PROVOCATION

12 August 2010

Where has the American Dream gone?
By Morris Clopton

Growing up the challenge to improve myself through study and hard work consistently drove me to seek to improve. Opportunities lost returned when thought, time and effort coupled with acquiring skills and knowledge provided open doors. The sixty-seven years that God is providing for me enabled a vast array of educational and school of hard knocks experiences. Like steel that is hardened and tempered by the application of intense heat and sudden cooling, life nurtures physical, mental, and spiritual maturity with experiences.

Today I am aware of an increasingly large portion of our population that rather than participate in the growth and prosperity of our nation chooses to take from those who generate income. The entitlement mentality spawns generations of individuals with no incentive to produce wealth. These individuals choose to demand that the government take care of them rather than build upon an educations, skills and knowledge acquired. The innate desire to consume rather than produce spreads like cancer through our nation crippling job production, product creation, and new inventions all with the skewed thought process of let someone else do it.

Our government seeks to foster this entitlement mentality, because such mentality provides office holders with power by creating a population, which is obligated to the office holder. The sad result the recipients of government entitlements are too ignorant to realize that the office holder providing the miniscule entitlement is raping those same individuals to increase his or her own wealth. Our politicians berate the rich while stuffing their pockets with millions seeking to elevate their personal wealth and well-being at the expense of the people that elected them. How intelligent people listen to the diatribe coming out of Washington about how the Democrats are going to tax the rich or take from the rich and re-distribute wealth and not realize that the office holder is extremely wealthy himself is mind boggling. Do what I say not what I do seems to be the order of the day for politicians. They want you and I to believe it is ok for them to be rolling in wealth as long as they pretend to care about you.

The ruling Left would have us believe that their actions no matter how macabre they may be are reasonable and just. Consider for a moment the consistent beating of political drums by the Left that prohibits any hint of offering thanks to the God who created all that is; in any form or fashion in any avenue of our society today. However, it is perfectly ok according to the left to take your tax dollars and spend them to promote Islam at the expense of Christianity. Where is the separation of State and Church here?
EDITORIAL: Tax dollars to build mosques
U.S. underwrites fundraising tour for Islamic shrine at Ground Zero

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Washington Times
7:46 p.m., Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The State Department is sending Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf – the mastermind of the Ground Zero Mosque – on a trip through the Middle East to foster “greater understanding” about Islam and Muslim communities in the United States. However, important questions are being raised about whether this is simply a taxpayer-funded fundraising jaunt to underwrite his reviled project, which is moving ahead in Lower Manhattan.

Mr. Rauf is scheduled to go to Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and Qatar, the usual stops for Gulf-based fundraising. The State Department defends the five-country tour saying that Mr. Rauf is “a distinguished Muslim cleric,” but surely the government could find another such figure in the United States who is not seeking millions of dollars to fund a construction project that has so strongly divided America…

Further expenditures of our tax dollars to rebuild mosque in foreign countries: Where is the separation of Church and State here?
Comments: EDITORIAL: Tax dollars to build mosques – Washington Times
Aug 10, 2010 … In NYS we had tax payer money accumulated in excess of our awful tax … Why should we spend a penny rebuilding some dilapidated mosque …

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/…/tax…mosques/comments/…

In Montana, a Fight Over Separation of Church and Fairgrounds
By Tess Civantos
Published August 11, 2010
FoxNews.com

Our government controlled judicial system continues to destroy the moral fiber of out great nation by over ruling the voice of 7 million voters:

WISDOM: Marriage over the rainbow
Ruling would make traditional believers enemies of the state

By Alan F.H. Wisdom

-

The Washington Times

6:32 p.m., Wednesday, August 11, 2010

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s Aug. 4 ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 asserted far more than was necessary to redefine marriage as being between any two persons. Judge Walker’s decision included controversial “findings of fact” that amounted to a massive new salvo in the culture wars over sexuality.

