Degree of Madness

So much for campaign promises

To no one's surprise House Democrats are backing off tough lobbying reform they campaigned on last fall.  From ABC News:

Now that they are running things, many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them. They're also having second thoughts about having to wait an extra year before they can become high-paid lobbyists themselves should they retire or be defeated at the polls.

The growing resistance to several proposed reforms now threatens passage of a bill that once seemed on track to fulfill Democrats' campaign promise of cleaner fundraising and lobbying practices.

[..]

The situation concerns some Democrats, who note their party campaigned against a "culture of corruption" in 2006, when voters ended a long run of Republican control of Congress. Several high-profile issues remained in doubt Friday, five days before the House Judiciary Committee is to take up the legislation.

They include proposals to:

Require lobbyists to disclose details about large donations they arrange for politicians.

Make former lawmakers wait two years, instead of one, before lobbying Congress.

Bar lobbyists from throwing large parties for lawmakers at national political conventions.

All appeared headed for adoption in January when the Senate, with much fanfare, included them in a lobby-reform bill that passed easily. But the provisions, plus many others in the bill, cannot become law unless the House concurs and that's where feet are dragging.

The issues are in danger of being dropped from the House version, a Democratic member close to the negotiations said Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity because sensitive discussions were continuing.

A controversial section in the Senate bill was removed:

The provision removed from that bill, Section 220, would have required certain people engaged in "grassroots lobbying" to register with the government or face civil and criminal penalties, including up to 10 years in prison.

However, according to the American Family Association, amendment H.R. 2093, sponsored by Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) and co-sponsored by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) threatens to put similar requirements into the House version.  According to the wording of the amendment, it would only apply to lobbying firms:

The amendments made by this section shall not apply to any person or entity other than a lobbying firm that is retained on behalf of a client other than that person or entity. No person or entity other than a lobbying firm is required to register or file a report under the amendments made by this section.

I'm not sure the amendment poses such a threat but the same groups that opposed the measure in the Senate bill are also concerned it will be included in the House bill:

Meanwhile, public advocacy groups want the House and Senate to adopt tougher reporting requirements for groups that hire lobbyists to help organize supposedly grass-roots campaigns to influence Congress. One proposal would require disclosures by lobbying firms that receive at least $100,000 in a quarter for "paid communications campaigns" aimed at mobilizing the public on a given issue.

Groups such as Common Cause and Democracy 21 say massive special-interest campaigns can largely hide their donors' identities because current disclosure laws apply only to direct lobbying of Congress.

But organizations spanning the political spectrum oppose the idea, saying it could discourage citizens from exercising their right to petition the government. Groups urging lawmakers to reject the proposal include the American Civil Liberties Union, National Right to Life Committee and Eagle Forum.

House members and aides said it was unclear whether the grass-roots proposal, which is not in the Senate bill, will be added to the House measure.

The bottom line here is grass-roots lobbying is not the problem.  The problem is our representatives in Congress do not want to give up the lavish parties and they don't want American voters to know who's bankrolling their campaigns.  They don't want the voters to know what groups are influencing their decisions (and in too many cases writing the bills). 

How many times did we hear during the 2006 campaigns that Democrats were going to clean up the "culture of corruption" the Republicans were responsible for in Washington?   What a joke.

Wasn't it the Democrats who insisted that the Republicans jumped into bed with lobbyists and special interests? Well, now we have a senior Democrat who made sure that over a billion dollars of federal money got routed through her own checkbook, with her husband as proxy. When can we expect to see a Democratic investigation into this brand of corruption?

The Democrats have no credibility on in the issue whatsoever.  If the drastic changes needed are going to be made it will be up to the grassroots many in Washington want to silence.  As for lobbying reform, by the time it gets passed it will be so watered down it will be meaningless.

Congress goes Hog Wild over Spring Break

Alabama Congressman Mike Rogers (R-3rd Dist.) spent Spring Break at a five-star resort in the Caribbean thanks to the generosity of the American taxpayer. 

Charles Hurt at The Examiner (DC):

Congress is keeping Andrews Air Force base plenty busy this year ferrying lawmakers all over the globe at taxpayers’ expense. Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi took his wife, nine Democrats and two Republicans - Reps. Dan Lungren of California and Mike Rogers of Alabama - on a whirlwind tour of the Caribbean last week. After stops in Honduras and Mexico, they stopped in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the delegation stayed at the five-star Caneel Bay resort.

