Making It Easier For Illegal Aliens To Vote

Is there really any other way to say this? It looks like the Democratic supermajority in Sacramento is dead set on allowing illegal aliens to vote in California elections.


I am stunned that this looks like it is going to be actually voted on. AB 131 is on its way to the State Senate. Apparently, the Democrats in Sacramento have a bill before the Legislature, authored by Das Williams (D-Santa Barbara), which allow people to register to vote without having to list where they were born. As it stands right now, county registrars cannot accept a voter registration if all the boxes are not filled in. Under this proposed law, the registrars/clerks would be allowed to accept voter forms that are missing this one piece of information.

Now who would want to avoid putting their place of birth down on a form to vote?

The argument is, that there is no threat that illegal aliens will get to vote in elections. The reason why? Because you have to sign your information, including a promise that you are in fact a US citizen. For someone who is already breaking the law by illegally being here in the country, is that really going to be a big deal to lie on this form as well?

Now, do you need an ID to register to vote? Well, according to my county (San Francisco), you do not. They ask for a CA Driver's license or the last 4 digits of a Social Security Number. However, if you have neither, they will assign you a unique identification number. Then, Department of Elections is supposed to vette the filing. How are they going to do that with no ID number that attaches to anything except the application and without a place of birth?

I would submit, the Democrats in Sacramento do not want them to do an actual verification.

I'm just at a loss for words at how stupid we are a state to place our future in the hands of a supermajority from either party. This is what happens.

Allow Me Now To Say What A Joke Congressional Ethics Are

Say what you will about Charlie Rangel, the disgraceful representative from New York, but he has shown the light on something that needs to be fixed.

Back in elementary school, if you manage to pay any attention at all to what they're teaching you in the eighth grade, there was a little blurb in your American history books about Tammany Hall and the political machines of the 19th and early 20th century. We like to think that our politicians are the product of a better system these days, but how else to explain the how Congressman Rangel has managed to stay in office despite flaunting the law which is supposed to help craft and create. Back in the day, the graft and corruption of those political machines undermined our republic.

When President Obama ran for office, one of his promises was that he and the Democrats were going to restore ethics to our government. In fact, he was made, while senator, the Democratic point man for ethics in the Senate. Congresswoman Pelosi, back when she was Speaker of the House, also promised that the Congress would be a more ethical place.

So how has that worked out? Well, Charlie Rangel with the test case and the Democrats failed miserably.

Its always easy to point out the faults in the opposition. as a matter of fact, in politics that's exactly which are supposed to do. Your commitment to values that you say are ones you hold dear, however, are tested the most when they are tested against those whom you like and respect. Congressman Rangel is one of the longer serving representatives in the House of Representatives. He's one of the most liberal. He was a political ally, and may still be, but Congresswoman Pelosi.

But he's also corrupt. He's abused his office. He's abused the public trust. He has violated the law.

So what did the House Ethics committee do about this? And how will the House Ethics committee going to do about this?

Well, they ensured that any investigation into Rangel's ethical violations was prolonged and extraordinarily slow. Despite the fact that the media has been publishing reports of Congressman Rangel's failure to abide by the law since 2008, Congress seemed unable to convene a hearing on his actions. The first reports that I know of, were published in August of 2008. Coincidentally, the Democrats were in control of the House of Representatives at that point.

It was not until July of this year, two years later, that charges were finally submitted to the House Ethics committee. Why they take so long? That's simple. Ethical violations are only good when you swing them at the other side. And for some reason, we keep letting the politicians get away with this mentality.

So what will the ethics committee do about Congressman Rangel's transgressions? His fellow Congressmen are going to, most likely, go to impose the quote dreaded" and humiliating censure against Rangel. What is a censure? Essentially, it is, when applied to a member of the House of Representatives, stern lecture given in public to the guilty by the Speaker of the House.

Where I went to school, I received a stern penalty for failing to turn my homework on time.

Unfortunately we have the Congress that we as a people, collectively, deserve. For the most part, it seems that Americans are content to allow corrupt politicians to continue to serve. The politicians of both parties cannot be trusted to police themselves.

This man violated the laws that he swore an oath to uphold and protect and defend. He has shown no remorse about his actions, instead maintaining that not only was he innocent but that he was unable to present a defense. The acts are more heinous because of his position as a representative of the people in the government that is supposed to help, to send, and empower the people. Not so that Mr. Rangel can maintain his power, his income, and his legacy.

