BEST NOTABLE QUOTABLES OF 2009 ANNOUNCED BY MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER

Discover Magazine's Melissa Lafsky Wins “Quote of the Year”

Regarding Mary Jo Kopechne being killed in a car accident by

Sen. Ted Kennedy: “Who knows – maybe she’d have thought it was worth it.”

The Media Research Center has announced its Best Notable Quotables of 2009: The 22nd Annual Awards for the Year’s Worst Reporting granting Discover magazine’s Melissa Lafsky the dis-honor of “Quote of the Year.” On August 27, a few days after Senator Edward Kennedy’s death, Lafsky posted the following on the Huffington Post blog:

"[One wonders what] Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted’s death, and what she’d have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded. Who knows — maybe she’d have thought it was worth it."

For reference, Kopechne died in the backseat of Kennedy’s car after he drove off a bridge in Chappaquiddick in 1969, an accident the Senator did not report for several hours.

In razor-close balloting, the runner-up for MRC’s "Quote of the Year" went to Newsweek’s Evan Thomas for making this absurd comparison on MSNBC’s Hardball on June 5: "In a way, Obama is standing above the country, above the world. He’s sort of God." Thomas later posted a statement on Newsweek’s web site: "I was not being literal."

MRC President Brent Bozell:

“2009 was the first year of the liberal media’s God, President Barack Obama. The biased coverage and blatant praises the media lavishly bestowed upon the golden boy and his cronies aren’t bad for laughs. But laughter isn’t what Americans are really after from the news media – We’d like some news.”

The winners were selected by a panel of 48 judges, including nationally syndicated talk radio hosts Neil Boortz and Mark Levin, columnist Cal Thomas, George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams and American Spectator Editor-in-Chief R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. To read the complete issue of The Best Notable Quotables of 2009: The 22 Annual Awards for the Year’s Worst Reporting, access full quotes, or watch video clips of the broadcast quotes, please visit www.MRC.org.

For easy access to other recent articles, click on "THE FREEDOM POST" at the very top of the site, then page down.

WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES GOVERNMENT HAVE POWER TO MANDATE PURCHASE OF HEALTH CARE INSURANCE?

ONLY CONGRESS KNOWS FOR SURE...CONGRESS SCOFFS, SHRUGS, AND SPINS, WHEN ASKED ABOUT OBAMACARE'S CONSTITUTIONALITY

How depressing it is to hear the contorted logic, from our leaders in Congress, when asked to site the portion of the Constitution that gives the federal government authority to force a citizen to purchase a health insurance policy.

Even more discouraging are their pitiful answers (see below), considering that each has taken the oath, upon taking office, to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States". How can they fulfill this oath when they aren't even considering a bill's constitutionality when passing legislation? Their oath of office is becoming a national joke, and the joke is on us.

The proper answer is that there is no provision in the Constitution for anything even close to resembling the granting of power to force a citizen buy any product or service. It is a complete bastardization of the "General Welfare" clause, the Constitution as a whole, and everything this country was founded upon, to define that section as giving Congress a blank check to do anything they want. And believe me, if the government starts forcing you to buy things, there are no limits to what they can do.

The "General Welfare" clause is very clear in that "general" applies to the "whole" rather than to particular parts or special interests. Obviously, Congress has been abusing this for quite some time, but as my Dad used to say, "two wrongs don't make a right". The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves at our country, intended as "one country, indivisible", into one controlled by special interest groups.

James Madison, who is considered the main author of the Constitution, should know what the words, "General Welfare", meant. He wrote them! He explained the intended meaning of the phrase,"General Welfare", as:

With respect to the words, “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of power connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution…[that] was not contemplated by the creators.”

Yet, some, "legal experts", arrogantly and shamefully define the clause to match whatever happens to further their freedom killing political agenda. The powers in Article I, Section 8, are very specific and the Tenth Amendment clarifies that any contrived powers politicians invent, that are not granted in the Constitution, are reserved to the States or to the people.

The Constitution is very clear in that it's intention is to LIMIT GOVERNMENT! Liberals or "Progressives" interpretation results in UNLIMITED GOVERNMENT! Unlimited government eventually to complete loss of freedom. History has proven this over and over again. No one being genuine can make the case that the Founding Fathers fought and died for a government of unlimited powers over us.

