The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: thundley4 on February 05, 2009, 08:42:12 AM
-
A seemingly innocuous letter sent to the Clerk of the House of Representatives last Thursday by President Obama's Secretary of Labor nominee Hilda Solis raises serious and troubling legal questions about her nomination and apparent violation of House ethics rules. Not only was she involved with a private organization that was lobbying her fellow legislators on a bill that she has cosponsored, but she apparently kept her involvement secret and failed to reveal a clear conflict of interest.
Solis was a co-sponsor in 2007 of the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act," the card check legislation that would effectively eliminate the secret ballot and destroy the ability of employees to make an anonymous decision (without fear of retribution) on whether they want to join a union. She was also a co-sponsor of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, legislation that would force states to allow public safety officers to form unions. At the same time, however, Solis was a board member of a pro-union organization, American Rights at Work, that has been lobbying Congress on both of these bills. According to a letter filed by Solis with the House Clerk on January 29, 2009, she was not just a director of the ARW, along with fellow travelers like David Bonior, Julian Bond, and John Sweeney, she was actually the treasurer. In other words, she is the official legally charged with the fiduciary duty of approving and signing off on all spending by the organization.
And to make matters worse, she did not reveal to her colleagues in the House of Representatives that membership on her financial disclosure forms, which may constitute a separate ethical violation.
The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/101mswgc.asp)
Hey, lets open the hen house and let the foxes guard the chickens. Can this administration get any more inept at naming candidates?
-
The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/101mswgc.asp)
Can this administration get any more inept at naming candidates?
...uh....that would be a YEAH.....cause they ain't through filling offices yet.
-
What do you mean it raises questions. We know the answer to this. It dosn't matter anymore. We know they are corrupt and dishonest. What questions are left?
-
Wow! This Obama guy knows some really shady folks.[/billclinton]
-
Wow! This Obama guy knows some really shady folks.[/billclinton]
A killer, many tax cheats, a lobbyist and now a conflict of interest violator. So much for "the most ethical administration ever."
I have never seen a pool so tainted in my life.
-
A killer, many tax cheats, a lobbyist and now a conflict of interest violator. So much for "the most ethical administration ever."
I have never seen a pool so tainted in my life.
I am prepared to say the average rank-and-vile liberal--of whom my entire family save myself are numbered--have sincere and passionate beliefs that they earnestly desire to see fulfilled; but as with Clinton before and now Obama, we are compelled to ask: is this the best they can find to represent themselves? Are there no crime-free liberal pols?