Drawing up his judicial robes, Judge Walker rejected “stereotypes and misinformation” that “have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians.” He denied that there is “any rational basis” for distinguishing the marriage of man and woman from same-sex relationships. For example, Judge Walker found no reason why the state should prefer that a child grow up with his or her mother and father. “The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes,” he declared as “fact.”

Having dismissed the stated motives of Proposition 8 supporters, the judge claimed to have “uncloak[ed]” their true motives: “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”…

KNIGHT: Marriage ruling is only a ‘ban’ on truth
Intelligentsia morph language to disguise immorality

By Robert Knight
The Washington Times

6:32 p.m., Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The word “ban” is negative. Like “taboo,” the term offends modern sensibilities trained to be ever more accepting of any envelope-pushing behavior.

That’s why the media describe California’s Proposition 8 constitutional marriage law as a “ban,” not the codification of something positive and timeless. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has been misreported for years as the “federal ban on gay marriage.” So when “smarter than God” federal Judge Joseph L. Tauro in Massachusetts dispatched DOMA on July 9, the media thundered as one: “Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban.”

Similarly, in California, federal Judge Vaughn R. Walker was widely reported to have struck down the state’s “ban on gay marriage” in his Aug. 4 ruling. The New York Times put it this way: “Court Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Ban in California.” Actually, Judge Walker took his activist ax to the meaning of marriage itself and the meaning of representative democracy in a free republic…

Our government seeks to deny entrepreneurship, destroying private enterprise by race and politics.

EDITORIAL: Engineered by Obama Motors
Automakers run on race-based political calculations

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Washington Times

7:46 p.m., Tuesday, August 10, 2010
A report by the Troubled Asset Relief Program’s inspector general, Neil M. Barofsky, underscores the danger of handing control of private enterprise to government bureaucrats. In running General Motors and Chrysler, the Obama administration’s Auto Team made decisions based on what its members know best: race and politics.

After taking over the bankrupt carmakers, the administration ordered the immediate termination of one-quarter of existing dealerships – but not for business reasons. “Key members of the Auto Team … stated that they did not consider cost savings to be a factor in determining the need for dealership closures,” Mr. Barofsky wrote in his July 19 report. “Nevertheless, GM officials stated that they developed the cost-savings estimate … after being ‘pressed’ during meetings with congressional representatives to explain the cost savings that would result from the dealership terminations.”

These after-the-fact justifications were needed after Congress learned that closing 2,243 dealerships would cost nearly 100,000 jobs. GM invented a savings estimate of $2.6 billion, and Chrysler said its closings would save $35.9 million. Insiders reported the numbers were little more than a “math exercise” based on highly questionable assumptions, with one GM official admitting the hasty closure plan “might even cost GM money.”

GM set up a scoring system to determine the most valuable dealerships, but affirmative action was used to pick which survived. “Other dealerships were retained because they … were minority- or woman-owned dealerships,” Mr. Barofsky explained. The administration also pressured GM to cut rural dealerships. Mr. Barofsky’s office interviewed independent experts who confirmed that domestic automakers “had an advantage over their import competitors” in rural markets and that cutting dealerships in those areas would harm domestic sales. The O Force’s disdain for red states and their tendency to “cling to guns or religion” can’t be coincidental…

Our challenge today is clear, we must continue to educate ourselves, stand up for what is right, challenge our elected government, and VOTE!

Becoming involved in local, county, state and national politics is more important than ever before in our short history as a nation. Do not let a group of self-serving politicians destroy the greatest nation in the world. Each individual is responsible do not depend on someone else to do for you what you must do for yourselves.

Social Security!

I COULDN’T forward this FAST enough……….!!

2010 is an election year for 1/3 of the senate and ALL of the house of
representatives. It would be nice if congress got the message; the
voting taxpayers are in charge now.

LET US SHOW OUR LEADERS IN WASHINGTON “PEOPLE POWER” AND THE POWER OF THE INTERNET. PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS.

IT DOESN’T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!

