Dozens in Congress Under Ethics Inquiry. Transparency Not Allowed

Any surprises here? That some members of Congress are being investigated for ethics violations and Congress does not want the public to know? House ethics investigators have been keeping an eye on more than 30 lawmakers and several aides, according to an ‘accidentally’ released report.

The report was ‘accidentally’ placed on a publicly accessible computer network.

Could we have another ‘deep throat’ in the making? Could this happy ‘accident’ be the work of a concerned individual? Let’s hope so.

The ethics committee is one of the most secretive panels in Congress, and its members and staff members sign oaths not to disclose any activities related to its past or present investigations. And why is this? Why are they sworn to secrecy? If an individual or group is being scrutinized, the public needs to know it. Mainly because it has become abundantly evident that many politicians cannot seem to avail themselves to ethical behavior.

Temptations are always present. It goes with the territory in Washington. As well as in any other seat of power. It is fairly easy to succumb to the seduction of more power and more wealth. Politicians need to be constantly reminded that they are always under the mantel of trust that we the voters and tax payers put on them. A position they themselves openly aspire to.

Ethics is something that should be prized. We should praise those who keep adhere to the higher calling of doing the right thing. And, just as importantly, they should be held out to the public when they commit an act that, while temporarily enriches themselves, ultimately erodes our faith in the system.

The thing about keeping these investigations secret is that we the voters don’t know if they are being actively pursued. Tax payers have witnessed far too many scandals to think that there are none taking place right now. We need to see the finger pointing. We need to know who is being investigated. We need to be reassured that ethics are actually being held to the light and that we are not being taken for another ride.

When the ethics committee holds back results of investigations we see only favoritism being played out. Zoe Lofgren, the House ethics committee’s chairman illustrated this fact when she emphasized that the panel’s activities are preliminary. This is a soft statement with very little meaning. The common currency in political circles. Whomever is being investigated has now been told the investigations are not serious. She basically told everyone under scrutiny that they are safe.

What ever comes of these secret investigations? Typically a private letter of reprimand. A mere slap on the wrist.

Ethics investigations are serious business and their findings should be made public so we the people can decide how to handle the offending party. This wholesale selloff of our government needs to end. And it never will as long as the beneficiaries of handouts and outright bribes are allowed to slink through the halls of Congress unquestioned.

Leo Wise, chief counsel for the Office of Congressional Ethics, declined to comment, citing office policy against confirming or denying the existence of investigations. A Justice Department spokeswoman also declined to comment, citing a similar policy.

So much for Obama’s pledges of “an unprecedented level of openness in Government” and to “establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.”

What is the Final Solution in Afghanistan?

Chris Floyd of the blog Empire Burlesque made the observation that militarist nationalism (often called "patriotism") is always, in one way or another, a "Final Solution."

He continues: “Set foot on that road, and you will get there. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not in this generation -- but you will get there. The blood-and-iron logic of domination -- of self-assertion and self-aggrandizement at the expense of all others -- will take you there.

The choice is simple, the choice is stark, the choice is laid upon us all.”

I could not agree more. If we continue on our current path in Afghanistan how can we hope to attain anything other than creating a never-ending treadmill of resentment and lost lives.

The war in Afghanistan has become an aimless absurdity. It began with a reason, to find Osama bin Laden. Or so we were told.

Since then, he ‘may have’ moved into Pakistan. No one knows for certain.

Is it really necessary to continue this seven year long bled letting against a bunch of religious extremists and drug lords many of whom have safe haven in Pakistan, only for the occasional victory? Victories that soon are negated by retaliatory actions of many of the same people we are there to ‘bring into the 21st century’.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s corrupt government skims the very drug trade that funds the indigenous forces NATO forces are fighting against and will therefore never lift a governmental finger to stop it.

The U.S. needs to back away from this messy effort quickly. The lofty goal to create a stable, secure nation-state in hopes of suppressing the spread of the Taliban’s control is miserably implausible. The historical situation is that Afghanistan has been ruled by regional tribal coalitions, often at each others throats, uniting only when a foreign nation enters the fray.

We need to change tactics IF catching Osama bin Laden is truly our goal. And I am willing to bet it is not.

Our troops are dying over an unachievable goal to basically ‘rehabilitate’ a government that refuses to participate in NATO’s game plan. And as long as the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan are complicit in their harboring of jihadis and continue to profit from the drug trade the idea of this being a ‘winnable’ war is pure folly.

Frederick Douglass once said: “Power concedes nothing without a demand, it never did and it never will.” Our choice is clear, until the citizens of the world stand united in demanding an end to this stalemate and call for an alternative to using the military to force our ideas onto these nations instead of using diplomacy to work out a more stable solution towards peace, the few countries willing to put their citizens in harms way will continue to pay a bloody price with no hopes of achieving anything worthwhile.

