Democrat Culture of Corruption: Gary Ackerman Edition

"The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history." --Nancy Pelosi, November 7, 2006.

How's that working out these days, Nancy? Let's see, we've got Charlie Rangel, John Murtha, Greg Meeks, just to name a few, up to their necks in ethical problems but all conveniently given a pass by Queen Pelosi.

Today we add to that illustrious list one Gary Ackerman of New York.

Rep. Gary Ackerman hosted a meeting between Israeli officials and a defense contracting firm whose stock he later sold at a big profit, in which he had invested money - and made a big profit, a Daily News probe has found.

The Queens Democrat put no money down when he obtained private stock in the company, Xenonics Inc., relying on $14,000 borrowed in 2002 from the company's top shareholder, a longtime friend.

The sweetheart loan required no collateral and had no written payback date, a potential violation of House ethics rules.

When the company went public, its stock soared. Ackerman says he repaid the loan at 6% interest and sold the stock for more than $100,000 in 2005 and 2006.

House ethics rules bar members of Congress from using Congressional resources to promote commercial enterprises, stating: "The prohibition against use of House resources to support unofficial undertakings clearly applies to support of business endeavors."

The rules also require written repayment plans for any loans Congress members take out. Ackerman confirmed he had no such written plan for the 2002 loan.

Sure looks like an open and shut case to me. You put no money down, get a loan for $14,000 and flip it for a tidy $100,000 profit.

Ackerman offered various explanations for the terms of the loans. Questioned about the 2002 loan, he first claimed he paid it off in 2005, then changed that to 2004. When The News noted no loan is mentioned on his 2004 financial disclosure form, he amended the report days later.

In response to News queries, he also changed the number of years he had to repay the 2002 loan, from five to three.

After refusing to say why he took the loan, he admitted it was for Xenonics stock. Ackerman claims both loans were "due by a date certain," but provided no documents to back it up.

Homina homina.

Ackerman looks awfully guilty here. Time for an "ethics" investigation, don't you think, Nancy?

New York Congressmen Gladly Accept Pay Hike

Nice message to send to their constituents during a recession.

Saying members of Congress deserve a raise, Rep. Gary Ackerman said he will gladly accept the $4,700 boost to his paycheck amid hard economic times affecting the country.

"I'm one of those who believe public servants are greatly underpaid," Ackerman (D-Roslyn Heights) said of the cost-of-living adjustment that went into effect for members of Congress on Jan. 1.

Noting he spent the weekend on a fact-finding visit to Israel, Ackerman said he flew back overnight and arrived in Washington at 4:30 a.m. Monday so he could attend a hearing on financier Bernard Madoff's alleged Ponzi scheme.

"I don't get overtime," he said. "I don't think pay for members of Congress is unreasonable. I certainly don't think they are overpaid."

Meanwhile, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) will take the raise, said his spokesman Brian Fallon, though Schumer likely would support a bill to rescind it, if a measure is introduced.

Nice mealy-mouthed excuse there, Chuckie.

Maybe while they're holding hearings on Madoff they can announce when they're going to give back the hundreds of thousands of dollars Madoff contributed to his friends the Democrats.

Reps. Tim Bishop (D-Southampton), Steve Israel (D-Huntington), Peter King (R-Seaford) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-Mineola) also have said they will accept the increase.

The 2.78 percent raise boosted salaries of senators and House members to $174,000.

But Phillipe Reines, a spokesman for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), refused to say if she will accept the raise.

Nothing like taking a decisive stand. Why would she have to? She won't be in the Senate much longer, right?

I'm disappointed in Peter King. As one of the few GOP members in the New York delegation, he could score some point if he and his fellow Republicans refused to take the money.

I guess everyone has a price.

Meanwhile, Schumer recently had hernia surgery. No word if he was injured toting around that giant mirror he brings wherever he goes.

The senior US senator from New York entered a Manhattan hospital last Friday to undergo surgery for a hernia. The procedure went just fine, though he couldn't hold his usual Sunday morning press conference. But the lawmaker was at work yesterday. His press secretary, Josh Vlasto, told Page Six, "Sen. Schumer is back doing the heavy lifting for New York once again."

Instapundit links. Thanks!

Ackerman Compares Inexperienced Schlossberg to Palin

A couple of weeks ago the New York Democrat said Jennifer Lopez was just as qualified as Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg to be a senator from New York, which was a valid comparison if you ask me, based on her experience, which is zero.

