Talking Turkey About Conyers

Following up on my earlier post on Conyers' "Lack of Clarity", it remains puzzling how the investigation by the House Ethics Committee into possible ethics violations by Conyers can be resolved by the 6 step that Conyers is supposed to enforce with his staff. The steps deal with what his staff would do for his office or his campaign and that they would not do volunteer work--apparently ignoring the original reason for the investigation into Conyers: the allegations in 2003 that his staff worked on the Detroit City Council campaign of JoAnn Watson and the presidential campaign of Carol Moseley Braun, while being paid by taxpayers.

The statement by the Ethics Committee is vague on that count, referring merely to:

an informal inquiry in December 2003 into reports that members of the congressional staff of Representative John Conyers had performed campaign activity on official time and in some instances using official resources, and that some staff members may have been compelled to do campaign work or personal work for Representative Conyers.

There is no indication that the issue is work done for campaigns other than Conyers'.

Neither is there any reference to Conyers' turkey program in 2005:

On November 23, staff members picked up 60 turkeys from a local food bank, ostensibly to deliver to those in need. However, the Director of the charity became suspicious when word reached him that a federal court worker was offered a turkey by a member of Conyers' staff. Conyers has also failed to meet a December 27 deadline to provide an accounting of where the birds were delivered.

Additionally, an anonymous staff member told the Detroit Free Press that senior staff members gave contradictory accounts when asked what happened to the turkeys. The aide also expressed concerns in a memo to the FBI. Something smells foul in the Conyers' office, and I don't think it's leftovers.

Conyers, of course, is no stranger to scandal. The Democrat was investigated last year by the Ethics Committee for improperly using staff members during office hours for political campaigning. DeWayne Boyd, a former aide fired in 2002, was convicted just last month on fraud charges resulting from a scam he ran out of the Representative's office.

This is were the story gets interesting. The turkeys (meant to feed hungry poor people), were picked up from the food bank by current Deputy Thief of Staff Marion Brown, and former Aide turned felon, DeWayne Boyd. The very same Boyd fired in 2002 and convicted in December.

Now my question is this, what in the world is the Deputy Thief of Staff of a member of the U.S. House of Representatives doing running around on official business with a former staff member who was fired and convicted of fraud? What can we learn from this?

This whole episode is ignored, as well as the followup--an allegation by a Conyers staff member that:

DeWayne Boyd, a former top aide to Conyers, used Conyers’s congressional office to obtain a fake passport after being convicted of fraud, making false statements and government theft in 2004. Sentenced in 2005 to 30 to 46 months in prison, Boyd fled to Ghana before being recaptured and extradited to the United States.

The Washington Times version goes further, that according to the staff member Conyers 'allowed' Boyd to obtain the fake passport through his office. That article concludes, "Mr. Conyers had better have a good explanation for all this."

Oh, you mean because Congressman Conyers is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee?

Thanks to Dean Barnett, Michelle Malkin, Instapundit and Tapscott's Copy Desk for the links!

See also Gates of Vienna: Free To Say What?

Technorati Tag: Congressman John Conyers.

Conyers' "Lack of Clarity"

"You can attack one party for having a lack of ethics, but if any of your own members have problems, it dulls the message with the American people," said Leon Panetta, an ex-Democratic congressman from California and chief of staff under President Clinton. "They begin to put everybody in the same box. It clearly loses some of its impact as a clean campaign issue." USA Today, May 9, 2006

That same USA Today article notes that there were complaints by Conyers' own staff that he would assign workers to babysit, chauffeur and tutor his children and also had his aides work on his campaign on government time. Conyers' lawyer said that Conyers responded to the charges two years earlier and hasn't heard from the ethics committee since then.

But now it is being reported by The Hill that Conyers

has "accepted responsibility" for possibly violating House rules by requiring his official staff to perform campaign-related work, according to a statement quietly released by the House ethics committee late Friday evening.

...Conyers acknowledged a "lack of clarity" in communicating what was expected of his official staff and that he accepted responsibility for his actions.

Representatives Doc Hastings (R) and Howard Berman (D) of the House Ethics Committee were satisfied with stopping short of saying whether there had been any wrongdoing and instead were satisfied with Conyers' office implementing 6 steps to make sure proper standards are upheld. They stated, "We have concluded that this matter should be resolved through the issuance of this public statement."

According to The Detroit Free Press, the actual investigation, which started back in 2003, was originally looking into other allegations: that Conyers’ staff had worked on the campaign of JoAnn Watson for Detroit City Council and Carolyn Moseley Braun's presidential campaign--while getting paid from congressional coffers.

Question: Does the closing of the Ethics Committee investigation include this initial investigation as well, which was not an issue of staffers working for free, but rather for working on the campaigns of others--and getting paid from inappropriate sources?