The Caribbean whirlwind was by no means the only trip taxpayers funded over the break (my emphasis):

In a separate trip to the Caribbean last week, Rep. Eliot Engel of New York squired his wife and four Democratic members to Grenada and Trinidad.

All told, the military flew at least 13 congressional delegations to various destinations during the Easter recess -- at an estimated rate of $10,000 or more per flying hour.

I'm not sure where Hurt got the $10,000 figure, according to another story he wrote the cost of planes for lawmakers is a deep dark secret:

Members of Congress who travel abroad on the taxpayers’ dimes must file expense reports, but the largest cost of the trips remains a closely guarded secret.

The Examiner reviewed forms filed for dozens of such trips during the past two years and found that the cost of air travel is almost always excluded. In the boxes where that price is supposed to be listed, members instead write “Mil Air” to indicate that they flew on a fully staffed military jet.

One of the only members of Congress who wants to reveal that information is Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who for years has badgered the U.S. Department of Defense and the State Department for the costs associated with traveling congressional delegations, known as CODELS.

A senior Defense Department official responded to one of Coburn’s requests by telling him the records are not kept. Coburn wrote back to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, saying his department’s stonewalling surprised him, since Defense officials on Capitol Hill who arrange military transport for lawmakers are known to “take care of everything.”

“I am gravely concerned to hear that none of this activity on the part of the department is recorded, or financial expenditures tracked,” Coburn wrote to Rumsfeld. “I have found that taxpayers are quite interested in the accountability and transparency of every federal agency.”

Leaders of both parties take part in concealing the information, according to Coburn. Defense Department officials told him last year when his fellow Republicans controlled Congress that the majority leader and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee instructed the department not to reveal the information.

Taxpayer accountability, what a concept.  And don't forget, Income Tax deadline is tonight at midnight.  Happy filing!   

(H/T Boker tov, Boulder!)

Democrats get support from Moqtada al-Sadr

Democrats are dead set on demanding a timetable for defeat in Iraq.  Some in Iraq agree with the them:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The political movement of fiery Iraqi Shi'ite cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr said on Sunday it would withdraw from the government on Monday to press its demand for a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal.

Officials from the movement, which holds six ministries and a quarter of the parliamentary seats in Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Shi'ite Alliance, said the formal announcement would be made on Monday at a news conference.

[...]

"We are going to declare our withdrawal from government because the prime minister does not want to make a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq," said one official in Sadr's movement who declined to be identified.

So the Democrats and Moqtada al-Sadr are in agreement.  No surprise.  Both are actively working for a U.S. defeat in Iraq.  If only the Democrats would withdraw from the government as well.........

Anti-terrorism caucus

In January 2007, North Carolina Congresswoman Sue Myrick formed the Anti-Terrorism Caucus.   From Investor's Business Daily:

War On Terror: Maintaining a high level of vigilance against an enemy is wearisome business, especially in this war. We salute those who have not succumbed to 9/11 fatigue.

One tireless watchdog is Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., who earlier this year founded the Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus to educate fellow lawmakers and Americans in general about the threat from militant Islam.

"The general public doesn't understand the threats we face from radical jihadists — who they are, what they want and what we can do about the threat," the feisty Myrick says on her Web site. "Americans are not being properly informed about the nature of the jihadist threat and their plans to do us harm."

[...]

.... Myrick has already recruited more than 80 members to join her — including even some Democrats, such as Bud Cramer of Alabama and Ben Chandler of Kentucky.

It's nice to see some Democrats involved, especially one from Alabama.  In our PC gone amok world the jihadists have gotten the upper hand, with no small thanks to groups such as CAIR. 

"The general public doesn't understand the threats we face from radical jihadists — who they are, what they want and what we can do about the threat," the feisty Myrick says on her Web site. "Americans are not being properly informed about the nature of the jihadist threat and their plans to do us harm."

This is an understatement. The media and academia have whitewashed jihad or ducked the issue entirely, petrified as they are of looking intolerant toward Muslims. Meantime, well-funded apologists such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations have gone on the offensive against the few critics who have spoken out, further confusing Americans about the gravity of the threat.

"The jihadists have become incredibly advanced in their public relations efforts," Myrick lamented. And we have limited tools to counteract their propaganda, thanks to institutionalized religious tolerance even for creeds hostile to our way of life.

