The Fallacy Of Congressional Ethics

What is the “Senate Select Committee On Ethics”?

Well, simply stated, it is a group of six Senators who advise the other 94 Senators and their staff on whether or not those other 94 Senators, as well as themselves, are acting ethically within their duties as Senators – according to the their own made-up “Senate Rules”.

From the Senate Ethics Committee official website we read:

“Members, officers, and certain employees of the United States Senate, related offices, and candidates for the Senate are required by Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended (the “Act,” 5 U.S.C. app., Section 101 et seq., also adopted as Senate Rule 34) and Senate Rule 41.1 to file Financial Disclosure Reports with the Secretary of the Senate, Office of Public Records.

The Act gives the Senate Select Committee on Ethics the authority to administer the law for the Senate, promulgate the Senate Financial Disclosure Report Forms and Instructions, and issue advisory opinions regarding the Act for the Senate and related offices and Senate candidates.  If you need additional information about completing these reports, please contact the Committee at 220 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510.”

Now, if the irony of this situation isn’t readily apparent to you, let’s break this down into similar terms:

Let’s say we have a prison full of 100 prisoners. Between prison rapes, shivs in the back, selling of contraband, and gangland style beatings, murders, and violent riots, the prisoners are periodically and anually judged on their ethical and moral behavior by their peers. And so, a committee of 6 prisoners is assembled in a special and official looking chamber, and it is their job to judge whether or not the other 94 prisoners and themselves acted ethically and morally during the rapes, shivs in the back, contraband sales, gangland style beatings, murders, and violent riots. Of course, we must stop to consider that these 6 prisoners on the prison ethics committee also participated in these acts of violence and unethical/immoral behavior, and in reality they know that being a rat in prison will end them up on the wrong side of a shiv – or worse. Partners in crime, of course, have a very good reason to cover up what their partners have done, lest their partner rats back and takes all parties to the unethical behavior down with them.

This, in a nutshell, is what goes on in the Senate (and Congressional) Ethics Committee.

The current Senate Ethics Committee members include:

Senator Barbara Boxer, California – Chairman

Senator Johnny Isakson, Georgia – Vice Chairman

Senator Mark L. Pryor, Arkansas

Senator Pat Roberts, Kansas

Senator Sherrod Brown, Ohio

Senator James E. Risch, Idaho

To best understand what takes place within the halls of the Senate Ethics Committee, I pulled up the 2011 Annual Report of the Committee, as required by “The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007“, which calls for the Select Committee on Ethics to issue an annual report not later than January 31 of each year describing its activities for the preceding year. Though this committee officially has no monetary dealings, they must still file this annual report by Federal law.

Those annual reports can all be found and downloaded here:

Link–> http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/annualreports

Here are the activities listed in the report for fiscal year 2010, as reported in the 2011 Annual Report of the Committee:

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Number of alleged violations of Senate rules: 84 (+9 from previous year) = 93

Number of alleged violations dismissed: 81 including:

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or no violation of “Senate rules”: 56

Failure to provide fact of alleged material violation of Senate rules: 25

Number of alleged violations heard in Committee preliminary inquiry: 12 (including 6 from previous year)

Number of alleged violations from preliminary inquiry resulting in judicial review: 0

Number of alleged violations dismissed by Committee in inquiry for lack of merit: 8

Number of alleged violations where a letter of admonition was issued: 0

Number of alleged violations resulting in disciplinary sanction: 0

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Holy hand-grenade that’s impressive!!!

To be clear, these organized criminals declared by, of, and for themselves that out of 93 cases of alleged violations of the code of ethics as set out by their own pretend “Senate Rules”, not one single case was considered worthy of judicial review outside of the Senate itself. In other words, the 6 Senators who are the Members of the Senate Ethics Committee decided that, after reviewing the ethics violations allegedly done by themselves and their fellow organized criminals, no violation of ethics had occurred within this merry band of 100 Senators and/or their staff! So without any official legal review, these cases of alleged violations of criminal activity were halted from ever seeing the inside of a courtroom, a jury, or any other public outlet of justice or disclosure.

Now lets imagine again our 100 prisoners and the 6 prisoner board of prison ethics again… Is there possibly just a slight conflict of interest here? Do birds bird? Do bees bee?

The 2011 annual report goes on to say that the Ethics Committee handled:

——————————————————————————————————————————————

11,137 telephone inquiries for ethics advice and guidance.

1,227 email inquiries for ethics advice and guidance.

769 ethics advisory letters and responses, including:

540 travel and gifts matters (Senate Rule 35).

134 conflict of interest matters (Senate Rule 37).

3,527 letters issued concerning financial disclosure filings by Senators, staff, and candidates.

1,727 financial disclosure reports reviewed.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

So apparently the Senate Ethics Committee must be a fairly full time job! When do they possibly have time to be Senators and represent their state of election?

Let’s consider for a moment: do these men and women of the Senate and Congress really not know what is simply right and wrong? Do they really not understand what insider trading is, for instance? Do they truly not know what is ethical and what isn’t without asking questions? Is it really necessary to make over 11,000 inquiries as to what is considered ethical as a public official and statesman? Isn’t that what they supposedly campaigned on in the first place?

The report goes on to say that the Committee staff conducted:

——————————————————————————————————————————————

4 new member ethics training sessions.

14 employee code of conduct training sessions.

21 Member and committee office campaign briefings.

43 ethics seminars for Member DC offices, state offices, and Senate committees.

2 private sector ethics briefings.

10 international ethics briefings.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

My, they have been busy haven’t they? Isn’t it good to know that millions of dollars in taxpayer money goes to pay for all of these meetings, briefings, hearings, and training sessions, all so that the Committee on ethics can halt any real inquiry into the actual ethics of the actions of Senators and House members?

In reality, we must understand the true nature and purpose of these briefings, meetings, and training sessions. For they aren’t altruistic attempts to teach ethics, morals, and values to a group of public and appointed officials. No, but that would be wonderful though… Instead, the Ethics Committee is teaching its Members and their staff how to properly commit unethical behavior in a way that is consistent with both legal CODE and Senate Rules on ethics, so that no investigation into such behavior is warranted outside their little ethics social club.

Do you understand the difference?

In order to avoid the Senate Ethics Committee and its wrath, these briefings are teaching our Senators and their staff how to commit crime legally and ethically (i.e. properly work around and within Senate Rules and U.S. CODE). They teach how to ethically conduct and report insider trading legally. They teach how to receive local and international gifts and emoluments (payments) as prohibited by the constitution and defined within the U.S. CODE and Rules of Senate ethics legally and ethically. And on and on it goes…

Now do you understand the difference?

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the U.S. constitution states:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

The original intent of this ever so important clause is being violated on a constant basis by these Senators and Congressmen. But we must understand the reason that this is true. For the constitution itself is riddled with “exceptions” like the one we see here. Words like “without”, “except”, and “unless” create major loopholes of interpretation from within this document. And the Congress and the Senate have taken full advantage of this particular and exceptional loophole. For they have literally self- interpreted this clause to allow themselves to give themselves consent via the authority and legal right of congress to accept the offering of foreign gifts, presents, emoluments, offices, and titles of almost any kind whatever. The simple statement “without consent of the Congress” essentially makes this whole clause null and void at the whim of congress, allowing for the complete and contemptible disregard of the original and true intent of this constitutional mandate. And unfortunately, the constitution as well as the U.S. CODE is full of these exception clauses, giving virtual carte blanche power to violate many of the most important legal, ethical, and moral barriers to the practice of the type of streamlined organized criminal behavior taking place in Washington DC and on the State, county, and local level throughout government.

