On Thursday, the House of Representatives formally voted to censure one of its members—Charlie Rangel of New York. A censure has occurred only 23 times now in the history of the institution. It is the highest penalty that can be meted out other than expulsion. Rangel justly earned it.

Yet, given an opportunity to speak for one minute after the censure vote, Rangel used that minute to say he did nothing wrong, and chided the House for, in essence, abusing its authority and using him as a scapegoat. Others have done things far worse, he said. He never enriched himself by his actions, and besides, they were honest mistakes.

Rangel displayed no remorse; he wasn’t humbled by his experience. He is the epitome of congressional arrogance—people who have been in power so long [in his case, for forty years] that they somehow feel they are owed their position by the lowly minions who vote them into office.

That was bad enough, but when he stepped down, the Democrats in the House gave him a standing ovation. Frankly, it was sickening, and it was also a perfect picture of why they needed to be turned out of power in the last election. Now, will the Republicans hold to a higher standard?

Others who have done what Rangel did are in prison. That’s where he deserves to be as well. Although a censure was a stronger rebuke to him than a mere reprimand, he ought to have been expelled from the House. Justice was not done.

Our lame Congress—I mean “lame-duck” Congress—is giving plenty of evidence why the elections were a good thing. Let’s just consider how the Democrats are handling themselves during this session. They started off by re-electing Nancy Pelosi as their leader in the House.

Pelosi has learned nothing from the elections. She’s convinced that her party wasn’t turned out of power for its policies. This could turn into a new TV program:

If it should ever materialize, don’t expect the ratings to rival Palin’s.

Why, it may be asked, did Democrats put her back in charge? Was it her stellar leadership abilities?

Or was it more a matter of inertia? I’ve often marveled how Britain couldn’t survive without a monarch. It had one decade [the 1650s] without one, then reverted back. It’s almost as if they couldn’t imagine living without one. Is the same concept at work with the Democrats and Pelosi?

To be honest, I don’t mind that she’s still the face of the Democrat part of the House. That only helps Republicans.

Meanwhile, the House Ethics Committee finally ruled on the accusations against Charlie Rangel and found him guilty of numerous counts of unethical behavior. Of course, it only took a couple of years to get around to it. And it remains to be seen if the disciplinary action will anything more than a slap on the wrist. I’m hoping for better, but with this group, it’s hard to have hope.

Maxine Waters is next, and the latest rumor is that they have found even more damning evidence against her recently. A cleansing of the entire Congress is necessary. This is not ethnic cleansing, but it is ethics cleansing.

Well, we are getting rid of a good portion of those responsible for this fiasco. January should give rise to a Congress that is more fiscally conservative. Yet that is only the beginning. The House-cleaning must continue.

I’ve noticed there are some things that are very hard for people to do. For instance, once some individuals get into power, particularly political power, it’s fascinating how nothing they ever do wrong is their fault. They can always find someone else to blame. Charlie Rangel seems to be pretty good at this, as is Maxine Waters.

Listen to either of them speak about the ethics charges against them and you will come away believing they are victims of a massive conspiracy. In both cases, though, the evidence seems pretty clear—they are guilty of using their offices for personal financial benefit. If only they would simply admit it, but pride and arrogance forbid it.

Rangel and Waters are indicative of a whole species of political animals who can’t seem to see beyond a predetermined personal prejudice:

I’ve mentioned in previous posts the decision of the Justice Department not to prosecute the New Black Panthers who intimidated people at the polls and the atmosphere in the department that refuses to focus on any discrimination cases brought against blacks. All this does is undermine the rule of law.

Every person—black, white, and all the beiges in between—are accountable to the same law [I've always liked the title of one of Thomas Sowell's books, Pink and Brown People---it's more accurate].

Yet we continue to draw racial lines, as Harry Reid did recently:

Well, Harry, let me explain it for you: the Republican party [or at least a lot of people in that party] believes in helping individuals get off the government plantation, offering them security in their personal property, providing the liberty to achieve one’s dreams in life without undue governmental interference, and respecting the life of all unborn Hispanics. Many of those Hispanics are from Cuba, and they know how bad a socialist system can be. They appreciate American liberties.

Hope that helps, Harry.

Do I really want to write about racism again? Not really. But the accusations continue to spread. The latest people accused of racism are those on the House Ethics Panel. Why? Well, they have investigated Charlie Rangel [see an earlier post] and now Rep. Maxine Waters.

The charges against Waters are significant. She’s accused of trying to get TARP funds for a bank connected with her husband. He owns considerable stock in it; she would have benefited greatly financially if that had happened.