ObamaCare is clearly unconstitutional. It's passage will result in a loss of individual rights and freedom, as well as mashing the gas pedal down further on the financial road to disaster.

Below are various responses regarding the constitutionality of ObamaCare's insurance mandate. Special thanks to CNS News, and Downsize DC, for asking the questions and compiling the lists. Even though the question of constitutionality is the "800 pound gorilla" in the room, very few in the media are doing their duty in reporting this crucial issue. CNS News is the exception and they're doing the job that the rest of the media should be doing. You can access the complete story in each case by clicking on the Congressman, Congresswoman, or Senator's name. Every single one of these constitution-violating clowns should be removed from office at the earliest possible opportunity:

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA):

"...no place in the Constitution that specifically says health care" or education, but "we have made those choices as a country over the years."

"The United States Congress passed laws regarding Medicare and Medicaid that became de facto mandatory programs. States all the time require people to have driver's licenses... "

Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI):

"I'm not aware of that, let me put it that way. But what we're trying to do is to provide for people who have needs and that's where the accessibility comes in, and one of the goals that we're trying to present here is to make it accessible."

"Not in particular with health insurance. It's not covered in that respect. But in ways to help citizens in our country to live a good life, let me say it that way, is what we're trying to do, and in this case, we're trying to help them with their health."

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE):

"Well, you know, I don't know that I'm a constitutional scholar, so, I, I’m not going to be able to answer that question."

Senator Jack Reed (D-RI):

"I would have to check the specific sections, so I'll have to get back to you on the specific section. But it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don’t think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]. It gives Congress a right to raise an army, but it doesn’t say you can take people and draft them. But since that was something necessary for the functioning of the government over the past several years, the practice on the books, it's been recognized, the authority to do that."

Senator Roland Burris (D-IL):

"Well, that’s under certainly the laws of the -- protect the health, welfare of the country . . .That’s under the Constitution. We're not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD):

"Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility... We mandate other things as well, like paying taxes."

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT):

"We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?... Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there's no question there's authority. Nobody questions that."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):

“Are you serious? Are you serious?”

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC):

"There's nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do... show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?"

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND):

“No, but I’ll refer you to the legal counsel for the Senate and they’re the ones that lead there as the full legal basis for the individual mandate -- and I assume it’s in the Commerce clause.”

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA):

“Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That’s how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs.”

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA):

“Well, we’re very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I’ll let them answer that.”

Sen. Blanche Lincoln:

“Well, I just think the Constitution charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people,”

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR):

“The very first enumerated power gives the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare. So it’s right on, right on the front end.”

For easy access to other recent articles, click on "THE FREEDOM POST" at the very top of the site, then page down.

INDIANAPOLIS DOCTOR'S OBAMACARE LETTER TO SENATOR EVAN BAYH

Below is a letter sent by Indianapolis anesthesiologist, Dr. Stephen E. Frazer, to Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN):

Senator Bayh,

As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the health care bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government's proposed involvement in the patient-physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is DANGEROUS and certainly not helpful in designing a health care system that works for all.

Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our health care system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress WILL BE A DISASTER IF PASSED.

I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill.

You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens... READ THESE CAREFULLY AND JUST IMAGINE WHAT COULD RESULT ...........

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have NO choice!

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens........... illegal or otherwise.

Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID Health card' WILL be issued!

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have DIRECT ACCESS to your bank accounts for ELECTIVE funds transfer.

Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.'

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans--The Govt WILL ration your health care!

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)

Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps) to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans.

(AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!)

Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. ( NO choice.)

Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/American Medical Association - The Govt WILL TELL YOU what salary you can make.

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense) UNSUSTAINABLE.

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll!

(See the last comment in parenthesis.)

Page 150 Lines 9-13:A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is EXEMPT from individual taxes.

(Americans will pay.)

Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. WILL HAVE ACCESS to ALL Americans' finances and personal records.

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax."

(Yes, it really says that!) Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors.

(Low-income and the poor are affected.)

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in – you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that's not Socialism!)

Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally -- the value of humans.)

Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.

Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e... re-admissions).

