The Story of a Bug Exterminator from Texas: April 2005

Saturday, April 30, 2005

The MUST SEE website of the day

Great site on DeLay...

http://dailydelay.blogspot.com/

Please check it out...it ROCKS!

Tommy Boy's Majority Website

Tom DeLay has a website

For a grin...check out old
"BugKilla's Webby"
http://tomdelay.house.gov/

BACKGROUND ON DELAY'S PREVIOUS VIOLATIONS

A complete analysis of DeLay’s legal defense fund and background on his previous violations of House Rules is available by clicking here.

The Charges:

• Unethical Behavior: A look at Tom DeLay's ethics problems, the House's 'neutered' ethics committee and the government ethics community's fight to clean up Congress.

• Undemocratic Leadership: A review of DeLay’s authoritarian leadership, under which open debate has been dramatically reduced, alternative proposals are routinely denied a vote and the ability to offer amendments has been sharply curtailed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wit and Wisdom of Tom DeLay
"The Constitution gives [Congress] the responsibility to create courts. If we can create them, we can uncreate them." -- Tom DeLay speaking at the Sugarland Rotary Club in late March, 2005.

Contributions to Rep. Tom DeLay’s Legal Defense Fund Slow to a Trickle

Contributions from Members of Congress Drop by 83 Percent

WASHINGTON -- April 26 -- The recent spate of unfavorable media disclosures surrounding House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s ethical lapses may be hurting more than just his image; his ability to raise money also appears to have been severely affected. Contributions to DeLay’s legal defense fund have fallen off sharply according to figures just released by the U.S. House of Representatives’ Legislative Resource Center.

In the first quarter of 2005, DeLay’s legal defense fund raised only $47,750. That is less than one-fifth of the amount raised in the last quarter of 2004, when the fund collected $254,250.

An analysis by Public Citizen reveals that contributions to the fund from DeLay’s congressional colleagues also slowed considerably during the first three months of 2005. Only nine members of Congress contributed a total of $30,000, which is an 83 percent drop from the last three months of 2004 when 36 of DeLay’s fellow representatives contributed a total of $174,500.

Under House rules, donors may contribute a maximum of $5,000 per calendar year to a legal defense fund, and contributions can be made by individuals, political action committees (PACs), and corporate and union treasuries.

But Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) found a way to circumvent the House rules, according to the Public Citizen analysis. He made one $5,000 contribution through his leadership PAC and a second from his campaign fund. That $10,000 total contribution makes Bachus the largest congressional contributor to DeLay’s legal defense in the last three months.

The congressional contributors who have given the most to DeLay’s legal defense fund over the four-year life of the fund are: Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), $20,000; former Rep. “Billy” Tauzin (R-La.), $15,000; and Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas), $15,000.

While none of those representatives made contributions in the first quarter of 2005, five staffers to House Majority Whip Roy Blunt and the executive director of his PAC contributed a total of $2,750.

“It looks like most members of Congress are trying to distance themselves from Tom DeLay’s ethics problems by closing their wallets,” said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook. “If money truly speaks louder than words, then the absence of it is sending a loud message that this ethically challenged majority leader’s greatest asset to his colleagues – the ability to raise large bundles of cash – is waning.”

Other findings of the analysis of contributions to DeLay’s legal defense fund since its inception in July 2000 through March 2005 include:

Since it was formed in 2000, DeLay’s legal defense fund has raised a total of $1,046,971.

Corporations and their employees have contributed $593,996 to the fund, or 57 percent of all contributions.

Leading industry contributors (including their employees) have been energy and natural resources ($127,300); construction ($80,800); communications and electronics ($65,250); agriculture ($53,250); finance, insurance and real estate ($49,790); and lawyers and lobbyists ($36,500).
“It’s noteworthy that the energy and natural resources industry led in contributions to his legal defense,” said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch. “Of course, if you consider DeLay’s leadership on the recently passed energy bill, with its massive industry tax breaks and incentives, it would appear that energy companies got a big return on their investment.”


From this source

Is Tom DeLay toast? --

A: No. Toast is sliced bread, heated and browned. Tom DeLay is a Republican congressman representing the 22nd District of Texas. The fate of DeLay is unclear at this juncture. There is no question that Republican congressmen are growing weary of the daily Tom DeLay stories, questions about his travel, questions about his finances, questions about his tactics. Right now, however, there doesn't seem to be a serious crack in GOP support; Chris Shays and Tom Tancredo do not a palace coup make. But if the House ethics committee uncovers more information that further damages the majority leader -- say, serious questions about his former relationship with lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- I think at some point Republican leaders will decide he is not worth the political capital of defending him. I just don't feel we're at that point quite yet.

John Bolton, on the other hand -- President Bush's choice to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations -- is toast.

