When is close, too close?

In my week off, a great investigation from the Washington post was published surrounding all members of both the House and Senate and its findings were quite detailed and very telling of the dysfunction that lies in the heart of Washington. If there is a reason for this blog its stated in the subtitle and out of the 47 members being investigated; its only fitting that we have 22 vs 25 representing both party's almost equally (22 R vs 25 D). The most telling of this investigation however, in my opinion, is the relationships of sons and daughters to their parents who are elected representatives. This regardless of how innocent the situation appears and it very well may be; it should always be looked down upon as unethical.


Now some of these findings appear to be a big reach as far as corruption is concerned, if nothing more then totally coincidental. For example, Rick Rahall, a Democrat Congressman from West Virginia, who ear-marked 20 million for a parking garage with a bus and taxi facility in downtown Beckley WV. The rub is the construction sits a half a mile from his sons home and about a mile from one of  the congressman's personal property's. Ive been through Beckley West Virginia many times on my way to Florida and its "downtown" is small enough that downtown basically fits inside a mile or at the most a two mile radius; so its not as if the property's could avoid nestling up to one another in that postage stamp.


While some of the others tend to look like outright nepotism. Take for instance, representative Corrine Brown (D) of Florida. This was from the Washington Post investigation:

Between 2005 and 2010, Brown helped secure $21.9 million for six clients of a lobbying firm where her daughter works. The clients paid the firm more than $1 million to represent them before Congress. Brown was the sole sponsor of $1.79 million in earmarks sent to a seventh client, the Community Rehabilitation Center, while her daughter worked as a lobbyist on behalf of the center, the Florida Times-Union reported in 2010. The congresswoman declined requests for an interview. Her daughter did not respond to requests for comment.

According to Sen. Bill Nelson, also a Democrat, was a co-sponsor for the pork containing the rehabilitation center. After learning about the connection to Corrine's Daughter he bailed and rightfully so:

“We try to do our due diligence. The center had the backing of many community leaders,” Nelson spokesman Bryan Gulley told the Post. “But when we learned her daughter was involved in lobbying for the center, that raised enough concerns that we no longer supported the project.”

This wasn't the first time Rep Brown was in hot water because of her lobbyist daughter. There was the situation in 1998 where a millionaire ex-con (Foutanga Bit Babani Sissoko) who just before he was sent to prison, turned around and handed Corrine Browns daughter the keys to a brand new 50K Lexus. Then it was said Mrs Brown "led a feverish lobbying campaign" to then Attorney General Janet Reno for his pardon. I'm sure some type of vote down the road required by the Clinton Administration would be sufficient payment enough? 


According to Sissoko's lawyer however, the car was meant for Brown herself... I wonder why she didn't take it? Sissoko, being from West Africa, might not understand the ethical concerns of that - but you can be sure Brown did; hence the re-gifting of the vehicle to her daughter. The same lobbyist daughter who would join her mother on long weekends (and there were many of them) in one of Sissoko's lavish Miami property's. 

Mrs Brown is certainty not the worst offender on this list in terms of dollar amounts but it raises some serious questions about ethics when you have a sitting member of Congress doling out billions of dollars to company's or organizations that are represented by family members of said Congressmen. The relationship between Congress and lobbying  is already too close for comfort but when you factor in family members working on K-Street it just opens up an entire new paradigm. One that only tightens the grip special interest has on our coffers.

Romney the Gambler - he just donest want you to be one.

 This past weekend we seen two major events take place, the Nevada Caucus and the Super Bowl. Ok, so the Nevada Caucus was hardly a major event, but an event nonetheless. Both of these events taking place on the same weekend however is ironic considering how much they have in common. Nevada for example is the only state where sports betting is legal, and doesn't require bets taking place between six- figure paid elected representatives exchanging food for knit hats. The NFL meanwhile has risen to the top of professional sports for many reasons and betting on its games is one of the pillars of that foundation. But, unless you live in Nevada, you're out of luck and most lawmakers want to keep it that way... although dont tell these guys.

I read this the other day on PokerNews.com about Mitt Romney's view on internet gambling. It seems Mittens is against internet gambling because of its:  

"social costs and people’s addictive gambling habits.”  

That however didn't stop him from issuing
a 10K wager in a debate a few months back
with the man from Niggerhead Ranch, Rick Perry. 



It pretty common to have a politician say he wants you to be safe and he worries about your well being and its just as common to watch that same politician turn around and do the exact same thing he wants to protect you from but just in a different light. Take the modern day prohibition of drugs and the old prohibition of a drug called alcohol for proof of that. Apparently the lawmakers know whats best for us, i guess you could  call it a case of:  do as i say not as i do. I remember hearing that... when i was a kid - from my daddy. And the nanny state lives on; patting us on our asses and heads, for we know not the dangers of the real world.

So when the NFL enables the casinos in Nevada alone to rake in over 100 Million all being legal, while you
at your computer in your own home is illegal to put your $100 on the Giants +3. Kind of odd isnt it? Politicians can bet clam chowder to strip steaks and drink their gin in tonics but if you want to bet on a game or use some drug of your choice; its illegal. They can bet, they can do what drug they like but they also make the rules. I guess daddy knows best.

