Temas de foro

OBAMA SIGUE LA POLITICA DE BUSH QUE ANTES CRITICABA

siboneyes — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:44:22 GMT

Why is Obama embracing the very Bush administration policies that he campaigned against?

Jul 30, 2010 ·

“Breaking a Promise on Surveillance,” is the headline of a New York Times editorial this morning. At issue is an Obama administration proposal to allow the FBI to obtain lists of anyone’s email correspondents and web browsing history by issuing a National Security Letter without going to court. The proposal now being put forward, explains a senior administration official quoted by the Washington Post, would enable the FBI “to intercede in plots earlier than we would if our hands were tied and we were unable to get this data in a way that was quick and efficient.”

The proposal has been greeted with a chorus of denunciations from civil liberties groups. The Electronic Frontier Foundation calls it “a stunning and brazen request. They're asking Congress to reward bad behavior by allowing even more bad behavior.” The Times has now joined in, denouncing the administration for taking an “unnecessary and disappointing step backward toward more intrusive surveillance from a president who promised something very different during the 2008 campaign.”

All of which raises an interesting question. President Obama is perhaps the most liberal president in our history. As a candidate for office eighteen months ago, he was emphatically promising to rein in surveillance “abuses.” Why is he now switching into reverse and embracing the very Bush administration policies that he campaigned against?

The obvious place to look for an answer is the intelligence that is now flowing daily across the president’s desk. It includes an alarming picture of threats to the homeland. In just the past half-year alone, we have seen some of them--in Fort Hood, in the skies over Detroit, and in Times Square--come to fruition. Others, like a Madrid bombing attack on the New York City subway system, were averted by law enforcement, with the use of, among other techniques, electronic surveillance.

The dangers we face are real, and with power comes responsibility. President Obama, no longer a candidate but a man accountable under the Constitution for providing “for the common defense,” is willing to bend on civil liberties to come to grips with the menace. This is not a happy outcome for our privacy or our freedoms, but it is one forced upon us by a campaign of terror that we ignore at our peril.

Democrats attack Republican state convention

siboneyes — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:54:50 GMT

Democrats attack Republican state convention

July 31, 2010

Thomas Haughey, was assassinated Republican congressman from Alabama.

On this day in 1869, Rep. Thomas Haughey (R-AL) was shot while giving a campaign speech. He died five days later.

Born in Scotland, Haughey moved to the United States at the age of fifteen and became a doctor. He lived in the hill country of northern Alabama, which became a Unionist stronghold during the Civil War. He served as regimental surgeon of the 3rd U.S. Tennessee Infantry. In 1867, he was a delegate to the Alabama constitutional convention. The following year, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Michael Zak is a popular speaker to Republican organizations around the nation, showing office-holders and candidates and activists how they would benefit tremendously from appreciating the heritage of our Grand Old Party. is his acclaimed history of the GOP, cited by Clarence Thomas in a Supreme Court decision. He is also the author of the 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar. His Grand Old Partisan website celebrates more than fifteen decades of Republican heroes and heroics. See www.grandoldpartisan.com for more information.Back to Basics for the Republican Party

+++++++++++++++++++

“The past is the cause of the present, and the present will be the cause of the future. All these are links in the endless chain stretching from the finite to the infinite.”
Abraham Lincoln

“The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.”
Ronald Reagan

AZ. officer dies in under cover drug bust, while Judge Bolton looks the other way

siboneyes — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:16:46 GMT

Arizona officer dies in under cover drug bust, while Judge Susan Bolton looks the other way

July 30, 9:03 AM · Gil Guignat - Phoenix Conservative Examiner

Do you suppose Arizona Judge Susan Bolton understands that while she is paralyzed by fear of not knowing what to do, her inaction is getting police officers killed?

The overwhelming reason Arizona's immigration law SB 1070 needs to go into effect is that the drug dealers are hiding in the illegal immigrant masses. Police need to know who they are and need to have the option of asking for ID documents when anyone is stopped for another infraction.

Isn't it interesting how the protesters against SB 1070 are not interested in law enforcement personnel getting killed from the by-product of illegal immigration which is drug violence?

Judge Bolton was oh! so concerned that illegal immigrant rights would be trampled if too many were stopped. Judge Bolton should have also added that in order to preserve those rights if law enforcement personnel was slaughtered so she could look good to Obama and company and maybe get a promotion in the process she was ok with that.

This officer was killed on the eve of her ruling and two others were wounded. When Virginia implemented its version of SB 1070 violent crime went down 40%. Do you get it Judge Bolton? That officer may have not needed to lose his life had the law been in effect and made things safer. We are in the midst of a disastrous economy where the state of Arizona is more than a $1 billion in deficit and government can hardly run. This ruling is making safety much worse at a time wehn people should be concentrating on their economic wellbeing. How can people feel safe and go about their lives when you have declared open season on Arizonans?

Here is an idea for you judge. Why don't you go with the protesters and march hand in hand with them in a civil rights march a la 1960's? You are complicit in this officer's death and you will be complicit in future injuries to law enforcement. This is on your head! What happens when the cops stop showing up to defend us? We can hardly wait for your next ruling to keep us safe!

Fue su decision de venir a EU..muy differente a la realidad de los Esclavos.

prolife4ever — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:56:11 GMT

The Post-American Presidency: OBAMA’S WAR IN AMERICA - a cmust read

sirjohn — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:04:45 GMT

The Post-American Presidency: OBAMA’S WAR IN AMERICA

Jamie Glazov 7/30/2010 In FrontPage

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Pamela Geller, founder, editor and publisher of the popular and award-winning weblog AtlasShrugs.com. She has won acclaim for her interviews with internationally renowned figures, including John Bolton, Geert Wilders, Bat Ye’or, Natan Sharansky, and many others, and has broken numerous important stories — notably the questionable sources of some of the financing of the Obama campaign. The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America [1] (forward by Ambassador John Bolton) — just released on July 27.

FP: Pamela Geller, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Tell us about your new book and what you have discovered about Obama’s war on America.
Geller: Thanks Jamie.