Q: I cannot recall any vice president who has categorically stated he has no interest in running for president when his term ended. That is, until Dick Cheney. Who was the last veep to bow out in advance? -- Rachel Sawyer, Washington, D.C.

A: It is certainly most unusual for a vice president to disclaim any intention of succeeding his boss. There is no question in my mind that Cheney's disclaimer is genuine, not the kind of posturing one often hears from those swearing off White House ambitions. Aside from age or health questions, Cheney -- arguably the most powerful and influential vice president in history -- made it clear from day one that his role was to support George W. Bush in any way he can. He has earned Bush's trust and gratitude, and he has never made the president wonder about a hidden agenda. Of course, given the role Cheney has played these last four and a half years, perhaps running for president would be seen as a step down.

The last elected vice president not to run for president was Republican Charles Curtis. A White House contender in 1928, he was chosen that year as Herbert Hoover's running mate over Hoover's objections. Neither Hoover nor Curtis cared for each other in the ticket's ill-fated bid for re-election in 1932. But Curtis never ran for president after that. Here's a look at all the elected vice presidents since Curtis and their record as presidential candidates:

From this source

Lampson plans to challenge DeLay next year

Dallas, TX, Apr. 28 (UPI) -- A Democrat who was defeated after Texas congressional districts were redrawn plans to challenge House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in next year's election.

From this source

Tom DeLay Solicited Donations with Skyboxes

Fostering a Saddam Hussein image this past weekend at the National Rifle Association annual meeting, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) waved a rifle in the air and called on his "preferably armed" friends to help battle his enemies. In recent press statements, DeLay named as his enemy the "leftist syndicate" that has the nerve to point out that congressional representatives mired in ethics charges and criminal investigations ought to step down from House leadership.

Intent on bluster rather than on submitting to open, impartial and thorough investigation, DeLay continued his shrill rhetorical attack on judges, the media and Democrats to anyone who would listen.

Meanwhile, reports of further evidence of the improper solicitation of funds from donors linked to issues pending in Congress surfaced.

According to the Associated Press, Tom DeLay provided campaign donors with expensive skybox seats at entertainment events in 2000 provided by infamous lobbyist "Casino Jack" Abramoff, now under criminal investigation for stealing from and defrauding his clients.

DeLay never reimbursed Abramoff for the use of the tickets valued at thousands of dollars, and then DeLay voted for against legislation opposed by the donors who used the skybox seats.

While DeLay's lawyers claim the law at the time didn't require him to reimburse Abramoff, the law does require that members of Congress avoid appearance of solicitation of funds and of conflict of interest. House rules also prohibit members from soliciting funds from special interests or from groups with business before the House.

In the last two months evidence has surfaced that DeLay improperly accepted trips financed by Abramoff, who has given tens of thousands of dollars to DeLay's campaign fund, including a trip to London in 2000.

DeLay is also suspected of accepting an all-expenses paid trip to Russia that year ostensibly financed by a non-profit organization. According to the Washington Post, however, the non-profit was a front to hide Abramoff's involvement with financing the trip.

Earlier this week, GOP leaders in a public relations effort to shift focus from DeLay's ethics problems onto the Democrats called for allowing the House ethics committee to investigate DeLay, but under the new rules.

Republican leaders ordered new rules for the ethics committee last October after the committee unanimously rebuked DeLay for the third time. The House ethics committee has rebuked DeLay for abuse of power by improperly using his position and federal agencies to intervene in internal state disputes.

In 2003, DeLay was unanimously admonished by the committee for "creating the appearance of impropriety" when he accepted money from energy company executives who happened to record their intention to purchase congressional votes with $56,000 payments to DeLay's political action committee.

DeLay was also rebuked for threatening a Republican member by withholding financial support for future campaigns because that member refused to vote the way DeLay and the Republican leadership wanted him to.

DeLay is also suspected of funneling almost $200,000 to the Republican Party from corporate donors, a move that is illegal in Texas. This question is still under investigation by an Austin grand jury.

Public documents also showed that DeLay paid two family members over $500,000 from his political action committee in the last four years.

The ethics committee’s new rules limit the time of the investigation and require the committee drop the charges if in that short period of time it doesn't by a majority vote to rebuke DeLay. Earlier ethics investigations took a minimum of several months to complete thoroughly and to the satisfaction of the committee's members.

The committee is composed of an even number of Democrats and Republicans. And though the committee previously voted unanimously to rebuke DeLay for ethics violations on three occasions, it isn't likely to form a majority to do so now.

In an unusual move, the Republican Party leadership ordered the replacement of Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO) and two other GOP members of the committee with GOP leadership loyalists who have given several thousand dollars to Tom DeLay's legal defense fund.

Republican leaders also threatened to investigate Democrats who called for DeLay's resignation or for more thorough and open investigation.

Responding to the Republican leadership’s imposition of new rules to protect DeLay in an editorial, former ethics committee chair Joel Hefley and current ranking Democrat Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (WV) described the situation as potentially "the end of a credible ethics process in the House."

Now the GOP wants to use a process that lacks credibility to "clear" DeLay.

Unfortunately for them, facts are facts and crooks have to be shown the door.

From this source

Christian groups buy ads to say God can change gays

WASHINGTON-- A full-page newspaper advertisement by conservative Christian groups that said homosexuals could "overcome" their sexual identity by accepting God sparked outrage among gay rights supporters on Monday.

The Christian Coalition and other conservative groups took out the advertisement in the New York Times. It is to be followed by similar displays in the Washington Post and USA Today later this week.

The advertisement features the testimony of Anne Paulk, a self-described "wife, mother and former lesbian," who says she was able to change her identity through a commitment to religion.

"Leaving homosexuality was the hardest thing I've ever had to do," Paulk says in the advertisement.

"As I grew in my relationship with God, I knew He had changed me forever. Gone was the hardness. Gone was the hurt. And gone was the shrill cry inside, replaced by God's still, small voice," the advertisement quotes her as saying.

'Bigotry, hatred and intolerance'
Tracey Canaty of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force said her organization viewed the advertising campaign as a new attack on homosexuality.

"The bigotry, hatred and intolerance that this ad represents is the real perversion," she said.

Homosexuality has recently become a hot political issue after Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, compared it to alcoholism, sex addiction and kleptomania.

Asked in a television interview if he believed homosexuality was a sin, Lott replied, "It is."

"In America right now there's an element that wants to make that alternative lifestyle acceptable and normal," said Lott.

"You should still love that person.... You should show them a way to deal with that problem," he said, adding, "Just like my father having a problem with alcohol.... Other people have sex addiction. Other people are kleptomaniacs."

Gay Clinton nominee blocked
Republicans in Congress are blocking the confirmation of James Hormel, nominated by President Clinton to be U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg, because he is openly gay.

In the latest clash over gays, the White House said Friday it was appalled at possible plans by House Republicans to block an administrative order barring discrimination against homosexuals in federal jobs.

Conservative House Republicans, including House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas, may offer an amendment to a fiscal 1999 spending bill that would prohibit the government from spending money to carry out Clinton's order.

Message of hope
The Christian Coalition, a powerful bloc within the Republican Party and the best known of 15 organizations sponsoring the advertising campaign, said it was intended as a message of hope for homosexuals.

"Christian Coalition has energized people of faith to become involved in the political process and have an effect on public policy, but has also long maintained that America's most serious problems ultimately require changes in the heart of individuals. Religious faith plays a central role in that change," the organization said in a statement.

Other groups sponsoring the campaign include Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council, headed by conservative activist Gary Bauer.

'The real road to healing'
Describing her path from homosexuality, Paulk says in the ad: "I met a Christian woman, a former lesbian, who listened patiently to my story and led me to a ministry helping people overcome homosexuality. Because they loved me without judgment, I was able finally to give all my relationships with God and begin the real road to healing."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/13/politics.gays/

DeLay gave to N.C. reps



>> a d v e r t i s e m e n t <<

>> w e b t o o l s <<
Print Story | Email Story | News Tip?

WASHINGTON

Since 2000, members of North Carolina's congressional delegation have received more than $70,000 in contributions from Rep. Tom DeLay, the embattled House majority leader.

The figures aren't unusual by Washington standards. But they do illustrate a connection of common interests between DeLay, R-Texas, and members of the state's congressional delegation. All told, he has donated close to $2.8 million in the past five years to federal candidates, including several unsuccessful candidates in North Carolina.

"This is a way for him to curry favor with other members and to be seen as a team player," said Larry Noble, the executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization that monitors money in politics.

According to analysis by the center, Rep. Robin Hayes, R-8th, was the big winner in North Carolina. He has received nearly $30,000 in contributions from DeLay's leadership political-action committee since the 2000 election cycle.

Hayes, who usually has run in moderately competitive races, said that the money - which is completely legal - does not cloud his view of DeLay.

"When I give money to others, should I expect anything in return?" Hayes asked. "The only thing they would owe me is their best effort to do the right thing."

Campaign-finance laws stipulate that a candidate can receive no more $10,000 total ($5,000 for the primary election and $5,000 for the general election) from a political-action committee in any given election cycle.

Noble said that the fact that DeLay was giving the maximum to candidates was important because it demonstrates he is doing "all that he can for them."

The only Republican members of the North Carolina delegation who have not received money from DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority PAC are Sen. Elizabeth Dole, Rep. Howard Coble, R-8th, and Rep. Sue Myrick, R-9th.

Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said that although the amount of money from DeLay might not be that large, it opens doors to even more money down the road. Once donors see that DeLay has given money, they would be more likely to help a member in need, he said.

