaign rhetoric have instead left Members - on both sides of the aisle - more vulnerable than ever to violating rules that are hard to define, riddled with logical inconsistencies, and utterly unlikely to prevent the sort of abuses that have properly sparked so much public outrage.

After all, few of the "Culture of Corruption" violations by Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney - or alleged violations by William Jefferson and Alan Mollohan - would have been prevented had the recently passed ethics changes been in effect last year.

Rather, the principled path to a more ethical Congress is through clearcut, common sense rules that are widely communicated and firmly enforced.  And, as you and your fellow Democrat leaders argued so persuasively during the last Congress, the process of developing those rules must be transparent and genuinely bipartisan.

To that end, I ask that you join me in appointing a bipartisan working group tasked with analyzing House ethics rules -- and recommending fair, sensible and understandable revisions that working group members believe would improve both compliance and enforcement.

As with the Livingston-Cardin ethics task force in 1997, the working group should be led by co-chairs and evenly divided between majority and minority members. I propose that it consist of six to eight members, including a member of the ethics committee from each party (but neither its chairman nor ranking minority member), one elected leader from each party, and one or two additional Members from each side of the aisle.

I further propose that we direct the working group to report back its recommendations no later than July 1, 2007 to allow time for the House to consider its proposed revisions to the Rules of the House prior to the August recess.

Madame Speaker, I have been encouraged by recent public statements made by you and members of your staff noting your desire to correct evident problems with several of the new rules.  Thus, I hope you will commit to work constructively with me to ensure that any revisions to the Code of Conduct and other House rules are imbued with the sort of credibility that you have often pointed out can only result from a thoroughly bipartisan effort.

Sincerely,

John A. Boehner
Republican Leader