Our politically correct college campuses are contributing to our national ignorance as well.  IBD points to the work Daniel Pipes is doing to counter this influence:

Another group is challenging Islamic apologists and terror supporters on college campuses. Led by Daniel Pipes, a Mideast scholar, Campus Watch seeks to expose professors who gloss over the religious roots of jihad and blame America and Israel for Islamic violence.

His Philadelphia-based nonprofit group singles out for scorn John Esposito of Georgetown University, who has consistently dismissed the threat from Islamist movements and even from Osama bin Laden. Not surprisingly, Esposito's pro-Islamic center at Georgetown is supported by a huge endowment from a Saudi prince.

Campus Watch aims to alert university regents, administrators, alumni and parents of students to "the problems in Mideast studies and encourage them to address existing problems."

"We challenge these stakeholders to take back their universities, and not passively accept the mistakes, extremism, intolerance, apologetics and abuse when these occur," it adds.

Campus Watch invites students to lodge complaints about such activities on campus, including those of the Muslim Student Association, which was founded by members of the dangerous Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement whose motto is "The Quran is our constitution, the prophet is our guide; Death for the glory of Allah is our greatest ambition."

CAIR is aggressive in attempting to silence the voices of Pipes and others such as Robert Spencer and Steve Emerson.  Maybe with the help of the Anti-terrorism caucus, CAIR and other "well-funded apologists" will be silenced instead and Americans will finally wake up to the clear and present danger we face.

Muslim Brotherhood denies Congressional Invitation

(CNSNews.com) - The Muslim Brotherhood has denied an Egyptian newspaper report saying that a visiting delegation led by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer had invited members of the radical Islamist group to visit the U.S. Congress.

"These reports are totally groundless," Muslim Brotherhood executive bureau member Mohamed Mursi said in a statement posted on the organization's website.

The report was easy enough to believe considering Hoyer met with the Brotherhood, something the Bush administration has said, pretty emphatically, the United States would not do:

During a visit to Egypt in June 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told an audience at the American University in Cairo, "We have not had contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood ... we have not engaged the Muslim Brotherhood and we don't -- we won't."

MEMRI has not posted an update on their original story.  Hoyer's spokeswoman had this to say:

Hoyer spokeswoman Stacey Bernards on Friday denied the al-Mesryoon report, saying she had "no knowledge of any invitation to members of the Muslim Brotherhood" and that she believed the report to be incorrect.

Not a very strong denial.

More background on the Muslim Brotherhood here.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend

According to MEMRI:

The Egyptian opposition daily Al-Masryoon reported that high-level diplomatic sources said that Muslim Brotherhood General Guide Muhammad Mahdi 'Akef, several members of his office, and Muslim Brotherhood MPs had been invited by U.S. Democrat congressmen to visit the U.S. next month and to speak to Congress.

Is this report accurate?  Charles Johnson believes it is:

It just keeps getting worse; even though it’s a report from Egypt, I have little doubt that it’s accurate. Not only are they setting up their own shadow government, and pandering to the worst dictatorships on the planet, the Democrats are now openly inviting virulent enemies of Western civilization into our country.

It wouldn't surprise me.  I suppose after Syria (and possibly Iran) the Muslim Brotherhood isn't such a big leap for the self-appointed foreign policy czars.  The Democrats have gone off the deep end and are in the advanced stages of Bush Derangement Syndrome.  It's incurable and can drag on for years. 

"Congress should put pressure on our enemies"

Congressman Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) received a visit from "mothers and fathers, veterans, supporters, and patriots" who questioned his vote on the pork-filled military appropriation bill.  They were great.  As I watched the video I was wondering who the woman sitting next to Hodes was.  She made the comment we're in "a war that can't be won".  The woman turns out to be Hodes' wife Peggo.  From the Union Leader:

During the hour-long meeting that lasted twice the scheduled length, the congressman's wife, Peggo, asked the group how America could win the war.

"I'm not here to be a focus of your blame," she said during the discussion, which often had multiple people talking at once. After being interrupted, she said, "I don't want 3,000 more people to die for a war that can't be won."

When Hodes stated that Congress had not been able to sway the President, one of the ladies said Congress should be putting pressure on our enemies.  Well said.

Pelosi's road to Damascus, she's gone bonkers

The road to Damascus is the road to peace. Hallelujah!  Syria, supporter of Hamas (a "legitimate resistance group") and Hezbollah (a "regular Lebanese political party"), murderer of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and likely Lebanese minister of industry Pierre Gemayel as well, is the key to peace in the Middle East.  Who knew?

Thank goodness Nancy Pelosi went to Syria or we would still be in the dark about this oasis of peace:

DAMASCUS, Syria -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held talks with Syria's leader today despite White House objections, saying she pressed President Bashar Assad over his country's support for militant groups and passed him a peace message from Israel.

[...]

"We came in friendship, hope and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Mrs. Pelosi told reporters after her talks with Mr. Assad.

Pelosi expressed "concern" about Syria's connections to Hamas and Hezbollah, and  "raised the issue of Israeli soldiers kidnapped by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and the Palestinian group Hamas".  Well that settles it.  I'm sure the Israeli soldiers will be returned immediately, and Israel will have no more trouble with Hamas and Hezbollah.  (It occurs to me Assad might extend some sort of olive branch just to make President Bush look bad.)  How about the Golan Heights? 

During a visit to Israel on Sunday, Mr. Olmert told Mrs. Pelosi that Israel was seeking peace, "but that this would only be possible if Syria abandoned terror and stopped providing assistance to terror groups," an Israeli government official said.

Mr. Assad has repeatedly said in the past year that Damascus is willing to negotiate with Israel, insisting that the talks must lead to the return of the Golan Heights, seized by Israel in the 1967 Mideast War.

Sooner or later I'm afraid Israel will be forced to give up the Golan Heights. Unless the United States stands firmly behind Israel the issue will remain on the table.  I've been to the Golan Heights and I would not want to be an Israeli living below if Israel loses this very critical land.  It seems to me Israel would effectively lose much more than just the Heights if its citizens felt unsafe living like sitting ducks in the valley below.  I don't suppose Nancy Pelosi cares much about that.

Farid Ghadry, of the Reform Party of Syria comments on Pelosi's wearing ("flaunting") a Hijab:

The Hijab worn by women across the Muslim world has come to symbolize either one of three things: 1) a symbol that men control women by forcing piety, or 2) a return to religiosity because of oppressive rulers, or 3) a fashion statement.  If you ask any expert on the Middle East, you would get any one of three answers. The ones who usually claim it is a fashion statement are the political rulers who usually oppress people in general. A Hijab is NOT a confirmation of the rights of women in the Middle East but rather a symbol of their suppression. 

As a Muslim, I fully understand respect of our religion by visiting US officials and I applaud that respect. Had Speaker Pelosi worn the Hijab inside a Mosque, this would have indicated respect but for Pelosi to wear it on the streets of Damascus all the while she is sitting with the self-imposed Baschar al-Assad who has come to symbolize oppression and one of the reasons why women are forced to wear the Hijab as they turn to religion to express their freedom is a statement of submittal not only to oppression but also to lack of women's rights in the Middle East.

[...]

....... Pelosi just reversed the work of the Syrian civil society and those who aspire for women's freedom in the Muslim countries many years back with her visual statement. Her lack of experience of the Middle East is showing.

The answer to the question posed in the title of Farid Ghadry's post, "Has Pelosi Gone Bonkers?" is yes.  Dangerously so.

Democrats send sorry message to our troops

Nevada Senator Harry Reid is determined to undermine the war in Iraq and our troops in the  process.  From CBS News:

(AP) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday he wants to cut off money for the Iraq war next year, making clear for the first time that Democrats are willing to pull out all the stops to end U.S. involvement.

        [...]

Reid's latest proposal would give the president one year to get troops out, ending funding for combat operations after March 31, 2008.

"If the president vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period," Reid said in a statement.

But would Congress abandon our troops?  Reid said Congress would provide the troops what they needed to be safe.  What in the hell does that mean?  Who will decide how much money our troops need to be safe?

Today Reid was in Las Vegas at the dedication of a new National Guard armory, of all places, where he called the war in Iraq a "failure".  From the Las Vegas SUN:

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Sen. Harry Reid used the dedication of a new Nevada National Guard armory Tuesday to declare the Iraq war "a failure" but insist that U.S. troops and National Guard members fighting the conflict deserve public support.

[...]

But Reid insisted Tuesday that Congress will not leave troops unprotected.

"We have said time and time again the troops will have everything they need," Reid said, adding that it was time for Iraqis to assume the responsibility and cost of defending their country.

It's the Democrat(ic) Congress that is a failure.  While Nancy Pelosi is in the Middle East having a "dialogue" with Syria, the same Syria that supports terrorists, the same Syria responsible for the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Harry Reid is sabotaging our troops here at home.  And he's got plenty of help.

