|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Illegals-Terror Link, Ethics Trouble for Feinstein, Pelosi Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch
Here's a story for all of those illegal immigration apologists out there who claim all illegal aliens are innocents who only come to the United States to seek opportunity and a better life. Last Tuesday, six New Jersey men were arrested and charged in an alleged terror plot against soldiers at Fort Dix, located in Burlington County, N.J. Three of the men are illegal aliens from Yugoslavia. According to WNBC: "Investigators said the men planned to use automatic rifles to enter Fort Dix and kill as many soldiers as they could at the New Jersey military base . . ." The three illegals, all brothers, are Islamic fundamentalists who are being charged with possessing firearms. Ironically, one of the other terrorists was given safe haven at Fort Dix eight years ago, when the Clinton administration took in Albanian refugees from Kosovo. So, how did these terrorists get caught? According to press reports, the suspects attempted to have a "disturbing" video converted to DVD at a store in Cherry Hill, N.J. The video apparently "depicted 10 young men who appeared to be in their early 20s shooting assault weapons at a firing range in a militia-like style while calling for jihad and shouting in Arabic, 'Allah Akbar,' or 'God is Great.'"
Story Continues Below
The suspicious store owner alerted authorities, triggering an investigation. An FBI informant was then able to infiltrate the group and record conversations with the suspects. "My intent is to hit a heavy concentration of soldiers," said one of the suspects on tape. "You hit four, five, or six Humvees and light the whole place up." Leaving aside, for the moment, the horror of six men plotting to kill our men and women in uniform on U.S. soil, why is this story relevant to the debate over illegal immigration? Because non-Mexican illegals (dubbed "Other Than Mexican" or "OTMs") are flooding across the border in record numbers. In 2001, about 5,000 non-Mexican illegals were caught crossing the border. By 2004, that number had swelled to 34,000. Illegal alien activists will do anything they can to avoid the link between illegal immigration and crime and terrorism. As this near-tragedy proves, the link is undeniable. Judicial Watch Investigates Sen. Feinstein
It seems like basic principle to me. According to Senate ethics rules, members of the U.S. Senate and their families, cannot benefit personally and financially from legislative decisions they make. Sen. Feinstein, apparently, either doesn't agree with this principle, or she has chosen to ignore it. Here's a recap of a controversy surrounding Feinstein that's been percolating over the last few weeks: As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on military construction, Feinstein reviewed military construction government contracts. Some of the projects reviewed by Feinstein's subcommittee were ultimately awarded to URS Corporation and Perini, companies then owned by Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum. (Overall, Perini holds $2.5 billion worth of military contracts, most of which were non-competitive bids.) While the Pentagon ultimately awards military contracts, there is a reason for the review process. The Senate's subcommittee on Military Construction's approval carries weight. Sen. Feinstein, therefore, likely had influence over the decision making process. How much influence? That's what Judicial Watch aims to find out. (Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department of Defense.) Now, Feinstein, who resigned from the subcommittee last year, claims she consulted the Senate Ethics Committee on the matter. The "guidance" she received from the ethics committee is sealed, but it apparently permitted Feinstein to serve as both chairwoman and ranking member of the subcommittee even as it considered bids that enriched Feinstein's family. Blum's business partner reportedly sent Feinstein's office regular updates about contracts that their Perini company was up for before the Pentagon, so Feinstein had specific information, which she seems to have ignored, on which projects she should have recused herself from voting. Incredibly, the Senate Ethics Committee ruling which allowed Feinstein to serve on the committee is still secret, despite all the controversy. So much for changing the "culture of corruption." Pelosi's Earmark Trouble Feinstein isn't the only Democratic leader in hot water for using her influence in Congress to enrich her husband (and, potentially, herself.) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who promised a new era of ethics enforcement in the House of Representatives, snuck a $25 million gift to her husband in a $15 billion Water Resources Development Act recently passed by Congress. Members of Congress regularly abuse the appropriations process by earmarking public monies to fund pet projects of special interests and donors often in their own congressional districts or states. Earmarks are an area of the legislative process particularly susceptible to corruption. (There were literally hundreds of these types of projects inserted into the water bill.) In this case, the special interest may have been Pelosi's wealthy husband, Paul Pelosi. And the pet project involved renovating ports in Speaker Pelosi's home base of San Francisco. Paul Pelosi just happens to own apartment buildings near the areas targeted for improvement, and will almost certainly experience a significant boost in property value as a result of Pelosi's earmark. Pelosi, capitalizing on the public's distaste for the earmarking process, pledged reform during the elections last fall. The good news is that the House did reform the process a bit by requiring members to certify that they had no personal financial interests in earmarks they sponsor. Pelosi followed the new rules and reportedly signed a form certifying that neither she nor her husband would benefit financially from the earmark. That may not actually be the case and the Speaker's office will have some more explaining to do.
Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability, and integrity in government, politics, and the law.
Editor's note:
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2009 NewsMax.Com |