The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America is the product of three years of research I’ve done on Barack Obama: his socialist internationalism, his ties to America-haters and anti-Semites, his race-baiting, and more. As president, Obama is presiding over America’s decline, and is in many important ways the apostle of that decline. He is betraying Israel; warring against free speech; refusing to take real steps to stop Iran’s nuclear program, despite the many genocidal statements Ahmadinejad has made against Israel, and the open contempt the mullahs have shown for his efforts to reach out to them.

Obama is turning allies into enemies and enemies into allies; submitting the U.S. to international law; bankrupting us with socialist schemes both domestically and internationally; bypassing the democratic process and the system of checks and balances by governing through a proliferation of “czars”; and using global warming as a pretext to redistribute wealth from the First World to the Third World.

He has appointed numerous proponents of the primacy of international law over U.S. law, including Harold Koh, legal adviser for the State Department; Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and now Elena Kagan; John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) – that is, the science czar; Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change – that is, the global-warming czar; and Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or Regulatory Czar.

Obama has never demonstrated any respect for the freedom of speech, the fundamental protection the Bill of Rights gives us against tyranny. He has appointed a proliferation of officials who have in various ways advocated restrictions on the freedom of speech: Kagan, Sunstein, Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission; and Attorney General Eric Holder.

Obama comes from a Muslim background, as detailed in the book, and has numerous friends and associates who are inveterate foes of Israel. Not just Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, but also Samantha Power, the National Security Council’s Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights; Robert Malley and Zbigniew Brzezinski, two key foreign policy advisers; Rosa Brooks, advisor to the undersecretary of Defense for policy; and Chuck Hagel, co-chair of the Intelligence Advisory Board.

The book details all this and much more, including Obama’s betrayal of the freedom movement in Iran and of the democratic forces in Honduras, and his attempts to use climate change to destroy American sovereignty. Everything flows from his core beliefs, which were shaped by some of his earliest experiences and confirmed by his later associations.

The book also makes some shocking new revelations, including details of how Obama took campaign money from Gaza, in violation of federal law; how ACORN, with which Barack Obama has been deeply involved for years, destroyed Republican voter registrations; the full truth about how making America safe for Sharia is not incidental, but is a cornerstone of Obama’s presidential program; and about how Obama is consistently, not just occasionally, anti-democratic and favors authoritarian regimes and measures.

FP: How come Obama’s Muslim background [2] is never discussed in our media? And Obama camouflages it as well, even though it is a fact. Explain to us why this matters.

Geller: Jamie, the media doesn’t discuss it simply because it would reflect poorly on Obama. Yet it matters because Islam has since its inception had a political and expansionist character, and that that would mean that ties to Islam had a greater significance than simple allegiance to this or that religious group.

And Obama himself, with his Muslim father and stepfather and Muslim upbringing in Indonesia, knows the stakes involved. It is impossible in our post-9/11 world to be a leader and not know what Islam means, or at the very least know the hell being wreaked upon the free and not-so-free world by the warriors of Islamic jihad. And Obama has already told us which side he will be on when the lines are fully drawn: “In the wake of 9/11,” he wrote in The Audacity of Hope, “my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” [1] In the first year of his presidency, he showed in numerous ways that he would indeed stand with them.

FP: Tell us a bit about how anti-Semitism plays into all of this. We know Islam’s disposition to Jews and so, perhaps, Obama’s bullying of Israel [3] is no coincidence at all?

Geller: Indeed Jamie, Islamic anti-Semitism is part of the Koranic imperative and the pervasive influence of Islamic Jew-hatred cannot be ignored when assessing the impact of Barack Obama’s early life experiences upon the later trajectory of his career. If a devout Muslim prays the obligatory five daily prayers, he will repeat the Shehadah, the first chapter of the Koran, seventeen times; that chapter concludes with prayers that Muslims generally understand as asking Allah not to make the believer like the Jews (“those who have earned Allah’s anger”) or the Christians (“those who have gone astray”). The prayers generally conclude with the dua qunoot, a prayer that Allah’s wrath would overtake infidels. Imagine the influence that all this – inculcating contempt for Jews and Christians seventeen times a day – might have on a young mind and a future president. Troubling psychological wiring might have been set in place for a lifetime.

Muslims who have left Islam are generally vocal about why they left: Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Walid Shoebat, and others have spoken out fearlessly on these issues. Obama may not wish to engage in critiques of Islam, but if he left Islam, he must have very definite thoughts about it. And even if this is simply not an important issue to him, then he can still appreciate how important it is – knowing what he knows about Islam and apostasy.

Apostasy is punishable by death in Islam. Yet there have been no calls for Obama’s death from the Islamic world. Why is this? Islam gives no free passes.

Obama’s posture on this is hard to define or understand – all the more so because this is a critical issue. Transformational issues facing this nation and the world at large – the world at war, creeping Sharia, the perversion of the rights of free men – hang in the balance during the Obama administration as never before. The stakes could not be higher. On foreign policy, Europe has lain down. The political elites have capitulated to Islamists and to multiculturalists. Europe is committing slow cultural and demographic suicide. It seems unclear that they could hold up their end even if America did the heavy lifting. As far as Israel is concerned, Obama has already made it clear that while he is in the White House, Israel is on its own.

As Obama continues to pursue his pro-Islamic and anti-Israel policies, this will only get worse. And so his deception about his Islamic ties must be explored. The potential damage to this country is incalculable.

These are dangerous times. Those consequences are, in this post-American presidency, already becoming apparent.

FP: How does Obama see the world and America? What is his vision and ultimate goal? Was there ever such a radical person to have occupied the White House?

Geller: Obama sees America as just another country. His vision is to make America part of a socialist internationalist supranational construct, destroying American sovereignty. Obama makes Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton look like conservatives.

He said it himself during a visit to London for a summit of the Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (G-20. A reporter asked Obama: “[C]ould I ask you whether you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of ‘American exceptionalism’ that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy?”

It was a question Ronald Reagan once answered without ever having been asked it. He said: “With all its flaws, America remains a unique achievement for human dignity on a scale unequaled anywhere in the world.” But Obama offered no similar avowal of American uniqueness. Instead, he equated American exceptionalism with the national pride that a citizen of any nation could feel: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

Embarrassed? Who would even think such a thing? Except someone who is embarrassed by America.

FP: What does this crystallize about Obama?

