You can add Nevada and Arizona to the list

You can add Nevada and Arizona to the list



The elephant in the room is the Bush tax cuts. Business in general can't plan for the future (e.g. hiring, expanding) because nobody knows what the taxes are going to be, let alone Obamacare. So what does this lame duck Congress do instead?

1.  They're going to try to shove the Dream Act ( backdoor amnesty) down our throats.

2.  Revisit don't ask don't tell.

3.  Extend unemployment benefits that have been extended about 5 times already.




Why is this stupidity going on?


Thanks to the brain dead morons in Nevada we still have this fool to contend with.





Speaking of morons.

California borders Nevada. Nevada borders Arizona. Moronitis must be a communicable disease.

Former "Minuteman" does an about face on the Dream Act.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN 202-224-2235; 480-897-6289: Staff says he “hasn’t made a public statement” and “hasn’t made up his mind.” He talked a tough border security game to get re-elected, while promising illegal alien activists he would “resolve their issues.” 

(Refresh your memories here.)

This is how he  “resolves their issues.” 

☟

You can add Nevada and Arizona to the list

Top Bush Aide Calls for Attorney General Holder’s Resignation

In his Washington Post column Gerson analyzes the prosecution of Ahmed Ghailani:

Under Holder's influence, American detainee policy is a botched, hypocritical, politicized mess.
The case of embassy bomber Ahmed Ghailani – the only Guantanamo Bay detainee the Obama administration has brought to trial in the United States – was intended to increase public faith in civilian prosecutions. But a terrorist hugging his lawyers in victory can't be considered a confidence builder.

Days before the Ghailani verdict, the White House admitted that Mohammed, because of massive, public resistance, would not be seeing the inside of a Manhattan courtroom anytime soon. "Gitmo," one official told The Washington Post, "is going to remain open for the foreseeable future."

Where do these developments leave Holder, for whom failure is not only an option but a habit? A recent profile by Wil Hylton in GQ magazine attempts to put his tenure in the best possible light – the lonely, naive man of principle undone by politics. But the portrait is unintentionally devastating. Holder clearly views the war on terrorism as a distraction. "The biggest surprise I've had in this job," he told Hylton, "is how much time the national security issues take."

Not an actor portrayal. Actual endorsement by Janet.

The rest of Gerson's column is worth reading. I like it's bipartisan conclusion:

Obama seems to be realizing – gradually, reluctantly – that applying the rules of war in the midst of a war does not destroy the credibility of the rule of law or encourage terrorist recruitment. But his public inability to admit this shift seems to be leading to the worst of possible outcomes.
In all likelihood, Mohammed won't be tried in a civilian court. But Obama's progressive allies would revolt against a military tribunal for the killer of Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl and the mastermind of Sept. 11. So Mohammed is left in legal limbo. This, in its own way, does seem at odds with the rule of law – a prisoner condemned to detention without trial because a president cannot admit he was wrong.
How does Obama back down and accept a tribunal? He could begin by appointing an attorney general who understands the requirements of national security. Some on the left believe Holder should resign out of principle. Some on the right believe he should leave because he is out of his depth. Such bipartisanship should not go to waste.

Top Bush Aide Calls for Attorney General Holder’s Resignation

What happened to draining the swamp?

House Ethics Committee Recommends Censure for Rangel

OK. Pelosi said she was going to drain the swamp. Rid congress of corruption. That is, unless a democrat clogs up the drain. 

Read the paragraph highlighted in red. Is the IRS going to "censure" him too?

WASHINGTON -- The House ethics committee's chief counsel has recommended that Rep. Charles Rangel be censured in connection with a finding that he engaged in improper financial and fundraising conduct.

Chief counsel Blake Chisman called for this punishment despite the New York Democrat's plea to his colleagues for "a drop of fairness and mercy."

This coming from a guy with a closet full of $3,000 suits

If Chisam's recommendation is carried out, this would be the most serious punishment, short of expulsion, which is highly unlikely. Chisam and Rangel argued their positions Thursday in a public hearing on sanctions held by the ethics committee.

The censuring of a lawmaker does not carry any particular limitation on powers or privileges afforded to a member of Congress. There are no specific rules governing what happens to a member who has been censured.

What's the point then?


This has been going on for two years, millions spent on  investigating the allegations, appearances before ethics committees, and at the end of the day the result is..."Bad Charlie...see ya monday morning?" If this is how government is run why bother loading Maxine into the breech? Absolve her of her sins now and save the taxpayers millions. 


