At the helm of this ship of legislative action in the House is Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, a man who already has a cloud of unanswered questions hanging over his head about his involvement in the Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac fiasco, and the Troubled Asset Relief Fund. 

Why should he be allowed to play a key role in determining how banks will operate in the future?
According to Judicial Watch, a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, Frank lobbied regulators to shell out a $12 million TARP grant for a hometown bank located in Boston.

They reported that "on November 25, 2008, following Frank’s intervention, the Treasury Department awarded $12,063,000 in bailout funds to OneUnited.”

Frank, a genius with numbers, hasn’t been too sharp when it comes to memory. The Wall Street Journal reported that Frank publicly admitted he spoke to a “federal regulator” regarding OneUnited, but he “didn’t remember which federal regulator he spoke with.”

As it turns out, Frank hadn’t been chatting up just any regulator. In e-mails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, he was working over the country’s regulator-in-chief, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.

And Frank isn't the only lawmaker who is failing to come clean.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) also pressured the Feds in pursuit of a grant for the same bank, OneUnited. Her husband Sidney Williams, was a board member of OneUnited, a financial instu that was hardly worthy of any government intervention.

TARP was crafted to assist healthy banks who maintained above board practices. OneUnited was neither of those things. It was “under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use.”
Yes, you read that correctly. A Porsche. Bank officials used taxpayer money to buy themselves a flashy sports car. One that many of us will never own.

If this is just one incident related to the misuse of TARP funds, imagine the abuse associated with the stimulus money and beyond. Where is the accountability? The transparency? Where's the most ethical Congress ever that we were all promised?

Because leftist members of Congress are often protected by a complacent and selectively responsible media, the story has received little coverage. Until Speaker Pelosi begins to feel pressure to act on the unethical actions my members of her caucus, she’ll continue to give a close political ally the cover he needs to keep his chairmanship of the Financial Services Committee rather than strip him of his power – much like she did with Reps. William Jefferson and Charlie Rangel until the crescendo of questions became so unbearable she was forced to take action.

When it comes to financial reform, before we know where we’re going, we need to find out where we’ve been. The government was intimately involved in the meltdown of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and Barney Frank was at the center of the scandal. Now, he’s at the center of another ethical misstep with seemingly no repercussions as he begins to help orchestrate the most sweeping financial legislation in decades.

If we expect real reform on Wall Street, it needs to start with those who are supposed to be keeping their eye on it. At the very least Frank needs to step down as Financial Services chairman. If he’s unwilling to give us answers about our money, he shouldn’t be tasked with helping to regulate it. In other words, he's too-much-of-a-failure-to-be-this-big.

After the aforementioned staffer suggested his tipsy boss should make a play for a bridesmaid, the married Massa spouted, “what I really ought to be doing is fracking you." Massa said he “tousled” the guy’s hair and ran away.

What exactly is “fracking”? Was Massa attempting to say something else but in between the slurring and background noise of the "Electric Slide," was misheard? What does “tousling” actually entail, and what self-respecting man uses that term? So many questions.

Sunday, the married Massa shifted gears, running to the media to announce that he was strong armed out of Congress by the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House because he was a "no vote" on the terminally plagued health care bill (because nobody really resigns over salty language at a boozy wedding).

In a now famous radio interview, Massa went rogue on Rahm Emanuel, recalling in creepy detail two occasions where Obama's Chief of Staff cursed him out -- including once when the two men were standing naked in the congressional showers.

Despite a portion of this account going down in the shower, this just sounds dirty. (You know what they say, where there’s suds…)

Massa then called Rahm the "son of the devil's spawn" and a bunch of other really mean stuff.
Where to begin?

This latest drama comes on the heels of a two-week long side show of dysfunction in New York state with scandal embroiled and ethically-challenged Governor David Patterson and New York Congressman Charlie Rangel stepping down from his Ways and Means chairmanship amid scandal.

Despite the dizzying tale of two crazies, Massa and Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi has claimed she didn’t know that any of this – from the sexual allegations to the ethics investigation – was happening.