Geller: It basically can really only mean one thing: that for him, America is nothing special. Even when Obama does refer to America’s essential goodness, as he did in his 2010 State of the Union address, it is only to advance his commitment to socialist internationalism and redistribution of American wealth: he wields Americans’ empathy and compassion like a club to manipulate us into funding bad foreign policy and despotic regimes.

Obama went to work from his first day in office to make America’s decline become a reality. As the most powerful man in the world, he would level the playing field, even if it meant cutting America off at the knees. Good and evil would be made equivalent, with evil sanctioned by the world’s only remaining superpower: democracy and tyranny, dictator and elected leader would be given the same moral sanction. He traveled around the world and denigrated American achievements and American uniqueness. He reached out in friendship to our enemies and the enemies of freedom and individual rights, including Hugo Chávez and even Fidel Castro, and offered Russia a significant boost on its way to returning to superpower status tried by selling out Eastern Europe.

He catered to – and fawned shamelessly over – Islam and Muslim countries, making preposterous statements about how much the United States owes Islam, and even about how America was a Muslim country. [2] Obama clearly believed that doing all this would bolster his image in other countries. But he was taking a calculated risk: that his apparent lack of concern for American national security, and for America’s historical achievements and place in the world, would backfire and anger Americans.

Nonetheless, he took the risk. He must have believed that he was powerful enough and popular enough to neutralize any domestic political backlash that may result – and he certainly had the mainstream media on his side, as he did during his presidential campaign, to cover for him, make excuses for him when he failed, and obscure the full scope of what he was doing.

Barack Hussein Obama has chosen the path of the post-American presidency. He seems to envision himself as more than just the president of the United States, but as a shaper of the new world order, an internationalist energetically laying the groundwork for global government: the president of the world.

FP: What is the worst damage Obama can perpetrate?

Geller: He could severely damage American sovereignty by making us subject to treaties that bind us to obey international law. He has been trying to do this over the climate change issue, among others. He is also well on his way to destroying the American economy by nationalizing huge sectors of American industry: the banks, the automobile industry, and now the healthcare industry.

FP: How do we take our country back? Can we reverse the damage that Obama has done? Is there a chance that Americans might actually re-elect Obama?

Geller: A great deal hinges on November 2010. But with the Republicans generally clueless or afraid to challenge Obama as he should be challenged, or unaware of the implications of what he is doing, and the media in his pocket, he could easily be reelected.

FP: What are some thoughts you have, or things you know, after writing the book that are different before you started writing it? Has anything surprised you?

Geller: I have been investigating Obama in depth since 2007. Nothing he has done as President has surprised me. I saw it all coming and sounded the warning at my website AtlasShrugs.com. I was derided and vilified for doing so, but what I wrote then has been proven right.

FP: How does Obama view his role as President of the United States?

Geller: He sees his job as one of subjecting America to international laws. The problem for Americans is that in his quest for internationalism and global socialism, Obama is leaving the United States twisting in the wind. He is treating America as a stepping stone to help get him where he wanted to go, and he seems willing to do anything to destroy America’s prestige in the world. The consequences could be disastrous, and the presidency and the nation damaged irreparably.

FP: Final thoughts?

Geller: After just one year of the post-American presidency, on January 29, 2010, Solidarity hero and former Polish President Lech Walesa spoke of the new post-American world:

“The United States is only one superpower. Today they lead the world. Nobody has doubts about it — militarily. They also lead economically, but they’re getting weak. They don’t lead morally and politically anymore. The world has no leadership. The United States was always the last resort and hope for all other nations. There was the hope, whenever something was going wrong, one could count on the United States. Today, we lost that hope.” [3]

Our enemies could never have defeated us; we can only defeat ourselves. Whether Barack Hussein Obama succeeds in destroying America or not, those words could be the epitaph of his post-American presidency.

WE DO NOT WANT A COOL DUDE CHIEF..WE WANT A SMART LEADER.

prolife4ever — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:24:50 GMT

We don’t want a “cool dude.” We want a leader. Unfortunately we don’t have one of those either. The people who approve of him are the parasites that leech off the social system and welfare and are waiting for free health care too! And about ObamaCare – what does it involve? He still won’t say, and they won’t put it out there for anyone to read. He didn’t inherit a mess – he has made one. Bush did the best he could with what he was given, do you not remember his 90% approval rate after 9/11. We had many years of good economy under Bush, but any problems that come up now get pinned on him by Obama and his “cool dude” administration so that he doesn’t have to take any blame for his part in it all. We will make NO progress while he is in office. Period.

P.S THE DEMO--RATAS HAD THE HOUSE AND CONGRESS SINCE 2006 AND REMEMBER WHOS IDEA WAS TO LEND PEOPLE THAT DID NOT HAVE MONEY TO PAY BACK...OH YEA BILL DIRTY CLIFTON ANOTHER DEMO--RATA.

The Traitorous Main Stream Media

sirjohn — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:41:27 GMT

The Traitorous Main Stream Media

Posted By Skookum On July 29, 2010

The Left’s defense for the behavior of the Journolistas is that it is just media types pooling their ideas; true enough, unfortunately, their ‘ideas’ were propaganda and lies that swayed an electorate so that the United States now has to endure its first Socialist Racist President.

Unlike Duranty, who held Communism in contempt at least privately, but was willing to sell out his personal integrity to assuage his hedonism and promotion of Duranty by playing up to the mass murderer Joseph Stalin and The New York Times. Consequently, FDR was deluded by men like Durant and the Soviet Agents [1], like Alger Hiss that had infiltrated his confidence and advised him with advice that has influenced and endangered the United States to this day.

Therein is the rub or treason; of course, a Socialist will always retort that the “Ends Justify The Means” and that lies or propaganda is doing the United States a ‘collective good’ and therefore they are more than justified in their lies to promote the cause of Socialism against the hard headed people who actually believe that the Constitution contains the secrets of our exceptionalism and success. Thus theirs is the “Good Fight” and presenting propaganda and lies as news is justified; to a Socialist this is logic and therefore acceptable; unfortunately, the non-Socialist is left feeling bewildered and confused. With sincerity he asks, “When did the news stop becoming the news and evolve into being merely a subliminal political message?”

Obviously this has been an excepted method of execution since the thirties. There has probably been a 70 year period of only hiring Socialist sympathizers to derive the Yellow Press of today, but now that they have achieved their goal, they are losing their audience and credibility at an astronomical rate.