In short, a government that grants itself power and then adjudicates itself on the ethical and moral compass of the powers it projects and uses within the spectrum of its own power, is and always will be in a state of perpetual conflict of interest. The old unanswered question of “Who regulates the regulators?” is the paradox we are beholding here, and in a major way within these so-called “Ethics Committees”.

Are you starting to get the picture here?

Just what are ethics supposed to be anyway?

Ethics are something ingrained deep within the heart and minds of men. One either has them or they do not. And for honorable men and women, the simple presentment of an opportunity for corruption would generally not be the precursor for deciding to be ethical and moral in government. But from within the Ethics Committee, ethics are indeed something that can be written down and worked around. Ethics obviously have no real place of honor among thieves, other than the unspoken code of ethics that has been called “honor among thieves”, an apparently fitting credo for the Senate and Congressional Ethics Committee.

But surely this was just a good year – a quirky and coincidental set of circumstances that just happened to come about literally exempting all 93 of these official and possible Senate Rules ethics violations be considered frivolous and not worthy of judicial review. Surely this was not the normal happenstance of a typical Select Ethics Committee year, was it?

Well, let’s go back to the 2010 annual report, showing the entire fiscal year of 2009 and the actions taken by the Ethics Committee against reported violations of Senate ethics.

On this report we read:

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Number of alleged violations of Senate rules: 99 (+26 from previous year) = 125

Number of alleged violations dismissed: 103 including:

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or no violation of “Senate rules”: 58

Failure to provide fact of alleged material violation of Senate rules: 45

Number of alleged violations heard in Committee preliminary inquiry: 13 (including 8 from previous year)

Number of alleged violations from preliminary inquiry resulting in judicial review: 0

Number of alleged violations dismissed by Committee in inquiry for lack of merit: 8

Number of alleged violations where a letter of admonition was issued: 1

Number of alleged violations resulting in disciplinary sanction: 0

——————————————————————————————————————————————

12,667 telephone inquiries for ethics advice and guidance.

996 ethics advisory letters and responses, including:

752 travel and gifts matters (Senate Rule 35).

111 conflict of interest matters (Senate Rule 37).

3,309 letters issued concerning financial disclosure filings by Senators, staff, and candidates.

1,663 financial disclosure reports reviewed.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Incredible! Again, not one case of ethics violation was found worthy of even a judicial review! The Committee again found that these reports of ethics violations by their fellow conspirators weren’t worthy of any type of in depth investigation, and simply shelved them so that their brothers and sisters of masonic nobility, and more importantly the reputation of the institution of the Senate, would not be tarnished.

Now you might be asking yourself just what does it take to actually get these Ethics Committee overlords to decide that a case of ethical misconduct or malfeasance is worth passing on to an actual judicial review of those actions?

Honestly, the bar for this must be severely high. For we see only one important action that was different about this annual report than that of the 2011 report, and that was simply a letter to one Senator in the form of a public reprimand, called a “letter of admonition”.

The word admonition is defined as “counsel, advice, or caution”, and is used in law as “an official or legal notice”.

But in this case, this admonition letter seems to be nothing more than a nasty-gram; a written slap on the wrist that carries with it absolutely no legal recourse at all. In other words, it serves absolutely no purpose other than a mild public ostracizing by the Select Ethics Committee on behalf of the Senate and an entry on the annual report. And by its very lack of legal action, in this authors opinion, it also serves as a brightly lit beacon that shines the message that ethics are just a formality and a misnomer when it comes to the Senate.

It is our good fortune that this letter is indeed posted in the public domain, and so we can download and read that letter here.

So what does it ultimately take to get even the slightest attention from the Senate Ethics Committee, but still no real legal review or punishment? The answer to this question comes as quite a shocker…

This horrifying “letter of admonition” states:

——————————————————————————————————————————————

November 20, 2009

The Honorable Roland W. Burris (Honorable is a title of nobility, by the way)
United States Senate
Washington DC, 20510

Public Letter of Qualified Admonition

Dear Senator Burris:

After an extensive investigation, the Select Committee on Ethics is issuing you this Public Letter of Qualified Admonition for actions and statements reflecting unfavorably upon the Senate in connection with your appointment to and seating in the Senate.

(Authors note: This Senator was appointed to fill now President Barack Housain Obama’s empty senate seat in Illinois. The key word hear is APPOINTED. In actuality, all congress-people are employees of the Federal government, under TITLE 2 and TITLE 5 of U.S. CODE. Elections are a mere formality, for which the supposed winner of those elections are made “employees” as legal corporate persons of the United States incorporated.)

The Committee found that you should have known that you were providing incorrect, inconsistent, misleading, or incomplete information to the public, the Senate, and those conducting legitimate inquiries into your appointment to the Senate. The Committee also found that your November 13, 2008 phone call with Robert Blagojevich was inappropriate. Although some of these events happened before you were sworn in as a U.S. Senator, they were inextricably linked to your appointment and therefore fall within the jurisdiction of this Committee.

While the Committee did not find that the evidence before it supported any actionable violations of law, Senators must meet a much higher standard of conduct. Senate Resolution 338 gives this Committee the authority and responsibility to investigate Members who may engage in “improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate“.

To make its determination, the Committee conducted interviews with multiple witnesses… reviewed a tape of the November 13, 2008 phone conversations… (and reviewed) your sworn and unsworn statements… Based on all the evidence before it, the Committee reached the following conclusions:

Your sworn affidavit and sworn testimony before the Illinois House of Representatives were inconsistent, incomplete, and misleading.

(Author’s note: In other words, you lied under oath, Mr. Burris!)

In your January 5, 2009 affidavit, you state that you did not have any contact with Governor Blagojevich or any of his representatives about your appointment to the Senate before December 26, 2008. In your January 8, 2009 testimony before the Impeachment Committee, despite repeated and specific questioning, you did not disclose having any conversations about your desire to seek the U.S. Senate appointment or about fundraising with anyone associated with the Governor, except Lon Monk. It was not until your second affidavit and subsequent press statement that you disclosed additional contacts with associates of the Governor.

These omissions in your sworn statements are particularly noteworthy given their context. The Governor had recently been arrested and charged with corruptly using his authority to make a Senate appointment in exchange for campaign contributions and other benefits (gifts), and these charges were the subject of the impeachment hearings conducted by the Illinois House of Representatives, as well as intense media scrutiny. Therefore, you should have known that any conversations you had about your desire to seek the Senate seat and about any possible fundraising for the Governor were critical to these inquires. In addition, your testimony on January 8, 2009 was one of the factors the Senate leadership said they would consider in your seating, and its truthfulness was important an relevant to your seating.

Your shifting explanations about your sworn statements appear less than candid…

Your November 13, 2008 phone call with Robert Blagojevich, while not rising to the level of an explicit quid pro quo, was inappropriate.

(Author’s note: Quid pro quo = something that is given or taken in return for something else; a substitute – in this case political gain for gifts and emoluments, or bribery!)

When Robert Blogojevich called you on November 13, 2008, he was explicit about the purpose of the call: to raise campaign funds for his brother. Yet, during this conversation in which you appeared to agree to write a check and even potentially raise money for Governor Blagojevich, you repeatedly brought up your desire to seek the Senate seat. You also implied that the people you might raise money from would be unhappy if you did not receive the appointment. The Committee finds that this conversation was inappropriate in its content and implications.

***

In determining the proper conclusion to this matter, the Committee took into consideration many factors, including the fact that the Sangamon County State’s Attorney found that your sworn statements and affidavits were not actionable violations of the law. We were also aware that these issues surrounding your appointment to and seating in the Senate have been subject to intense public criticism.

Again, the Committee has found that your actions and statements reflected unfavorably on the Senate and issues this Public Letter of Qualified Admonition.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Barbara Boxer
Chairman

Johnny Isakson
Vice Chairman

Mark L. Pryor
Member

Pat Roberts
Member

Sherrod Brown
Member

James E. Risch
Member

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Note that all Letters of Admonition for the last 7 years may be found here:

Link–> http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/letterstomembers

——————————————————————————————————————————————

To be clear, the appointed Senator from Illinois lied and omitted information while under oath. He bribed and negotiated for a seat on the Senate, stating obtusely that his supporters would not make financial contributions to the Blagojevich campaign without promises by Blagojevich for that Senate seat. He provided incomplete, misleading, and untrue information to the Senate when that body was considering the acceptance of his appointment. And he purposefully withheld pertinent information within his testimonies, not the least of which involved the impeachment hearings of Illinois Governor Blagojevich and his subsequent imprisonment.

And for this, Senator Roland W. Burris received a three page hate letter?

Again, Mr. Burris lied while under oath.

Remember when President Clinton lied under oath about his famous cigar incident? How about Nixon?

So… if these particular crimes are not worthy of judicial review, including lying under oath, and according to the Senate Ethics Committee only require a slap-on-the-wrist public statement of admonition, what could possibly be bad enough that a case of Ethics inquiry should see the inside of a courtroom or a jury of the people? And just what is the Select Senate Committee’s definition of ethics?

Do you suppose this letter of admonition would have even been issued if it weren’t for the fact that this violation of ethics was “subject to intense public criticism” and that Mr. Burris’ “actions and statements reflected unfavorably on the Senate?“

Perhaps there is something else to consider here…

Mr Roland W. Burris is a BAR attorney at law, and that means that he took another more ominous oath to a private association known as the International BAR Association, with its United States corporate offices acting as the legal body within the United States (federal districts called States), the American BAR Association. This oath to uphold the bankruptcy of the United States under emergency powers declared by the president of the United States corporation is not an oath to the people or to America. And it grants attorneys and lawyers one of the most odious European titles of nobility in history – that being an esquire.

So who else was a BAR attorney?

How about fellow conspirator Governor Rod Blagojevich?

On Thursday, September 29, 2011, it was announced that in mid-August, administrators for the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission asked the Illinois Supreme Court to suspend the former attorney’s law license, in a likely prelude to the further disgrace of disbarment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich)

Disbarment is the removal of a lawyer from a bar association or from the practice of law, including the revocation of his or her law license or admission to practice law. Procedures vary depending on the law society (the American BAR Association is similar to a law society, but is in actuality a tax-exempt trade union which advocates for its members – which are accepted Members called BAR attorneys). Disbarment is similar to admonishment, for the reputation of the BAR is at stake, and public disgrace will of course not be tolerated… only private disgrace without media and public scrutiny!

Of course, Mr. Burris was appointed by Governor Blagojevich to his Senate seat when then Senator Barack Obama was elected president. President Obama, surprise-surprise, is also a BAR attorney. And so is his wife. In fact more than half of Senators, most State Governors, and a significant portion (about 36%) of the House of Representatives are BAR attorneys/lawers.

Member Senator Barbara Boxer, while not an attorney, has a son and a husband who are BAR attorneys. Barbara was however a stockbroker and does a little “ethical” insider trading on the side.

Steve Kroft reports that members of Congress can legally trade stock based on non-public information from Capitol Hill.

Link–> http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/congress-trading-stock-on-inside-information/

Ethics Committee Member Mark Pryor is the former Attorney General of Arkansas; another BAR attorney. Apparently, you don’t have to be too smart to be an Attorney General either.

Committee man Pat Roberts is actually not an attorney! But you should know that on September 28, 2006 Senator Roberts voted to suspend habeas corpus for any individual deemed by the Executive Branch an “unlawful combatant,” barring them from challenging federal detentions in court (the BAR association) – yet another basic principle of the constitution unethically destroyed via the “consent of congress” option. U.S. Officials now have a legal nine-year retroactive immunity if they authorize, order, or commit acts of torture and abuse; and any statements obtained through torture can now be used in military tribunals so long as the abuse took place by December 30, 2005. The federal government can now “interpret the meaning and application” of international Geneva Convention standards, and ignore them. The “Detainee Treatment Act of 2005” became law (legal CODE) on October 17, 2006. Senator Roberts was also chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This committee was in charge of exposing the lies about “weapons of mass destruction” that led America into the undeclared invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Perhaps this is why over half of Americans still belive the lie that these countries had nuclear weapons?

Senator James Risch served as the President of the Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Association. Yes, that makes him a BAR attorney, and was Idaho’s 31st Governor before being elected to the Senate.

Now, if you are wondering why this information is relevant to this expose upon Senate Ethics, let me explain…

These members of the American BAR Association (ABA) all took a very important oath. That oath is primarily to uphold the procedure of the court (the judicial branch) which is outsourced by our government to the American BAR Association. We currently have a political body that is in yet another unethical conflict of interest. That conflict is the simple fact that in order for there to be a separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches of government – as outlined in the constitution – an attorney who is sworn by oath to uphold the BAR association’s copyrighted law and all that it entails cannot in good faith and without a conflict of interest be a voting Member of the Legislative branch of government or of the Executive branch. But here we are with not only the president and CEO of the United States as a BAR attorney, but also the majority of the Senate and a significant voting minority of the Congress.

How can we possibly have a separation of powers from within the three branches of government with a bunch of BAR’d attorneys virtually running the government?

And who will possibly stand up and say that this in not as severe of a conflict of interest as there can possibly be? For with the influence of BAR attorneys on a Committee that decides on the ethical and moral compass of the Senate Members, and whether or not they are breaking the law, we have the men and women who take an oath to protect the lawmakers (the BAR Association administers and adjudicates the validity and interpretation of law) deciding what is lawful. This by definition is a complete conflict of interest. Again, the oath is not to the constitution or to America, but to a foreign corporation that is in direct violation of that constitution (if it weren’t for those pesky “exception” clauses, that is).

The Judicial is the BAR.

Many States are run by governors that are also BAR attorneys.

The Legislative is mostly represented by the BAR.

The Executive is lead by the BAR, and has appointed a majority of BAR attorneys as Cabinet officials (unelected Secretaries and Czars).

Now do you see the relevance and urgency of this blatant conflict of interest? And do you understand that there are no true ethics or morals in the BAR Association, only a profit model based billable hours and on legal CODE through the Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) – where prisoners are traded via their CUSIP numbers as bundled securities on the commodities markets for the fruits of their prison labor?

THIS IS YOUR GOVERNMENT!!!

And by the way… did you ever hear what Governor Blagojevich stated before his trial?

Taking on banks has killed and oppressed more than one politician, attorney or not! And imagine the information Mr. B has on Obama and the rest of the finest of Chicago’s political and criminal syndicate…

But I digress. Back to the subject at hand…

Surely this was just another coincidence. Surly the 2008 fiscal year annual report will show some sort of ethics violations that got past the inquiry Committee and into a judicial review… right?

The 2009 annual report for fiscal year 2008 states the following:

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Number of alleged violations of Senate rules: 85 (+5 from previous year): 90

Number of alleged violations dismissed: 73 including:

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or no violation of “Senate rules”: 52

Failure to provide fact of alleged material violation of Senate rules: 21

Number of alleged violations heard in Committee preliminary inquiry: 10 (including 4 from previous year)

Number of alleged violations from preliminary inquiry resulting in judicial review: 0

Number of alleged violations dismissed by Committee in inquiry for lack of merit: 4

Number of alleged violations where a letter of admonition was issued: 2

Number of alleged violations resulting in disciplinary sanction: 0

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Amazing! Once again we have absolutely no cases of unethical behavior or actions that this Committee found to be deserving of a judicial (BAR) review.