[Update: In an updated version of the Detroit Free Press, the article makes clear that the earlier infractions were also covered--which just leaves the question of the new headline: "Conyers to monitor staff". I mean, if so, who is going to monitor Conyers, who personally assigned the staff to do what they did?]

According to a statement released by Conyers' office, “he agrees that he could have been more explicit with staff and agrees to do so in the future.”

On the other hand Deanna Maher, Conyers’ chief of staff before she retired in May 2005 and one of the 3 Conyers staffers who filed the complaint with the Ethics Committee, doesn't think Conyers' problem was lack of clarity:

She said she’s surprised that Conyers admitted he might have been wrong during the investigation, calling him a demanding boss who was very clear in his instructions to staff.

The Hill suggests that the findings of the Ethics Committee could cast a shadow on the first week of the incoming-Democratic majority and their plains to change the House ethics rules, as well as raise questions about Conyers’ standing to chair the Judiciary Committee. Maybe so, but The Hill also reports that Conyers will not have worry about any political fallout:

A spokesman for incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Conyers will remain chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Like Panetta said:

You can attack one party for having a lack of ethics, but if any of your own members have problems, it dulls the message with the American people

Check out Doug Ross and his "illustration" on why Conyers' lapse is not the only reason Pelosi is getting swamped with ethics problems.

Update:

From Tapscott's Copy Desk:

Federal law makes it a crime for a Member of Congress to use official staff members to perform campaign or personal duties. Many official staff members participate in their bosses' re-election campaigns every two years but they go off the official staff payroll when doing so.

Update II:

Another issue, recounted by Michelle Malkin

As the Washington Times recounted, Maher also alleged that the congressman allowed a former top aide convicted of fraud to obtain a fake passport through the office, and then fled to Ghana.

The aide was eventually recaptured and extradited to the United States. She also alleges that Mr. Conyers used his staff to work on the campaigns of friends and relatives, including his wife's, without taking leave. In 1998, she says, Mr. Conyers ordered her to live in his Detroit home for six weeks taking care of his children while his wife attended law classes. In a Dec. 22, 2004, letter obtained by the Hill, Miss Maher said Conyers staffer Melody Light "conducts her law practice (charging legal fees) out of the congressional office... She has in effect hung out her shingle on [Conyers'] office door." Says Miss Maher in a Jan. 13 letter to the House ethics panel: "I could not tolerate any longer being involved with continual unethical, if not criminal, practices which were accepted as 'business as usual'. " She quit in May.

More here.

Here's Pelosi's defense of Democrat's corruption back in May:

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California sought to distinguish her party's foibles from the scandals that brought down Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., for bribery and three former Republican congressional aides who had ties to ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Abramoff, a Republican, pleaded guilty in January to corruption charges.

"You're talking about two completely different things," Pelosi said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press. The Democratic ethics cases are "individual challenges that those people will have to deal with," she said, noting that she has called for the House ethics committee to investigate Jefferson. Republicans, she charged, have a system of "corruption, cronyism and incompetence" that goes beyond personal indiscretions.

Introducing the Democratic Congress of 2007: Individually Challenged!

See also Talking Turkey About Conyers and Congressman Conyers and Islam

Technorati Tag: John Conyers.

The Numbers Don't Back Up CAIR--Neither In US Nor England

Here in the US, the numbers clearly show that despite CAIR's claims--which have been shown to be exaggerated--that anti-Muslim attacks are frequent and a major issue, the fact is that there is a larger proportion of Anti-Jewish attacks. Also, while the number of anti-Muslim attacks in the US have gone down, anti-Jewish attacks have gone up:

o For 2005, the FBI report on bias attacks indicates that 68.5% were anti-Jewish as opposed to only 11.1% were anti-Islamic. Jews are far and away the group that is in greater danger from bias attacks and more in need of protection

o For 2004, the FBI report indicated that 67.8% of bias attacks were anti-Jewish while 12.7% showed anti-Islamic bias. While anti-Jewish bias attacks were slightly up--anti-Islamic attacks actually went down.

Mere Rhetoric links to an article that shows that both CAIR--and Noam Chomsky--are wrong about the extent of Anti-Jewish and Anti-Muslim attacks in England as well:

Jewish people are four times more likely to be attacked because of their religion than Muslims, according to figures compiled by the police.

One in 400 Jews compared to one in 1,700 Muslims are likely to be victims of "faith hate" attacks every year. The figure is based on data collected over three months in police areas accounting for half the Muslim and Jewish populations of England and Wales. The crimes range from assault and verbal abuse to criminal damage at places of worship.

Police forces started recording the religion of faith-hate crime victims only this year. They did so on the instruction of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), which wanted a clear picture of alleged community tensions around the country, following reports of Muslims being attacked after September 11 and the July 7 London bombings last year.

