In Washington: Ethics are for Little People

From Tea Party Patriots -- 

In the real world, violating the law (or even the strong, likely suspicion of violating the law) brings down the wrath of one’s superiors. Apparently, not in Washington:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is standing behind Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) despite calls for the veteran lawmaker to relinquish his leadership post while he is investigated on ethics charges.

Pelosi and other members of the Democratic leadership, including Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra (Calif.), backed Andrews on Wednesday as he battles charges of using campaign funds for family trips.

What did he do? Merely use campaign dollars for a wedding trip:

In 2012, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) released a report charging Andrews with tapping tens of thousands of dollars in campaign funds to pay for a 2011 trip to a wedding in Scotland and multiple jaunts to Los Angeles with his daughters.

….It referred the case to the House Ethics Committee last year, citing “substantial reason to believe that he improperly used congressional campaign and Leadership PAC funds for personal use.”

Andrews has argued the trips were political because the groom in the Scotland wedding and his daughters were volunteer campaign aides.

OCE sharply disagreed, stating that the House Democrat “engaged in no political activity, gave no political speeches, raised no campaign funds and did not discuss his campaign.”

The OCE, which does not have subpoena power, also said Andrews failed to provide investigators with his congressional and campaign calendars and supplied credit card statements “after making significant redactions.”

Of course, Rep. Andrews is claiming innocence:

Andrews has maintained his innocence and says the charges against him are “politically motivated.” He said the Ethics Committee investigation that was announced on Tuesday would exonerate him.

“This review will confirm that I have always followed the rules and met all the standards of the House,” Andrews said in a statement. “I will eagerly provide answers to any questions the committee has. In the meantime, I will continue to work as hard as I can and serve my constituents and our country as a member and in any other capacity in which I am chosen to serve.”

The Ethics panel is notoriously slow-footed with its investigations — it could be months before the review of Andrews is complete.

In the meantime, he’s still pushing for more spending:

It appeared to be business as usual for Andrews on Wednesday.

He took to the House floor to defend the party’s budget, and his Rayburn Office doors stood wide open, with no reporters or cameramen stationed outside — a far cry from the mob scene that greeted New Jersey colleague Sen. Robert Menendez when separate ethics allegations against him gained attention.

Ethics violations are nothing new to Capitol Hill. The Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) named a full 16 Members as being under investigation for ethics charges in 2009 alone. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is one of the most famous, of course, though others exist – Senator David Vitter (R-LA) called prostitutes on his taxpayer-paid phone.

It is notable that Rep. Andrews reimbursed his campaign committee and leadership PAC to the tune of over $30,000. In the meantime, the House Democratic leadership is defending Rep. Andrews, noting that he has only been charged with an ethics violation, not found guilty.

What do you think? At what point should a Member of Congress be forced to retire, or otherwise be held accountable for his or her actions? Does it matter that reimbursement was made? Let us know in the comments.

Congressional Black Caucus Chair Rep. Marcia Fudge ask's Obama - "Where's Ours?"

Seeing that President Obama is paying back other "special interest" groups for helping in his reelection by taking up their cause's (Illegal Immigration, Gay Marriage & Arab Spring), Congressional Black Caucus Chair, Rep. Marcia Fudge of Cleveland, is looking for her share of the pie...

From The PD --

The nation's first black president is not appointing enough African-Americans to his Cabinet, according to Congressional Black Caucus Chair Marcia Fudge of Warrensville Heights.

Fudge sent a letter to President Barack Obama today that complained none of the second-term Cabinet appointments he's announced are African-American. In his first term, Obama appointed African-Americans, including U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to his Cabinet.

Fudge's letter told Obama that Congressional Black Caucus offices "have had numerous phone calls from constituents questioning why none of the new appointees will be able to speak to the unique needs of African-Americans."

"Their ire is compounded by the overwhelming support you've received from the African American Community," it said. "As you continue choosing your critical advisers, we want to stress the importance of ensuring every community has a seat at the table. The absence of diverse voices leads to policies and programs that adversely impact African-Americans."

By stating President Obama should appoint a Cabinet member as a political payback and solely because he/she is African-American, besides being racist and further fanning the flames of racial divide, is part of the overall entitlement mind-set that is currently destroying our country.

Maybe one day, instead of throwing them in the trash can, Congresswomen Fudge, serving in OH-11, a specially drawn & federally gerrymandered - Majority Minority Congressional District, thus making Fudge an Affirmative Action office holder herself,  can truly embrace the words of Dr. Martin Luther King...

".... live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"

Ohio Republican Party Supports Scandal-Plagued & former Gays Right's Lobbyist for State Chairman

In a move that rivals the incompetence of their one-time desire to name former Congressman Bob McEwen (aka Bouncin' Bob) as Spokesman of the Ohio Republican Party, Ohio Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett just named former lobbyist for the gay rights group "Equality Ohio" - Matt Borges -- as their new Executive Director.

And with Bennett's upcoming retirement as Chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, ALL of Ohio's State-wide office holders have signed a letter sent by Bennett to members of the ORP State Central Committee in support of Borges as his successor....

From the Columbus Dispatch --

From Gov. John Kasich to Treasurer Josh Mandel to U.S. Sen. Rob Portman; from U.S. House Speaker John Boehner to Ohio House Speaker William G. Batchelder, all of Ohio’s statewide nonjudicial elected Republicans as well as the state’s leading GOP lawmakers signed a letter endorsing Matt Borges as the state party’s next chairman.

The letter was sent this morning to each of the Ohio Republican Party’s 66 central committee members. The party’s current chairman, Robert T. Bennett, will retire May 31.

“The Ohio Republican Party is an invaluable resource for all of our races,” said the letter, signed by Secretary of State Jon Husted, Senate President Keith Faber of Celina and Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor, among others. “Moving forward, we need Matt Borges as chairman of the Ohio Republican Party to give us the best chance of continuing Ohio’s comeback.”

The letter would appear to head off the turmoil and nastiness that led to Bennett’s re-installment as chairman after a previous retirement last year. Kasich successfully drove then-chairman Kevin DeWine from power in 2012 after a long, ugly power struggle.

Borges is currently the party’s executive director. The letter praises his “ability to raise money, organize volunteers, and effectively manage large organizations” and says now “it’s time to stand behind him.” 

While one concern should immediately be that Borges was a lobbyist for an agenda driven group that promote policy that counters the Ohio Republican Party platform (and probably the platform of every State & County GOP  organization across the country), another concern should be Borges' 2004 guilty plea to one count of illegal use of public office....

A former chief of staff and fund-raiser for Ohio Treasurer Joe Deters pleaded guilty yesterday to charges in a "pay-to-play " scandal that could imperil Mr. Deters' political career.

Matt Borges, who was Mr. Deters' chief of staff from 1999 to 2001 and a key campaign staff member, pleaded guilty to one count of improper use of a public office.

Mr. Borges was fined $1,000 by Judge Eileen Gallagher of Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, but he could have faced six months in jail along with the fine.

Mr. Borges was charged with giving 10 brokers who had contributed to Mr. Deters' campaign fund an advantage in getting contracts with the treasurer's office. The treasurer is the state's chief investment officer. (Toledo Blade)

It should be noted that one of the brokers that received special treatment was the former Cleveland Branch Chief with Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. and SG Cowen & Co., convicted broker Frank Gruttadauria.

Gruttadauria, who besides bilking clients out of over $125 million, plead guilty to bribing or offering money to someone connected with Mr. Deters' office from March, 1999, to January, 2002, to get business from the treasurer's office.  During this time Gruttadauria employers made a combined $5.9 billion in investment trades with the Treasurer's office.

In conclusion, that Borges is a lobbyist for a gay rights group, doesn't mean he supports gay rights, it shows he is willing to push the agenda of anybody with the money to pay him. 

And the fact that Borges has plead guilty to pay to play type schemes, show's as ORP Chairman, he will be more beholden to donors with the largest check and his lobbyist/consultant class friends and not to the rank & file conservatives and grassroots groups across the state.

Obviously, the Ohio Republican Party learned nothing from the beating they took in the Romney election and Mandel election here in Ohio.

SoS John Kerry Commits U.S. to Anti-2nd Amendment U.N. Arms Treaty

During the Bush vs John Kerry election, the Swift Boat Veterans who served with John Kerry in Vietnam, made it very clear how he was a turncoat who could not be trusted to run this country.

Those words now echo as Secretary of State John Kerry committed the U.S. to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that would allow our 2nd Amendment rights to be arbitrarily taken away.....

From Investor's Business Daily --

As the world body meets this week to hammer out an agreement to restrict international arms trade, our Secretary of State commits us to pushing a treaty that may also restrict our Second Amendment rights.

Last Friday, the day of the week when unpopular or controversial announcements are traditionally made, Secretary of State John Kerry announced U.S. support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a final version of which is being hammered out in New York beginning this week.

Certainly the ATT is controversial. Touted as a means of getting a handle on an international arms trade valued at $60 billion a year, its stated purpose is to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime at an international level.

Its vague and suspicious wording led some 150 members of Congress last June to send a letter to President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning that the treaty is "likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights."

We have noted that a paper by the U.N.'s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) says that arms have been "misused by lawful owners" and that the "arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would . .. minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons."

Would defending your home against intruders, or U.S. laws permitting concealed carry, be considered a "misuse?"

"We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment," Secretary of State Kerry tried to reassure us — even as he represents an administration that seeks to ban weapons on their scary appearance rather than their genuine lethality, thinks the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment with deer-hunting rather than British tyranny in mind, and would be happy if the entire U.S. were a "gun-free zone."

As the Heritage Foundation notes, imported firearms, considered part of the "arms trade" to be regulated, constitute about 35% of the new firearms market in the U.S.

"Under the guise of adopting what it deems to be 'appropriate measures,' an Administration could restrict imports by redefining what qualifies as a 'sporting' firearm — the definition of which is left completely to the discretion of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives," Heritage reports.

The ATT, Heritage warns, "could create a national registry (initially) limited to imported firearms. It could impose new requirements on importers of firearms, or parts and components of firearms, for example, by requiring them to provide the identity of the final end user.. ."

Stop Online Sales Tax -- Call Your Senator Today!

Looking for anyway to continue squeezing a penny from the American citizens and businesses in order to continue their out of control spending, the U.S. Senate is again considering an online sales tax in their budget talks....

From The Daily Caller --

Lawmakers are again trying to attach an online sales tax to larger legislation they consider more likely to pass.

The Marketplace Fairness Act, which would allow states to levy sales taxes on goods purchased online, is being proposed as an amendment to the Senate budget for fiscal year 2014 by bill cosponsors Wyoming Republican Sen. Mike Enzi and Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin.

In the last session of Congress, the bill was proposed as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, but the move failed.

Though many lawmakers initially signed on to this year’s version of the Marketplace Fairness Act, including many Republicans, momentum for the bill has slowed.

There has been talk that the bill may be added to a larger comprehensive tax reform bill, though some feel that the measure should remain a separate bill.

The Senate budget proposal — the first unveiled in the upper chamber since 2009 — is expected to be debated through the week.

Call your U.S. Senator and tell them to vote NO on The Marketplace Fairness Act!

Senator Rob Portman (R-OH)

Phone: (202)224-3353

Contact: https://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

Phone: (202)224-2315

Contact: http://www.brown.senate.gov/contact

To find the contact information for the U.S. Senator of your state click here.

Assault Weapons Ban "Shot Down" in the Senate

Like a clay pigeon at a Trap-Shooting Range, Senator Harry Reid shot down Senator Dianne Feinstein's proposed assault weapons and high-capacity magazine ban.

Due to a lack of support in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate, Reid pulled Feinstein's anti-gun proposals from the main bill, but said he would allow them to be offered up as separate amendments.....

From The Hill --

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided the federal assault weapons ban will not be a part of the base bill and warned Tuesday an expansion of background checks to cover private sales might not make the cut, either.

Instead, a bipartisan measure cracking down on straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms will serve as the foundation of firearms legislation.

That is a significant blow to Obama, who recently touted that the Senate Judiciary Committee had advanced “three of the most important elements of my proposal to help reduce the epidemic of gun violence in this country.”

Obama’s three pillars have been reduced to one, with the bill facing an uncertain future in the GOP-led House.

Reid said the assault weapons ban sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), which faces staunch opposition from the gun rights group, could have sunk the entire legislative effort.

Reid told Feinstein that he would give her a vote on the assault weapons ban, which includes curbs on high-capacity clips, and a second vote on a stand-alone amendment to ban high-capacity bullet magazines.

In response to Reid pulling her assault weapons and magazine ban from the Gun Bill, Feinstein, having less than 40 votes in support of her proposals, cackled back... 

“This is very important to me and I’m not gong to lay down and play dead,” she said on CNN. “I think the American people have said in every single public poll that they support this kind of legislation.”

“If it’s an amendment, it’s not a symbolic vote,” she said. “I did the bill in 1994 on the floor as an amendment. It was enacted there, it went on the House, and it was enacted there.”

Having far less than enough support, Feinstein's anti 2nd Amendment proposals will most likely be shot down again when offered up as amendments.

And, if for some reason the gun bill passes out of the Senate with Feinstein's amendments, as long as the GOP members in the GOP-controlled House remember they are conservative and supposed to support our 2nd Amendment rights, and as long as Speaker John Boehner is not having another "I Love Obama" moment, there should be no chance of it passing out of the House like it did in 1994.

Big Brother Alert: Police Want Wireless Providers to Save Your Text Messages

From Mashable --

The same day that Google is asking Congress to strengthen privacy protections for Americans' emails, the cops are arguing that U.S. law should require cellphone providers to store text messages logs in the event authorities need to read them in the course of a criminal investigation.

According to the proposal, backed by a coalition of law-enforcement associations, wireless companies like AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile would have to record and store customer's text messages for at least two years, as first reported by CNET last year.

Richard Littlehale, a supervisor with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, testified this morning in front of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, echoing the law-enforcement coalition's proposal. In his prepared remarks (PDF), Littlehale lamented that the cellphone companies don't retain text messages, a practice that "can hinder law enforcement investigations."

"Billions of texts are sent every day, and some surely contain key evidence about criminal activity," he said. "In some cases, this means that critical evidence is lost." And that's why he thinks cops should have a chance to go to cellphone providers and get their hands on old text messages if they need to, "with appropriate legal process, for at least some period of time."

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which was live-tweeting the hearing this morning, Littlehale said he would like carriers to keep the information for one year.

Nowadays, data retention policies vary from carrier to carrier and there's no uniform law mandating the companies to store information for a determined amount of time. Companies don't publicize their data retention policies, but throughout the years, activists' and reporters have been able to piece together some scattered information.

SEE ALSO: Senators Want Police to Get Warrant Before Reading Your Emails

In 2011, through a Freedom of Information Act request, the American Civil Liberties Union obtained an internal Justice Department memo showing that as of 2010, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint didn't store the contents of text messages, while Verizon kept them for just 3 to 5 days, and Virgin Mobile for 90 days.

In 2011, Anonymous gained access to the Gmail account of a retired supervisor of the San Diego-based multi-agency Computer and Technology Crime Hightech Response Team. In an email received by the retired supervisor Alfredo Baclagan, and sent by Baltimore detective Rich Peacock, the latter discusses providers' data retention policies, confirming Verizon's and AT&T's policy and revealing differences with the rest. "Sprint stores their text message content going back 12 days and Nextel content for 7 days. [...] Us Cellular: 3-5 days Boost Mobile LLC: 7 days," reads the email, published on Wired's blog Threat Level.

In his conclusion, Littlehale emphasized the importance of giving law enforcement access to information that can help track down criminals, as well as the importance of balancing that with people's privacy interests.

"Just as there is no question that people have an interest in preserving the privacy of that information," he said. "There can be no question that some of that information holds the keys to finding an abducted child, apprehending a dangerous fugitive, or preventing a terrorist attack."