"In the face of the administration's stubborn unwillingness to change course, the Senate has no choice but to force a change of course," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who signed on Monday as a co-sponsor of Reid's proposal with Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.

I honestly don't know how these people sleep at night. 

"It's time the self-appointed strategists on Capitol Hill understood a very simple concept: You cannot win a war if you tell the enemy you're going to quit," Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday at a fundraising luncheon for Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

Simple concept, yes, if you actually want to win.  The only thing the Democrats want to win is the White House in 2008.  They will use any means necessary to make that happen.   

While Reid toured the 80,000-square-foot Nevada National Guard facility, a group of Veterans of Foreign Wars officials in Las Vegas called for Congress to approve funding for the Iraq war without what they called "an arbitrary withdrawal timeline."

"Give them the tools necessary to complete the mission you sent them on, and do it without further delay," George Lisicki, VFW national senior vice commander, said in a statement.

It will be up to the Republicans in Congress to protect our troops and give them what they need to complete the mission.

Thomas Sowell on Pelosi's trip:

Congressman Tom Lantos, who is a member of the delegation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leading to Syria, put the mission clearly when he said: "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy."

            Democrats can have any foreign policy they want -- if and when they are elected to the White House.

Until Nancy Pelosi came along, it was understood by all that we had only one president at a time and -- like him or not -- he alone had the Constitutional authority to speak for this country to foreign nations, especially in wartime.

All that Pelosi's trip can accomplish is to advertise American disunity to a terrorist-sponsoring nation in the Middle East while we are in a war there. That in turn can only embolden the Syrians to exploit the lack of unified resolve in Washington by stepping up their efforts to destabilize Iraq and the Middle East in general.

 

Memo to Robert Aderholt: President Bush is the President, you are not

I was disappointed to see Alabama Congressman Robert Aderholt's name among the three Republicans who defied President Bush and visited Syria.  Although he is not my representative I do plan to call his office tomorrow to express my disappointment.  I hope Alabamians living in his district will do the same.

From The Washington Post:

DAMASCUS, Syria -- U.S. House members meeting with President Bashar Assad Sunday said they believed there was an opportunity for dialogue with the Syrian leadership.

The U.S. House members, who included Virginia Republican Frank Wolf, Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt, also said they had raised with Syrian officials the issue of stopping the alleged flow of foreign fighters from Syria to Iraq .

I'm sure three Republican Congressman are going to make a huge impact on Assad.  He will probably stop funding terrorists tomorrow.  And I'm sure Aderholt and company convinced him to have a talk with his friends in Iran about releasing the 15 British Sailors and Marines.  April fools.

In a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, the congressmen said they had talked about "ending support for Hezbollah and Hamas, recognizing Israel's right to exist in peace and security, and ceasing interference in Lebanon."

"We came because we believe there is an opportunity for dialogue," the statement said. "We are following in the lead of Ronald Reagan, who reached out to the Soviets during the Cold War," it added.

Captain Ed points out a minor flaw in the comparison to Ronald Reagan:

Perhaps they missed this one particular difference, but Ronald Reagan was President and the Constitutional determiner of American foreign policy. Congress doesn't have the authority to conduct negotiations on behalf of the United States, just as they do not have the authority to take command of the military. If these three stooges want to shape American foreign policy, then let them run for President. In the meantime, they should stick to legislating.

And what does our current President think about negotiations with Syria?

Despite the poor relationship between the two countries stemming from disagreements over Iraq and suspected Syrian support for militant groups, there have been recent calls in the U.S. to engage Syria.

Earlier this year, a bipartisan U.S. commission initially proposed by Wolf recommended the Bush administration launch new diplomatic initiatives with both Syria and Iran, something it has refused to do.  (my emphasis)

President Bush refused to follow the absurd recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, yet these Republican Congressmen, following the lead of an equally absurd Democrat, trot off to Syria to have a dialogue.  And the genius who recommended the ISG is one of them.  Thanks for the reminder.

Captain Ed has the final word:

Jimmy Carter and to a lesser extent Jesse Jackson have made a career of screwing up international relations. Nothing good has ever come of it. I found this type of thing distasteful when it happened to Bill Clinton as well. The President, regardless of the party to which he belongs, needs to present American policy as a united front. It's bad enough when the opposition party undermines that credibility; it's astoundingly idiotic for the President's own party to destroy it.

Astoundingly idiotic.