November 25, 2006 Posts
11:24 Hastings: I Was Acquitted (Sorta) 19:46 An Agenda Exposed?
Hastings: I Was Acquitted (Sorta)
Alcee Hastings, the man picked by Speaker-in-Waiting Pelosi to chair the House Intelligence Committee, has sent a letter to his colleagues telling them that he was acquitted of charges in federal court. Of course, that's only part of the story. Here's the part that Alcee Hastings doesn't want people to remember:
A Miami jury acquitted Hastings (while convicting the friend), but three different federal judicial panels later referred him to Congress for impeachment. "Judge Hastings attempted to corruptly use his office for personal gain. Such conduct cannot be excused or condoned even after Judge Hastings has been acquitted of the criminal charge," concluded one panel, composed of five circuit court judges. It added:That sounds to me like Hastings' acquittal wasn't based on his being innocent but rather that the jury wouldn't convict. Frankly, the fact that a panel composed of five circuit court judges said that there's "clear and convincing evidence that Judge Hastings sought to conceal his participation in the bribery scheme and to explain away evidence connecting him with the sale of justice" is far more compelling to me than a jury verdict.
There is clear and convincing evidence that Judge Hastings sought to conceal his participation in the bribery scheme and to explain away evidence connecting him with the sale of justice and that he pursued these objectives through concocting and presenting fabricated documents and false testimony in a United States District Court.
The next sentence gives us a possible explanation on why Hastings was acquitted:
"He pursued these objectives through concocting and presenting fabricated documents and false testimony in a United States District Court."Rest assured that this will be the first big fight Pelosi faces. The Murtha Embarassment will pale in comparison. This fight will be an all out firestorm within the House Democratic Caucus, in the Left Blogosphere and in the Agenda Media. It's a fight that will get split House Democrats, too, though for what duration is still anybody's guess.
It'll be interesting to see how Ms. Pelosi will be characterized in the Agenda Media through this fight. She'll genuinely be embattled during her first days in the Speakership and it'll all be of her own making. When this fight starts, I think it best that Republicans just get out of the way and let Democratic corruption be the story. I'd also hope that responsible journalists would take Democrats to task on this with the same fervor as they did Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley.
Another item on my wish list is that the Right Blogosphere and conservative talk radio hosts would point out Democrats' willingness to compromise our homeland and national security by 'coupling' John Conyers' resolution giving "Muslims special civil-rights protections" in airports with Hastings' chairing one of the most sensitive committees despite serious ethical shortcomings. I hope that happens because we can't take our nation's security that lightly.
The LA Times editorial also included this telling line:
Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, the House's incoming speaker, has indicated that when the Democrats take control in January, she plans to take Harman off the committee in favor of someone more critical of the Bush administration's Iraq war policies.In other words, Ms. Pelosi is removing a far more qualified individual from the chairmanship because she isn't partisan enough. That's just another part of the politicization of the Intelligence Committees, a thought that should disgust and horrify every voter in America.
Posted Saturday, November 25, 2006 11:25 AM
No comments.
An Agenda Exposed?
It appears that the eight imams who were removed from the US Airways Flight might have done so as part of a scheme to reduce airline security. Here's what Investors Business Daily said in an editorial:
Turns out among those attending their conference was Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, (D-MN), who will be the first Muslim sworn into Congress (with his hand on the Quran). Two days earlier, Ellison, an African-American convert who wants to criminalize Muslim profiling, spoke at a fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim-rights group that wasted no time condemning US Airways for "prejudice and ignorance." CAIR wants congressional hearings to investigate other incidents of "flying while Muslim." Incoming Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, (D-MI), has already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.It's stunning to think that John Conyers, CAIR-Michigan's 2005 Man of the Year, drafted this resolution by "borrowing from CAIR rhetoric." Then again, Conyers has carried CAIR's water for ages. It's also curious that the imams chose to pray in such an 'in-your-face' way, considering this fact, disclosed in an email to Gateway Pundit:
Greetings Jim,Based on that email, it's difficult to imagine that this wasn't staged to trigger an investigation. Here's a couple other reasons why I think that's likely:
As a person raised a Muslim and practicing Islam. I was taught that if a Muslim's time of prayer comes and needs to pray. But is in a confined space or in a situation which would attract negative attention. That a Muslim could pray sitting in chair etc...and use nodding or bowing to symbolize the Rukaahs and Sejdas needed for prayers. The prophet Mohamed has advised Muslims to not attract negative attention and not to act in a way perceived negatively by our surroundings. In airports in many Muslim countries there are special rooms for praying so as not to be praying in a waiting area.
These Imams must have known what their praying in a waiting area in an airport (if it is in fact what they did) filled with people would do. Muslims should not be inviting or seeking trouble.
I am saddened to see how far some Muslims have strayed from Islam.
Keith Ellison is demanding to talk with US Airways officials;
Speaker-in-waiting Pelosi met with CAIR in July, 2004 to strategize on how to block the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Here's what we know about Rep. Conyers contribution to the meeting:
Working with Conyers, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Democrats have introduced legislation to end racial profiling, limit the reach of the Patriot Act , and make immigration safe and accessible. Leader Pelosi is a proud cosponsor of the End Racial Profiling Act, the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE), and the Safe, Orderly, and Legal Visas Enforcement Act (SOLVE).Here's another significant piece of information from that meeting:
"Since September 11th, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin, without any credible information linking individuals to criminal conduct," Pelosi continued. "Racial and religious profiling is fundamentally un-American and we must make it illegal."The first question I'd want to ask Ms. Pelosi is why she thinks it's "fundamentally un-American" to profile people of the same racial and religious backround as the 9/11 hijackers. Another question I'd want answered is why she thinks profiling should be illegal, especially when it's done to prevent terrorist attacks. Another question I'd ask is why she's so worried about terrorists' due process rights when she didn't seem to have a problem with John Murtha ignoring the Haditha Marines' due process rights when he played judge, jury and executioner. Here's what Mr. Murtha said back in late May:
"When the Patriot Act was enacted, it was intended to be accompanied by strong Congressional oversight to prevent abuses of our civil liberties. That oversight has not occurred, particularly with the mass detention campaign ordered by Attorney General Ashcroft, which to date has led to more than 5,000 foreign nationals being detained since September 11th. Moreover, individuals' assets have been frozen on the basis of secret evidence that they have no opportunity to confront or rebut, and such processes are a fundamental denial of due process. We must correct the Patriot Act to prevent abuses of our civil liberties."
"Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."Based on those exchanges, it isn't unreasonable to think that Nancy Pelosi cares more about terrorists' due process rights than she cares about the due process rights granted to our military. After all, the only organizations that had their assets frozen were charities that funneled money to organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, of which the Holy Land Foundation was the most prominent organization whose assets were frozen.
It's also noteworthy that Ms. Pelosi and Rep. Conyers couldn't provide specific instances of Muslims' civil rights being abused when the House debated renewing the Patriot Act. It was so noteworthy that it raised red flags with veteran Capitol Hill reporters like Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke. The lack of proof of any civil rights abuses won't deter Pelosi and Conyers from carrying CAIR's water once again. In fact, it's a safe bet that the Flying Imam Fiasco will be offered as proof positive that Muslims are being unfairly targeted and that they need civil rights relief.
Posted Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:46 PM
No comments.