Bad Manners Reaches the U.S. Congress

The general lack of respect and civility that has been increasingly plaguing our society has finally reached Congress.

In one wanton outburst House Republican member Joe Wilson of South Carolina rendered class and decorum as obsolete notions.

We elect these people as our representatives to debate issues not to shout down the president or throw insults at each other. That is the domain of such classless venues as wrestling matches not the U.S. Congress.

If he and Governor Mark Sanford are representative of the best that South Carolina can offer then the good people of South Carolina are being short-changed.

Whether Americans engage each other in town hall meetings, at political rallies, or in social media, we need to remember we are all Americans with the same desire to live in peace and find the most viable solutions to our most pressing problems. It is counter-productive to resort to childish name-calling and disrespect.

Debate, don’t be contentious.

Why Do We Allow Profit From Other People’s Pain and Suffering?

I believe that making a profit on people’s pain and suffering is immoral, but in our capitalist society profit takes a high priority over anything else. To balance the two, profit and morality, is the crux of many problems in America.

The business of providing health care can still be profitable without destroying the lives of those who cannot afford to pay. The question becomes how much profit should be made? And if we begin talking about limiting profits are we really talking about socialism, a charge that is so generally tossed about today? This, I believe, is what scares many Americans today.

So what do we do? Do we provide free heath care to everyone? Of course not, someone has to pay. If we are to have an equitable system of health care for everyone then everyone is going to have to pay into the system. Does this mean that the federal government is actually going to run the health care system? No.

A reformed health care system will not look exactly as it does today, with people paying monthly premiums in hopes of building up a large enough bank to rely on in times of sickness. We will be able to visit a doctor when we need to and get the necessary care we can only wish for under the current system.

At this stage of our nation’s development the federal government is the only entity large enough to handle this venture. Is this socialism? Absolutely not.

Look, it behooves everyone, from the company owners to the workers, to have a healthy populace. What many anti health care reformers fear is paying for the health care of others. It is particularly distasteful to pay for the health care of those who simply refuse to care for themselves. This, I think, is a very valid point. If we begin caring only for those who care for themselves, i.e., proper diet, proper exercise, etc, then we have become exclusive. This then comes back to the moral issue.

Should the government pay people to stay healthy? Things could very well come to this. Especially if it is determined this long term expense is cheaper than if we wait until we have contracted diabetes or heart problems, something that would have been prevented by proper exercise and diet.

It is also beneficial to the country to eliminate bankruptcy due to medical bills. Something like 60% of the bankruptcies are due to medical expenses. This is outrageous.

We need to make it happen and we need to stop with the scare tactics and lies and the innuendos. The one thing that would help us all the most right now is if we had a main stream media that would actually report what the health care reform bill is and give us an accurate analysis of it instead of headlining rent-a-crowd antics at town hall meetings.

The bottom line is, trying to pass health care reform has been tried by both parties over the last 60 years, and the profit makers have always managed to shoot it down. When are we going to get out from under their thumb and do what is right for ourselves? I wish I could see it happen during my lifetime.

Why Doesn’t Obama Care About Freedom?

clipped from www.aim.org If you recognize that Obama failed to vigorously and immediately support the pro-freedom demonstrators in Iran, take a look at his attitude toward those suffering under the Castro dictatorship. An extraordinary editorial ran in the liberal Washington Post on Thursday, June 25, about the indifference of the Obama White House to the plight of those who believe in freedom just 90 miles from our shores The editorial, "A Dissident Deflected," told the story of how the Obama Administration wouldn't issue a statement recognizing the plight of five human rights activists in Cuba until the Post itself inquired about the matter The Washington Post editorial on Cuba only scratched the surface of the dangers we face from this White House. Ultimately, the question that has to be seriously addressed by the Post and other media is: What should we do about the fact that the President of the United States is allied with those forces that want to bury us?

This clip comes from Accuracy In Media a presents a biting commentary on how Obama’s indifference toward Cuban freedom fighters. This, in light of his recent apparent reticence to support Iran’s pro-freedom demonstrators, paints an ugly picture of the leader of the most powerful democracy on the planet aligning himself not with those brave souls fighting for freedom but more with their oppressors.

Given Obama’s association with people such as Communist Frank Marshall Davis, his mentor and father-figure, and anti-American crackpot Miguel D'Escoto, the U.N. General Assembly President, Obama is beginning to appear more as a revolutionary Marxist who sympathizes not with those being oppressed by anti-American governments but with the governments themselves.

He is walking a very thin line between facilitating peace among opposing nations and helping to cement the UN’s idea of a world government financed by global taxes.

According to the author he appears to be leaning heavily towards socialism. I am inclined to agree.