If our representatives in Washington had any sense of honor or decency, they would expel this man and turned him over for prosecution. Unfortunately, a large majority of those serving in the Congress are loath to do so, most likely because they have committed the same acts as Mr. Rangel.

Congressman Rangel's censure is a meaningless and hollow act because it does not carry with it any real punishment, nor does it act as a deterrent to anyone else who would do wrong and abuse the public trust. This should and needs to change.

The House Democrats were tested. They failed.

Is That How You Act With Integrity?

So my Congresswoman is Representative Nancy Pelosi. Aside from sharing a name with a math teacher who struck fear in the hearts of many who went to my school, there was very little that I have agreed on with this woman in the past four years. However, the one thing I did like to think she was serious about was dealing with corruption in the House of Representatives.

Today, however, it has become clear that she clearly is not. Otherwise, how did she allow the Rangel mess to happen?

Yes. She did allow an investigation to forward. She did all charges to be heard by the House Committee on Ethics. But where was the leadership to call for more than just a reprimand if he is found guilty?

In case you have not been following this story, Charles B. Rangel is the Democrat who has been the Representative for what is now known as the 15th Congressional District in New York. Essentially, it is the borough of Harlem. He has been the Representative of that district since 1971.

Beginning in 2008, there were rumblings that something un-kosher was happening with Rangel. Oddly enough, it seemed to begin when he was questioned for his use of Congressional letterhead when he was soliciting donors for the Charles B Rangel Center for Public Service was improper. When that became public, the media started to question some other things that Congressman Rangel was doing. This included four apartments that he rented for substantially below market rent, the failure to report income on his taxes for property (sometimes described as a villa) in the Dominican Republic which he leases out, as well as other non-reporting and under-reporting of income to the IRS.

And this is the man who is the chairman of the committee which oversees the Federal Tax code.

In fact, he had so grossly underreported his income and holdings, that when he was finally forced to revising his reporting statements in 2007, his network went up by $500,000. That's a half a million dollars.

For some reason, the IRS, although Rangel did pay his back taxes, did not require the payment of any of the fees and penalties. A sweetheart deal is the kindest thing that can be said about that. Although he paid the federal taxes, it appears that he still could not get around to doing what everyone else in this country is supposed to do: pay all their owed taxes. Apparently, he has not been paying some of his property taxes as well as some other taxes. Its hard to tell really when pinning down his assets is like trying to catch a money launderer.

However, there's still more to the story.

Not content to ... hell let's be charitable and call it "fudge" .... his tax returns and required financial disclosures, he also seemed to have been hitting up donors in improper ways and accepting improper gifts from industries and interests which are directly overseen by his committee. By the way, that would be Ways and Means (which he chairs). He is also a member of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

One of these ways was Diageo Rum Bailout. Essentially, Rangel is alleged to have arranged a quid pro quo with Diageo Plc. Diageo, maker of Captain Morgan rum, wanted to qualify for federal funds out of the TARP which was being put together at that time. As reported, at first Representative Rangel met with them but did not give them the support they needed. However, for some reason, this support suddenly materialized. At about the same time, a hefty campaign contribution materialized in Representative Rangel's campaign coffers.

Lets be clear about something. At this point, 2009, the Democrats were firmly in control of the House of Representatives. Yet Speaker Pelosi was content to sit back and not push this forward.

Is it too much to expect a leader of one of the branches of our government to root out corruption, even within their own party? Judging by Speaker Pelosi's lackadaisical handling of the situation, it appears so.

Finally, almost two years since the first, allegations were made, charges were finally brought before the House Ethics Committee. The June 17 charging document lists out the following charges:

• Violating Solicitation and Gift Ban (5 USC 7353)
• Violating Code of Ethics for Government Services (72 Stat., Part 2, B12, H. Re. 175, 85th Cong. (1958)).
• Violation of House Gift Rule (House of Representative Rule XXIII)
• Violation of Postal Service Laws and Franking Commission Regulation (39 USC 3215)
• Violation of Franking Statute (18 USC 1719)
• Violation of House Office Building Commission's Regulations (House Office Building Commission's Regulation, cl. 4)
• Conduct in Violation of the Purpose Law and Member's Congressional Handbook (31 USC 1301; 2 USC 57, Member's Congressional Handbook, p. 6)
• Conduct in Violation of Letterhead Rule (House Rule XXIII, cl 11)
• Conduct in Violation of Ethics in Government Act and House Rule XXVI (5 USC 101 et seq.; House Rule XXVI)
• Conduct in Violation of Code of Ethics for Government Service, cl. 5 (72 Stat., Part 2, B12, H. Res. 175, 85th Cong. (1958)
• Conduct in Violation of Code of Ethics of Government Service, cl. 2
• Conduct in Violation of Code of Conduct: Letter and Spirit of House Rules
• Conduct in Violation of the Code of Conduct: Conduct Reflecting Discreditably on the House

Basically, what these charges boil down to is that Representative Rangel has stolen from the tax-payer, failed to pay his taxes, and treated some constituents better than others because of favors they have given him (where I come from, we call it bribery), and that because he was caught with his hand in the till, his actions reflect badly on the House of Representatives.

After hemming and hawing about this issue for more than a month, it was announced today that House Committee was approving these charges and forwarding it to a sub-committee for trial. All well and good. However, they did not stop there. Although there will be a trial, the committee announced that it was only allowing a maximum punishment of a reprimand.

Let's see, he gets to not pay taxes for years and avoid any punishment. Then he follows it up with a litany of ethics violations where his punishment is capped at the second lowest possible punishment the House can give. As the New York Post reports,

"The House ethics investigatory subcommittee recommended that Rep. Charlie Rangel be reprimanded, which is the least severe punishment, according to a new report".

Here's my question Madame Speaker: Why are you allowing this happen? If it is your intention to actually drain the "swamp" of corruption on Capitol Hill, why are you allowing someone to flagrantly violate multiple laws and House rules without evening slapping him on the wrist.

To allow this is to make a mockery of justice. Its just a chance to look good without achieving any real difference. If Congressman and Senators know that they will not have to worry about being penalized, what is to stop them essentially accepting bribes.

We try and enact laws to prevent money from corrupting the system. Yet, when the people are corrupted by it, we allow them to skate on by. In this case, based on the supporting documents which have been presented to the house Committee, Representative Rangel was accepting campaign contributions in return for his help. Essentially, he was taking a bribe. Yet, rather than prosecute this man, the House of Representatives wants to hush it under the table.

The media is saying that Speaker Pelosi is only giving him a "tepid" defense. Why should he even rate that much? The evidence shows that this man is a crook. If not for the protection offered by his position as an elected official, he would be facing a real trial not the cozy watered down version that seems to be promised.

The money, the trips, the temptation is always going to be there. Rather than trying to restrict free speech, we need to punish those who give in to temptation.

But Madame Speaker seems content to sit back. She is content to allow a back room deal to be struck so that business can go on as usual.

And that, is not acting with integrity.

Not That The Overlords In Congress Care About My Opinion On Healthcare Reform

So the Democrats finally unveiled Pres. Obama's vision for healthcare. If this is reform we can believe in, we obviously believe in some really bad things.

Apparently, if you believe everything the Pres. Obama said in the interview he gave to Fox news earlier this week, you must leave a lot of special deals are necessary to protect this only certain parts of the American population. The rest of us, just get the tax portion of that, along with maybe some healthcare but that's questionable he also. Why? That would have to be because there is nothing in this bill which does anything to solve the basic problem of the healthcare crisis: cost.

As you may recall, a couple months ago when this debacle began, a couple of states managed to eke out exceptions the reform package. Most notably, this included Nebraska (which got to keep 100% of its Medicare money unlike the rest of the country) in Florida (where seniors bear got a special deal as well). later, Louisiana got in on the act matched its own bit of graft, claiming that it still had all those problems left over from Hurricane Katrina. And let's not forget that the unions got their own little special deal where they are healthcare would not get taxed because, well,... their unions and they give money to Democrats and Pres. Obama.

Now, can anyone remember what the point of reforming health care in this country was about? Oh yeah, that's right, without making healthcare more affordable for everyone. So we now have a plan, which pretty much everyone agrees is going to allow rates to go up at on all love spending to our budget (and in the process creating a new sacred cow of American politics, because what politician is in a while take a stand and say I want to disestablish the national healthcare system in this country?)