However, the first findings, for July to September, obtained by The Sunday Telegraph under freedom of information legislation, show that it is Jews who are much more likely to be targeted because of their religion.

The situation in England seems more precarious for Jews than here in the US due to the apparent complacency of the legal system there:

The CPS report revealed that not a single person accused of an anti-Semitic crime had been prosecuted on a charge of religiously aggravated offending. It said: "The police statistics include incidents where no defendant has been identified or where there is insufficient evidence for a prosecution."A report by MPs in September said British Jews were more vulnerable to attack and abuse now than for a generation.

Maybe it's time the needs of the real victims of bias attacks was addressed.
Are you listening, Congressman Conyers?

Technorati Tag: Anti-Semitism.

The Flying Imams: Hidden Agenda

Katherine Kersten of the Star Tribune wrote an article earlier this week, Suspicion about imams grows as terror links pile up. Now in her follow-up article she writes The real purpose behind the imam publicity blitz. She quotes from Madhi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation--the American arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, which the Chicago Tribune describes as "the world's most influential Islamic fundamentalist group."

Bray's initial statement about the incident had an all-American, see-you-in-court ring. He demanded "large financial compensation for the imams," adding, "We want US Airways and any other airline displaying this type of behavior against Muslims to be hit where it hurts, the pocketbook."

The report echoed statements made by the imams themselves. Omar Shahin, their spokesman, has portrayed the incident in a way that's consistent with a lawsuit and a public relations offensive. He's called for a Jesse Jackson-style boycott of US Airways, and applied classic civil-rights rhetoric to the incident: "This is prejudice; this is obvious discrimination," the Star Tribune quoted him as saying. "I cannot change the color of my skin," he told Newsweek.

But the report on the Iranian website, which has appeared on a variety of Muslim websites worldwide, had a larger primary focus. After the imams incident, it quoted Bray as saying Muslims want "new, broad-sweeping legislation that will extract even larger financial and civil penalties for any airline that participates in racial and religious profiling."

Support for such legislation is expected from Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, though he has not yet come out with a statement.

As noted in Congressman Conyers and Islam, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan has come out with an End Racial Profiling Act, which--though it claims to be aimed at helping all minorities--makes a special point of 'protecting' Muslims--in spite of the fact that

• Many incidents of anti-Muslim reported by CAIR have been demonstrated to be bogus
• For 2005 the FBI report on bias attacks indicates that 68.5 were anti-Jewish while only 11.1 were anti-Islamic
• From 2004 to 2004 the FBI reports show that incidents of anti-Muslim bias have gone down.

Another ally for such legislation is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called herself a "proud" cosponsor of Conyer's End Racial Profiling Act in 2004.

Kersten describes what limitations the Conyer's bill would impose, and then assesses the effect:

"A law that would compel security professionals to focus on keeping their statistics within certain norms rather than on their mission keeping airline travel safe would have a devastating effect on our ability to ensure airline safety," said Daniel Horan of the Los Angeles Police Department in an interview. He worked at the Los Angeles airport on profiling-related issues for 6 years.

In the conclusion to her article, Kersten looks at the confluence of events that have re-energized Conyer's bill:

The End of Racial Profiling Act has languished until now. What did it need to reinvigorate it? New congressional leadership, and that's coming in January. But it needed something else in this media age: a high-profile incident to jump-start it.

What better than the media circus at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on Nov. 20?

Will the Democratic leadership participate in this?

Instapundit suggests not:

I suspect that the Democrats won't be willing to hop on this bandwagon, as it would make them look weak on terrorism. Once again, though, the absence of major attacks since 9/11 is causing a rise in complacency that some people see as an opportunity.

He may be right. But then again, that has not stopped Democrats from recommending withdrawal from Iraq. In this instance, there is a criticism of Bush wrapped within the protection of individual rights. What is to stop the Democrats as a group to go for this?

Update: Soccer Dad points out the Memeorandum is tracking this story

Technorati Tag: Imams and Conyers and CAIR and Democrats.

Congressman Conyers and Islam

John Conyers, D-MI, is likely to become new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Last year, just for practice, he held a mock impeachment hearing of President Bush in anticipation of the real thing.

But Conyers has other plans as well--especially on behalf of his Muslim constituency. Just take a look at his House Resolution 288:

Text of My Resolution Regarding Religious Intolerance

I received a large number of comments, and quite a spirited debate, concerning my resolution opposing religious intolerance, including desecration of the Quran. I appreciate all of the comments, both those supporting and opposing my actions. I continue to believe that given recent events, it is worthwhile for the Congress to actually express its support for the freedom of religion. The resolution was drafted to oppose all religious intolerance. To the extent it mentions the Quran and Islam specifically, that is obviously to respond to those who believe our nation would tolerate disrespect of that religion or its holy book. Clearly we should not, at least in my opinion. [emphasis added]

Here is the actual text of Resolution 288, as it appears on Conyers' web site, seeking religious tolerance for all religions while placing a heavy emphasis on protection of Islam :

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives condemning bigotry and religious intolerance, and recognizing that holy books of every religion should be treated with dignity and respect.