"In North Carolina, there are only a couple of districts that are competitive, so all the members know they could count on Tom DeLay to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars in a hurry" from other sources, Sabato said.

DeLay, a champion of conservative causes, has been a lightning rod for Democrats for years. He engineered a redistricting plan in his native Texas that forced the retirement of several veteran Democratic congressmen in 2004, and subsequently increased the Republican majority in the House.

He has also been the subject of several ethics investigations. He has recently come under fire for his role in the Terri Schiavo case and for criticizing the judiciary, including Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court. On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that a lobbyist paid for overseas travel for DeLay, something House rules prohibit.

The House, under increased pressure from outside groups, voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to change ethics rules that had been protecting DeLay from further investigations.

Republicans have quietly begun to fear that the added scrutiny of DeLay is hurting the party. So far only one Republican member of the House, Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, has called on DeLay to resign.

From http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031782447772&path=!localnews&s=1037645509099

DeLay Faces Lengthy Inquiry


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-ethics29apr29,1,2140990.story?coll=la-headlines-politics&ctrack=1&cset=true

By Mary Curtius, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — After months of published reports raising questions about his overseas travels, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) says he is looking forward to proving his innocence to a revived House ethics committee.

But even if the panel begins immediately, it is expected to take six months to a year to complete an investigation into DeLay's conduct — and there is no guarantee that either the House majority leader or the committee will emerge unscathed, legal experts say.

In this case, the stakes are particularly high, both for Mr. DeLay, given his history of ethics lapses, and for this committee," said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in legal and government ethics.

She says the public will want to know this: "Will the committee be able to act in a bipartisan manner in the way that it has in the past?"

On Wednesday, DeLay characterized the forthcoming inquiry by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as not so much a formal investigation of him, but as a chance to answer questions about his conduct while helping to guide the committee to clarify its rules on travel and gifts.

Asked whether he thought the existing rules were clear, he responded: "No, obviously not."

Experts say DeLay is likely to find himself entangled in a process that will be lengthy and carried out largely in secret — and it will be committee members, not DeLay, who will shape the scope of the investigation.

In order to establish its credibility, the panel "needs to take hold of this case and decide how it is going to proceed," said Kenneth A. Gross, a Washington lawyer who has informally advised legislators under investigation by the ethics committee.

If the DeLay investigation "is going to have any credibility," he said in a interview Thursday, "it needs to be shaped and controlled by the committee with some orderly process."

Under the most likely scenario, Reps. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the panel chairman, and Alan B. Mollohan of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the committee, will review the news reports and jointly notify DeLay that he is the subject of a preliminary investigation. At that point, Hastings and Mollohan may informally question DeLay and others.

If that informal inquiry raises enough questions, the full committee will be asked to vote to form an investigative subcommittee with the power to subpoena witnesses and documents.

At issue are several overseas trips by DeLay. Newspaper reports have alleged that a registered foreign agent paid for one, and that some of the expenses on another trip were put on the personal credit cards of two lobbyists.

Even if those allegations proved true, Gross said, none would seem serious enough to cost DeLay his leadership position — if he didn't already have a history with the committee.

"None of these trips are knocking my socks off," Gross said. "But there is a bleeding process that carries over from past admonishments that he's received."

Last year, the ethics committee, the only House panel evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, unanimously admonished DeLay three times for his conduct.

"It is clearly necessary for you to temper your future actions to assure that you are in full compliance at all times with the applicable House Rules and Standards of Conduct," the committee wrote to him last fall.

It was after DeLay received that warning that news reports about his travels began to surface. Gross said the trip that may prove most problematic was a 10-day visit to England and Scotland in 2000.

The Washington Post has reported that Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist under investigation by a Senate committee and the federal government for his dealings with Indian tribes, used his personal credit card to pay DeLay's airfare. House ethics rules prohibit members from allowing lobbyists to pick up their expenses.

The Post also reported that lobbyist Edwin A. Buckham, a former DeLay staffer, used his credit card to pay $184 of DeLay's expenses on the same trip.

DeLay's lawyer, Bobby Burchfield, said in an interview Thursday that DeLay "believed and continues to believe" that his trip to England and Scotland was paid for by a conservative think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research, and not by lobbyists.

Burchfield said the ethics rules held that a member was only culpable if he knew that those paying the expenses were disallowed by House rules — and that DeLay had no such knowledge.

Questions have also been raised about a 2001 trip to South Korea. The Korea-U.S. Exchange Council paid for the trip, which began a few days after the organization registered as a foreign agent. House ethics rules prohibit foreign agents from financing trips for members of Congress. DeLay has said that he did not know the group had registered as a foreign agent.

There are also questions about a June 1997 trip to Moscow sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research. Published reports have questioned whether the trip was actually paid for by business interests.