Thread: Why no pardon for Compean and Ramos?

Why no pardon for Compean and Ramos?

by Mychal Massie

Posted: July 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern



If the reflective adjectival phrase, "pompous arrogance" were imbued with anthropomorphic qualities, the poster children for same would be the liberal Democrats and, of course, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., thus proving said euphemism can jump from one political genus to another.

Democrats wasted little time in making their predictable comments on President Bush commuting part of Scooter Libby's sentence.

Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-Ill., proved that when it comes to making vacuous, asinine comments that are better suited for cuspidors than the body politic, the apple didn't fall far from his father's tree. Jackson trumpeted, "Since the president has intervened in this process, it is now the Congress' obligation and responsibility to intervene in the executive process and begin an inquiry into these very serious crimes against the Constitution of the United States." He continued saying he plans to call on House Democrats to start impeachment hearings.

A close friend, who happens to be a judge, shared that Jackson obviously hasn't studied the Constitution or he would know that Article II, Section 2 clearly and unambiguously states "… [The president] shall have power to grant pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment." To which I add that unless Jackson plans on first rewriting the Constitution, the case is settled, his petulant public grandstanding notwithstanding.

Jackson's efforts would be better spent looking into the failed school system he attended than impeachment – in that he seems not to have been taught that Congress cannot intervene in the executive process – "The Executive Power shall be vested in the President of the United States of America." Jackson fails to understand that his contempt for the president, accompanied by his ignorance of the Constitution, does not empower him to abrogate whatever portions of the Constitution he finds objectionable at the moment.

The president's actions were in keeping with the power granted to him by the Constitution. If Jackson pursues his threatened impeachment process, it would be he, not the president, who would be acting contrary to the Constitution. Then again, as Tavis Smiley reminded the world, maybe Jackson was just emoting some of that "uncontrollable emotion" blacks are supposedly known for.

Not to be outdone, Barack Hussein Obama released a statement saying, "This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an administration characterized by politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law. This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people's faith in a government that puts the country's progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years."

Suffice it to say that while Obama wasted no time throwing stones from the balcony of his glass house, he not only conveniently overlooked the continued legal questions surrounding business dealings in his own background, he also overlooked former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in his lament. Either that or he is of the opinion that stealing highly classified documents and then destroying many of them was less of a threat to national security.

Obama also chose to overlook Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's undermining of the government she swore an oath to secure when she traveled, at taxpayer expense, to meet with the enemies of her government and the people she supposedly represents.

Hillary Clinton, who it can be argued aided and abetted her husband's well-documented acts of debauchery while in office, said, "This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice." I suggest Ms. Clinton check her system levels for phytoalexin, because there is an obvious fungal infection eroding her memory.

Her husband pardoned military deserters, those guilty of mail fraud and those convicted of tax evasion. He pardoned those guilty of possession with intent to distribute amphetamines. He pardoned those guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States, those guilty of conspiracy to commit bank embezzlement, those guilty of embezzlement of United States mail and those guilty of conspiracy to introduce contraband into federal prisons.

Ms. Clinton's husband pardoned an extraordinary number of felons convicted of significant firearms and weapons charges, and those guilty of passport violations. He pardoned those guilty of possession with intent to distribute anaerobic steroids. Racketeers, embezzlers and those guilty of conspiracy to bribe public officials and to defraud the United States government benefited from Clinton pardons – not to mention Susan McDougal and Marc Rich, who were among the roughly 140 who had their sentences commuted and/or their trials obviated by Ms. Clinton's husband in the waning hours of his time in office.

What is truly appalling, pursuant to the statements of those herein mentioned, and those not mentioned due to constraints of space, is that said statements come from the mouths of those who profess to know what is best for you and me.

I submit that George Bush committed no wrong in commuting a portion of Libby's sentence. He is guilty, however, of loving Mexico more than America – the proof of which is clear in that he has not lifted a finger to help the heroic border guards, Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, who are wasting away in prison, guilty only of protecting our sovereign borders from illegal drug smugglers.


http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.a ... E_ID=56574

I'm dating myself using this term, but the answer to your question as to why no pardon for Ramos and Compean is that the sham trial and imprisonment of those brave agents was a SOP to the government of Mexico.

And to this day it makes me sick.