The choice is either link to the White House so that Obama gets credit or appear to be an uncaring pol. I thought I had lost all capacity to be shocked by these people.

that they are not such a bloody bunch of SHEEP that they are going along with this ridiculousness!
What’s Pelosi going to do to them if they ignore this little fatwah (rightly) and link to the Red Cross???? Try them for crimes against the state???? that’ll play well for them in the papers and on the 6 o’clock news! I can hear O’Reilly now!!!! HAHAHAHAHA! They all need to grow some SPINES and tell her to pound whatever.

There shall be no charity in the United States of Obama other than that officially sanctioned by and channeled through (and ultimately, coerced by) the federal government. Next they’ll be trying to eliminate all tax breaks for charitable givi– what? They already are? Imagine.

Oh well, as long as we’re making it clear that

“the rules of the House preclude Members from using official resources for any purpose other than in support of the conduct of the Member’s official and representational duties on behalf of the district which he or she currently represents,”

can this statement be interpreted so as to make Members of Congress get rid of the creepy “Kids Korner” pages most of them seem to have on their sites? How about fluffy press releases that have nothing to do with Members’ “official and representational duties”? How about all press releases, which serve congressmens’ egos and nothing and no one else?

In fact, why doesn’t each Member of Congress just pare down their “official resources” online to a single page consisting of their name, contact info, and whichever disingenuous, smiling photo of themselves they prefer?

They have to present the least bit of modicum to the people they rob.

That, or they’re expecting us to gear up for the next bit of siphoning.

Either way, we’re giving to Haiti whether we want to or not — through our taxes, ad infinitum.

how we give over $100M a year to Haiti in foreign aid and refuse to check how it is used because, according to the State Dept., it is too dangerous to send auditors there. (This was before the earthquake.) I’d like congressmen to explain that.

yet again, freedom for me and not for thee.

Credit for me and not for thee.

..I think He hates indifference most.

And the Bureaucracy is the home of indifference. It is the face of the state class.

This is what happens when you aren’t so much interested ensuring ethical people are in office, and are instead merely satisfied to have “ethics” rules.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP

I work as a DOD Civilian (I work in a DoDDS School overseas) – and we got an email today from our Director today reminding us that as employee of the federal government, we are not allowed to solict funds for a private charity.

We were then directed to the USAid site if we chose to donate.

If students wanted to organize a collection – they are more than welcome to.

I think that the concern is that by being a federal employee (or elected official in the case of House members) if you single out 1 particular charity – you are somehow elevating that charity above the others.

Then you get the other charities crying foul – complaining that you’re using tax money to promote one charity over another.

A quick check of a few Senate sites shows John Ensign (NV) has a link to the State Department and the USAID website.

John Cornyn has a link to a site by charitywatch.org from the American Institute of Philanthropy.

So – I think it’s not just House Democrats who don’t want to highlight a single charity.

What would be really helpful – before we start lobbing shots at Obama and the Democrats – is to see how things were handled during the Christmas Tsunami a few years back – and after Hurricane Katrina.

Then we could compare apples to apples.

Listen – I’m no fan of Obama and the Democrats – but lets make reasoned arguments that have merit – and not just take cheap shots to score “easy points”.

Picking a nit, the political class has established this. There are lots of things to blame on the bureaucrats, but this isn’t a decision of the bureaucrats. It is a decision of the Democrats, more specifically Pelosi and her House staff.

official government websites should be used only for official government business -

GETTING RE-ELECTED!

Have you guys lost your minds?

After all, it would be a crime to use websites to help people not connected with government. So sayeth the Pelosi, so say we all.

Oh give me a break, Erickson — there is nothing with House rules prohibiting our Representatives from using government time and resources to solicit for causes unrelated to their official business.

Nor is there anything wrong with Democrats reminding party members of this.

When we challenge moral relativist philosophy, we understand that just as the left does get to cherry-pick principle, neither does the right. The principle here is rule-of-law.

To attempt to tar using this charity bullshit, going on about “death panels,” calls into question your understanding that principle must inform politics. Ideology and “winning” are corrosive forces when untethered by an eternal aspect.

On an unrelated matter, the post regarding how awful the trials in NYC, because of the danger posed to New Yorkers — here, focus is wanting.

We are at war, an undeclared war. To say the least, our un-uniformed enemy is not allowed Constitutional protections. The outrage is not the danger these trials pose to New Yorkers, but the fact that the Obama administration has chosen to try enemy combatants as civilians. (I don’t recall this as one of the man’s campaign promises — too bad no one brought it up).

Even the most loony-leftist must find something peculiar about trying murderous combatants in civilian courts, don’t you think?

For the barrel of ink and soapbox you possess, I urge focus. With focus, the debate turns to those matters that we should be debating. For instance:

On this matter of war, let our President go before Congress and ask for a Declaration of War.

Never mind “politics of the possible,” or “expedience” and “moderation.” If Constitutional principle is to mean something, we had better damn well understand our rights and our duty.

That “Living Constitution” crap is about making exceptions to the rule, because we, in our righteousness, know better.

That, my friend, is a corruption of principle best left to “moderates” and the left.

Let the Democrats enforce their hypocritical policy which stinks up to high heaven just once, and see how that plays out. They are playing politics with relief to those in an emergency. We should call their bluff and make them own it.