Here are five of the most blatant excesses in journalistic malfeasance [2].

the Journolisters’ attempt, during the 2008 presidential campaign to kill and bury stories about Obama’s relationship with “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright;
their push to deliberately smear innocent conservative journalists and politicos as “racists” and “bigots”
their twisted passion to see Rush Limbaugh killed off and dead;
their intolerant desire to have the government censor and shut down Fox News; and
their baldly partisan effort to coordinate liberal talking points that would discredit Sarah Palin and John McCain, while helping to elect Barack Obama president.

Many of these conspiring journalists who took it upon them selves to pervert the news to enable a Socialist Agenda were from previously respected news sources [2].

Considering that Journolist included journalists from Washington Post, the New York Times, National Public Radio, New Republic, and Time, one has to wonder if the biggest story covered up in 2008 was the illegal coordination between ACORN and the Obama campaign.

Unfortunately, the Socialist Left is so devious in their efforts to bring down the United States and create their Socialist Utopia, that they manage to have the taxpayers pay to fund entities like NPR and soon we will be paying to keep corrupt and obsolete news sources like the New York Times alive so that they can plot to throw more elections just like the low life’s who are always trying to manipulate horse races, with one exception, manipulating a horse race will get you time in prison, manipulating a federal election is OK if you are a Socialist.

STEELE, REAL PROTOTIPO DE LA GRANDIOSA CORRUPCION DEL PARTIDO REPUBLIMIERDA

belledenuit — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:28:32 GMT

RNC treasurer says Steele hid $7 million in debt

By Holly Bailey – Wed Jul 21, 11:11 am ET

A top Republican National Committee official is accusingChairman Michael Steele of failing to report more than $7 million in debt to the Federal Election Commission to make its cash haul look healthier ahead of this year’s crucial midterm elections.

As first reported by the Washington Times’ Ralph Hallow, RNC Treasurer Randy Pullen filed amended reports with the FEC showing $7.1 million in additional debt from April and May that he says Steele and his aides conspired to hide from him.

If true, the RNC could face very serious fines ahead of the midterms — an expense the committee literally can’t afford, as it has struggled to raise funds all year. Pullen aired his complaints in a memo to RNC budget committee members, who have already been concerned about Steele’s crazy spending and money woes.

A RNC spokesman denies Pullen’s claims Still, it’s drama that the GOP doesn’t need at all. Whether the claim is true or not, the continuing flap over RNC spending undermines one of the GOP’s leading arguments heading into November: that Republicans are better stewards of taxpayer dollars. Democrats are bound to argue, if they haven’t already, that the GOP can’t talk up its commitment to fiscal responsibility if their party can’t even mind its own bank accounts.

HASSELBECK HIZO EL GRAN RIDICULAZO HOY ANTE OBAMA EN "THE VIEW", BRAVO, OBAMA!

belledenuit — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:21:21 GMT

Obama Schools Elisabeth Hasselbeck on 'Saved' Jobs and Unemployment on 'The View'

Leave it to Elisabeth Hasselbeck to ask a question on "The View" that she believed was designed to make President Barack Obama look bad on his historic visit to the popular current affairs talk show. But, then, one knew that Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who has been a non-stop critic of Obama (even before he became president), would either go the immigration route or the unemployment route (or both). To his credit, Obama remained his usual imperturbable self and provided a reasonable response to her question. Even more to his credit, President Obama did not attack Republicans and conservatives while doing so.

...

Elisabeth Hasselbeck pressed, repeating (a common tactic in attempts to label or associate someone with something) that she didn't understand how he -- and his administration -- could say that they had "saved" jobs. President Obama got more direct.

"It makes a difference if your job is one that was saved," he told her.

The audience of "The View" erupted in applause.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5634238/obama_...

Panel hits Rangel with 13 alleged ethics charges..

sirjohn — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:18:05 GMT

Panel hits Rangel with 13 alleged ethics charges

AP – Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., leaves his office t

o go to a vote on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, …

By LARRY MARGASAK and LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writers Larry Margasak And Laurie Kellman, Associated Press Writers – 41 mins ago

WASHINGTON – House investigators accused veteran New York Rep. Charles Rangel of 13 violations of congressional ethics standards on Thursday, throwing a cloud over his four-decade political career and raising worries for fellow Democrats about the fall elections.

The allegations — which include failure to report rental income from vacation property in the Dominican Republic and to report more than $600,000 in assets on his congressional financial disclosure statements — came as lawyers for Rangel and the House ethics committee worked on a plea deal.

One was struck, people familiar with the talks said, but Republicans indicated it was too late.

The deal between the lawyers will have little meaning if the committee members don't approve it, and Republicans said at the proceeding they were insisting on going forward with a trial. The panel is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.

"Mr. Rangel was given multiple opportunities to settle this matter. Instead, he chose to move forward to the public trial phase," said Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama, the senior Republican on the ethics panel

Chairman Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., has made clear that she wants the committee to be unanimous — leaving little chance for agreement without Rangel capitulating on virtually all counts.

Many Democrats had urged Rangel to settle the case to avoid the prospect of televised hearings right before November congressional elections that will determine which party controls Congress next year.

However, as Thursday's public airing of the charges drew nearer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seem resigned to the case proceeding.

"The chips will have to fall where they may politically," she told reporters. Pursuing ethics cases against House members is "a serious responsibility that we have," she said.

The alleged violations of House standards of conduct also include using congressional letterhead to solicit donations for a center for public service to bear Rangel's name on the New York campus of the City College of New York.

Reuters

Rangel was also accused of accepting a rent-stabilized property in Manhattan for his campaign office and initially not paying federal taxes on the Dominican Republic property.

The ethics panel said Rangel failed to report rental income on his original tax returns for 1998 through 2006 from the Dominican Republic villa. It also said he violated federal laws in addition to House ethics rules, including the 1989 Ethics Reform Act, Postal Service laws and government service codes.

The ethics charges, agreed upon after a two-year probe, were read in a public session of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as the ethics committee is formally known.

Rangel, 80, did not attend.

The session set the stage for a committee trial, expected to be held in September. Democrats had hoped to avoid such a public confrontation as November elections approach.

"We live at a time when public skepticism about the institutions in our country is very high," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., the ethics committee chair.

She said it had been the panel's goal "to by our actions rebuild and earn trust by the public and our colleagues."

Republicans have been trying to turn the case into an indictment of Democratic leadership. Rangel stepped down earlier this year as chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, one of the top posts in the House.

But Bonner told colleagues, "No one, regardless of their partisan stripes, should rejoice."

"It is the duty of the House to punish its members for disorderly behavior. As such, this is truly a sad day," the Alabama Republican said.

Under the tentative plea deal, it was not immediately clear how many of the 13 charges of ethical violations Rangel agreed to accept.

It includes eight members, equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. Thus, for any deal to be accepted it must be approved by at least one Republican.

In the frantic hours leading up to the meeting, Rangel's lawyer, Leslie Kiernan, talked to attorneys for the panel about how to avoid a trial for the 40-year veteran.

Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican on the panel that will try Rangel, said that the Democrat had been "given the opportunity to negotiate a settlement during the investigation phase."

However, he said, that phase is now over. "We are now in the trial phase," he said.

A congressional trial could be avoided only if Rangel admitted to substantial violations, or resigned.

Punishment could range from a report criticizing his conduct to a reprimand or censure by the House, or a vote to expel him — which is highly unlikely. Any agreement would have to be approved by Rangel and ethics committee members.

"Sixty years ago I survived a Chinese attack in North Korea and as a result I haven't had a bad day since," Rangel told reporters earlier Thursday. "But today I have to reassess that statement."

"I think everyone is looking forward to getting all the facts out in the open, and people will have to react once we know what we're dealing with," said Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill.

Rangel is tied for fourth in House seniority. He's still vigorous at 80 years old.

He had substantial influence as Ways and Means chairman. The panel handles taxes, trade, portions of health care, Medicare and Social Security.

But he stepped down from that post in March after the ethics committee criticized him in a separate case, saying he should have known that corporate money paid for two trips to Caribbean conferences.

Rangel had repeatedly said he looked forward to a public discussion of the current allegations. A four-member investigating panel, with separate members from the judging subcommittee, brought the charges.

The 42-member Congressional Black Caucus has warned Democrats against a rush to judgment, and any lawmaker with a significant African-American constituency must consider whether it's worth asking Rangel to quit.

However, some Democratic House members in close races may think it's more important to distance themselves from Rangel. They don't want to have to answer negative Republican ads about Pelosi's promise to wipe Congress clean of ethical misdeeds.

Two Democrats didn't wait to hear the charges.

Rep. Betty Sutton of Ohio, a second-term lawmaker who received 65 percent of the vote two years ago, said Rangel needs to resign to preserve the public's trust in Congress.

Rep. Walt Minnick of Idaho, a freshman who got 51 percent of the vote last time, called for resignation if the charges are proven.

Congress adjourns for its August recess after this week.

___

Associated Press writers Ann Sanner and Alex Brandon contributed to this report.

Y SIGUE EL GRAN NOVELON PALINBERO DEL SIGLO!!! LEVI GOT ANOTHER GIRL PREGGERS!!!!!

belledenuit — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:10:45 GMT

How Sweet! Levi Johnston may be a daddy again

LEVI JOHNSTON ANOTHER BABY?: Just on the heels of Levi Johnston's engagement announcement, another scandal erupts. According to the National Enquirer, Johnston got another girl pregnant. During his break up with former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol, he reconnected with an ex-girlfriend and now she's believes the baby she is about to have is Levi’s.

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/good_day_ny/fallon-lawsuit-j...

Vean al Rey de los Republicanos ji ji ji...

ministrodeestado — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:32:17 GMT

07-29-2010 03:28 PM

ministro de estado.

LOS DELIRIOS DE GRANDEZA DE LOS OBAMA... QUE GENTUZA!!!!

sirjohn — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:46:19 GMT

A LOS OBAMA LES GUSTA EL SUPER-LUJO

EL MUNDO, MADRID

26 JUL 2010

Qué decepción. A Obama y a Michelle también les gusta el lujo. Qué digo el lujo, el súperlujo, como a los jeques árabes, a los nuevos ricos y a Correa el de 'la Gürtel'.

Tenían múltiples posibilidades para haber elegido un hotel estupendo y con encanto, pero han ido a escoger el hotel más lujoso de España y el lugar que en sí mismo es el símbolo de todos los pecados que nos han llevado a la crisis: Marbella.

La milla de oro, el derroche sin cuento, los billetes de 500 paseando por Puerto Banús, los yates de todas las mafias que convergen en la Costa del Sol. Un lugar que al estilo Obama no le pega ni con cola. Dice la directora del Hotel Villapadierna que la clave de su éxito está en una 'mística' especial que impregna sus salones, sus habitaciones y sus hermosos jardines. Ya pueden. Por 5.000 euros la noche, la mística tendría que llegar al éxtasis de Santa Teresa.

Y eso que tenían aspecto de familia normal, tirando a austera, con una juventud no precisamente boyante en los barrios de Chicago. Leyendo los dos libros que ha escrito, nadie diría que Obama se chifla por los spa de muerte y los campos de golf con bancadas de mármol de Carrara.

No sé qué les parecerá a los estadounidenses que su primera familia vaya a instalarse en el hotel más lujoso, máscaro y más exclusivo de España, cuyas puertas no pueden cruzar ni siquiera en sueños los que tienen un buen sueldo. La exhibición del lujo es de mal gusto en tiempos de bonanza.En momentos de crisis resulta insoportable.

Los asesores de Obama, cuya fama es legendaria, no han estado muy finos esta vez.

Para los españoles es fatal que Omaba y/o Michelle conozcan la España actual a través de los jardines del Villapadierna. Pueden creer que somos riquísimos, con lo cual es posible que EEUU nos obligue a nuevos sacrificios.

Sólo faltaba que Zapatero vaya a soplar las velas de su cumpleaños, que coincide con el de Obama el 4 de agosto, a los exclusivos salones de hotelazo. Mejor sería que le invitara a Quintos de Mora, una finca de caza que es ejemplo de austeridad comparada con Marbella, en la que se hicieron amigos Bush y Aznar. O a Doñana, donde intimaron con los Blair.

Michelle Obama will feel our pain in Spain but only at $2859 a night

July 28, 2010

"THE PAIN IN SPAIN FALLS MAINLY ON THE VAIN": QUEEN OBAMA PHARAONIC TRIP TO SPAIN!!!

And will the First Lady feel our pain while she's staying at the $2859 a night Ritz-Carlton? Nope. Because she's reserved 30 rooms for her friends and the Secret Service. Will she be paying them from her personal account?

After Obama declared in a July 27, 2010 interview with ABC's Elizabeth Leamy, “We’re not that far removed from what most Americans are going through," we find out that Michelle Obama has booked a very expensive vacation to Spain accompanied by "long-time family friends". The liberal media that did decide to cover it calls it a "private" vacation, but since when have the Obama's used their own money?

The trip will not include Obama and Malia. And strangely, the trip will coincide with Obama's birthday because he will be visiting his CEO office at the auto plants he owns in Michigan and taking a trip to Chicago to attend Trinity Church with William Ayers.

Why has Mrs. Obama decided to skip out on O's birthday? Is she getting back at him for not allowing her on the stage for his winning speech? Is she harboring some anger towards him? We may never know.

Mrs. Obama chose the place because it is one of the few in Spain that caters to children. That's appropriate because since Obama was elected, they've all been acting like kids in a candy store.

And finally, will the First Lady be treated to a tour of the disastrous solar energy grids that have nearly bankrupted Spain and have been suspended?

MIENTRAS EL PAIS SUFRE CON UN DESEMPLEO SOBRE EL 20% EN PARTES DEL PAIS, Y LA PEOR CRISIS ECONOMICA DESDE LA DEPRESION DE LOS AÑOS 30 GRACIAS A LAS MEDIDAS ANTI-ECONOMICAS MARXISTAS DE OBAMA, SU MAJESTAD MICHELLE SE CREE LA REENCARNACION DE LA REINA MARIA ANTONIETA DILAPIDANDO LOS DINEROS DEL SUFRIDO PUEBLO TRABAJADOR Y VIAJANDO ALREDEDOR DEL MUNDO CON SU SEQUITO REAL EN UN ALARDE DE OBSTENTACION VERGONZANTE.

Mark Levin: Arizona Ruling an “Abomination”..

sirjohn — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:09:59 GMT

Mark Levin: Arizona Ruling an “Abomination”
by Connie Hair

07/29/2010

Mark Levin, in his radio-program opening monologue last night, did an analysis of what he found to be the most egregious elements of U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton’s activist ruling that guts the new Arizona immigration enforcement law.

Levin points to the heart of the matter in his analysis: The court based its decision on suppositions and hypotheticals which, in a facial (preliminary) challenge, it is specifically barred from doing. His producer was kind enough to provide Human Events with the audio. So here it is, as well as the transcript:

We’re going to discuss the Arizona case. I’ve broken it down… We have this one judge, whom by the way was appointed by Clinton on the recommendation of Jon Kyl and voted for by John McCain. Well, she really made a preposterous ruling today. An abomination.

United States v. the State of Arizona, and Governor Janice Brewer, preliminary injunction and here’s the summary from me.

This court’s decision is a typical example of a judge stating the correct legal standard, but then ignoring it and applying the test in a fashion completely divorced from the facts of the case in order to reach a predetermined decision.

Now I know you in this audience, I know you’re smart. So, I went through the case, I’ve broken it down. I’m only going to hit the fundamentals, but I’m going to try to do it in plain English.

First, the court states correctly that the sort of constitutional challenge brought here—a facial challenge seeking a preliminary injunction—is the most difficult challenge to successfully mount. It requires that the plaintiff—here the federal government—must demonstrate that the law can never be applied in a constitutional fashion.

The test cannot be met with hypothetical argument—yet that is exactly what the court relies on in its ruling, that the Arizona law will impose an impermissible burden on law enforcement, which is to determine the legal status of a person detained pursuant to the Arizona law on the reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.

The court does not provide any empirical basis to support its conclusion. It’s pure supposition.

As the court itself notes, the burden a party must meet when engaging in a facial challenge, that is before a trial, before a hearing on the merits, before discovery, just a claim by the other side this is unconstitutional—do not enact the law, do not allow the law to go into effect until we have our trial—high burden.

And it’s a burden that is established in the United States Supreme Court, United States v. Salerno. The court pays lip service to Salerno at the beginning of its analysis on the “likelihood of success on the merits,” but then proceeds to ignore the Salerno case principles.

The court cites Salerno when it notes: “A facial challenge must fail where a statute has a ‘plainly legitimate sweep.’” In deciding a facial challenge, courts “must be careful not to go beyond the statute’s facial requirements and speculate about ‘hypothetical’ or imaginary cases.” Then the court doesn’t even attempt to actually analyze the provisions it overturns within the Salerno context, except in one instance—in footnote 18—where it upholds a provision of the Arizona law, a provision that is not among the provision that we’re focused on right now.

Distinguish the facial challenge from an as-applied challenge. At one point the court engages in a hypothetical example, when it talks about a potential unfair burden on a legal alien failing to have a dog on a leash, wondering whether he could be detained and subject to an impermissible burden for not carrying his papers under those circumstances.

The court talks about John Doe, a legal alien from Chile who was walking his dog without a leash and was stopped by Sheriff Smith and detained at the local jail for eight hours while his status was checked. It didn’t actually happen. And the test is, it actually has to happen.

The judge also worries that increasing the time a person is detained while his immigration status is being determined might be unconstitutional. Again, pure speculation.

Even more, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has already found that such a delay is permissible where there is reasonable suspicion to check a person’s status.

In the bulk of its legal analysis, this court applies a selective reading of the case to an incomplete reading of the statute. In particular, respecting the provision related to confirming a person’s legal status, the court largely ignores the requirement that law-enforcement officers are able to confirm a person’s legal status only where there is a reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country illegally. The judge essentially omits the reasonable-suspicion component of the law and concludes that the act implements a new set of immigration rules particular to Arizona, in violation of another case called Hines v. Davidowitz.

