Just Too Cushy For Their Tushies

Democrat Congressman Tom Perriello, who hopefully only has five more months in his job, claims that he’s the hardest working man in congress. Well, nobody will ever accuse Perriello of being overly modest. And while he’s down in the polls in his re-election bid against Republican opponent John Hurt, he seems to be very up on the Internet that is.

With ads, ads everywhere many “Perriello for Congress” ads are saying “Tom Creates Jobs,” “Tom Means Jobs” and “Jobs for Southside Virginia. No One Works Harder. Guaranteed.” He almost sounds like a hair loss product. The only thing he didn’t promise was a money back guarantee. Coming from a congressman, that statement is automatically guaranteed to be “too good to be true.”

Click on the ad and a video appears where Tom literally gets dirty. At one point, he even spills coffee on himself. At the end, he’s in a soiled shirt and a stained face. It’s a wonder that he didn’t have sweat beading down from his brow.

So, after almost two years of passing bills furthering the greatest takeover of the private sector by government, Tom has finally got to the point of trying to save only one job, his own. But, Tom isn’t the only Democrat congressman working hard on that front. New York congressman Charles Rangel seems to have gotten himself into a bit of a tangle.

Income tax evasion in the form of not reporting income along with many other ethic charges is the highest hypocrisy for the former chairman of the Ways and Means committee, which just writes the tax laws. If even the chairman can’t even get his IRS taxes right, who can? It’s not like he’s the Treasury Secretary. Oh, wait that guy can’t his taxes right either.

After years of pointless investigation, mainly because Democrats were hoping the charges would go away, Rangel has decided to fight them as well as for his seat leading to a juicy trial right before the 2010 elections. Because of Rangel’s tenacity, Democrats are now hoping that just Rangel goes away. When even the president says it’s time to “end his career with dignity,” Rangel is getting a clear signal from the powers that be that they want him, a 40 year veteran politician, to be a power that’s gone.

Yet, Rangel won’t be alone in his troubles. He’ll have a fellow Democrat traveler who herself has her own ethics charges. Congresswoman Maxine Walters (D-CA), considered one of the most corrupt congressional members in the Democrat caucus, has conflict-of-interest charges because she urged federal aid for a bank where her husband had not only served on the board but also had substantial stock holdings.

And although not charged, Illinois Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. a.k.a. “Senate Candidate #5” in the Blago affair, through third parties he attempted to buy Obama’s senate office. It’s a wonder that Democrats just didn’t use Ebay to sell the seat.

It should be noted although it should be totally irrelevant that all three congressional members are black. But in America today, which should be in the most racially unified period of its existence having abolished slavery and segregation, it is not. Now anytime a pro-regressive black politician (note conservative blacks need not apply) is in political hot water, the counter charges of racism always fly rampant.

Since these three CBC members, the congressional black caucus (no racism here), are in deep doodoo simultaneously, it’s a racist conspiracy. So much so, that Walters had to issue this warning, “We got to say to folks in leadership whether it’s the White House or anybody else, don’t be so afraid of white folks that you treat black people bad. Whether it is the White House or the NAACP, you cannot live in the moment of responding to the right wing press.”

One thing Walters apparently is very good at is working her mouth and putting her foot in it, but many in congress also work their mouths excessively hard. Congressman Barney Frank always a sputter (spitting while uttering) has been second to none in that regard. But lately, other Democrats have been working hard to dethrone the queen.

At a town hall meeting, Congressman Pete Stark was asked how he could declare health care a right when it forces others to render slavishly their services, and such government could do anything. He responded, “The Federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country.” This caused an immediate raucous uproar.

Ole' Pete has unwittingly admitted what was always suspected. Democrats are working feverishly hard to dismantle that yoke on power known as the US Constitution. In the final analysis, what is unquestionably true about congress is that none works harder than one trying to save his own derriere.