How can this possibly be?

At least this year there were two letters of admonition sent – a familiar sign that crime was certainly committed but not dealt with accordingly. After all, the BAR Association is there to protect its attorneys, not prosecute them. And, just like the Senate does not wish to tarnish its own reputation, the BAR Association certainly wouldn’t want to do much with a case where a BAR attorney acting as Senator is involved. So in actuality, the whole thing is a stage show for the benefit of the voting public. And let’s face it: the only reason the Blagojevich case was so huge was that he was going up against Bank of America – a government owned corporation via collective stock ownership in government investment trust and pension funds. A man with this much insider information who is going up against the international banking institutions is bound to become a victim to a media blitz. Are we to believe that the conversations and emails of all politicians aren’t being recorded and scrutinized, and that old Robert was the only criminal in the whole bunch? Well, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you if you believe that.

OK. Let’s go for broke here. Because surely something different must have happened in 2007…

The 2008 annual report for fiscal year 2007 states the following:

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Number of alleged violations of Senate rules: 95

Number of alleged violations dismissed: 86 including:

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or no violation of “Senate rules”: 71

Failure to provide fact of alleged material violation of Senate rules: 15

Number of alleged violations heard in Committee preliminary inquiry: 16 (including 5 from previous year)

Number of alleged violations from preliminary inquiry resulting in judicial review: 0

Number of alleged violations dismissed by Committee in inquiry for lack of merit: 11

Number of alleged violations where a letter of admonition was issued: 0

Number of alleged violations resulting in disciplinary sanction: 0

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Yippee! It’s a perfect record! The Senate was officially “ethical” in fiscal year 2007!!!

And that brings us to a total of 363 alleged violation of Senate Rules, with a grand total of ZERO ending up being serious enough to pass on to a judicial review, a total of ZERO cases requiring disciplinarian action, and a total of 3 nasty-gram letters sent in “admonition” warning. All 363 cases of unethical behavior were overturned and dismissed in their preliminary Committee inquiry…

Now don’t you feel better about your government, knowing that these 6 Senators are deciding on the ethical construct of the entirety of the Senate?

But surely in the last two years there has been at least one apparent ethics violation that saw the light of day outside this organized criminal syndicate, right?

For 2013:

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Number of alleged violations of Senate rules: 26 (including 2 from previous year)

Number of alleged violations dismissed: 26 including:

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or no violation of “Senate rules”: 19

Failure to provide fact of alleged material violation of Senate rules: 7

Number of alleged violations heard in Committee preliminary inquiry: 2 (including 1 from previous year)

Number of alleged violations from preliminary inquiry resulting in judicial review: 0

Number of alleged violations dismissed by Committee in inquiry for lack of merit: 1

Number of alleged violations where a letter of admonition was issued: 0

Number of alleged violations resulting in disciplinary sanction: 0

——————————————————————————————————————————————

And finally for 2012:

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Number of alleged violations of Senate rules: 47 (including 2 from previous year)

Number of alleged violations dismissed: 44 including:

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or no violation of “Senate rules”: 36

Failure to provide fact of alleged material violation of Senate rules: 8

Number of alleged violations heard in Committee preliminary inquiry: 5 (including 2 from previous year)

Number of alleged violations from preliminary inquiry resulting in judicial review: 0

Number of alleged violations dismissed by Committee in inquiry for lack of merit: 1

Number of alleged violations where a letter of admonition was issued: 2

Number of alleged violations resulting in disciplinary sanction: 0

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle! The Senate, as far as they are concerned, are nothing if not an almost perfect merry band of little angels.

And that makes, in 6 years, a total of 436 alleged violations of Senate ethics and absolutely ZERO that actually got investigated by an outside legal source. Now if that isn’t the very definition of organized crime, I sure as hell don’t know what is!!!

–=–
A Question Of Ethics?
–=–

As we saw earlier, the Select Committee On Ethics also answers questions on ethical behavior through telephone and email requests. Let’s take a look at some of those requests as posted on the Ethics Committee website:

My favorite one is entitled: “Definition of “Immediate Family” for Requested Appropriations”.

This memo, dated September 12, 2007, was sent to all Senators without referencing which potential criminal actually asked the question:

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Dear Colleague,

As you know, the “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act” requires all Senators to state in writing that neither they nor anyone in their immediate family will benefit financially from their requested appropriations.

In order to help Senators comply with this new rule, we have been asked to define the term “immediate family”.

The Ethics Committee determined that, in this case, “immediate family” consists of a Senator’s father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, husband, wife, father-in-law, and mother-in-law. this definition is exactly the same as the one used elsewhere –Section 601 (a)– in the Act.

For your information, the Senate rule reads: “No Member, officer, or employee of the Senate shall knowingly use his official position to introduce, request, or otherwise aid the progress or passage of congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits a principle purpose of which is to further only his pecuniary interest, only the pecuniary interest of his immediate family, or only the pecuniary interest of a limited class of persons or enterprises, when he or his immediate family, or enterprises controlled by them, are members of the affected class.”

The Senate rules have long barred Senators and Senate employees from taking legislative action to financially benefit themselves or their immediate families. The Act clarifies that this long-standing rule applies to congressionally directed appropriations, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits — and requires Senators to certify that they are in compliance.

If you have questions, please consult the Ethics Committee (LOL!) at 4-2981.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Barbara Boxer
Chairman

John Cornyn
Vice Chairman

——————————————————————————————————————————————

All similar request letters may be found here:

Link–> http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/dearcolleagueletters

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Doesn’t that just take the cake? A Senator actually wanted the Ethics Committee to define the phrase “immediate family”. It only takes a few moments of logical and rational thought to come to the only logical conclusion as to why any Senator would possibly ask such a ridiculous sounding question…

He or she wanted to use Senate monies to benefit someone that was somehow related, say a distant cousin by marriage or an auntie and uncle, and didn’t want to break the Senate Rule stating that he or she could not do this. And so again, the Select Ethics Committee has shown our honorable Senators how to get around the rules so as to not get a nasty letter of admonition from the Committee!

What a racket!

Here’s another memo regarding the expense per diem (expense money) awarded to traveling Senators:

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Dear Colleague,

There has been recent media attention regarding the use of foreign travel per diem by Members and staff of the Senate. We want to make sure that you and your staffs know that any unused portion of your foreign travel per diem must be returned to the United States Treasury after you return home. Specifically, Senate Rule 39.3 states:

“A per diem allowance provided a Member, officer, or employee in connection with foreign travel shall be used solely for lodging, food, and related expenses and it is the responsibility of the Member, officer, or employee receiving such allowance to return to the United States Government that portion of the allowance received which is not actually used for necessary lodging, food, and related expenses.”

The Committee encourages Members and staff with questions about returning travel per diem to consult the Department of State’s Official Foreign Travel Guide for the U.S. Congress (copies available from the Committee). According to the guide, travelers returning an unused per diem to the U.S. Treasury may do so by personal check or money order. The repayment along with a memorandum about the trip and the amount returned, may be delivered to the Department of State’s Senate Liaison Office in the Russel Senate Office Building. We also understand that the Department’s Congressional Travel Office will arrange for the pick-up of unused per diem.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have questions, please feel free to contact Committee staff at 224-2981.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

What is this, high school?