Now this case, Hines, is an old case dealing with a vastly different Pennsylvania law. Stick with me. Here’s what the Hines court correctly concluded: “The question whether a state law is invalid as conflicting with federal laws touching the same subject is not to be determined according to any rigid formula or rule, but depends upon whether, under the circumstances of the particular case, the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”

The Pennsylvania act was struck down. It required every alien 18 years or older, with certain exceptions, to register once each year; provide such information as is required by the statute, plus any other information and details that the Department of Labor and Industry for Pennsylvania may direct; pay $1 as an annual registration fee; receive an alien identification card and carry it at all times by the state; show the card whenever it may be demanded by any police officer or agent of the Department of Labor and Industry, and exhibit the card as a condition precedent to registering a motor vehicle in his name or obtaining a license to operate one.

The Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry is charged with the duties of classifying the registrations for the purpose of ready reference and it goes on and on and on.

In other words, Pennsylvania put in place its own immigration law. That is not what Arizona has done.

In the Hines case, the court said, our conclusion is that the challenger of the Pennsylvania law is correct in his contention that the power to restrict, limit, regulate, and register aliens as a distinct group is not an equal and continuously existing concurrent power of state and nation, but that whatever power a state may have is subordinate to supreme national law.

So Hines does not support the court’s conclusion respecting the Arizona statute. That case clearly deals with an entirely new legal regime. Arizona’s statute merely complements the federal statutory scheme.

To put it more bluntly, if anything the Hines decision supports Arizona.

Amazingly, the court does not provide any substantive analysis of the very high standards required for mounting a successful facial challenge. The judge thinks certain events or difficulties will occur, and therefore uses her thoughts as a substitute for empirical evidence. The fact is that Arizona does not create any new or additional federal responsibilities. It does not establish any new or inconsistent obligations for aliens legally or illegally residing or otherwise found in Arizona. And, unlike the Hines case so prominent in the court’s ruling, Arizona’s law does not establish any new or extra forms, registration procedures, or other obligations for aliens, legal or otherwise.

Now, respecting preemption, we hear this word thrown around all the time. There is Supreme Court precedent on this issue. The issue here is whether federal immigration law preempts Arizona’s state law. The issue in that respect is whether the federal law covers the whole field. Whether the federal law is not meant to cover the whole field but also relies on state and local support.

So respecting preemption which is the substantive core of the federal government’s case, once again the court presents no evidence in support of its conclusion that Arizona is likely to fail on inquiring into the legal status, among other things, or that it will impermissibly interfere with federal government’s allocation of resources.

Ladies and gentlemen, Arizona isn’t requiring the federal government to do anything. The federal government can choose not to take Arizona’s calls and not cooperate with Arizona. The court has essentially parroted the federal government’s arguments and suppositions about its burdens.

Moreover, Arizona does not preempt federal law as explained above. It does not create a new immigration regime. The federal government does not “occupy the field” in any event.

As a matter of longstanding federal law practice, it encourages states to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law.

I think the word “abomination” does not overstate this court’s decision. It’s a terrible, terrible decision. It’ll take time to deal with it as it works its way through the system. But it turns the whole notion of a preliminary injunction on its head and the standards for that.

And it is a result-oriented decision.

Connie Hair writes daily as HUMAN EVENTS’ Congressional correspondent. She is a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference. You can follow Connie on Twitter @ConnieHair.

REPUBLICAN TEA PARTY CONTRACT ON AMERICA. EL VERDADERO ARMAGGEDON!!!!

belledenuit — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:01:29 GMT

For the better part of the past year, Republicans have tried to come up with a new agenda for the American people with mixed results. However, with the Tea Party now the most potent force in Republican politics, and with the recent ***********///////********//////****** of the Tea Party Caucus on Capitol Hill garnering the support of Republican leaders like National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Pete Sessions and Republican Caucus Chair Mike Pence, the Republican Party agenda has become clear. Republican leaders and Tea Party-supported Republican candidates can now rally around the "Republican Tea Party Contract on America" as the blueprint for how they would govern.

1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act (Health Insurance Reform)

Put insurance companies back in charge, repeal tax credits for small businesses, allow insurance companies to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions and to drop coverage when a person gets too sick and make prescription drugs for seniors less affordable.

2. Privatize Social Security or phase it out altogether

Turn the guaranteed retirement benefits of America's seniors over to Wall Street CEOs by putting Social Security at risk in the stock market or, as some Republicans have called for, phase out Social Security altogether and end a program millions of American seniors rely on for their survival.

3. End Medicare as it presently exists

Phase out and end Medicare as it presently exists for future generations of seniors -- ending Medicare's guaranteed healthcare benefits for more than 40 million American seniors -- and replace it with a voucher system which will result in higher premiums and fewer services for seniors.

4. Extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy and big oil

At a cost of nearly $700 billion, extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and big oil, which are set to expire and which have and will continue to explode the federal budget deficit.

5. Repeal Wall Street Reform

Roll back the toughest consumer protections ever enacted, allow banks to continue to grow too big to fail, and ensure that predatory lenders continue to utilize their most abusive practices.

6. Protect those responsible for the oil spill and future environmental catastrophes

Cap liabilities for those responsible for environmental disasters like the Gulf oil spill and let companies like BP decide which victims deserve compensation for the disaster and what the timeline for relief should be.

7. Abolish the Department of Education

Put the big banks back in charge of student loans and put an end to federal assistance for public schools.

8. Abolish the Department of Energy

End America's investments in a clean-energy future and disband the organization responsible for oversight of nuclear materials.

9. Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency

Gut the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act -- which together protect our kids from air pollution and keep drinking water safe -- and disband the watchdog that holds polluters accountable.

10. Repeal the 17th Amendment

Take away your right to pick your U.S. Senator.

A todo les vamos a decir un NO de esta tamaño...

ministrodeestado — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:28:25 GMT

el 07-28-2010 10:26 AM

Politica Republicana, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO...

ministro de estado.

GLENN BECK'S HUGE GOLD SCAM! EL TIPEJO ES UN SOBERANO SINVERGUENZA!!!!!

belledenuit — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:10:16 GMT

Glen Beck's Goldline Scam Exposed

By Barry Ritholtz - July 28th, 2010, 9:15AM Goldline International is under investigation by the Santa Monica City Attorney’s office, jointly with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office, as well as being the subject of a separate investigation by Congress into the possible criminal practices. The firm has been the subject of an ABC Nightline News Exposé, as well as an investigation by NY Congressman Weiner).