KEEP IT GOING!!!!

Propose this:

START A BILL TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOCIAL SECURITY

———— ——— ——— —-

SOCIAL SECURITY:

(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.

Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of
course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their
rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for
themselves So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congress person has felt the need to change it.
After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.
….

For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may
expect to draw $7, 800,000.00 (that’s Seven Million, Eight-Hundred
Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275, 000….00 during the
last years of their lives.
This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two
Dignitaries.

Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more
during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. ZIP!! NADA!!! ZILCH!!!

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I
pick up the tab for this plan.. The funds for this fine retirement plan
come directly from the General Funds;

“OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK”!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid)
into, every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our
employer ), We can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after
retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 mo
nthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill
Bradley’s benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to

Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and
Congressmen. . Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of
us

Then sit back…..

And see how fast they would fix it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted
and maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people can YOU send this to?

Better yet……

How many people WILL you send this to ?
PS. The same goes for their health plan Read the rest of this entry »

Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2009

• View
• Discussion

Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2009 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.”  The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

1. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 “Ten Most Corrupt” list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him.  In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat.  In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms.  Judicial Watch’s complaint forced Dodd to amend the forms.  However, press reports suggest the property to this day remains undervalued.  Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate.  The false financial disclosure forms were part of the cover-up.  Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee.

2. Senator John Ensign (R-NV): A number of scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush payments and favors, an obvious abuse of power.  The year’s worst offender might just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign.  Ensign admitted in June to an extramarital affair with the wife of one of his staff members, who then allegedly obtained special favors from the Nevada Republican in exchange for his silence.  According to The New York Times:  “The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair with the wife of an aide…”  The former staffer, Douglas Hampton, began to lobby Mr. Ensign’s office immediately upon leaving his congressional job, despite the fact that he was subject to a one-year lobbying ban.  Ensign seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying access to his office as a payment for his silence about the affair.  (These are potentially criminal offenses.)   It looks as if Ensign misused his public office (and taxpayer resources) to cover up his sexual shenanigans.

3. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Judicial Watch is investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank.  As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending.  Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also “under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives’ use.”  Rep. Frank admitted he spoke to a “federal regulator,” and Treasury granted the funds.  (The bank continues to flounder despite Frank’s intervention for federal dollars.)  Moreover, Judicial Watch uncovered documents in 2009 that showed that members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues, risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues, even as liberals led by Rep. Frank continued to block attempts to rein in the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs).  For example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated:  “I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis.  That is, in my view, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate.  I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.”  Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008.  Frank also engaged in a relationship with a Fannie Mae Executive while serving on the House Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

4. Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner: In 2009, Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted that he failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes from 2001-2004 on his lucrative salary at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization with 185 member countries that oversees the global financial system.  (Did we mention Geithner now runs the IRS?)  It wasn’t until President Obama tapped Geithner to head the Treasury Department that he paid back most of the money, although the IRS kindly waived the hefty penalties.  In March 2009, Geithner also came under fire for his handling of the AIG bonus scandal, where the company used $165 million of its bailout funds to pay out executive bonuses, resulting in a massive public backlash.  Of course as head of the New York Federal Reserve, Geithner helped craft the AIG deal in September 2008.  However, when the AIG scandal broke, Geithner claimed he knew nothing of the bonuses until March 10, 2009.  The timing is important.  According to CNN:  “Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG’s impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28.  That is ten days before Treasury staffers say they first learned ‘full details’ of the bonus plan, and three days before the [Obama] Administration launched a new $30 billion infusion of cash for AIG.”  Throw in another embarrassing disclosure in 2009 that Geithner employed “household help” ineligible to work in the United States, and it becomes clear why the Treasury Secretary has earned a spot on the “Ten Most Corrupt Politicians in Washington” list.