Does such a basic concept as returning unused expense account monies really have to be stated in a group memo?

And gee golly, are you starting to see a theme here? Is it just me or are most of these memos being written in direct response to media coverage of unethical behavior by the Senate – not because the unethical behavior and actions are taking place and obviously so by just checking the accounting sheets – but only because the “reputation of the Senate” is being tarnished by media coverage of their legal crimes and malfeasance?

At this point, the term conspiracy is not merely a theory, but an obvious and purposeful plan of action within the Senate and House.

And finally, let’s take a look at one last memo, referring to foreign gifts.

Now, before we read this one, let’s pause to remember Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the U.S. constitution again, which states:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

And for kicks, lets take a look at the original 13th Amendment to the constitution, which magically disapeared from the new post-civil war corporate documents called the U.S. Constitution without ever being repealed. This 13th Amendment is generally a reinforcement of the Titles of Nobility clause in the original constitution above. This amendment was ratified in the year 1819, and was then subsequently removed from the constitution during the turmoil and bankruptcy following the Civil war. It read:

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

In order to verify that this information is correct and historically accurate, we must double check to see if indeed this amendment did pass on the legislative floor. The United States Senate has kept a journal of its proceedings since its inaugural session, as was conditioned by Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states:

“Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House, on any question, shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.”

The Journal itself is essentially the minutes of each legislative session. It states most official matters considered by the Senate, their votes, and other actions taken. Here is a copy of the Journal of the Senate, which shows that this amendment was ratified by all thirteen states in the year 1810, passing by representation of 26 to 1 in favor of the new law:

Link: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=004/llsj004.db&recNum=490&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28sj004446%29%29%230040392&linkText=1

This was one of the most important pieces of legislation in American history, and one that was never properly disposed of via the lawful repeal process. Thus, many hold this original 13th amendment as the key to restoring America, by removing and expelling from government all attorneys who hold an oath, protection, and pension under the BAR Association as a foreign corporation and enemy of the people. This would include the president and much of his federal Cabinet, many governors, most of the Senate, and a significant portion of legislators, and all who served in past and present offices.

Here is a list of some of the well-known American politicians, military men, and iconoclasts who were bestowed a “Title of Nobility” by a foreign land, king, or queen…

–=–

“Knight Grand Cross with the most honorable Order of the Bath” by H.M. Queen Elizabeth (England)

George Herbert Walker Bush

Ronald Reagan

“Knights Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath” by H.M. Queen Elizabeth (England)

General Colin Powell

General Norman Schwarzkopf

Alan Greenspan

Rudy Guiliani

“Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire”
(Military Division) by H.M. Queen Elizabeth (England)

Admiral Leighton W Smith Jr.

“Knight, Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great” by H.M. Queen Elizabeth (England)

Roy Disney and Mrs. Disney

Bob and Delores Hope

“Knight Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire” by H.M. Queen Elizabeth (England)

Caspar Weinberger

“Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire” by H.M. Queen Elizabeth (England)

Bill Gates

General Wesley Clark

John Paul Getty II

“Order of the British Empire” by H.M. Queen Elizabeth (England) – “Legion of Honor” (French) – “Order of Merit” (German)

Tom Foley

“Commander, Order of Arts and Letters” (France).

Charleton Heston

–== Others granted knighthood and nobility by the Queen of England ==–

J Edgar Hoover
Henry Kissinger
Steven Spielberg
Douglas Fairbanks Jr.
Billy Graham
Andre Previn

And hundreds of other influential people that shape the laws and opinions of America…

–=–

It is reported that George Bush Sr. knelt before the Queen of England when receiving his title, which would certainly not qualify to any rational person as an honorary bestowing of title, but rather a servant taking a position of authority before his noble master. And the fact that the Bush family is a descendant of the Windsor family line should be of great concern as well.

There are many who would argue against this point, saying that these are only “honorary” titles of nobility, and that the recipients only bow from the neck and not from the waist, or that a sword is not used, or that it doesn’t really mean anything at all. But a title of “honor” as well falls within the description outlaid in the now forgotten 13th Amendment. And of course, the consenting “exception” clause rears its ugly head once more in both of these constitutional writings.

But to those detractors I must ask: If it doesn’t mean anything… why do it. Why cause the controversy over absolutely nothing? Why mock our supposedly most honored national document that we so cherish, and go against ones own oath to protect and follow it? And why not publicly proclaim your allegiance to the United States and denounce publicly any loyalty or ties to the crown?

Sound ridiculous? Think I’m being an alarmist? Think I’m going overboard?

Well then, let’s put this into terms we can all relate to…

Let’s say you’re a player or the coach for a basketball team in a league of basketball teams. You naturally expect a fair game from the other team (countries). And you expect the referee (government) to be impartial and fair in his judgments and penalties, for his presence is to ensure that these rules be followed and enforced, and even to asses penalties for violations of these rules. However, before the game begins you find out that the referee was recently accepted as an “honorary” member of the other team in a secret ceremony, and held in the highest regards by that team; given gifts and emoluments (payments) by that team; and that in doing so, pled his “honorary” and undying allegiance to that team.

Now ask yourself this question…

Would you continue to allow that referee to arbitrate your match, knowing his allegiance was biased against your own team, or would you have that referee excused in lieu of an impartial and noncommittal one that stays true to the rules of conduct and “ethics”? In fact, would you not go out of your way to ensure that this referee never served over another game again by kicking him out of the league, to spare other teams the same unfair treatment?

Isn’t that exactly what this 13th Amendment to the constitution was trying to accomplish, through excommunication of those with Title’s of Honour from a foreign entity?

–=–

Now, back to that memo dated December 7, 2011, from the Senate Ethics Committee about the acceptance of “foreign gifts”.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Dear Colleague:

The Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, 5 U.S.C. 7342, requires that no later than January 31 of each year, the Select Committee on Ethics shall compile a list of certain gifts which Members, officers, of employees of the Senate, or a spouse or dependent of any such person, have received from a foreign government or a multinational organization (i.e. United Nations) during the preceding year. The Committee must send this list to the Secretary of State, who then is required to publish the day in the Federal Register.

Gifts that must be listed are: (1) tangible gifts with a value in excess of $100m, and (2) travel or expenses of travel with a value in excess of $100, taking place entirely outside of the United States excluding travel or expenses of travel accepted under section 108A of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange ACT OF 1961. The Foreign Gifts and Docorations Act places an obligation upon recipients of such gifts to report certain details to the Ethics Committee. The information that is requested for each tangible gift is as follows:

(A) the name and position of the recipient;
(B) a brief description of the gift and the circumstances justifying acceptance;
(C) the identity of the foreign government and the name and position of the individual, if known, who presented the gift;
(D) the date of acceptance of the gift;
(E) the estimated value in the United States of the gift at the time of acceptance; and
(F) the disposition and current location of the gift.

Information which is required for gifts of travel or expenses of travel is as follows:

(A) the name and position of the recipient;
(B) a brief description of the gift and the circumstances justifying acceptance;
(C) the identity, if known, of the foreign government and the name and position of the individual who presented the gift; and
(D) the date travel took place.

Tangible gifts, deemed to have been accepted on behalf of the United States, are required to be deposited with the Secretary of the Senate within 60 days of acceptance. The recipient must make the report to the Ethics Committee at the time of deposit. Reports concerning gifts of travel or expenses must be made to the Ethics Committee within 39 days of acceptance. If you or an officer or employee whom you supervise, or the spouse or dependent of any of these persons, have accepted any gifts described above during calender year 2010, and if you have not already reported the acceptance and required details in writing to the Ethics Committee, we request that each individual recipient complete a copy of the attached form and return it to the Ethics Committee no later than January 30, 2012.

