Someone In Congress Needs To Set Priorities. Big Issues First, Not Political Ones! Who Is In Charge Of The Gang That Can't Shoot Straight?

This is really super stupid. The first bill that passes the Republican Congress is to weaken the Ethics Watchdog?  Come on guys, the appearance of this is really childish, immature and optically wrong.

It's time that Representative Ryan or some other adult take the lead and get to work on the real issues facing America and IT AIN'T ETHICS REFORM!  

This just looks, feels and probably is only to protect themselves from Ethics violations.  We learned a long time ago that if you operate ethically, there is no need to worry about ethics. 

We implore the Republicans to put on their big boy/girl pants on and start working on the real issues and stop trying to protect themselves. And by the way, why don't our "representatives" have to live under the same rules (EEOC, Sexual Harassment, Retirement plans, Health plans to name a few) as the rest of us slugs. After all they are our "representatives" not our Lords and Ladies!

Conservative Tom

Trump SMACKS Republicans For Attack on Ethics Watchdog [UPDATE: Republicans Abandon Attack]

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

BY:

 BEN SHAPIRO

JANUARY 3, 2017

276137279 Comments21072

UPDATE 10:45 AM PT

After special caucus, by unanimous consent, the so-called Goodlatte

 Amendment was killed. The House Ethics Committee will look at the issues 

here independently.

VIDEOOn This Day… Jan. 3, 1938

Mute

Current Time0:19

/

Duration Time0:47

Loaded: 0%

Progress: 0%

It is worth noting that sources in the House have confirmed that Speaker 

Ryan spoke out forcefully against the Goodlatte Amendment, and issued a 

statement with regard to the Goodlatte Amendment only in order to clarify

 how the House would deal with its implementation.

ORIGINAL

On Monday night, Republicans voted 119-74 to make the Office of

 Congressional Ethics less independent than it had been previously by putting it 

under the auspices of the House Ethics Committee. Here’s the proposal, 

according to the Washington Post:

Under the proposed new rules, the office could not employ a

spokesman, investigate anonymous tips or refer criminal

wrongdoing to prosecutors without the express consent of the

Ethics Committee, which would gain the power to summarily

end any OCE probe….Under the current House ethics regime,

the OCE is empowered to release a public report of its findings

even if the Ethics Committee chooses not to take further action

against a member.

This isn’t a particularly good move, politically or ethically. It smacks 

of corruption, even though it’s a relatively unimportant change, as 

National Review’s Jim Geraghty notes.

The message from the Trump administration has been mixed. Trump strategist 

Kellyanne Conway defended the Republican move this morning, while admitting

 that she had not spoken to Trump; Trump then tweeted his disapproval, 

stating, “With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make

 the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it may be, 

their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, health care and so many

 other things of far greater importance! #DTS.”

Trump is right. It’s a mistake for Republicans to lead off by providing the

 appearance of corruption. Note that Trump isn’t chiefly concerned with 

the actual ethics of the OCE – he’s mostly concerned with the appearance 

of gutting it. But he’s not wrong.

There is a second question: is this the best way for Trump to deal with

 Republicans who disagree? The vote hasn’t passed yet – perhaps it would

 be better for Trump to make some phone calls behind the scenes to press

 Republicans to scuttle the effort. Instead, he went public in an attempt to 

garner personal support and demonstrate his power. That's smart for him --

 he'll get credit if the plan dies -- but it isn't particularly good for Republican unity

 around policy.

There’s good news to that and bad news. The good news: we can all see the

 sausage being made. Trump isn’t going to hide it when he’s in conflict with 

Congress, and we’re going to be able to determine who’s right, and who’s wrong.

The bad news: everything will be litigated publicly for the Republicans. Trump 

probably isn’t going to quietly negotiate when he disagrees, or when a bad

 headline appears. Rather, he’ll quickly leap to Twitter to share his thoughts,

 ratcheting up tensions with the Republicans with whom he’s supposed to be

working, taking the most palatable public position while undercutting the

 members of his own party on tough issue fights.

On this issue, though, Trump is right. And Republicans should follow

 his lead.