5. Attorney General Eric Holder: Tim Geithner can be sure he won’t be hounded about his tax-dodging by his colleague Eric Holder, US Attorney General.  Judicial Watch strongly opposed Holder because of his terrible ethics record, which includes:  obstructing an FBI investigation of the theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory; rejecting multiple requests for an independent counsel to investigate alleged fundraising abuses by then-Vice President Al Gore in the Clinton White House; undermining the criminal investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr in the midst of the Lewinsky investigation; and planning the violent raid to seize then-six-year-old Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint in order to return him to Castro’s Cuba.  Moreover, there is his soft record on terrorism.  Holder bypassed Justice Department procedures to push through Bill Clinton’s scandalous presidential pardons and commutations, including for 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group that orchestrated approximately 120 bombings in the United States, killing at least six people and permanently maiming dozens of others, including law enforcement officers.  His record in the current administration is no better.  As he did during the Clinton administration, Holder continues to ignore serious incidents of corruption that could impact his political bosses at the White House.  For example, Holder has refused to investigate charges that the Obama political machine traded VIP access to the White House in exchange for campaign contributions – a scheme eerily similar to one hatched by Holder’s former boss, Bill Clinton in the 1990s.  The Holder Justice Department also came under fire for dropping a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.  On Election Day 2008, Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary garb threatened voters as they approached polling stations.  Holder has also failed to initiate a comprehensive Justice investigation of the notorious organization ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), which is closely tied to President Obama.  There were allegedly more than 400,000 fraudulent ACORN voter registrations in the 2008 campaign.  And then there were the journalist videos catching ACORN Housing workers advising undercover reporters on how to evade tax, immigration, and child prostitution laws.  Holder’s controversial decisions on new rights for terrorists and his attacks on previous efforts to combat terrorism remind many of the fact that his former law firm has provided and continues to provide pro bono representation to terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.  Holder’s politicization of the Justice Department makes one long for the days of Alberto Gonzales.

6. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL): One of the most serious scandals of 2009 involved a scheme by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to sell President Obama’s then-vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder.  Two men caught smack dab in the middle of the scandal:  Senator Roland Burris, who ultimately got the job, and Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.  According to the Chicago Sun-Times, emissaries for Jesse Jackson Jr., named “Senate Candidate A” in the Blagojevich indictment, reportedly offered $1.5 million to Blagojevich during a fundraiser if he named Jackson Jr. to Obama’s seat.  Three days later federal authorities arrested Blagojevich.  Burris, for his part, apparently lied about his contacts with Blagojevich, who was arrested in December 2008 for trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat.  According to Reuters:  “Roland Burris came under fresh scrutiny…after disclosing he tried to raise money for the disgraced former Illinois governor who named him to the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama…In the latest of those admissions, Burris said he looked into mounting a fundraiser for Rod Blagojevich — later charged with trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat — at the same time he was expressing interest to the then-governor’s aides about his desire to be appointed.”  Burris changed his story five times regarding his contacts with Blagojevich prior to the Illinois governor appointing him to the U.S. Senate.  Three of those changing explanations came under oath.

7. President Barack Obama: During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration.  However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House.  Consider just a few Obama administration “lowlights” from year one:  Even before President Obama was sworn into office, he was interviewed by the FBI for a criminal investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s scheme to sell the President’s former Senate seat to the highest bidder.  (Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and slumlord Valerie Jarrett, both from Chicago, are also tangled up in the Blagojevich scandal.)  Moreover, the Obama administration made the startling claim that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House. The Obama White House believes it can violate the privacy rights of American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability. President Obama boldly proclaimed that “transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency,” but his administration is addicted to secrecy, stonewalling far too many of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act requests and is refusing to make public White House visitor logs as federal law requires.  The Obama administration turned the National Endowment of the Arts (as well as the agency that runs the AmeriCorps program) into propaganda machines, using tax dollars to persuade “artists” to promote the Obama agenda.  According to documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the idea emerged as a direct result of the Obama campaign and enjoyed White House approval and participation.  President Obama has installed a record number of “czars” in positions of power.  Too many of these individuals are leftist radicals who answer to no one but the president.  And too many of the czars are not subject to Senate confirmation (which raises serious constitutional questions).  Under the President’s bailout schemes, the federal government continues to appropriate or control — through fiat and threats — large sectors of the private economy, prompting conservative columnist George Will to write:  “The administration’s central activity — the political allocation of wealth and opportunity — is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.”  Government-run healthcare and car companies, White House coercion, uninvestigated ACORN corruption, debasing his office to help Chicago cronies, attacks on conservative media and the private sector, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors – this is Obama’s “ethics” record — and we haven’t even gotten through the first year of his presidency.

8. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): At the heart of the corruption problem in Washington is a sense of entitlement.  Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them.  Case in point:  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel.  Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline.  These documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, include internal Pentagon email correspondence detailing attempts by Pentagon staff to accommodate Pelosi’s numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker’s 11th hour cancellations and changes.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also came under fire in April 2009, when she claimed she was never briefed about the CIA’s use of the waterboarding technique during terrorism investigations.  The CIA produced a report documenting a briefing with Pelosi on September 4, 2002, that suggests otherwise.  Judicial Watch also obtained documents, including a CIA Inspector General report, which further confirmed that Congress was fully briefed on the enhanced interrogation techniques.  Aside from her own personal transgressions, Nancy Pelosi has ignored serious incidents of corruption within her own party, including many of the individuals on this list.  (See Rangel, Murtha, Jesse Jackson, Jr., etc.)

9. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven: Rep. John Murtha made headlines in 2009 for all the wrong reasons.  The Pennsylvania congressman is under federal investigation for his corrupt relationship with the now-defunct defense lobbyist PMA Group.  PMA, founded by a former Murtha associate, has been the congressman’s largest campaign contributor.  Since 2002, Murtha has raised $1.7 million from PMA and its clients.  And what did PMA and its clients receive from Murtha in return for their generosity?  Earmarks — tens of millions of dollars in earmarks.  In fact, even with all of the attention surrounding his alleged influence peddling, Murtha kept at it.  Following an FBI raid of PMA’s offices earlier in 2009, Murtha continued to seek congressional earmarks for PMA clients, while also hitting them up for campaign contributions.  According to The Hill, in April, “Murtha reported receiving contributions from three former PMA clients for whom he requested earmarks in the pending appropriations bills.”  When it comes to the PMA scandal, Murtha is not alone.  As many as six other Members of Congress are currently under scrutiny according to The Washington Post.  They include:  Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-VA), Norm Dicks (D-WA.), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-KS.).  Of course rather than investigate this serious scandal, according to Roll Call House Democrats circled the wagons, “cobbling together a defense to offer political cover to their rank and file.”  The Washington Post also reported in 2009 that Murtha’s nephew received $4 million in Defense Department no-bid contracts:  “Newly obtained documents…show Robert Murtha mentioning his influential family connection as leverage in his business dealings and holding unusual power with the military.”

10. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): Rangel, the man in charge of writing tax policy for the entire country, has yet to adequately explain how he could possibly “forget” to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income he earned from his off-shore rental property.  He also faces allegations that he improperly used his influence to maintain ownership of highly coveted rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, and misused his congressional office to fundraise for his private Rangel Center by preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company in exchange for funding.  On top of all that, Rangel recently amended his financial disclosure reports, which doubled his reported wealth.  (He somehow “forgot” about $1 million in assets.)  And what did he do when the House Ethics Committee started looking into all of this?  He apparently resorted to making “campaign contributions” to dig his way out of trouble.  According to WCBS TV, a New York CBS affiliate:  “The reigning member of Congress’ top tax committee is apparently ‘wrangling’ other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax troubles…Since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him.”  Charlie Rangel should not be allowed to remain in Congress, let alone serve as Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and he knows it.  That’s why he felt the need to disburse campaign contributions to Ethics Committee members and other congressional colleagues.

