The New Democratic Culture of Corruption

When trying to seat a majority of Democrats to control Congress, Nancy Pelosi, in 2006, said that the then-current Republican Congress had a "culture of corruption" and was the "most corrupt" in history. As a result, she promised "transparency" and an end to corruption if she and the Democrats took control of Congress. Now, more than two years later, with the Democrats clearly in control, the corruption still reigns. This time, from the Democrats. What's worse, Pelosi seems to think her corruption is different. So different, in fact, that she has, on more than one occasion, refused to have her corrupt members of Congress step down from their committee positions and positions of authority.

Take for example, William Jefferson, a Democrat from Louisiana, who has been indicted for conspiracy, racketeering, bribery, honest services fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice and violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In January of 2006, it was clear, based on testimonies by his aides, that Jefferson would be indicted. In addition, there were video tapes of him taking a bribe and the money was found in his freezer. Yet, Nancy Pelosi refused to boot him from his position on the extremely powerful Ways & Means Committee. Finally, under public scrutiny and pressure, she asked Jefferson to step down in May of 2006; 4-1/2 months after being clear that he was probably guilty. Jefferson refused and, then, on June 25th, the House took the extraordinary action to vote him off the committee.

Now, fast forward to last week. Charles Rangel, the Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee (the same committee that Jefferson was one), has been exposed for tax fraud and getting gratuities in terms of low cost rental properties in Harlem. Again, while obvious that Rangel might be guilty, Pelosi has refused to ask for Rangel to step down from his committee chairmanship (See Full Story) . I am sure the public pressure will prevail and, again, Pelosi will have to succumb to the public demands and have Rangel step down.

Besides Jefferson and Rangel, there are other "corrupt Democrats" that have been caught since Pelosi promised all that "transparency" and ethics reform. There was Pelosi' good friend, John Murtha. Murtha chairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. Murtha is under investigation for funneling business to certain defense contractors who were donors to his campaign. Of course, ethics is no stranger to Mr. Murtha since he was once video taped talking to FBI undercover investigators posing as Saudis and offering Murtha a bribe as part of the ABSCAM scandal. While Murtha never took a bribe his words on tape implied that the future of such action might be in the cards. If Murtha is indicted, given Pelosi's history and close friendship, do you think she as him to step down?

Other investigations are ongoing for Mary Landrieu, a Democratic Senator, for appropriating funds after receiving campaign donations. Then there is Alan Mollohon, a Democrat from West Virginia, who is being investigated for funneling earmarked monies into organizations that he has setup and that his friends are running. He also managed an earmark to create a wilderness area that happened to border land owned by the Congressman. Alan has been under investigation since 2007 and still maintains a committee chairmanship on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies. No stepping down on this one either. Right Nancy?

Lastly, we have Laura Richardson, a Democratic Representative from California. She has defaulted on loans on eight properties that she owned. She also failed to pay some taxes on those properties. On the foreclose of her primary residence, she said that it was due to her lender not telling her of extraordinary clauses in her contract. But, when the truth finally did come out, she had failed to make payments on that home for over a year. Apparently, one of the loans that Laura Richardson got a loan on was to fund her campaign run for Congress. While her conduct on her personal finances isn't necessarily illegal there are real questions about her Congressional ethics.

So, anyway, the corruption that Pelosi said would end just keeps piling up. It really doesn't matter who's in charge, either Democrat or Republican, the power of Congress and the purse strings that it holds are always going to be ripe for corruption. There is no change from the Republicans as was promised by Pelosi in 2006. She hasn't passed any significant laws with regard to ethics. And, what's worse, she has a tendency to let her members hold committee positions unless she finally get the heat from you and me. You know.... John Q. Public, the voters!

A Couple of John/s

Sometimes I wonder how someone who served in the military can be so hateful toward our troops. I see this in John Kerry (a Senator from Massachusetts) and, for sure, I see it in John Murtha (a House Rep from Pennsylvania).

Both these Democrats are hoisted up by their anti-war and anti-military left-wing politicians as a some way of saying that "we have our military veterans" too; and, they hate war. Both are decorated "heroes" (Kerry?) from the Vietnam war. But, unlike their counterparts on the right, it is as if they aren't proud to have served. Both Kerry and Murtha have taken steps to discredit our military personnel by claiming that kill and rape; almost like it was "fun" on their part. Mr. Kerry did so before Congress and, John Murtha recently publicly convicted seven soldiers, before any trial, as killers in this statement:

"It's much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no fire fight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell. Now, you can imagine the impact this is going to have on those troops for the rest of their lives and for the United States in our war and our effort in trying to win the hearts and mind"

As a veteran who volunteered in 1968 and received an honorable discharged in 1974, I don't understand these people. Most of the people I served with were good people who were proud of their country. Most just wanted to survive. They didn't get up every morning thinking about raping and killing women and children (contrary to the beliefs of the two Johnny's). Most were compassionate people who cared-about and cared-for the women and children they came in contact with. For me, personally, my military experience taught me perseverance and discipline that I found invaluable to my life later on; especially in business. More importantly, I respected the people I served with. Sure, there were some "goof offs" (as in the case of all walks of life) but the majority wear very good people. Not the people that John Kerry and John Murtha would have you believe.

Yesterday, another soldier was exonerated of all charges in association with the so-called "murders" of Iraqi civilians at Haditha, Iraq. This exonerates the sixth of eight Marines that were charged and, then, convicted in public by the so-called veteran and friend of the military, Mr. John Murtha. My guess is that at least one of the two remaining Marines will also be cleared of all charges. But, do you think John Murtha would apologize for his "broad-brush" statements that shamed all of our military? Not hardly! It doesn't fit his and the Democrats ideological agenda that all Americans are bad; expecially those in uniform.

Murtha Says McCain Too Old

Yesterday, Democrat John Murtha from Pennsylvania (pictured) said that John McCain was too old to be President (See Full Story). Maybe? Maybe, not? I don't know. But, there's an interesting clue that is "hidden" in our Constitution that just might say that McCain is at the perfect age to be our President and that Barack Obama might be too young to even qualify.

In an ABC News white paper on the "Global Action on Aging," the section on "Introduction to Healthy Aging" (See Full Story) noted the following:

The human life span has been growing dramatically. A person born in 1776 could expect to live 35 years. By the year 1900, the average life span was only 47 years. But a girl baby born today can expect to live 79 years, and a boy baby 72.

I find this interesting. At a time when our forefathers wrote the Constitution, they specified that the President of the United States must be at least 35 years of age. According to the above study on aging, the average lifespan at that time was only 35 years. If that "age" clause was adjusted each year to match the average lifespan of all Americans in this country, then that clause in the Constitution should, today, read that the minimum age to be President should be 72 years. If so, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would not even be eligible to be President. John McCain would just make it.

Being facetious set aside, I believe that the founders of this country thought it was paramount that experience, as measured by a minimum age of 35, was the minimum criteria, along with citizenship, for being President. Similarly, they imposed no "age" restriction or upper age limit. They left that up to the electorate. The age of John McCain is a legitimate issue. But, it is only legitimate if he shows mental signs of aging. Then, as said earlier, it will be up to the electorate. Because of his age, I believe the electorate will focus more closely than ever before on his choice as V.P. Beyond that, a comment from a John Murtha, now 75 years of age, is way off base and is another example of an attempt by the Democrats to place unfounded doubt in the minds of the electorate.

If age was a real issue in politics, at least 10% of our Congress should be sent to some home for the aged. Perhaps, 50% should be sent to a mental institution! Starting with John Murtha! I think his picture (above) says it all! Does he have any teeth left?