Furthermore I don't know what Rangel is whining about. Forget about censure. He should be in jail. If he doesn't retire or die  he'll be a lock the next election. Kind of sad when you think about it. That is... how stupid the people must be in his district.

In the past, however, the party conferences and caucuses have decided to discipline their own based on the decision to censure a member.

Rangel spoke calmly without notes as he faced the committee. He repeatedly denied he was corrupt or crooked, sparking a clash with Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas.

McCaul questioned whether Rangel's conduct was, in fact, corrupt.

He noted that Rangel targeted donors for a college center named after him, people who had legislative issues that Rangel could influence in the Ways and Means Committee.

Rangel, McCaul added, didn't pay taxes on his Dominican Republic villa for 17 years.

"Failure to pay taxes for 17 years. What is that?" McCaul asked. He noted that former Rep. James Traficant, who was expelled after a felony conviction, didn't pay taxes for just two years.

Rangel argued, "City College (of New York) came to me to use my name. I was not trying to criminally hide anything from the IRS and Congress."

He said he didn't know the landlord of his New York apartment building placed him on a special handling list, when Rangel set up a campaign office in a subsidized unit designated for residential use.

Before Chisam commenced his remarks, Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Ala., told committee colleagues that Rangel need only "look in the mirror to know who to blame" for his predicament.



The scene 3 months from now.

What happened to draining the swamp?

Ahmed Ghailani

The first Guantanamo Bay detainee to be tried in federal criminal court was found not guilty on all but one of the 285 counts he faced for his role in the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings.

285 counts and found guilty on only one! That's almost mathematically impossible.

Before going any further according to the transcript of a closed-door hearing in March 2007,  Ghailani admitted delivering explosives used to blow up the US embassy in Tanzania in 1998.

 So what we have here is this. Timothy McVeigh gets the death penalty. And considering the magnitude of the crimes, this scumbag practically skates? 

Ghailani was acquitted on 284 charges including one murder count for each of the 224 people he killed. So out of the remaining 61 charges they can only find him guilty on one!!!

He was found guilty on the charge of conspiracy to destroy government buildings. What? The people inside the buildings don't count? The difinition of conspiarcy is: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons. So if you are guilty of conspiring to blow up the buildings, how is it possible to be found not guilty for the resulting death of 224 people inside the buildings?

(Talk about spin)

The U.S. Justice Department responded to the verdict in a written statement, saying, "We respect the jury's verdict and are pleased that Ahmed Ghailani now faces a minimum of 20 years in prison and a potential life sentence for his role in the embassy bombings."


(Are you kidding me... drug dealers get more time then this)

Being fair does not equate with being stupid.
As a terrorist he does not have the rights afforded an American citizen.
This is the end result of trying them in a civilian court. If we weren't already, we certainly are now, the laughingstock around the world. "The Messiah and Stedman" didn't see this coming? The TV commentators are saying this is a slap in the face and a failure for the Obama administration. I'm not so sure. Maybe this was the outcome they sought all along.


I have rocks in my back yard smarter then these prosecutors. These guys make Marcia Clark look like Perry Mason. Stupidity must trickle down from the top. Which is no surprise when you consider who the head of the DOJ is.

Ahmed Ghailani

Rangel found guilty on 11 ethics charges

Now what?

The ethics committee will meet Thursday to consider punishment for Rangel. It will come down to three possibilities and a unlikely fourth. A formal reprimand, censure, or expulsion. Of course he could retire. Would this not be a utter waste of time for all concerned if the only punishment doled out is a slap on the wrist... e.g., formal reprimand or censure? That boils down to (Gee whiz... you shouldn't have done that Charlie. See you Monday morning.)

If this was you or I we would be in jail. Just ask Wesley Snipes. I'm expecting Rangel to go into his usual long dissertation about what a fine war hero he was followed by his years of service (theft) and finally expounding on how his constitutional rights were violated because he had no time to hire legal representation. (Like it's only been two years.)
At the last hearing he said he was going to represent himself.  How does that saying go...a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.


 The common consensus is he's going to get a slap on the wrist. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they will give him the option to retire if not he will be expelled even though it will take two-thirds of the House vote and we're in the lame duck secession. Democrats want to drain the swamp. This is their chance. Put your money where your mouth is. Anything else is just a waste of time.

Oh ...by the way should he somehow remain a Congressman I wouldn't be to concerned about the prospect of his re-election. He could video tape himself murdering someone on his front porch and still get elected.

Rangel found guilty on 11 ethics charges