The attached form should also be used to report details of foreign gifts, pursuant to the statute, as the might be received during calender year 2012. For your guidance in the future, the Foreign Gifts and Exchange Act does not permit acceptance from a foreign government of tangible gifts of more than $100 in value unless accepted on behalf of the United States Government and the gift is deposited with the government within 60 days of acceptance. Further, the Act does not permit acceptance of travel or expences of travel (transportation, food, lodging, and entertainment) with a value of more than $100 unless the travel takes place entirely outsid of the United States, or is approved by the U.S. Department of State under section 108A of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
Chairman

Johny Isakson
Vice Chairman

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Apparently the acceptance of foreign gifts is not only acceptable, it is also quite popular! But there are some very important definitions to be made from within U.S. CODE so as to understand what was actually stated within this memo, and to really see the legal crime that is taking place against the original intent of the constitution and the hidden but true Amendment 13:

First and foremost, we must establish that our Senate and House Members are all employees of the Federal Government, which is called the “United States” corporation, and is referenced as such below. This is quite important information to understand, as it means our Senators and Congressmen, which are hired employees of the United States – not elected representatives or employees of each State – are acting not only in the interests of the United States corporation (the Federal Government located in Washington DC, a district which is in no way a part of the 50 states united), but as individual corporations themselves!

–=–

TITLE 5 > PART III > SUBPART F > CHAPTER 73 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 7342. RECEIPT AND DISPOSITION OF FOREIGN GIFTS AND DECORATIONS

(as referenced in this memo) states:

(a) For the purpose of this section-

(1) “employee” means-

(A) an employee as defined by section 2105 of this title and an officer or employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission;

(C) and individual employed by, or occupying an office or position in, the government of a territory or possession of the United States or the Government of the District of Columbia;

(D) a member of a uniformed service;

(E) the President and the Vice President;

(F) a Member of Congress as defined by section 2106 of this title (except the Vice President) and any Delegate to the Congress;…

–=–

TITLE 5 > PART III > SUBPART A > CHAPTER 21 >§ 2106. MEMBER OF CONGRESS

For the purpose of this title, “Member of Congress” means the Vice President, a member of the Senate or the House of Representatives, a Delegate to the House of Representatives, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico.

–=–

TITLE 5 > PART 3 > SUBPART A > CHAPTER 21 > § 2105. EMPLOYEE

(a) For the purpose of this title, “employee”, except as otherwise provided by this section or when specifically modified, means an officer and an individual who is—

(1) appointed in the civil service by one of the following acting in an official capacity—

(A) the President;

(B) a Member or Members of Congress, or the Congress;

(C) a member of a uniformed service;

(D) an individual who is an employee under this section;

(E) the head of a Government controlled corporation; or

(F) an adjutant general designated by the Secretary concerned under section 709 (c)of title 32;

(2) engaged in the performance of a Federal function under authority of law or an Executive act; and

(3) subject to the supervision of an individual named by paragraph (1) of this subsection while engaged in the performance of the duties of his position.

–=–

Now that we have established in the government handbook that indeed all Senators and Congressmen, and in fact all government officials and their staff are in fact employees of the United States government according to TITLE 5 and TITLE 2, and that as employees they are bound by this UNITED STATES CODE as referenced above, and not by the people or by the constitution, lets read a bit further into this CODE to find out more about the acceptance of gifts by U.S. employees (the government).

–=–

TITLE 5 > PART III > SUBPART F > CHAPTER 73 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 7342. RECEIPT AND DISPOSITION OF FOREIGN GIFTS AND DECORATIONS

(2) “foreign government” means—

(A) any unit of foreign governmental authority, including any foreign national, State, local, and municipal government;

(B) any international or multinational organization whose membership is composed of any unit of foreign government described in subparagraph (A); and

(C) any agent or representative of any such unit or such organization, while acting as such;

–=–

Did you catch that? Did you understand what Paragraph (A) was stating here?

“(A) Any unit of foreign governmental authority, including any foreign national, State, local, and municipal government…”

Here U.S. CODE lists a State, local, and municipal government (i.e. municipal corporation = a city, town, or district) as a “foreign governmental authority“.

Here, once again the Federal UNITED STATES (10 miles square in Washington DC) is reiterating the fact that it is a foreign corporation that is not part of any of the actual 50 states united (the “union of 50 states”), of which U.S. CODE refers to each state individually as a State (note the capitalized S) implying that each State as both a district of the UNITED STATES and more importantly is property of the UNITED STATES, pledged as collateral for the bankruptcy of the United States.

Let us understand that only a corporation can have employees, and that only a corporation can declare bankruptcy.

From the Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303, we read the statement by Jim Traficant, before he was placed into jail for his indiscriminate outbursts of truth:

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 64, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1994 (House of Representatives – March 17, 1993)

Mr. TRAFICANT.

“Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.

Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government.

We are setting forth hopefully a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise.

I am going to support the rule. I am not sure yet if I will support this budget. I want to hear an awful lot more, not being a member of the committee, and I am not going to vote for things I do not understand or do not like, but let there be no mistake. After 12 years of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, we are standing here.

Let me say this to the minority party. Every program that Ronald Reagan wanted in 1981, he got. Reagan got it. There was a Republican Senate majority and there were 70 Democrats in this House that might as well have been Republicans, and we have the program.

The major assumption was very simple. We are going to cut taxes, put money in the pockets of the American people, and when they spend this money our gross national product is going to rise so great that even though we reduced your tax liability on a percentile basis, we will balance the budget, quoting Ronald Reagan, in 1982. It is going to take the fall of our Congress, I think, for that to happen…

…But let me give one word of caution here today. America already has race wars, let us be honest about it. We already have gender wars, let us be honest about it. We already have age wars, let us be honest about it.

One thing this Congress had better not get involved in and get trapped into is a class war on money. In America, if you can not earn all that you can, there is something wrong and there is no more a spirit of free enterprise.

I want to say this to the Members. We may talk about taxing the rich, but the rich people have already taken their companies and their jobs out of America. Be careful that the rich people do not take their money out of America, because the government already raises our kids, defends our families, educates our kids, feeds our kids, houses our kids, and the government is doing a very poor job of it. I think mom and dad would be better utilized there once again…

…Finally, I do not know if the budget makes one damn bit of difference, because we waive it all the time and I do not think we have ever followed it. I think we have an excellent chairman who worked hard. If we are going to have (a) budget, we should follow it. If not, we once again as Members waste both our time and the people’s time.

Let me say this just in closing. Today is not the mother of all debates and the mother of all decisions. When that tax package comes, you will have the mother of all votes on the floor.

Let me say this, I am not for voting any more taxes on the backs of the American people, because I believe the tax of 1990 put on right here today, and I am very concerned about the tax package being discussed in this Congress. I am one Democrat who believes we should stimulate the private sector. We already have more government jobs than factory jobs, and I think that is an indictment of our Congress. One basic tenet to this Constitution is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and there can be no life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness in America without jobs. I would like to see the mother of all debates center around the jobs bill…”

–=–

Now it is very important to grasp the fact that just because this bill was called a “budget resolution”, it and all other bills and Acts are certainly not limited in their scope of legislation to budgetary legislation. Here are a few examples of these kinds of treasonous and criminal additions that are continuously being placed into these bills and Acts, in the form of earmarks, amendments, demands, points of order, and just downright malfeasance of the legal CODE.

Firstly, here is the Bill that Mr. Traficant was referring to above:

–=–

Bill Text
103rd Congress (1993-1994)
House CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 64. ENR

H.CON.RES.64
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] – ENR)

SEC. 8. SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

(a) SENSE OF THE CONGRESS- It is the sense of the Congress that–

(1) from time to time the United States Government should sell assets; and

(2) the amounts realized from such asset sales will not recur on an annual basis and do not reduce the demand for credit.

(b) BUDGETARY TREATMENT- For purposes of points of order under this concurrent resolution and the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the amounts realized from sales of assets (other than loan assets) shall not be scored with respect to the level of budget authority, outlays, or revenues.

(g) TRADE-RELATED LEGISLATION-

(1) IN GENERAL- Budget authority and outlays may be allocated to a committee or committees and the revenue aggregates may be reduced for legislation to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement and any other trade-related legislation within such a committee’s jurisdiction if such a committee or the committee of conference on such legislation reports such legislation, if, to the extent that the costs of such legislation are not included in this concurrent resolution on the budget, the enactment of such legislation will not increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous or previously passed deficit reduction) the deficit in this resolution for–

SEC. 11. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING TAX REVENUES AND DEFICIT REDUCTION.

It is the sense of the House of Representatives that any legislation enacting tax increases called for in this budget resolution contain language providing that the net revenues generated by the legislation shall not be counted for the purpose of calculating the amount of any deficit increase called for in section 252(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.

SEC. 12. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES.

(g) EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS- The Senate adopts the provisions of this section–

(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate, and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of the Senate, and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and

(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of the Senate to change those rules (so far as they relate to the Senate) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of the Senate.

–≈–

Section 12 here is some of the best double-speak in the whole bill. It is a Senate Rule giving the Senate its own authority to change its own rules if the current rules are “inconsistent” with the new rules it wishes to create! And the Senate is claiming the constitutional right of the Senate to change any rule it sees fit at any time!!!

What, pray tell, is the point of having rules if those rules can simply be changed at any time by the very entity that is required to follow those rules?

If you aren’t either laughing or crying right now, there’s a problem here! For the ethical Senate has just made a proclamation that it really has no rules; using the constitution as an excuse to bypass or change any current rules by simply creating new and inconsistent rules that trump the old rules!

If the irony of this is still lost on you, then lets consider our 100 prisoners again. Imagine if that council of 6 prisoners, while judging the actions of the rest of the 94 prisoners, came to the conclusion that one or several or all of the 100 prisoners had broken a prison (Senate) Rule. Instead of punishing that prisoner, or properly dismissing, suspending, or terminating his or her abilities to act as an official (in the Senate), the Committee simply changes the rules of the prison (Senate)!

Of course, the whole Senate must vote to change these rules, which consequently makes all 100 of them an accessory to the cover-up of a crime – of the breaking of rules – by creating a new rule that allows the old rule to be broken.

Section 11 states: net revenues generated by the legislation shall not be counted for the purpose of calculating the amount of any deficit increase… What does this mean? Any profits (gains) via taxation or enterprise operations (non-governmental business-type sales) collected will not reduce the debt of the taxpayers! In other words, the House may continue to raise the debt-base of taxpayers (the people) despite the fact that taxation and other revenue is flowing into government, and that extra net money flowing in does not have to be used to pay down that public debt.

Government is not using your tax money properly. It is instead hoarding that money in its investment fund system, and placing more and more bonded indebtedness onto the taxpayer public.

But don’t worry about it… for government is not breaking any rules or laws here. Because remember – government is the rule and law-makers! You see how convenient that is? Think about it… Congressmen and Senators make the rules and laws which govern their own paycheck amounts and benefits received. They legislate their own tax-exempt expense account amounts and what they may spend the money in those accounts on. And as we just read, they can change their own rules to make just about anything they do legal and ethical, even if just temporarily so as to not be scrutinized by judicial review or public admonition.

As a taxpayer, do you have any idea how much money your Senators are allotted by themselves each year for their tax-exempt expense accounts? How much do you think the average Senator needs to cover his expenses?

100’s? – 1,000’s? – 10’s of 1,000’s? – 100’s of 1,000’s…?

Well lets start with the most costly expense to taxpayers, the Senator’s personal tax-exempt expense accounts…

According to the “2010 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances” report issued by Congress in 2011, a report listing the money given to, spent, and what money is left over from those appropriations (This report can be downloaded here: http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/combStmt/previous_rpts.htm), here is just a part of what it takes to fund the spending habits of our 100 Senators and staff, all tax-exempt of course:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

“Contingent Expenses, Senator’s Official Personnel And Office Expense Account, Senate”

The report states that $422,000,000was appropriated for use in the personal expense accounts of these just these 100 Senators.Of that $422 million, $400,590,512.37was spent (outlay) for the personal and office expenses of these 100 Senators.

That represents an average of about $4,005,900 per Senator for “personal” and “office” expenses. Tax free. Spent on anything they want within their own “rules”.

The account that holds this appropriated money gained about $13,600,000 over 2009 – leaving the ending account balance at $81,448,251.53. This amount is in an investment fund, gaining interest and other gains, and will be apportioned for the next years expense accounts – it is not given back to the government for budgetary purposes. Is this ethical behavior?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

This should be a shocking revelation to you. But perhaps you are thinking that these ladies and gentlemen of the Senate require such vast amounts of money to conduct business, after all it does include “office” expenses, doesn’t it?

Guess again…

Here are some of the other listed expense accounts that Senators and their staff are allowed to draw from (outlay) or are paid from:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

“Contingent Expenses, Expenses Of Inquiries And Investigations, Senate”

$140,500,000.00 – Appropriated for 2010.

$125,780,268.65 – Outlay (spent).

$254,644.79 – Withdrawn or other transactions.

$26,704,079.70 – The ending account balance, a gain of about $2 million over 2009.

$1,257,802 – Average spent per each of 100 Senators based on (outlay divided by 100)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

“Contingent Expenses, Miscellaneous Items, Senate”

$19,909,500.00 – Appropriated for 2010.

$13,524,922.79 – Outlay (spent).

$0.00 – Withdrawn or other transactions.

$49,225,568.72 – The ending account balance, a gain of about $1.2 million over 2009.

$135,249.22 – Average spent per each of 100 Senators.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

“Compensation Of Members And Related Administrative Expenses, Senate”

$23,603,773.00 – Appropriated for 2010.

$20,708,164.76 – Outlay (spent).

$0.00 – Withdrawn or other transactions.

$4,230,079.21 – The ending account balance, a gain of about $1.1 million over 2009.

$207,081.64 – Average spent per each of 100 Senators.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

“Contingent Expenses, Secretary Of The Senate, Senate”

$1,990,000.00 – Appropriated for 2010.

$756,508.92 – Outlay (spent).

$0.00 – Withdrawn or other transactions.

$9,557,875.92 – The ending account balance.

$7,565.08 – Average spent per each of 100 Senators.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

“Contingent Expenses, Sergeant At Arms And Doorkeeper Of The Senate, Senate”

$141,601,000.00 – Appropriated for 2011-2014.

$10,000,000 – Appropriated for 2010.

$90,719,432.93 – Outlay (spent) 2010-2014.

$0.00 – Withdrawn or other transactions.

$60,881,567.07 – The ending account balance as of 2014.

$907,194.32 – Average spent per each of 100 Senators as of 2014.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

“Settlements And Awards Reserve, Contingent Expenses, Senate”

$1,000,000 – The ending account balance as of 2010.

$10,000 – Average spent per each of 100 Senators as of 2014.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

“Congressional Use Of Foreign Currency, Senate”

$4,000,000.00 – Appropriated for 2010.

$4,416,425.52 – Outlay (spent).

$0.00 – Withdrawn or other transactions.

$27,613,635.88 – The ending account balance.

$44,164 – Average spent per each of 100 Senators.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

“Senate Office Of Public Records, Revolving Fund, Senate”

$22,907.00 – Outlay (spent).

$204,092.08 – The ending fund balance as of 2010.

$229 – Average spent per each of 100 Senators as of 2014.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

“Daniel Webster Senate Page Resident Revolving Fund, Senate”

$41,173.33 – Outlay (spent).

$268,265.96 – The ending fund balance as of 2010.

$411.73 – Average spent per each of 100 Senators as of 2014.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

And last, but but certainly not least… we come to the actual salaries that are paid to all staff and Senators in order for the taxpayers to have the privilege of funding this set of 100 Senators.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

“Salaries, Officers And Employees, Senate” –

$168,217,500.00 – Amount appropriated in 2010.

$150,017,546.99 – Amount paid (outlay) to officers and employees in 2010.

$27,053,492.09 – Account balance end of 2010 fiscal year, an increase of about 5.1 million over 2009.

$1,500,175 – Average amount paid for every Senator.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

“Salaries And Expenses, Office Of Senate Legal Counsel, Senate”

$1,544,000.00 – Amount appropriated in 2010.

$1,050,722.89 – Amount paid (outlay) to “legal counsel” in 2010.

$877,105.95 – Account balance end of 2010 fiscal year, an increase of about $18,000 over 2009.

$10,507.22 – Average amount paid for every Senator.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

“Payment To Widows And Heirs Of Deceased Members Of Congress, Senate”

$174,000.00 – Amount appropriated in 2010.

$174,000.00 – Amount paid to “widows and heirs”

$1740.00 – Average amount paid divided by 100 Senators.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

“Salaries And Expenses, Office Of The Legislative Counsel Of The Senate, Senate”

We see that $7,154,000 was appropriated by the Senate itself for the Senator and staff Salaries. Of that amount, $6,394,041.59 was actually paid out (outlay) to the Senators and staff.

That left a balance in this account of $939,136.37.

That represents $63,940.41 per Senator for this particular “service” provided.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

What is this office called the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate?

“The Office of the Legislative Counsel provides legislative drafting services for the Committees and Members of the United States Senate. The Office is strictly nonpartisan and refrains from formulating policy. Legislative drafters strive to turn every request into clear, concise, and legally effective legislative language.

Members and staff of the Senate can rest assured that communication with the Office is always confidential. The Office has a long history of providing unbiased services to both majority and minority parties using the utmost discretion.

Any Senator or staff member of the Senate may request assistance from the Office. The Office does not interact with members of the public, except indirectly through their Congressional representatives.”

Source: http://slc.senate.gov/

–=–

It was John F. Kennedy that said:

“The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.”

I don’t really think I need to expand on the fact that nothing our congress is doing should ever be in secret or be done with discretion from the people and states for which they supposedly represent. But, for the record, the “BAR” Association is a secret society, with secret oaths, and secret proceedings. Just thought you’d like to know…

–=–

But wait, there’s more…

Did you know that the Senators have granted themselves from the Treasury of the United States (taxpayers) the tax-exempt use of what is called the “Senate Hair Care Revolving Fund“? That’s right, The Federal Government has a fund that was created specifically for the hair care of its Senators and staff!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

“Senate Hair Care Revolving Fund”

$33,387 – Amount paid (outlay) for “hair care” in 2010.

$261,117 – Account (fund) balance end of 2010 fiscal year, an increase of about $36,000 over 2009.

$333.87 – Average amount used for each Senator and his staff.

You’d think that with all of that available money for haircare, we’d see a bit more style.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The taxpayers also paid $123,856.74 towards the “Senate Health And Fitness Facility, Architect Of The Capitol”. This left an account balance of $256,380.37.

So taxpayer funded Senatorial gym memberships apparently cost $1,238.56 for each member of the Senate and his/her staff.

And might I note that it’s fairly obvious these fat cats aren’t using their gym privileges!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The “Official Mail Costs, Senate” column states that the Federal Government appropriated $300,000 to this cost, adding to the existing balance already appropriated for Senate mailing services of $345,430.58. And after $115,546.71 of this money was actually used for mail, $161,082.59 was “withdrawn or used for other transactions”, the fund balance was left for fiscal year 2010 at $368,801.28 – a gain of a bit more than $22,000.

This represents $2,766.29 per senator for 2010.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

How about the “Senate Gift Shop Revolving Fund, Senate”?

Well, this fund has $2,939,413.53 within it. What this taxpayer money is used for is unclear, but these guys managed to spend $166,673.26 over fiscal year 2010.

This represents $1,666.73 per Senator.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The “Senate Photographic Studio Revolving Fund, Senate” spent $65,915.24 for the year and shows an ending balance of $798,690.53

There’s $659.15 per Senator.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The “Senate Recording Studio Revolving Fund, Senate” spent $22,722.52, leaving a fund balance of $1,945,771.10.

That’s $227.22 per Senator spent in 2010.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The “Contingent Expenses, Stationery (paper), Revolving Fund, Senate” spent $298,821.41, leaving a fund balance of $1,078,465.74.

That’s $2988.21 per Senator.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

With just the tax-exempt funds and accounts listed here, keeping in mind that all funds and accounts are not listed here, we get a pretty good indication that the majority of office expenses are pretty much covered here, between the haircare and health club funds, the paper, pencil and mail cost funds, the photographs and audio funds, the gift shop fund, the use of foreign currency fund, the contingent expenses funds, and the miscellaneous use funds, which likely cover just about anything else.

And yet over $4 million dollars of taxpayer money was needed per Senator to cover their extra tax-exempt personal expenses.

Is that ethical to you?

How could this type of spending possibly go under the noses of the Senate Ethics Committee? And who in the name of all that is Holy would allow these 100 people and their “staff” to be appropriated with almost half a billion dollars for their personal expenses?

Ever heard of the Senate Appropriations Committee? That’s right. The Senate appropriates this money to their own expense accounts! They make their own rules…

THIS IS YOUR GOVERNMENT!

Isn’t it time that we stop supporting this system of corruption and greed? Can we continue to allow these corporate lawyers, bankers, and business-men and women so blatantly and publicly steal from our taxpayer base while children go hungry; while 100’s of thousands of veterans are homeless on the streets; and while those same people legislate our private sector jobs out of the United States?

Aren’t these the same corporate persons that tell us that government owned corporations like Fannie Mae, AIG, and General Motors are too big to fail? Is anything too big to fail?

The more important question is: has government failed the people?

Isn’t it time to acknowledge the original 13th Amendment and ban lawyers and corporations from government? Isn’t it time to put men (male and female) back into government, not corporate persons with massive investments in the very corporate structure they are in charge of regulating? And isn’t it time to abolish political parties, which are nothing more than private non-governmental associations who seek financial and political benefit for themselves and their lobbyists, and not the people of America?

Remember, these are democrats and republicans, and there is no distinction between party lines while these men and women work together to create the political landscape to make organized crime both legal and ethical, according to their own rule-making authority.

The truth is, there are no ethics in government. For only living, breathing people can possess morals and ethics – whereas a corporation legally cannot have a religious or ethical position. The vast majority of your representatives are wealthy corporations. They are artificial persons; not of mankind.

And one last thing…

If you aren’t familiar with Senate Ethics Committee Member Mark L. Pryor, you really need to see this…

.

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Friday, September 12th, 2014

Posted by realitybloger on September 12, 2014

https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/the-fallacy-of-congressional-ethics/