Obama’s Stimulus Creates Useless Jobs
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
By Ben Shapiro

There’s one reason, and one reason only, that President Barack Obama’s “stimulus” passed so swiftly through Congress: Most Americans are worried about their jobs. And Barack Obama promises to save or create four million jobs.

Even Obama’s most ardent opponents embrace the “make jobs” programs embedded in the stimulus. “Construction projects that put people to work, that fits the bill,” Sarah Palin told Greta Van Susteran of Fox News. “But these big, huge, expanded social programs … that’s not right, that’s not fair.”

Neither Republicans nor Democrats get it. The problem isn’t just the pork barrel social welfare spending. It’s not merely the redistributionist scheme disguised as “tax cuts.” The public relations backbone of this bill—government spending on our nation’s “crumbling infrastructure”—is misguided. While the country’s infrastructure may need revamping, this sort of spending will not stimulate the economy. It will not create the kind of jobs Americans need.

When politicians embrace government “make jobs” programs, they demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of employment in the economy. The goal of a thriving economy isn’t full employment—it’s raising the standard of living. Employment rate means nothing if the jobs it measures do not create wealth for the economy.

During the Great Depression (1930-1940), the United States had an average unemployment rate of almost 18 percent; the USSR, by contrast, had “full employment.” And yet when the Oscar-nominated movie “The Grapes of Wrath,” chronicling the Great Depression, premiered in 1941, the USSR banned the movie for the simple reason that the poverty-stricken Joads owned a car—a luxury virtually no Soviet outside the government enjoyed. Full employment did not breed prosperity.

That’s because not all jobs are created equal. Valuable jobs provide products and services the free market supports; useless jobs provide products and services the free market would not support. Valuable jobs provide products and services that enrich quality of life, making it cheaper to live better; useless jobs provide products and services that have minor impact on quality of life.

Here’s the magic of private sector jobs. Imagine Bill owns a fruit stand. He sells his fruit for $2 per pound. Herman sees that Bill is doing well, and decides to open a fruit stand of his own. He figures he can undercut Bill and live on less of a profit margin, so he sells his fruit at $1 per pound. Pretty soon, Herman runs Bill out of business. It’s tough for Bill.

But meanwhile, customers are spending $1 less for their fruit than they were. They’re spending that extra money at Bob’s clothing store, keeping Bob employed—and Bob can now hire Bill. The bottom line is this: The power of free enterprise creates competition that raises production, lowers prices, and makes lives better for consumers and producers. And that’s true even if employment declines in the fruit stand business.

Now let’s look at government jobs. Imagine Cool Hand Luke works for the government as a menial laborer. He builds roads in New York. People don’t choose to pay Cool Hand Luke—the government forces them to pay his salary.

Now, certain people in New York may benefit from the new road. But they would rather have spent their cash on a new car, or a new computer, or a new business. And the people who live in California, who are also paying Cool Hand Luke, get nothing for their money. Their quality of life is not improved one iota. The bottom line is this: The government can always provide employment, but that employment will not benefit the public nearly as much as a private sector job would.

Americans instinctively understand that quality of life matters far more than employment rate—and that only valuable jobs increase quality of life. That is why Americans oppose Obama’s “stimulus” package.

According to the latest Rasmussen poll, 53 percent of Americans think the “stimulus” will either fail to stimulate or actually hurt the economy. Unsurprisingly, the only sector of the American economy that overwhelmingly supports the stimulus plan is government employees, by a margin of 49 percent to 24 percent.

And yet our politicians think they can appease us by offering us useless jobs. They think investment bankers will be happy to staff the bureaucracy at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. They believe Americans will be glad to subsidize Caterpillar Inc. Employees, rather than putting that cash in their own checking accounts.

Obama might prevent rising unemployment. After all, so did President Jimmy Carter. But he’ll do so at the cost of private sector employment. Americans will pay the price in standard of living—but at least they can say they have a job, no matter how useless.