Whereas believers of all religions, including the Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, should be treated with respect and dignity;

Whereas the word Islam comes from the Arabic root word meaning “peace” and “submission”;

Whereas there are an estimated 7,000,000 Muslims in America, from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds, forming an integral part of the social fabric of America;

Whereas the Quran is the holy book for Muslims who recite passages from it in prayer and learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality;
Whereas it should never be official policy of the United States Government to disparage the Quran, Islam, or any religion in any way, shape, or form;

Whereas mistreatment of prisoners and disrespect toward the holy book of any religion is unacceptable and against civilized humanity;

Whereas the infringement of an individual’s right to freedom of religion violates the Constitution and laws of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;

(2) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected;

(3) recognizes that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and

(4) calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith.

The problem is that there is no reason to single out Islam as being especially deserving of respect and tolerance.

o For 2005 the FBI report on bias attacks indicates that 68.5 were anti-Jewish while only 11.1 were anti-Islamic. In other words, when it comes to bias attacks--Jews are far and away the group that is in greater danger and more in need of protection

o For 2004, the FBI report indicated that 67.8 were anti-Jewish and 12.7 showed anti-Islamic bias. This indicates that the trend shows that while anti-Jewish bias attacks were slightly up--anti-Islamic attacks actually went down.

o An investigation by Daniel Pipes of the anti-Islamic bias attacks reported by CAIR in 2004 showed "sloppiness, exaggeration, and distortion." Two of the claims were actually cases of arson by Moslem store owners themselves, using the story of anti-Islamic bias to cover what they had done. The American Thinker describes a third such case. Other reported attacks lacked evidence or were actually reported by CAIR twice. Further incidences of falsified accounts of Muslim hate crimes going back to 2003 can be found on Michelle Malkin's blog: Myth of the Muslim hate crime epidemic and More Muslim hate crime myths. A report on NPR investigating the reporting of bias crimes in general noted that

any bias incident, from a Muslim being yelled at from a passing car, to a Muslim being profiled on a plane, can wind up in CAIR's report

Yet it is understandable that Conyers would go out of his way to assuage his Muslim constituency.

Far out of his way.

As already noted, Conyers has met with Mohammed Ali Elahi, who has ties with Hezbollah, and has received money from the American Muslim Council, which has openly supported Hamas. In 2005, Conyers sponsored a resolution condemning Narendra Modi, chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat--which led the US government to refuse him entry into the US. The reason given for the condemnation was that in 2002, a Muslim mob burned a train, killing 58 Hindus. As a result, anti-Muslim riots broke out and some Muslim and human-rights groups said Modi failed to stop the violence. Conyers claimed to have taken his cue from CAIR, whose own background reveals ties to terrorism

*Four of CAIR’s officials have been charged with terrorist activities, in relation to Hamas and Al-Qaeda. Two of those officials are behind bars in the United States; the other two have been deported. One of them, Ghassan Elashi, was just sentenced, this past Thursday, to seven years in prison. Another CAIR official was listed by the U.S. Attorney’s office as a potential co-conspirator to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

*CAIR has solicited money for two terrorist “charities” which were shut down shortly after the attacks on 9/11 for raising millions of dollars for Hamas and Al-Qaeda. Leaders of both these organizations were representatives of CAIR.

*CAIR has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit put forward by the family of the former Chief of the FBI’s Counter-Terrorism Section, John P. O’Neill, for his murder during the 9/11 attacks.

*CAIR’s parent organization, the Islamic Association for Palestine, in 2005, was shut down after it was found liable for the murder of an American boy, David Boim, during a Hamas terror operation in Israel.

Conyers claims that his resolution singles out tolerance for Muslims "obviously to respond to those who believe our nation would tolerate disrespect of that religion or its holy book." Such a straw-man argument, especially in light of the numerous bogus reportings of anti-Islamic bias crimes by CAIR does nothing for furthering the respect that is supposed to be the goal of Conyers' resolution to begin with.

If anything the resolution--with its call that "it should never be official policy of the United States Government to disparage the Quran, Islam, or any religion in any way, shape, or form" implies a chilling effect on open discussion and debate.

How odd that Congressman Conyers, who stages a mock impeachment of the current President of the United States, should suddenly get cold feet when it comes to discussing a religion whose more extremist followers have declared war on the West.

Thanks to Gateway Pundit for the link!

See also Conyers' ethical issue in Conyers' "Lack of Clarity"

Crossposted at Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: John Conyers and CAIR and Islam