According to Politico, Pelosi said Thursday that her staff kept her out of the loop about a “rumor” that Massa made unwanted advances on a male staffer, even though Majority Leader Steny Hoyer had known about the allegations for weeks.

Why was Pelosi not informed of this investigation? What did the Speaker know and when did she know it? Is she lying or operating on another planet?

Someone needs to file a complaint with the House Ethics committee – so who was it? And should more have been done for something so serious? Pelosi certainly seemed to think so in 2006 when then Congressman Mark Foley was facing his own ethics troubles.

Massa claims the ethics investigation was a witch hunt to try to force him out by his colleagues and the White House for his opposition to health reform efforts (Massa voted no on the House version of the bill).

But that still fails to explain why Massa already – and very publicly – accepted responsibility for his wedding behavior saying his actions were “inappropriate.”

Massa is a man on a mission, now preparing to embark on a media tour to tell his side of the story. The White House denies that it orchestrated Massa’s ouster, calling the claims "ridiculous" but when will Speaker Pelosi start talking?

This is another terrible storyline that includes incompetence, impropriety and chaos that is rooted in the troubled health care narrative -- one that Republicans should stay far away from, particularly when it comes to defending Massa. The American people are already disgusted with the policies and the processs, now they've been handed another unsettling storyline to prompt even more unease.

Even if Democrats manage to jimmy some version of a health care bill through Congress, how can they ever regain the public's confidence?

While this story seems far from over with many details still unclear, one thing is clear: the real fracking is the one Massa is giving his own party.

Senator Arlen Specter has been in Washington long enough to learn a lot about politics. It’s shame he never learned anything about protocol. 
 
The cranky and politically vulnerable Senior Senator from the Keystone State revealed his outdated and utterly inappropriate mindset when dealing with women on a radio show this week where he snapped at Congresswoman Michelle Bachman, a Republican, demanding she stop interrupting him and act like “a lady”. 
 
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, D-PENN.: Now wait a minute, I'll stop and you can talk.

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, R-MINN.: OK.

SPECTER: I'll treat you like a lady, so act like one.

BACHMANN: Well, I am a lady.

SPECTER: My question to you was what did you vote for?

BACHMANN: I voted for prosperity. I didn't vote for the government takeover of private industry.

SPECTER: She said I voted for prosperity. Well, prosperity wasn't a bill.

BACHMANN: Well, why don't we make it a bill?

SPECTER: Now wait a minute me. Don't interrupt me, I didn't interrupt you. Act like a lady.

BACHMANN: Well, I think I'm a lady.

SPECTER: I think you are too, that's why I'm treating you like one but just don't interrupt me.
If this is how he speaks to a colleague during a radio interview, how does he treat his staff behind the scenes? What about his constituents?

His defenders are invoking all sorts of explanations for the gaffe. Some argue that this is how they talk on Capitol Hill, with men calling women "lady". Having worked there for years, I can assure you that is not true. And based on Senator Barbara Boxer's testy reaction when someone called her ma'am, we know that formal titles are preferred.

My favorite is the generational defense. The same excuse they used with Senator Harry Reid. Both speak and behave like they're operating in a different era - one pre equal rights.  I’m not an ageist, but in these cases you can bet this DC fixture has worn out his welcome, and worn through the patience of Pennsylvanians.

I’m waiting for the feminist groups to chastise him but I’m not holding my breath. As one of my astute Twitter followers put it: “Do you think (notorious feminist) Maureen Dowd of the New York Times will hear a "settle down sweetie" in his remarks like she did a “You lie BOY” from Congressman Joe Wilson?” 

A Pennsylvanian myself, I could tell you Specter’s days are numbered. This comment is simply another nail in the coffin and more evidence that the Democratic Party – albeit a new home for Arlen – is coming unhinged.

Forget the fact that Specter's new party isn't popular already, establishment candidates are unpopular. Especially ones with bad manners. This stale and sexist mentality has no place in Washington, or in the workplace, and - party failures aside - this is enough of a reason to vote Specter and Reid out of power. The time in the real world could do them some good.

This isn't the first time, nor will it likely be the last.

What might be more shocking is the public's muted reaction to its passage. Sure the news of the death of the King of Pop eclipsed last week's legislative session, but when Nancy Pelosi, the Queen of Socialism, is proposing the largest tax increase in our country's history you'd hope the population would be paying attention. Aftter all, the Congressional Budget Office estimates it would raise costs per household approximately $3,000.

This is the left's punitive action toward the audacity of electricity. Historically, this is what incites revolutions. Where is the outrage?

When it comes to health care the reality is equally as petrifying. The bill is a slapdash ball of obscurity that is shaping up to go down much like the cap-and-trade drive by. We don't have a final idea of cost beyond a staggering "upwards of $1 trillion." We've yet to see details on everything from public option to the taxing of employee health benefits. None, I repeat, NONE of it is up for debate. We're getting mugged and we don't even have time to assess what the folks in Congress took from us.

What baffles those of us who follow this unsolved mystery is that though the president's approval numbers are starting to slip, they should be tanking. Under his leadership, the administration has been bossy, nosy and bullying, and yet the White House manages to remain bulletproof while simultaneously feeding us a bunch of bull.

During his inaugural Obama insisted that only government can fix what ails us. His actions to date reaffirm this belief in the most absolute of terms. Recently he tried to convince a crowd that "government can't be everywhere." Really? All the evidence from this White House is to the contrary.

During his first live prime time press conference Obama said he doesn't want to run a car company or a bank, yet he has managed to flex his muscle by exerting a frightening level of control over almost every sector of commerce: insurance, health care, finance, banking, and automotive. Not even Bill Clinton got away with this type of deceitful doublespeak.

His stimulus is not working. Unemployment is growing. Inflation is imminent. He said he wouldn't raise taxes on those making less than $250,000, but he is poised to reverse his promise. The country is weaker, not stronger. Still, no overwhelming outrage.

The uproar won't take place until costs start to hit home. And believe me, they will, in no uncertain terms. These two colossal pet pieces of legislation -- climate change and healthcare -- if passed would have a catastrophic, debilitating effect on every corner of our country. They will affect our cars, our homes, our jobs; no person, no family will escape their affects.

When life is permanently altered for every single American, and not for the better, that's when we'll feel the outrage. When we are waiting in line to see a doctor, when see our electricity bills quadruple, when we are paying crushing taxes on everything from income to health benefits to gas, we'll feel the fury. But by then it will be too late.

President Obama puts a feather in his cap and calls it macaroni, credibility seemingly still in tact. While I still believe that health care will ultimately end his honeymoon, he is getting away with a radical, blitzkrieg of legislative lunacy thanks to his carefully crafted words, and an overly stimulated, distracted public.

Yes, apparently, they can. But dammit, they shouldn't. Not without a fight.

**Author's note: This piece is dedicated to my mom, the inspiration for this column, and the one person who, without question, is feeling the outrage.

Al Franken has assumed many titles over the years: comedian, failed radio show host, liberal activist, tax cheat (a requirement these days to be elected into Democratic office). Now he can add senator to that list. Yes, America, it's official. The left seeks to drastically alter every aspect of our life and now they have the support of a clown to help them succeed (GOP: we've officially hit the bottom).

It couldn't have happened at a worse time.

Democrats are poised to usher in a new era of nanny state governance through pivotal and preposterous pieces of legislation at warp speed. So fast, in fact, that nobody on Capitol Hill has had time to read these bills, tell us the details or give us the mounting price tag. Franken's victory puts the Democratic Party at that much feared 60 vote filibuster proof majority, even though Senators Kennedy and Byrd are on indefinite medical leave and are only likely to return for the most crucial votes. He could provide the key vote on the largest tax increase in history, the most radical overhaul of our healthcare system and the way we structure our financial markets.

It doesn't stop there. Also on the Senate's agenda are ratifying judicial nominees, immigration, and the pet project of organized labor: the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would give workers more power to form unions. (As if they don't have enough power already).

Some on the left are downplaying the difference he'll make, including Franken himself.

"I'm not going to Washington to be the 60th Democratic senator, I'm going to Washington to be the second senator from Minnesota," he insisted.

Franken is a lot of things. A pragmatic, moderate maverick with an independent streak is not one of them. He is as far-left as they come, a unique strain of irrational progressive that can only be created by the world of celebrity, a la Jeanine Garafalo. The party infrastructure has spent millions of dollars and countless months working tirelessly to assure his election to office. He owes them. Big. And there is no question they can count on their newest member to repay the favors.

Democrats might, as Time magazine put it: "have added a famous face with a high TV-recognizability factor to help with fundraising -- and brought someone with a decent sense of humor to the world's most deliberative body."

The jury is still out on his sense of humor. But as far as his impact, the ruling is confirmed. No one's laughing.

.

Barack Obama can’t seem to get his story straight when it comes to what he thinks will jeopardize the safety and security of our country and our troops, and what will prove most fruitful when it comes to political expedience. Just weeks ago Obama sanctioned the release of classified memos that provided graphic detail on how CIA interrogations were conducted despite repeatedly insisting that “we should be looking forward and not backwards.” (Loosely translated: we’ll look back as often when we need to deflect political heat away from me and onto my predecessor).

Just this week President Obama has pivoted yet again, this time with photos that the Pentagon had planned to release by May 28 in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. Yes, it’s an odd, dysfunctional world when the ACLU is calling the shots. (Who needs the Taliban when you have them trying to destroy the country in house?) In a sharp about face, the White House announced on Wednesday that it will not release hundreds of photos potentially showing U.S. military personnel abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

According to FOX News, President Obama told his legal advisers last week that he did not feel comfortable with the release of the photos because he believes they would endanger U.S. troops, and that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented in federal court. While I applaud his decision and his kneecapping of the ACLU, it’s frankly too little too late.

The previous and selective release of the interrogation memos, the photo kabuki dance, and vacillation on whether or not Americans – Bush officials intelligence or otherwise – will be prosecuted, have arguably made us less safe and have our allies scratching their heads and our enemies laughing or steaming mad.

In fairness to the president, he’s not the only the Democrat that can’t seem to stick to a story. For weeks, the No. 1 Democrat on Capitol Hill and the third in line to the presidency, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has told multiple and conflicting tall tales regarding her knowledge of what she knew about the Bush administration’s information gathering tactics, when we know she was told about waterboarding in 2002, did nothing, and now has mislead the American people about it.

Many Democrats, including Pelosi, are calling for hearings about prisoner abuse on Capitol Hill that would create a circus — and distract us from what our representatives in Congress are really up to these days — all in an effort to appease the far-left. To them I say be careful what you wish for. Every day we learn of a new way Speaker Nancy Pinocchio has contradicted herself. It’s time her colleagues join the chorus in pursuit of the truth, and for her to step down as Speaker. She is a liability to her caucus and a liar.

Meanwhile, other Democrats on Capitol Hill like Dick Durbin, Carl Levin and Dianne Feinstein are crying that the CIA is “out to get them” because of the additional memos that were released this week. (Pssst! Senators: people have been put on medication for saying paranoid, crazy things like this.) Democrats have been trying to persecute Republicans on the interrogation issue for years. Now, when it appears to be backfiring due to their leader’s litany of lies, they decide to pull the victim card?

To summarize: in a post 9/11 world our classified intelligence and intelligence gathering community has been marginalized, publicized, politicized and compromised all because the Democrats want to score political points. Obama’s consistent inconsistency has sent a shaky and unreliable message to the country, the military, and the world.

Let me be clear: none of these memos should have ever been released, but now that the selective transparency of the Obama administration has opened Pandora’s box, he and the rest of his party owe us some answers. Will he release the rest of the memos that Dick Cheney is pushing to have made public? Or is his latest move a calculated maneuver to stop further memos from seeing the light of day? If he was going to obstruct the progressives like the ACLU, Soros, Moveon and others, he should have done it from the start.

Twisting and turning the truth has put our safety in a knot — one I’m not sure we can untie.