Now, however, Ackerman is getting stupid by claiming Schlossberg has the same amount of experience as Sarah Palin. Uh, Congressman, in case you hadn't noticed, Sarah Palin is a sitting governor, which, last I checked, is an elected office, not a political appointment. Look, I understand these Democrats are obsessed with Palin, but if you want to try and compare her to Schlossberg, is just isn't valid.

A Democratic congressman is comparing Caroline Kennedy to Sarah Palin, saying the would-be senator has yet to prove she has the "guts and the gumption" to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Guts and gumption? Who was it for three months has every aspect of her life trashed and her character smeared by the left and stood tall throughout?

It was Sarah Palin. She's got more guts the the entire Democratic Party combined.

Let's face it. Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg is painfully unqualified to be a United States senator. You know it, I know it, the media knows it and dare I say, Schlossberg herself knows it. If she wasn't born a Kennedy she'd wouldn't be given the time of day.

To lump her in with Palin, a woman who got where she is by her own doing, not by winning a genetic lottery, is an absurd comparison.

'I Don't Know What Caroline Kennedy's Qualifications Are'

Neither do I. Except for the fact she's got the Kennedy name. But that's all it takes with Democrats, right?

Apparently not. My guess is Gary Ackerman, being from Queens, is probably a Cuomo guy.

A prominent New York Democratic congressman publicly questioned Caroline Kennedy's credentials to replace Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, saying she's no more qualified to hold office than Jennifer Lopez.

Rep. Gary Ackerman of Queens, a 25-year veteran of Congress, declared in a radio interview: "I don't know what Caroline Kennedy's qualifications are."

"Except that she has name recognition, but so does J.Lo," Ackerman continued on Steve Malzberg's radio show on WOR. "I wouldn't make J.Lo the senator unless she proved she had great qualifications, but we haven't seen them yet."

Well, according to popular lore, she's got a nice ass. Doesn't that count for something? Oh, and she can sing and act a little bit.

On second thought, she is more qualified than Kennedy.

Ackerman's interview was posted on the Web by Malzberg yesterday after being broadcast Monday.

Ackerman is the first prominent New York Democrat to question Kennedy's credentials at a time when Gov. Paterson is considering John F. Kennedy's daughter as one of a dozen potential replacements for Clinton, President-elect Barack Obama's choice for secretary of state.

Some Democratic activists have publicly questioned the fitness of Kennedy, a lawyer and mother of three who has never sought public office, for the Senate. But no prominent elected Democrat had been willing to take on a member of the powerful Kennedy clan until now.

USAID Cash Going to Hamas Schools

If you ever wondered why we need a top to bottom review of where our foreign aid money is going, look no further than this story.

Schools Linked to Hamas Gets U.S. Cash

Millions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid have been given in the past several years to two Palestinian universities -- one of them controlled by Hamas -- that have participated in the advocacy, support or glorification of terrorism.

The funding -- principally in scholarships to individual students -- is being eyed by several members of Congress and their aides, who say it may violate U.S. law.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has provided more than $140,000 in assistance to the Hamas-controlled Islamic University in Gaza -- including scholarships to 49 of its students -- since Congress changed the law in 2004 to restrict aid to entities or individuals "involved in or advocating terrorist activity."

No U.S. assistance was directed to Islamic University last year, but USAID continues to fund multimillion-dollar programs through American Near East Refugee Aid (ANERA), which is building a high-tech facility for the school. U.S. law requires that any recipient of U.S. aid have no association with terrorists.

Give credit where it's due in this case, to two New York Democrats leading the charge.

"It is outrageous that U.S. taxpayer dollars are going toward institutions that support terrorists," said Rep. Gary L. Ackerman, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.

"These loopholes must be closed so that taxpayer funds are used for their intended purpose and not to subsidize terrorism and the promotion of hatred toward Israel and the United States."

Rep. Nita M. Lowey, New York Democrat and chairwoman of the committee responsible for USAID funding, said, "It goes without saying that U.S. taxpayer dollars should absolutely never be used for advocating or honoring terrorist activity. Support for terrorists and terrorism in any shape or form is unacceptable."

USAID adamantly denies that it has violated any laws.

"Every grant we give, every bit of assistance we provide, we do in a way that is fully compliant with the law," said a USAID official, who agreed to talk only on the condition of anonymity.

If there isn't any problem, why the anonymity?