Obama Is Not An Honorable Man Nor Is He An American Hero. He Is A Joke Perpetuated On A Gullible People Who Will Pay For His Stupidity With Incalculable Pain

Obama's Apologist Hiroshima Visit Dishonors American Vets on Memorial Day Weekend

By Ahuva Balofsky May 30, 2016 , 12:30 pm

235 24

10 12Email 363Share

“Death and life are in the power of the tongue; and they that indulge it shall eat the fruit thereof.” Proverbs 18:21 (The Israel Bible™)

image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/obama-hiroshima.png

President Barack Obama became the first sitting US president to visit Hiroshima on Memorial Day weekend, May 2016. (Video screenshot)

The Bible warns that our words have the power of life and death, a lesson which President Barack Obama may be learning following a controversial speech last week. Kicking off Memorial Day weekend, President Obama paid a visit to Hiroshima, raising ire and drawing criticism for allegedly apologizing on behalf of the US for dropping a nuclear bomb on the site in 1945 and effectively ending WWII.

While Obama did not actually apologize at any point in his speech, he was also called to task for neglecting to mention American bravery and for drawing a moral equivalence between Axis and Allied powers.

There is no question that the effects of nuclear war are devastating, but many political commentators and media figures found a lack of context in Obama’s empathetic words to Japanese survivors.

“In case you were wondering, at no point did Obama mention Pearl Harbor and the dead there, or the more than 100,000 Americans who lost their lives in the Pacific theater, or the half-million to one million Americans who would have had to sacrifice themselves to storm the island of Japan using conventional means,” wrote Ben Shapiro for Daily Wire.

“What Obama did NOT do in his speech in Japan was to praise America’s fallen warriors, the men and women whose bravery and sacrifice saved the world from nuclear war over the 71 years since that first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945,” pointed out Tom Tancredo in his article for Breitbart.

Likewise, Obama’s failure to distinguish between the motives of the Nazis and their supporters and those of America and her allies elicited resentment.

“The world war that reached its brutal end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fought among the wealthiest and most powerful of nations,” Obama noted. “Their civilizations had given the world great cities and magnificent art. Their thinkers had advanced ideas of justice and harmony and truth. And yet the war grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes, an old pattern amplified by new capabilities and without new constraints.”

“This is disgusting,” commented Shapiro. “If you can’t spot the bad guys and the good guys in World War II, of all conflicts, you’re on the side of a valueless nihilism that allows the possibility of future world wars – after all, you can’t take a strong stand against evil if it doesn’t exist. Japan was wrong. America was right. Germany was wrong. America was right. End of story.”

image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/useful_banner_manager_banners/385-image.png

Tancredo indicated the timing of Obama’s speech added insult to injury. “We can honor our fallen warriors this Memorial Day only by remembering such moral distinctions, not forgetting them as Obama did at Hiroshima.”

Stopping just short of an apology, Obama took responsibility for ushering an age of “atomic warfare”, claiming, “[W]e can choose a future in which Hiroshima and Nagasaki are known not as the dawn of atomic warfare but as the start of our own moral awakening.”

In Obama’s estimation, this is the lesson of Hiroshima. “The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of an atom requires a moral revolution as well.” He called on nuclear nations to defy the “logic of fear” and work towards eliminating their weapons stockpiles.

Yet, as Jim Geraghty pointed out in the National Review, “Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren’t the dawn of atomic warfare. Nobody’s used an atomic or nuclear weapon since then.” Shapiro added that research suggests Hiroshima and Nagasaki have actually reduced the number of war fatalities since 1945, “largely because everybody knows that if things go too far, someone will push the button.”

Obama implied, as well, that there is never a good reason to go to war. “How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause.”

“What Obama proposed in his speech in Japan is moral disarmament, and the consequences of that moral capitulation will be horrific if the world follows his advice,” Tancredo fumed.

“Does Obama’s generation see no evil in the world — and no virtue in America — that would justify the use of those terrible weapons?” he later added.

“Some religions are worse than others,” stated Shapiro. “Some ideologies are worse than others. But not according to Obama. We’re all equal in sin, according to the President of the United States – and the only solution is to destroy American nationalism,” replacing it with a “borderless, nationless, valueless world.

“Hiroshima happened because the world slept as fascism rose…If we go to sleep again, our enemies will use that reverie to rise. But …more Americans now think using the A-bomb was wrong than right. The result will be more Hiroshimas after 70 years of nuclear peace.”

Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/68780/obama-silent-on-heroism-and-sacrifice-of-american-vets-in-hiroshima-speech-05-16/#l614Dwcg0we0kgAu.99

BBC View Of Christie's BridgeGate Problem

Chris Christie's bridge-sized headache

COMMENTS (28)

By Anthony ZurcherEditor, Echo Chambers

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's presidential ambitions could be at risk

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

• Profile: Governor Chris Christie
• Christie: Republicans' best hope

It looks like a bridge scandal is putting New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in some rough water.

On Wednesday, emails revealed that one of the governor's senior staff members ordered a political appointee to close lanes of a major bridge to New York City in order to punish the mayor of a New Jersey town who refused to endorse the governor in his re-election bid.

It's the kind of obvious alleged abuse of power that would resonate with most Americans, and which could prove very damaging if it can be directly tied to Mr Christie. There is hardly anyone who doesn't know what it's like to be stuck in traffic. The claim that ordinary citizens were forced to endure additional inconveniences because a New Jersey politician (or his staff) wanted to flex political muscle is fairly inflammatory.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

It's almost the definition of an abuse of power”

Joshua MarshallTalkingPointsMemo

The Bergen County Record's website, NorthJersey.com, reports that traffic caused by the lane closures delayed emergency medical responders from reaching four patients - one of whom, a 91-year-old woman, later died at a hospital.

Mr Christie has been widely tipped as a potential frontrunner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, so the latest developments in this story quickly brought out commentators on the left and the right. The outrage (and glee) from liberals was as obvious as it was predictable.

"So petty. So vindictive. So Christie," writes the Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart.

He notes that Christie cancelled the one public event on his schedule today, writing: "Like all bullies, he's running away from a real fight. And it shows that he realizes that his political standing at home and nationally is in danger."

TalkingPointsMemo's Joshua Marshall thinks Mr Christie's political future has been seriously damaged:

It's not bribery or killing someone or a high crime. But it's vindictive and quite possibly illegal. It's almost the definition of an abuse of power. It won't sink Christie. At least not the evidence so far. But it will hang around his neck forever as that bad thing Christie's operation did that supposedly (depending on whether you're a friend or enemy) tells you who the real Chris Christie is about.

The editors of the Newark, NJ, Star Ledger write that no matter how things turn out at this point, the emails prove that Mr Christie bears responsibility for the scandal.

"If it turns out he did know, he is obviously lying and unfit for office - let alone a 2016 presidential run," they write. "And even if he did not, his officials are liars. If Christie can't control them, how can we trust him as a potential future leader of our country?"

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

I have had Congressmen, Governors, and the staffers of Congressmen and Governors tell me horror stories about dealing with Christie's people”

Erick EricksonRedState blog

Although Mr Christie has been considered a Republican rising star, having just been re-elected by a large margin, he has often been perceived as a moderate and never has been fully embraced by the conservative base. This lack of support was reflected in the response in many conservative quarters.

"We like to judge politicians based on their policy positions, and that's the main way they should be judged," writes Paul Mirengoff on Power Line blog. "But policy positions change based on which way the wind is blowing and the nature of the office being sought. Temperament and personality don't change so easily. And they also matter."

The National Review Online's Jim Geraghty writes:

If the allegations are true, the lane closures would represent a petty and obnoxious abuse of authority, one worrisome in a potential president. Some may erroneously insist this is a display of toughness or hard-nosed political power, but the form of the vindictiveness punished Fort Lee commuters of all political stripes, not just the mayor. The state isn't given the authority to shut down road lanes as a tool for enforcing political loyalty, and it's rather shocking that this point needs to be made.

RedState blog's Erick Erickson says that he has been ambivalent about Mr Christie's potential presidential candidacy and thinks the governor wouldn't have gotten far even without the bridge controversy. The problem is that he and his staff operate "as divas".

"I have had Congressmen, Governors, and the staffers of Congressmen and Governors tell me horror stories about dealing with Christie's people," he writes. "All of them seem to dread it."

This story, like many scandals before it, may eventually blow over. Politicians in the past certainly have made it through worse. The governor came out on Wednesday afternoon with a firm statement calling the actions of his staff "completely inappropriate and unsanctioned".

If Mr Christie is to survive the coming days with his political future intact, however, he will have to move quickly and skilfully. As early commentary on this story indicates, he has enemies on the left and the right who are sharpening their knives.