This latest accusation, though, has raised the ire of the Congressional Black Caucus. Because the latest two House members investigated have been black, they say there must be racism involved. One has to be wearing blinders to see things that way. What about all the white House members who have been investigated, all the way from former Republican leader Tom Delay to the lately departed but not mourned Eric Massa, New York Democrat? In fact, there are about thirty investigations currently being pursued. Are they really targeting black congressmen above all others?

This is really getting old. There’s a stark difference between those who are real victims and those who use the victimization tactic to avoid personal responsibility.

I believe race relations have worsened under Obama. The fine art of racial grievance has been taken to a new level. Anyone who opposes his policies is fair game to be labeled a racist.

Did you catch the asterisk? Both Farrakhan and Wright have spoken at NAACP conventions. Who’s accusing whom of racism? Yet those falsely accused continue to handle the accusations with dignity.

Knowing man’s sinfulness, I don’t expect hypocrisy to cease. However, I still have some hope that pointing out the hypocrisy on a regular basis will eventually cause some of the accusers to retreat, if only for fear of being marginalized.

I’ve said it before and will continue to do so: it’s time to put race behind us. God doesn’t view people as members of separate races. He sees us all as part of one race called “human.” The sooner the majority of citizens put that into practice, the better off we’ll be as a nation.

I remember how Democrats used the corruption issue against Republicans in 2006, when they took back the Congress. There certainly was some corruption evident: Duke Cunningham of California is now in prison over financial irregularities; there were at least three sexual scandals as well. I oppose corruption no matter which party it hits.

At the same time, though, there was Democrat William Jefferson of Louisiana, who had $90,000 of FBI money in his office. He is also now in jail. I certainly don’t remember his case getting as much media coverage as the others.

One other difference: every time a Republican was caught in something, the party did not stand behind that person; that’s not always the case with Democrats.

Case in point: Congressman Charles Rangel of New York, who has now been accused of thirteen violations by the House Ethics Committee, which is composed of equal numbers from both parties. Rangel was chair of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, which writes the tax laws. All of his violations center around tax fraud. Will he be expelled from the Congress or merely slapped on the wrist? After all, we must recall the promise that Nancy Pelosi made when she became Speaker:

Is Rangel the exception or the rule?

In the past year and a half, we have seen the congressional leadership under Pelosi and Reid try a number of end runs around the rules as they shoved legislation down Americans’ throats. Is that ethical?

There was a certain political cartoon that came out prior to the 2008 elections that I think explains the situation better than most. I’ve used it a couple of times in these posts, but I think it’s time to resurrect it again:

This cartoon doesn’t exonerate Republicans who fail to hold to their standards, but it clearly shows what I believe to be the reality: the bar is much higher for Republicans than Democrats, thereby making it easier to see Republican failures. After all, it is the Republicans who claim to be standing for family values, etc. If they violate their public stance, the hypocrisy is stark.

Not so much for the party that promotes acceptance of abortion and same-sex marriage, and that accuses evangelical Christians of trying to force morality on the nation. For Democrats, the bar is pretty low to begin with–it’s not difficult to achieve the moral standards they set for themselves.

Charlie Rangel is the exception in the sense that he took his corruption farther than most, but the culture of corruption is alive and well among the entire leadership.

There have been some interesting statements made by politicians in the past week. First was President Obama’s declaration that he is a believer in the free market. Either I’ve misunderstood him and all his actions throughout his entire life . . . or he was not exactly telling the truth.

I think I’ll opt for the latter explanation.

I was also amazed to hear Nancy Pelosi comment that she had common ground with the Tea Party movement. In fact, here are her exact words:

But you know we share some of the views of the Tea Partiers in terms of the role of special interests in Washington, D.C.. It has to stop. And many Tea Partiers — not that I speak for them — share the view, whether it’s — and Democrats, Republicans and independents share the view that the recent Supreme Court decision, which greatly empowers the special interest, is something that they oppose.

Someone needs to notify the Tea Party leaders—they have a new recruit.

And of course there was Charlie Rangel, chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, the committee that writes all the tax bills, claiming that he has done nothing wrong by accepting gifts from indivduals and companies that want favors from his committee. That investigation is ongoing because there’s a lot still to be uncovered [although his deception regarding his personal income and taxes he didn't pay is pretty well established already]. The latest is that he has reluctantly, and quite belatedly, stepped down from his leadership position.

One cartoonist caught the spirit of these declarations rather well: