American Concentration Camps On The Books

---

AMERICA / CONGRESSMAN: " AMERICAN CONCENTRATION CAMPS ARE ON THE BOOKS"

---

Right now we don't have concentration camps, but like you have pointed out, the authority has been given so that concentration camps can come without Habeas Corpus . I have heard the argument that there is nothing else left in the Bill of Rights. If they can lock you up, what good is freedom of speech or what good is a gun? That is now part of the books, part of the law."

~ Congressman Ron Paul [R-Tx]

Congressman: American Concentration Camps "On The Books"

Texas Representative urges repeal of neo-fascist laws in America before it is too late

~ Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, November 13, 2006

Re-elected Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul joined Alex Jones on air last week to discuss the fallout of the midterm elections and what he sees transpiring over the next two years. He ended by ominously warning that if something is not done soon to overturn legislation such as the Military Commissions act, the law officially allows for citizen concentration camp facilities.

Beginning with the positives to come out of the election, Ron Paul stressed that it has provided an important indication to the rest of the world that the people of America are unhappy with the usurpers that have seized control of their government and are trying to initiate change. The Congressman was quick to point out that this may not be carried into policy however:

"Not a whole lot will change because the leadership on the Democratic side, even if they had their way, don't have a different foreign policy. They have been supportive of an interventionist foreign policy in the middle east, and they are not about to back away from that ... They are willing to criticize the policy but only as a means to get power."

As we have seen over the past week, leading Democrats are all towing the party line, unreservedly dismissing any notion of the possibility of impeaching the President over Iraq.

The Congressman also stated that monetary policy will stay the same, which can only mean bad news for the American economy.

" They all believe in the federal reserve, they are not going to get rid of the IRS and the income tax. I think the dollar is going to keep sliding, which means prices are going to rise, when currencies self destruct, the end goes quickly. There are no signs that there is anything being done in Washington to correct the problem. Spending is going to continue and probably going to get worse, the deficits are going to stay high if foreign policy is not going to change."

The Congressman agreed that the elite globalists within the US government may not care about this too much because it means they can blow out the economy and then come back and buy it up very cheaply. These Internationalists care not about preserving and protecting American sovereignty when there is a quick buck to be made.

"That's also part of the foreign policy to be in position to hold onto natural resources, that's one of the major reasons why we're in the middle east, so yes if there is a financial crisis, they're going to have the guns, and they have control of the natural resources... It's not a good scenario, because what usually happens when you wipe out a currency is that you wipe out the middle class, and we already see this happening. The standard of living is going down." Paul asserted.

Ron Paul's comments echo those of Former World Bank Vice President, Chief Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, who two weeks ago predicted a global economic crash within 24 months - unless the current downturn is successfully managed. Asked if the situation was being properly handled Stiglitz emphatically responded "no," and also drew ominous parallels to the development of the NAFTA Superhighway and the North American Union.

What real Conservatism there was left in the House, to block such moves, as well as Bush's amnesty program for illegals, is gone. With Pelosi at the helm Ron Paul sees it as a forgone conclusion that such policies will sail through.

"I think that's right, although I complain about the two parties being exactly alike, I would say on this amnesty issue and what's happened with the election, there probably was a difference between the two. It is more likely with the Democrats in charge, and Judiciary and the other major committees, and with the President not really fighting for our national borders, he's always argued for some type of worker program, yes I think there's a much greater danger that that is going to be coming in the next session."

Commenting on strategies to defeat the North American Union, the Congressman urged a continuance of educating people on the real issues and reaching more and more Americans who care about preserving their national sovereignty:

"You have to keep doing what you are doing, you are reaching a lot of people, and they have to get to their members of congress, and in many ways the current House has been pretty good with this. With the new House we don't know exactly what is going to happen, but I had something very encouraging come to my attention just this week. I had a call from a young lady that won in Kansas as a Democrat, and in her literature she put my whole article on the NAFTA super corridor in there... She is not going to vote with Nancy Pelosi."

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, The Congressman spoke on the issue of going about demanding a repeal of freedom crushing legislation such as the Patriot act and the Military Commissions act and the Defense Authorization Act which essentially wipes out Habeas Corpus.

"We might have to hope that our Supreme Court helps us out a little. The Court has been better than the executive branch and a heck of a lot better than the Congress, because we've given the President everything he's asked for and the President has been begging for all this authority, so immediately we have to hope that the courts will save us on some of these things. But once again ultimately its only when the people wake up and say they don't like this... sometimes the people wake up to late. Right now we don't have concentration camps, but like you have pointed out, the authority has been given so that concentration camps can come without Habeas Corpus . I have heard the argument that there is nothing else left in the Bill of Rights. If they can lock you up, what good is freedom of speech or what good is a gun? That is now part of the books, part of the law."

Take Ron Paul's suggestion up and contact your new or re-elected members and demand a move to repeal legislation paving the way for fascist government control in America today.

INFOWARS.net Copyright © 2001-2006 Alex Jones All rights reserved

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Lame Duck Democrats Can Do Nothing But Harass

---

POLITICS / LAME DUCK DEMOCRATS CAN DO NOTHING BUT HARASS THE ADMINISTRATION

---

The Democratic majority in the upcoming Congress is disunited, dispersed and divided into myriad caucuses and special interest groups.

There is no real danger of any legislative action emerging from this Congress. The president has a veto the Democrats cannot override. Nothing will ever make it as far as the desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are just spinning their wheels.

Breaking from NewsMax.com

Dick Morris: Pitiful Democrats

For all of the dire warnings and pre-election commotion about the impact of a Democratic majority in Congress, the fact is that -- now that it is upon us -- it can do little or nothing but harass the administration.

There is no real danger of any legislative action emerging from this Congress. Yes, the president has a veto the Democrats cannot override, but nothing will ever make it as far as the desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are just spinning their wheels.

In the Senate, there is no such thing as a majority. Ever since the elder Bush's administration, the filibuster has become routine. No longer reserved for civil-rights issues or for egregious legislation, it now is used to counter even motions for recess and adjournment. Members of the Senate are no longer subjected to the indignity of standing on their feet and reading a telephone book. Rather, the gentlemen's filibuster applies.

The majority leader phones the minority leader and asks if a filibuster is in effect. With his feet up on his desk, the Republican replies that it is and the Democrat, despite his majority, does not even think about bringing up his bill for consideration unless he has a good shot at the 60 votes required to shut off debate. In the Senate, 51 votes determine who gets the corner office, but to pass legislation, one needs 60.

In the House of Representatives, with its 435 members, the Republican Party needed a simple majority -- 218 -- to rule. The Democrats need considerably more. The normal rules of a mathematical majority do not take into account the fractious nature of the Democratic Party.

Where the Republican majority best resembled the Prussian Army -- disciplined, unified and determined -- the Democratic majority in the upcoming Congress is disunited, dispersed and divided into myriad caucuses and special interest groups. One could purchase the Republican majority wholesale by making a deal with the speaker and the majority leader. But to get the Democratic majority in line, one has to buy it retail -- caucus by caucus.

First, one has to go to check with the Black Caucus -- hat in hand -- to see if one's bill has enough liberal giveaways to round up its forty or so votes. Thence to the Hispanic Caucus for a similar screening. Then, with one's legislation weighted down with liberal provisions added by these two groups, one has to sell it to the Democratic Leadership Council moderates and, even worse, to the Blue Dog Democrats -- the out and out conservatives.

If you are fortunate enough to pass these contradictory litmus tests, you then have to go to the environmentalists, the labor people, and even the gays to see that your bill passes muster. Only then can you begin to hope for House passage.

The result of this labyrinth is that the relatively moderate bill you first sought to pass ends up like a Christmas tree, laden with ornaments added to appease each of the caucuses. Unrecognizable in its final form, it heads to House passage.

This road map will be familiar to all veterans of the Clinton White House of 1993 and 1994. The most recent administration that had to deal with a Democratic House, the shopping from caucus to caucus and the festooning of moderate legislation with all manner of amendments will seem dejà vu to all of the early Clintonites. When Clinton proposed an anti-crime bill with a federal death penalty, he needed to add pork projects in the inner city like midnight basketball to get it past the Democrats in the House.

Nancy Pelosi will face the same obstacle. By the time her legislation emerges from the lower chamber, it will bear little resemblance to what she had in mind, liberal as that might have been. As Clinton said, after he watched the mangling of his legislative program by the various caucuses in the House, "I didn't even recognize myself."

Once the highly amended liberal legislation emerges from the House, it will make easy fodder for a Senate filibuster. So left leaning that it stands no chance of attracting 60 votes, it will be dead-on-arrival.

So forget the nightmares about an amended Patriot Act or restrictions on wiretapping for homeland security. Don't worry about House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel's, D-N.Y., ravings about the draft or the rumors of a tax increase. It's not going to happen.

What is the Democratic majority good for? One thing and one thing only -- to give their party control of the committees and the subpoena power that goes with it. The two House Democratic majority can only make noise and make trouble. It can't pass legislation.

Eileen McGann co-authored this column.

Copyright 2006 Dick Morris, All Rights Reserved.

NewsMax.com
4152 West Blue Heron Blvd, Ste 1114
Riviera Beach, FL, 33404 USA

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Criticism Of Religion Reflected In Ignorance

---

RELIGION / HARSH CRITICISM OF ORGANIZED RELIGION REFLECTS CULTURAL AMNESIA, IGNORANCE, INDIFFERENCE AND INTOLERANCE OF WHAT CONSTITUTED RELIGION FROM ITS BEGINNING

---

ZENIT
The World Seen from Rome

- Daily Dispatch -

"In nearly all prosperous liberal democracies, atheism is strong."

"Apart from the crass vulgarity of some student speakers, what shocked me most was the apparent ignorance of many speakers about what constituted religion in general and Catholicism and Christianity in particular."

So many things that are taken for granted today -- education, hospitals, the very notion of a person, the distinction between sacred and secular -- owe their origin to Christian inspiration. "Cultural amnesia is a dangerous condition for any society."

"Tolerance, however, must never be confused with indifferentism, for any form of indifference is radically opposed to the deep Christian concern for man and for his salvation." A concern that means the Church will not allow itself to be intimidated by those who wish it to remain silent.

Religion In The Cross Hairs

Secular World Attacks Organized Belief

~ By Father John Flynn

LONDON, NOV. 26, 2006 (Zenit.org) - Organized religion is coming in for harsh criticism in many parts. English singer Elton John said religion turns people into "hateful lemmings." He also accused it of lacking compassion. His comments came in an interview with the Observer newspaper's Music Monthly Magazine, published Nov. 12.

The aging pop star's criticisms were sparked off by the matter of how religion deals with homosexuality. "I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people," he said.

He is far from being alone in this view. In the United States, talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell likened Christianity to radical Islam. Her attack, in a nationally broadcast program in October, was not well received, according to a Nov. 13 press release by the California-based Barna Group.

A nationwide survey by the Barna Group found that although few Americans would challenge O'Donnell's right to make such statements, just as few share her point of view.

Across the Pacific, Pamela Bone, writing in the Australian newspaper on Aug. 15, rejoiced over data which, she argued, showed that "in nearly all prosperous liberal democracies, atheism is strong."

Bone accused religion of being "directly responsible for countless world conflicts, resulting in the loss of millions of human lives." Religion is still a danger today, she contended: "The truth is that it is now too dangerous for religion to be given the special status it has always had."

Bone added: "The best hope for a less religious and thus safer world is for religion -- all religion -- to be open to rational and stringent examination and criticism, and yes, to ridicule."

Meanwhile, in Canada, author Christopher Hitchens recently explained why he "hates religion," reported the National Post on Nov. 18. Speaking at the University of Toronto, Hitchens declared he hates Islam because it exhibits a "horrible trio of self-hatred, self-righteousness and self-pity," while making a "cult of death, suicide and murder."

He also hates Judaism, because it leads to Christianity. His negative view of Christianity is well known, particularly after his infamous attacks on Mother Teresa of Calcutta in the 1990s.

In the midst of declaring his multiple hatreds, Hitchens declared: "I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religion."

Anti-Religious Books

During the Toronto address Hitchens gave some details of his forthcoming book, "God Is Not Great." The book, he said, is "a general case against religion."

Anti-religious books are in fashion these days. American author Sam Harris has just published a brief (112-page) sequel to his 2004 book, "The End of Faith." At a recent presentation at the New York Public Library, Harris condemned the God of the Old Testament, in addition to the New Testament, "likening the story of Jesus to a fairy tale," the Washington Post reported Oct. 26.

For good measure Harris also attacked the Koran, calling it "a manifesto for religious divisiveness."

According to the Washington Post, "The End of Faith" has sold more than 270,000 copies. In that book, Harris described religion as "a desperate marriage of hope and ignorance." He also slammed religion for promoting intolerance. Nor was his argument limited to extremist groups. "One of the central themes of this book," Harris declared in the opening chapter, " … is that religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma."

In a curious use of religious terminology, Harris concludes the book by describing faith as "the devil's masterpiece." The book also appeals for a sustained campaign against religion, and faith in general: "We must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it."

British author Richard Dawkins also recently published a book decrying religion, "The God Delusion." Dawkins is well known for his hostility to religion. "The celebrated atheist and high priest of popular science" is how a review of the book in the Observer newspaper on Oct. 29 described him.

Dawkins is not limiting himself to publishing. The Sunday Times on Nov. 19 reported that he plans to set up a charity that will subsidize the publication of educational materials for distribution in schools.

His organization, according to the article, will also attempt to divert donations from the hands of "missionaries" and church-based charities. His foundation, which is in the process of seeking registration in the United Kingdom and the United States, will have a database of charities free of "church contamination."

The Times article cited the concern of Anglican clergyman John Hall, dean of Westminster. Hall criticized the project as not being based on reasoned argument.

Dawkins and other critics of religion have often come under fire for their superficial view of religion. This was repeated recently by Verbite Father Vincent Twomey, a retired professor of moral theology at St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, Ireland. He took part recently in a debate at the College Historical Society in Trinity College Dublin, on the topic "That Religion Is a Block to Progress."

"Apart from the crass vulgarity of some student speakers, what shocked me most was the apparent ignorance of many speakers about what constituted religion in general and Catholicism and Christianity in particular," Father Twomey noted, writing in the Irish Times on Nov. 13.

So many things that are taken for granted today -- education, hospitals, the very notion of a person, the distinction between sacred and secular -- owe their origin to Christian inspiration. "Cultural amnesia is a dangerous condition for any society," he observed.

Bring Forth Treasure

While not referring to these recent attacks specifically, Benedict XVI recently addressed the issue of how religion is portrayed as a negative force. "So often the Church's countercultural witness is misunderstood as something backward and negative in today's society," he commented to visiting Irish bishops on Oct. 28.

What the Church needs to do in these circumstances, the Pope recommended, is to act like the wise householder who brings forth from his treasure "what is new and what is old" (Matthew 13:52). In this way the faithful will be able to discern what society offers them today. "Help them to recognize the inability of the secular, materialist culture to bring true satisfaction and joy," the Holy Father continued. "Be bold in speaking to them of the joy that comes from following Christ and living according to his commandments."

Moreover, even though the bishops need to warn against the evils around us, "we must correct the idea that Catholicism is merely ‘a collection of prohibitions,'" Benedict XVI said. In order to do that Catholic teaching must be formulated in such a way that it communicates "the liberating power of the Gospel."

The Gospel is good for society, the Pope argued in his Sept. 28 address to the new German ambassador to the Holy See. Commenting on the favorable reception by the German people to his recent pastoral visit, Benedict XVI noted: "Wherever society is growing and people are strengthened in good, thanks to the message of faith, this also benefits social coexistence, and the readiness of citizens to assume responsibility for the common good is reinforced."

This message is not imposed by the Church, and therefore faith exists in the context of tolerance. "Tolerance, however, must never be confused with indifferentism, for any form of indifference is radically opposed to the deep Christian concern for man and for his salvation," the Pontiff pointed out. A concern that means the Church will not allow itself to be intimidated by those who wish it to remain silent.

ZE06112623

Copyright 2006, Innovative Media, Inc.

ZENIT is an International News Agency.

SEND US YOUR NEWS:
Please send press releases, statements and other information to our international news desk at:
news@zenit.org.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Democrats Continue To Oppose Conservative Judges

---

POLITICS / DEMOCRAT'S CONTINUE CORRUPTION AGENDA: NOMINATE ONLY THOSE LIBERAL JUDGES WHO WILL UNCONSTITUTIONALLY LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH

---

This Is What Liberal Democrats Call "Change."

Senate Democrats, of course, are complaining that the president is reneging on his “promise” of bipartisanship made in a post-election speech last Wednesday. But they have not a shred of credibility on this point. Liberals in the Senate have turned the judicial confirmation process on its head, obstructing the president’s judicial nominees for political reasons. They even resorted to launching judicial filibusters, ignoring the constitutional directive to provide up-or-down votes on all judicial nominees. Why? Not because the nominees were unqualified. But rather because they didn’t like the nominees’ philosophy of judicial restraint. (Many liberals only like judges who will legislate from the bench.)

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Bush Re-Nominates Conservative Judges

This week the president sent a signal to Capitol Hill that he is only willing to go so far in the “spirit of cooperation” with Senate Democrats. This according to the San Jose Mercury News: “On Wednesday the White House indicated that it will renominate six candidates during the lame duck session who have not earlier received a Senate floor vote because of Democratic opposition.”

Senate Democrats, of course, are complaining that the president is reneging on his “promise” of bipartisanship made in a post-election speech last Wednesday. But they have not a shred of credibility on this point. Liberals in the Senate have turned the judicial confirmation process on its head, obstructing the president’s judicial nominees for political reasons. They even resorted to launching judicial filibusters, ignoring the constitutional directive to provide up-or-down votes on all judicial nominees. Why? Not because the nominees were unqualified. But rather because they didn’t like the nominees’ philosophy of judicial restraint. (Many liberals only like judges who will legislate from the bench.)

Republicans in the Senate made matters worse by folding in the face of Democratic resistance. Remember the so-called “Gang of 14” moderates in the Senate? Seven Republicans broke ranks and brokered a deal with seven Democrats to allow a few of the president’s judicial nominees through, while leaving open the possibility of future judicial filibusters. This compromise struck a fatal blow to the president’s attempts to push some key conservative nominees through by undermining any leverage the Republicans held in being the majority party. (Check out an op-ed I wrote last summer on the subject, Senate Abandons Judicial Nominees.)

The president should be congratulated for standing by his conservative judicial nominees. Unfortunately, no one -- not even the president, I’m sure -- expects these nominees to receive an up-or-down vote before the end of this lameduck session. And in January, when Democrats gain control of the Senate, what incentive will they have to fairly treat judicial nominees?

Republicans in the Senate had an opportunity to confirm conservative judges to the bench, and they blinked. Conservative candidates had an opportunity to educate voters on the importance of the “judge issue” in the last election cycle, but they did not. We must look no further than the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision on gay marriage to see the price we will pay for these failures.

Thomas Fitton

President

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Harry Reid's Democrat ''Culture Of Corruption''

---

POLITICS / HARRY REID'S DEMOCRAT "CULTURE OF CORRUPTION"

---

Reid, who recently came under fire for failing to properly report a $700,000 land deal, allegedly accepted more than $30,000 of Abramoff-tainted money in return for his “cooperation” in matters related Nevada Indian gaming. The Nevada senator vehemently denies any wrong-doing, but according to an ABC News online report, Abramoff reportedly told investigators the contributions “were no accident and, in fact, were requested by Reid.”

The Democrats, and the liberal media, would have you believe Abramoff was a Republican-only problem, but Reid’s alleged involvement suggests Abramoff played both sides of the aisle. In fact, according to ABC news, Abramoff has allegedly pointed the figure at "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators."

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Abramoff Finally Behind Bars

Soon-To-Be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Allegedly Accepted More Than $30,000 Of Abramoff-Tainted Money, Failed To Report A $700,000 Land Deal.

Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff is finally behind bars. On November 15, Abramoff reported to a federal prison in Maryland to begin his 5-year, ten-month sentence for defrauding banks of $23 million in Florida in 2000. This, of course, far from closes the book on Abramoff and his congressional co-conspirators. He remains at the center of a massive public corruption investigation by the Department of Justice that, in the end, could involve as many as a dozen members of congress.

The web of influence peddling scandals involving Abramoff has already claimed more than a few politicians. First, former Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay resigned earlier this year rather than face Abramoff questions at election time. You also may recall that Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Ney resigned in early November, three weeks after pleading guilty for his role in an Abramoff-related scandal. Ney was the first Abramoff-connected Congressman to be convicted of a crime in the Abramoff matter. He may not be the last. Reports suggest Abramoff has been cooperating with authorities and naming names, including soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Reid, who recently came under fire for failing to properly report a $700,000 land deal, allegedly accepted more than $30,000 of Abramoff-tainted money in return for his “cooperation” in matters related Nevada Indian gaming. The Nevada senator vehemently denies any wrong-doing, but according to an ABC News online report, Abramoff reportedly told investigators the contributions “were no accident and, in fact, were requested by Reid.”

The Democrats, and the liberal media, would have you believe Abramoff was a Republican-only problem, but Reid’s alleged involvement suggests Abramoff played both sides of the aisle. In fact, according to ABC news, Abramoff has allegedly pointed the figure at "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators."

Abramoff, who hobnobbed at the highest levels of government while living lavishly, will have to work in food service and similar jobs that pay anywhere from 12 to 40 cents an hour. His federal inmate number is 27593-112. It is good to know that sometimes crime doesn’t pay.

Thomas Fitton

President

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---

Pelosi's Democrat ''Culture Of Corruption''

---

POLITICS / PELOSI'S DEMOCRAT "CULTURE OF CORRUPTION"

---

Pelosi’s initial decisions as House Speaker call to question her commitment to rooting out corruption in Congress. In addition to backing Hastings, Pelosi’s first choice for House Majority Leader was Iraq war critic Frank Murtha, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980 “Abscam” scandal, which led to the conviction of five House members for bribery and conspiracy. Murtha ultimately lost his bid for leadership to Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer earlier this week. In light of her bluster about corruption, Pelosi has been rightly criticized for throwing her lot in with the ethically-suspect Murtha. The more things change …

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

JW To Pelosi: Hastings Unfit For Leadership Position

On November 15, I sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi, urging the House Speaker to reject Florida Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings for the chairmanship of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. According to a number of press reports, Hastings is Pelosi’s choice to assume the chairmanship when the new Congress convenes in January.

For Speaker Pelosi, who has been an outspoken critic of what she has mislabeled “the Republican culture of corruption” on Capitol Hill, Hastings is a terrible choice for this sensitive leadership post. As I noted in my letter, Hastings is one of only six federal judges to be removed from office through impeachment and has accumulated “staggering liabilities” ranging from $2,130,006 to $7,350,000.

Here’s an excerpt from my letter. (You can read it in its entirety by clicking here.)

“Any ordinary citizen with Rep. Hastings’ demonstrated record of lack of integrity, ethical misdeeds and financial problems would be denied a security clearance. Respectfully, you should not put our nation’s security at risk by placing Rep. Hastings at the head of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

“That (Hastings) was elected to Congress simply does not mean he meets the high standards that might entitle him to committee leadership posts, let alone ‘select’ committee posts that concern highly secret national security information. I am confident there are other members of your caucus who could serve as head of the Committee.”

Some background on Hastings: On August 3, 1988, the House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment against then-Judge Hastings. After a trial, he was convicted by the Senate and removed from office on October 20, 1989, for perjury and conspiracy to obtain a bribe. As The Washington Post reported in 1989, the Senate found that Hastings “engaged in the bribery conspiracy and repeatedly lied under oath at his [criminal] trial and forged letters in order to win acquittal.”

Moreover, according to his most recent financial disclosure statements, Hastings indicated that he has no more than $15,000 in assets … while listing millions of dollars in liabilities in the form of legal fees.

Pelosi’s initial decisions as House Speaker call to question her commitment to rooting out corruption in Congress. In addition to backing Hastings, Pelosi’s first choice for House Majority Leader was Iraq war critic Frank Murtha, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980 “Abscam” scandal, which led to the conviction of five House members for bribery and conspiracy. Murtha ultimately lost his bid for leadership to Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer earlier this week. In light of her bluster about corruption, Pelosi has been rightly criticized for throwing her lot in with the ethically-suspect Murtha. The more things change …

Thomas Fitton

President

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

---