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)

Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)

Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of 2 outcome-based measures... (HC the way they want -- rationing.)

Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)

Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!' Unbelievable!

Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)

Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult." (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)

Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!)

Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; guiding you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.')

Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)

Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy.

(Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.

Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.

Furthermore, if you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor-patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.

Respectfully,

Stephen E. Fraser, MD

Dear Reader, I urge you to use the power that you were born with (and the power that may soon be taken away) and circulate this letter to as many people as you can reach. The "Power of the People" can stop this from happening to us, our parents, our grandparents, our children, and to following generations.

For easy access to other recent articles, click on "THE FREEDOM POST" at the very top of the site, then page down.

AMERICANS FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT RELEASE 'BLUE DOG' DEMOCRATS' VOTING RECORDS

Americans for Limited Government (ALG) today released the voting records of some 90 Blue Dog and what it dubbed “so-called moderate” House Democrats on what ALG President Bill Wilson called “some of the most controversial votes of 2009.”

“So-called Blue Dog ‘conservative’ Democrats in the House have long touted their caucus as being fiscally-responsible, but what emerges from an analysis of their voting records is a pack of lapdogs who have voted largely in lock-step with their more radical counterparts in House leadership,” said Wilson.

“In vote after vote, the Blue Dogs have been all bark and no bite. Although they had the votes to do so, they have not stopped a single piece of budget-busting legislation in a year that saw the largest budget deficit in American history: $1.4 trillion,” Wilson explained.

“By over a 4 to 1 margin, so-called ‘moderates’ in the House have voted with the bankrupt Pelosi agenda of Big Government,” Wilson added.

The analysis shows 856 Yea votes and 207 Nay votes, which Wilson said “was not enough to stop anything.”

The ALG analysis includes votes on the $789 billion “stimulus”, bankruptcy mortgage “cramdowns,” ACORN funding, a $108 billion International Monetary Fund expansion, the Waxman-Markey carbon emission caps, the $2.1 trillion “public option” health system, the $154 billion assistance program for bankrupt states, and the $290 billion debt limit expansion.

According to the Blue Dogs’ website, “In the 111th Congress, the Coalition intends to continue to make a difference in Congress by forging middle-ground, bipartisan answers to the current challenges facing the Country. A top priority will be to refocus Congress on balancing the budget and ridding taxpayers of the burden the debt places on them.”

“By its own measure, the Blue Dog coalition has not succeeded,” Wilson noted. “The House of Representatives this year alone has voted to spend more than $3.6 trillion, to nationalize the health care system, to strangle the nation’s access to energy, and to bankrupt the Treasury—and yet the Blue Dog and so-called ‘moderate’ Democrats have done nothing to stop the profligate financial catastrophe unfolding at the nation’s Capitol,” Wilson said.

Wilson pointed to the record national debt which currently stands at over $12 trillion, as placing an “insurmountable burden on the next generation of Americans.” The total debt is projected to top the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2011 at over $14 trillion. By 2020, it will top $20 trillion.

Wilson said that if entitlement spending is not reined in, it will soon half of the entire budget. According to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), entitlement spending as a percentage of budget outlays will continue to increase over the next decade. In 2019, OMB projects that entitlements spending will stand at $2.482 trillion (45.93 percent of outlays totaling $5.403 trillion).

According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, by 2050 entitlement spending “will consume nearly the entire federal budget.”

“While the nation is going bankrupt, House Blue Dogs and ‘moderate’ Democrats pretend that their support for these terrible pieces of legislation is ‘deficit-neutral.’ They have done nothing to stop the madness, which will only bankrupt the Treasury, destroy the dollar, and saddle American taxpayers without a debt that cannot be paid.”

SEE: “Blue Dogs and Moderate Democrats Voting Records, 2009,” Americans for Limited Government.

For easy access to other recent articles, click on "THE FREEDOM POST" at the very top of the site, then page down.

TOP TEN CORRUPT POLITICIANS LIST ANNOUNCED BY JUDICIAL WATCH

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2009 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The motto of Judicial Watch is "Because no one is above the law". The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several on Judicial Watch's 2009 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians”, also made 2008's list. To be redirected to 2008's list, click HERE.

For easy access to other recent articles, click on "THE FREEDOM POST" at the very top of the site, then page down.