Its too bad Mitt Romney doesn't apply his quote about how dangerous internet gambling is to Casino gambling, could casino gambling be that much more less addictive or that much less socially damaging? I guess the internet gambling lobby doesn't exist yet? It is also too bad he didn't use that quote to paint his picture of an economic plan as well. What about the social cost of continuing trillion dollar deficits through inflation and interest payments skyrocketing due to a rapidly expanding national debt? What about feeding the addictive habit of politicians who want to cut taxes and increase spending thus feeding those deficits (look at Mitts plan). What about those habits? Crickets. Just like what the current administration has to say on this. Nothing.

And what about that cranky 76-year old from Texas, Congressman Ron Paul?

"People should be free and they should make their own decisions and there should be no regulation of the Internet.”

Leave it to the Cleaver: Congressional Black Caucus overt double standard

Maybe it’s just my imagination or has our fine nation become that hypersensitive that we have started looking for hidden messages because those actual messages in plain English don’t exist? Seems rather self-serving, doesn’t it? It also seems self promotion through divisions, such as race, are circling the drain as pundits scramble through sentences of ideological opponents for “subliminal racist” messages.   

That’s the latest word from the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Emanuel Cleaver (D) of Missouri. Mr Cleaver is the super sleuth who decoded two recent Presidentialcandidates sentences that appear to be dog whistle words to the Republican red-neck base that President Obama is in fact (gasp) a black (50%) man. 

Yes, it appears that the racist voters who are on the fence of reelecting a black man need to be reminded that in fact Mr Obama is well… black, you know… in case they forgot.

I am going to go out on a limb and predict racist’s who vote based on color or would have their vote’s at least weighted in such nonsense would not need a reminding; but I’m also not equipped with the: Racist Code Detector Version 7.5 who can spot such subliminal messages.

See, to a typical person, phrases like Gingrich’s “food stamp president” and Mitt Romney’s comments on “the very poor” would think: Poor. However, if equipped with: Racist Code Detector Version 7.5 you would in fact see the real meaning: “damn the black-man and do no reelect him because he is only helping blacks”!

So, if racists will vote against whom they despise anyway without a subliminal message; why the need for the racist code detector version 7.5? The answer is simple. It’s nothing more then a power grab. First, this is the Webster definition of a Caucus:

  

: a closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction usually to select candidates or to decide on policy; also : a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause

That seems to be a simple premise, is closed meeting of persons united to promote an agreed upon cause. Forty years ago the Congressional Black Caucus was founded “to positively influence the course of events pertinent to African Americans and others of similar experience and situation.” So, its a closed meeting of like minded people who want to help black people. Now, this is where it gets interesting…

In a piece done in 2007, Politico’s Josephine Hearn told the story about Stephen I. Cohen, a Liberal Democrat who was rejected for membership to the caucus because he was white. Despite the fact that 60% of his constituents were black not to mention the majority of his staff was African American including his chief of staff. Seems rather confusing considering that a caucus is “a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause” and being its black, meaning race – Mr Cohen fits, his policies (Liberal Democrat) and his constituents fit that mission.

It was William Clay Jr (D) from Missouri who had the courage (or audacity) to lay it out in black and white (pardon the pun) for why Mr Cohen was not allowed directly from a state from his office:

Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept—there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.

Now we have the answer. Its not about “the needs and concerns of the black population” because if it was you wouldn’t reject a man applying to your “club” who wants to do exactly what your statement above says – help blacks (you know the people who elected him). This seems like the complete opposite of representation. And let me remind you again, its not about representation, its about power – this is just one of many clear examples.

In that same article was also the story of how Al Green (D) from Texas (now a member of the Black Caucus) got elected despite running against an incumbent Chris Bell, D-Texas who was also a Democrat but white. Hearn stated that:

Although House tradition discourages members of the same party from working against each other, about a dozen black lawmakers contributed to Bell's opponent, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, the eventual victor. Even Bell's Houston neighbor, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Black Caucus member), D-Texas, campaigned against him. 

That is another example of those in the Black Caucus of favoring skin color over policy. It would be “subliminal” if it was a Republican but to be doing this to those in your own party? This is another example of how the two party system is nothing but a sham, a fraud used to promote division across many lines and race being one of them and one of the easiest to promote at that.  

Last but not least, we have the Chairman – Mr Cleaver, the guy with the Racist Code Detector Version 7.5. I will let his quotes on the subliminal messages paint the picture:

“In the last few days, both Gov. Romney and Speaker Gingrich have been guilty of saying things that are not helpful to a society begging for racial inclusion. Whether they are intentional or not, I’m not 100 percent certain; I do know that it doesn't matter in many cases. It’s just unfortunate and it tends to divide.”

Cleaver went on to chide Congress for being “nasty” rather than “inclusive.”

Is there anything left to say? Do I have to point out the hypocrisy of the Congressional Black Caucus or do these quotes of double talk do the job? If not, let these words sink in by J.C. Watts (who is black) was elected to Congress from Oklahoma in 1994 on his views of the Congressional Black Caucus:

They said that I had sold out and (called me) Uncle Tom. But I have my thoughts. And I think they're race-hustling poverty pimps"