Oh yeah, and with this health care bill which makes health care more expensive, they have still left in the provision they will be financially penalized or not having healthcare insurance. Is below sees people been talking to the Blue Shield people?

Speaker Pelosi, President Obama's point woman in this whole fiasco, has been trumpeting this bill, even though it doesn't seem like she's actually read it as a panacea for healthcare and for the economy in general. She claims, that this proposal will not only solve all the healthcare problem but it will also reduce the federal deficit. As support for this, she points to the CBO's report which was recently issued. According to the Congressional Budget Office, under the proposed healthcare plan the deficit will be cut by $138 billion in the first decade and $1.2 trillion over the next decade. the Democrats also claim that the bill will decrease Medicare expenditures by little more than 1% each year (meaning that instead of going bankrupt in a couple of years Medicare will go bankrupt around 2020). Sounds pretty good, right?

the problem is, the CBO isn't forced to operate under certain rules. This means that if you track your bill correctly and present the input correctly to CBO you're going to get the kind of numbers back from CBO that you want. Now I am not a numbers guy, a more process type guy with, so I would suggest you go over and read this article at the Weekly Standard and read their analysis of the budget. In short, although the numbers look good, like $2 trillion not good, they look good because the time period which the CBO is allowed to analyze does not include the period of time when the real costs of this legislation start to be felt by the system. However, I think this paragraph pretty much sums up this legislation:

And what would we get for all of this? The CBO says that health insurance premiums would rise by 10 to 13 percent in the individual market, in relation to current law. The Medicare Chief Actuary says that the percentage of the gross domestic product spent on health care would also rise in relation to current law, increasing from 17 percent today to 21 percent in 2019. And, as the CBO reports in its latest scoring, as of 2019 there would still be 23 million people in America lacking health insurance.

So what do we get for almost a billion dollars? Apparently 23 million people without insurance. As a point of reference, there are currently approximately 36 million uninsured American citizens and another 9 million or so who are illegal aliens. Apparently, a billion dollars and uncontrolled increases in premiums will get you an additional 13 million people with health insurance. Hardly seems cost-effective.

One thing that this proposal shows, is that this president is impotent. He has promised time and again to deliver a package that will meet the needs of the American people. However, he is unable even within his own party to get legislation drafted that meet those promises which he puts out and proclaimed the American people. It shows that, when it comes to the Democrats in the House of Representatives and Senate, he really has very limited power to get what he believes done. even at this late date, after months of negotiation, Pres. Obama is still the position where he is having to essentially sell the bill to his own party. This has included such things as suddenly putting forth the name of one Representative's brother for a federal judgeship. it just so happens that that representative was one of the 10 who was against the health-care package back in November. How convenient.

Another very coincidental decision by the administration was announced earlier by the Department of the Interior, which suddenly open the floodgates despite the fact that there is an endangered species, the delta smelt, which the Department of the Interior and the EPA has been protecting from San Joaquin Valley farmers for years. It's just coincidental, that the two representatives for that part of the state of California are both Democrats who were on the fence with regards to Obama's health care reform proposal.

But perhaps my favorite part of this whole fiasco, is that Pres. Obama wasn't content just to screw up one section of the economy while he was trying to reform. He decided he would be better, is that the bitter pill to us by wrapping it in another thing which no politician ever likes voting at. What's the impact? That would be funding for higher education. Knowing that he's got a lousy bill, crafted by the kleptocrats of the Democratic side( the Republicans would've joined in too, but they were invited to this drafting party), is ranked in the sugary goodness of Pell grants and student loans. How nice of him.

Weren't we all up in arms when Bush fired a couple of US attorneys? Weren't we all enraged when VP Cheney held meetings with the energy lobby, excluding environmental groups, and refused to turn over the notes one sunshine requests were made? So why are we letting the present act this way at this time? Or is it because he has a "D" after his name rather than an "R", that we let him have a pass at being responsible representative of the people?

Then there is the administration and speaker policies have it a scheduling significant and important votes for odd hours. This time, it looks like they want to do the vote on Sunday. Kind of convenient, since the day that most major media outlets are covering Capitol Hill or the White House, be quite frankly most of America is probably watching March Madness basketball games on CBS.a reasonable administration tried to do something secret, they did behind closed doors and didn't announce it for all to know. It seems like this administration, which wants to proclaim itself as the most ethical administration in the last hundred years, wants to use the form but not the substance of open government.

But in a way, this all goes back to the basic problem with the Obama administration. What is a problem you may ask? That problem is a lack of realistic goals and proposals. Pres. Obama administration is good for talking about lofty goals and aspirations,but when the rubber hits the road president Obama is always a day behind the rest of the of his party when it comes to outlining concrete and specific or proposals for what you want to see done.

I'd write my congressman and tell them to vote against this debacle. However, my congressman is Speaker Pelosi. So I think she is a pretty firm "yes" on this mess.

Update for the original:

The CBO recently responded to a request for clarification about the total costs of the legislation made by Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI). The CBO confirmed that the bill, if passed along with other legislation that is necessary to make the reform work, will not decrease the deficit. In fact, it will increase the deficit by nearly $59 billion.

Can You Say Spineless?

I mean seriously, how did we ever elect these bozos. First, we elect President Obama. Simultaneously we give him super-majority in Senate and a more than clear majority in the House of Representatives. The expectation is that they do something to solve the problems that were neglected or caused by eight years of President Bush's administration.

In just over a year, the Democrat controlled congress has managed to accomplish....I think that the term is bubkiss. To say they are failing, in my opinion, is an understatement.

Then comes today's news: the Democrats are pulling back on healthcare reform.

Really? They have two ways to get the bill passed, and with large majorities in both houses of Congress they can't possibly get anything done? Wow, the leadership of the country and Democratic party is truly spineless.

Then again, this is the party that once upon a time put up George B. McClellan as their candidate for president. Apparently, the modern Democratic party has decided to emulate the old master of the slows. They couldn't emulate Harry Truman? Or perhaps FDR? Or perhaps someone who got something done?

The Democratic party is a waste of time and resources. They are just a coalition of special interest which just can't seem to agree to move forward with something in the hopes that something perfect will come tomorrow.

So She Lied.

Because we expect our politicians to tell us the truth?

Madame Speaker, it is clear that one of two things happen. First, you attended a briefing, stayed awake, and were made fully aware of what was going as it pertained to the treatment of captured terrorists. Second, you attended a briefing but were too busy to pay attention because you were thinking about how to undercut the Bush Administration and therefore misheard everything that was said about it.

Not looking too good for Nancy Pelosi is it?

What should she do about it is the real question? The documents, so far, are pretty damning when it comes to what happened. The CIA has her down at the meeting when the leadership of the parties in Congress were briefed about what was going on with captured terrorists (aka enemy combtants aka outlaws). Yes, she is saying that the "Bush Administration lied to me!" However, do we really believe that?

Anytime an official gets caught with knowledge that is politically embarrassing, that is the first thing they say. JFK claims he was mislead over the Bay of Pigs. Regan maintained he didn't know about Iran-Contra.

However, the question is what is Pelosi to do now? She can keep with the Big Lie defense. She probably will. There are enough die-hard Democrats in San Francisco who will accept this. Because, after all, we "know" that the only people that Bush Administration never lied to was its own supporters (i.e. corporations it was protecting).

But is this the right decision? Is it serving Ms. Pelosi's constituents? Is it serving the needs of the American people? Or is it simply preserving her own power?

Let's try something radical here Madame Speaker. Tell the truth. Admit that you heard everything. Admit that you were aware of what was going on.

Of course, what she is going to do is claim that is a plot by conservative elements of the CIA and Defense Department to disparage her and bring her down. She will, most likely, be an eager advocate of further restraints on the military and the intelligence agencies. She will probably also enthusiastically vote to cut their budgets.

Because as we all "know" it their fault for being evil underhanded agencies of the former Bush Administration.

Because as well all "know" the Democratic leadership in Congress would never do things like that.

Apparently, these are how my views line up with the candidates

85% Bill Richardson
84% Chris Dodd
83% Barack Obama
82% Hillary Clinton
80% John Edwards
76% Joe Biden
61% Rudy Giuliani
61% John McCain
57% Dennis Kucinich
56% Mike Gravel
47% Mitt Romney
44% Mike Huckabee
32% Fred Thompson
26% Tom Tancredo
13% Ron Paul

2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz

Some Very Good Points

Now, I do not agree with everything that Mr. Olbermann said, but I agree with the basic thrust of the editorial. And I love the way he said it.