No Right to Rewrite

With Obama’s poll numbers dropping faster than BP’s stock lately, it’s highly likely that “Obama, the None,” will fulfill his prophecy of being a one term president. But his lasting effect on what’s left of the American republic could be decades especially on the judicial system. The decision on Arizona’s new immigration law demonstrates Bill Clinton’s effect even after being “out of orifice” for a decade.

One of the president’s greatest powers is filling federal judicial positions. Often these jobs are for life, and except for impeachment, which is rarely done, there’s nothing the electorate can do when a judge assumes unprecedented powers, and pro-regressives tend to do that because they believe they’re better than everyone else.

They’re better than the founders of this nation who wrote that silly document called the US Constitution. When they rule, the laws legislators wrote and the people support also don’t matter. That explains Susan Bolton’s decision to exclude major parts of Arizona’s law and for the most ludicrous of reasons.

First, she’s a Clinton appointment, which shouldn’t be a factor, but unfortunately it is. Currently, America’s judicial system is clogged with Carter, Clinton and now Obama judges that are for the most part the most partisan of people. Pro-regressives will always say these judges are impartial, but that’s because they agree with most of their decisions.

In Boltan’s case, she struck down three major parts of Arizona’s law. Specifically, sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws, the requirement that immigrants carry their papers at all times and the section banning illegals from soliciting employment in public places.

She essentially has forced Arizona to be a sanctuary state where it’s legal to basically be illegal. Four-term Arizona sheriff Larry Dever said, ”States have a right to protect themselves.” Unfortunately, the feds have allowed Mexican drug cartels to infiltrate at least 70 miles into Arizona territory. In one national park, a hiker will likely be observed by these Mexican invaders.

In her ruling, Boltan wrote, “The court by no means disregards Arizona’s interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money [That’s bull]. Even though Arizona’s interests may be consistent with those of the federal government [Unfortunately, it’s not], it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws. [Again, that’s bull]” At this point a “what” is entirely an appropriate response.

Essentially, her reasons was that Arizona’s law would somehow interfere with the federal government’s ability to enforce its immigration law, which it’s not enforcing at all because the open borders crowd claims that government doesn’t have the resources. What’s more ridiculous is that they don’t even want a state’s help.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, much maligned, anti-illegal advocate, reasonably questions, “Why don’t they just say, Thank you, sheriff. Let’s join forces? We cannot do this job alone. We need local law enforcement to work together.” Obama cooperates more with Mexico than he does with US states because he sees illegals as a Democrat voter registration drive. “Get ‘em legal, get ‘em on welfare, then get ‘em voting for Democrats!”

Yet, wacky decisions like Prop 8 being declared unconstitutional when voters approved amending it to California’s constitution are to be expected from pro-regressive judges. Even after the 2010 election, Obama has two more years to select nominees hostile to the republic. In the case of Elena Kagan, who no doubt is a pro-regressive despite her testimony, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) still voted in favor of her confirmation

He was criticized for a diatribe he gave explaining why he supported her. In it he said she wouldn’t be his choice because she’s pro-choice, but still Obama had made a wise choice. There were many other incoherent points. No doubt Graham is a RINO, “Republican in Name Only,” but he did make one valid point. Elections have consequences. Even if Kagan were prevented from getting on the highest court by a Republican filibuster, Obama would have just chosen another unappealing candidate.

The recent 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court affirming that the 2^nd Amendment does give the right to bear arms is nice, but it demonstrates that only a slim majority is upholding the republic. Yet, if pro-regressives are in power long enough, it’s only a matter of time before they eventually replace one crucial conservative vote with a pro-regressive one. Then, the highest court will rule the contrary.

Gun owners will probably have the same reaction as the Arizona’s sheriffs. Sheriff Arpaio plans his 17th crime and immigration sweep. He plans to hold it despite Boltan’s ruling. Likewise, gun owners will still cling to their guns, and the Supreme Court would no longer have the right to determine our rights