Jess Bachman, who did several of the fantastic illustrations for Bailout Nation, turns his graphic expertise to the Glenn Beck/Goldline endorsement scheme:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07/glenn-beck-goldlin...

YES ALELUYAH! JUDGE BLOCKS THE WORST PART OF THE DAMNED ARIZONA LAW!!!!!

belledenuit — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:22:11 GMT

BREAKING NEWS: Judge blocks sections of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect

PHOENIX (AP) -- A judge has blocked the most controversial sections of Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect Thursday, handing a major legal victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The law will still take effect Thursday, but without many of the provisions that angered opponents -- including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. The judge also put on hold a part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put those controversial sections on hold until the courts resolve the issues.

Opponents say the law will lead to racial profiling and is trumped by federal immigration law.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/07/28/us/AP-US-Ari...

LOS GASTOS EXTRAVAGANTES DE LOS OBAMA SON PAGADOS CON EL SUDOR EL PUEBLO

sirjohn — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:21:27 GMT

A LOS OBAMA LES GUSTA EL SUPER-LUJO

EL MUNDO, MADRID

26 JUL 2010

Qué decepción. A Obama y a Michelle también les gusta el lujo. Qué digo el lujo, el súperlujo, como a los jeques árabes, a los nuevos ricos y a Correa el de 'la Gürtel'.

Los asesores de Obama, cuya fama es legendaria, no han estado muy finos esta vez.

Michelle Obama will feel our pain in Spain but only at $2859 a night

July 28, 2010

"THE PAIN IN SPAIN FALLS MAINLY ON THE VAIN": QUEEN OBAMA PHARAONIC TRIP TO SPAIN!!!

Mrs. Obama chose the place because it is one of the few in Spain that caters to children. That's appropriate because since Obama was elected, they've all been acting like kids in a candy store.

And finally, will the First Lady be treated to a tour of the disastrous solar energy grids that have nearly bankrupted Spain and have been suspended?

CONGRESISTA RANGEL, PROTOTIPO DE LA CORRUPCION IMPERANTE EN EL PARTIDO DEL KKK

siboneyes — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:38:24 GMT

CONGRESISTA RANGEL, PROTOTIPO DE LA CORRUPCION IMPERANTE EN EL PARTIDO DEL KKK

Rangel’s Day of Reckoning

By Rich Trzupek On July 28, 2010 @ 12:17 am In FrontPage

When Representative Charles Rangel goes on trial on Thursday it might be the first time that a sitting United States congressman has done so since Jim Traficant was convicted of bribery [1], racketeering and tax evasion in 2002. Rangel and Traficant are kindred spirits of a sort, for each exhibits the kind of imperious arrogance that Americans loathe, especially when it bubbles to the surface among their elected officials.

The difference between the two is that Traficant played a bit part among Democrats eight years ago and it was thus easy for the party to wash its hands of him. Rangel, on the other hand, is a stalwart among Democrats, a heavy hitter with strong ties to other heavy hitters, up to and including the Speaker of the House. If Rangel goes through with the trial – and he says he will – it will be a lot harder for Democrats to wish this scandal away than it was in 2002.

Published reports indicate that Dems are desperate for Rangel to cut a deal and avoid trial, but the congressman stubbornly refuses to do so. He wants his day in court [2] and believes that he will be vindicated in the end. That attitude is reminiscent of another prominent Democrat who proclaimed that he wanted nothing more than the opportunity to tell his side of a sordid story, but when ex-governor Rod Blagojevich had his day in court recently it turned out that Blago didn’t have the guts to make his dubious case.

Might Rangel also lose his nerve once prosecutors outline the case against him? Probably not. Over the last few years the octogenarian congressman has shown that he has grown increasingly detached from reality. His “watch your back” warning to the president when Obama visited Harlem, his declaration that the only people opposed to the health care bill were white southerners and his stubborn refusal to give up the Ways and Means Committee for so long are all signs that Charles Rangel lives on a planet that only vaguely resembles Earth.

Democrats understand that the longer the Rangel saga plays out, the more damage it will do [3] to them in November, but they don’t really understand why. Voters are upset with Democrats to be sure, but they’re more upset with the overall perception that America is being governed by a detached, self-absorbed “ruling class” that disregards the will of the populace and whose contempt for the average American is poorly concealed indeed.

That’s a problem that crosses party lines, which is why the tea party movement is so careful not to directly attach itself to the GOP. Tea partiers will vote for Republicans in overwhelming numbers come November, but their underlying message is clear: they’re voting to get rid of privileged insiders and if the fresh faced Republicans whom the movement hopes to empower during this election cycle fall prey to the same temptations, they will be held accountable as well.

The accusations that have been leveled against Rangel are deeply disturbing. Among other things, Rangel has been charged with occupying four rent controlled apartments in New York City and using one as a campaign office, with failing to disclose or pay income taxes on rental property he owns in the Dominican Republic, with trading support of tax breaks for contributions to the Rangel School in New York and with improperly claiming a homestead exemption on property he owns in Washington.

Rangel has admitted to and tried to explain away [4] some of these charges. Others he has yet to address. The New York Times, the New York Post and the Washington Post have all, at various times, weighed in with damning stories that paint the congressman in something less than a flattering light with regard to all of these scandals. No matter; Charles Rangel blusters on, apparently convinced that he could not have done anything wrong because – after all – he is Charles Rangel and he must therefore be working for the people.

The Obama administration and its party have stuck to a particular theme in an increasingly vain attempt to explain away their ineffectiveness over the past year and a half. Republicans, they say, drove the national car into the ditch and they have been laboring mightily to extricate it from that sorry predicament. That particular metaphor presupposes that congress, controlled by Democrats during the Bush years, was sitting quietly in the back seat for those eight years and didn’t exert a bit of influence on the choice of roads that America chose. The fact of the matter is that Democrats were firmly in the driver seat as far as the nation’s domestic agenda was concerned and George W. Bush’s greatest fault is that he didn’t do more to wrest the steering wheel out of their incompetent hands.

Charles Rangel is the poster child for the arrogant, incompetent policies and programs that liberal Democrats have foisted upon the American people. Rangel’s day of reckoning is at hand. That will be just a taste of price that liberal Democrats will have to pay for their incompetent, self-absorbed pposition of governance come November.