Great statements:
'Here's my strategy on the Cold War:
We win, they lose.'- Ronald Reagan
'The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government an d I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.' - Ronald Reagan
'Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.'
- Ronald Reagan
'I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.' - Ronald Reagan
'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.'
- Ronald Reagan
'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.'
- Ronald Reagan
'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.' - Ronald Reagan
'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.' - Ronald Reagan
'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it' - Ronald Reagan
'Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.' - Ronald Reagan
'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan
'If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.'
- Ronald Reagan
IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE FORWARD . .
IF NOT,JUST DELETE.
We will try to cover the important happenings in our Beautiful Country, tell of events, people, the good as well as the bad and ugly.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(426)
- ► 12/07 - 12/14 (1)
- ► 11/09 - 11/16 (1)
- ► 11/02 - 11/09 (10)
- ► 10/26 - 11/02 (36)
- ► 10/19 - 10/26 (23)
- ► 10/12 - 10/19 (3)
- ► 10/05 - 10/12 (21)
-
▼
09/28 - 10/05
(28)
- REMEMBER THIS MAN Great statements:
- WHAT ABOUT OBAMA? THE ENEMY FROM WITHIN
- Obama Tax Plan: Back To Welfare?
- Palin Gets Rave Reviews for Debate
- Obama Snubs Hillary for Supreme Court
- Don't Fall for the Bailout Panic
- Obama and the Middle Class
- TAKE A FEW MOMENTS AND READ THIS LETTER.
- Is It NBA Or NFL?
- Congress Needs An Ethics Bailout
- Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign
- McCain Must Make His Move
- 3 former Fannie Mae executives
- ACORN's Senator
- Oppose Bailout That ‘Nationalizes’ Bad Mortgages
- Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign
- McCain Should Not Support Bailout
- Conservatives to Oppose Bailout
- Insider Report from Newsmax.com
- Kissinger: Obama Was Wrong
- McCain Should Not Support Bailout
- A CALL TO RUSH BELEIVE IT!!
- Obama Wants NRA Ads Banned
- Subject: More on Obama - FYI
- FLAG AT DNC CONVENTION UPSIDE DOWN?
- Middle East Imperative
- Why McCain Won the Debate
- Rescuing ACORN
- ► 09/21 - 09/28 (28)
- ► 09/14 - 09/21 (32)
- ► 09/07 - 09/14 (41)
- ► 08/31 - 09/07 (30)
- ► 08/24 - 08/31 (23)
- ► 08/17 - 08/24 (23)
- ► 08/10 - 08/17 (32)
- ► 08/03 - 08/10 (26)
- ► 07/27 - 08/03 (30)
- ► 07/20 - 07/27 (21)
- ► 07/13 - 07/20 (14)
- ► 07/06 - 07/13 (1)
- ► 06/15 - 06/22 (1)
- ► 06/01 - 06/08 (1)
October 4, 2008
WHAT ABOUT OBAMA? THE ENEMY FROM WITHIN
READERS OF NEWSSHOPPE: I MUST TELL YOU I KNOW NOT MARLENE, I DO KNOW THE PERSON THAT SENT THIS TO ME AND AM USING THAT AUTHORITY TO PRINT IN NEWSSHOPPE. I, LIKE THE WRITER, ALSO QUESTION OBAMA, MINE CLEAR BACK TO HIS ILLIGIMATE BIRTH. PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE IN NEWSSHOPPE "Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign"
ISSUE DATE 10/02/08. THIS WILL ADD TO THE "QUESTIONS OF TRUTH, OBAMA"
WHAT ABOUT OBAMA? THE ENEMY FROM WITHIN
Nothing in Snopes on this.
Important, please read my letter -Marlene
To All My Friends, this is long, but very important, please take the time to read it.
This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking "where did the money come from for Obama". I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.
I started looking into Obama's life.
Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. "Barry" (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a "round the world" trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap! to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.
By "chance" he met Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association". About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented "Rezar" which Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money" for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.
Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?
On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas", which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things".
Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?
And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on "This Week" with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, "My Muslim faith". When questioned, "he make a mistake". Some mistake!
All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.
Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our "intelligent" members of the press been reporting this?
A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - "Beware of the enemy from within"!!!
Marlene
ISSUE DATE 10/02/08. THIS WILL ADD TO THE "QUESTIONS OF TRUTH, OBAMA"
WHAT ABOUT OBAMA? THE ENEMY FROM WITHIN
Nothing in Snopes on this.
Important, please read my letter -Marlene
To All My Friends, this is long, but very important, please take the time to read it.
This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking "where did the money come from for Obama". I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.
I started looking into Obama's life.
Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. "Barry" (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a "round the world" trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap! to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.
By "chance" he met Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association". About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented "Rezar" which Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money" for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.
Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?
On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas", which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things".
Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?
And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on "This Week" with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, "My Muslim faith". When questioned, "he make a mistake". Some mistake!
All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.
Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our "intelligent" members of the press been reporting this?
A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - "Beware of the enemy from within"!!!
Marlene
October 3, 2008
Obama Tax Plan: Back To Welfare?
Email To Friend | Print
Obama Tax Plan: Back To Welfare?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Obamanomics: To those of us who can still tell the difference between a tax cut and a government handout, the Democratic plan for "relief" looks more like a blueprint for dependency.
In the first presidential debate, Barack Obama repeated a claim he has made many a time — that his economic plan would cut taxes for "95% of working families." But is this really so? Yes, more or less, but only if you accept Obama's definition of a tax cut. And doing that may force you to leave your common-sense zone.
First of all, "working families" does not include all households. Throw in singles, retirees, students and the unemployed, and the share getting some tax-related benefit is a good deal less. The Tax Policy Center, a group affiliated with the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, says only about 80% of households would get a cut.
Then there's the difference, not acknowledged by the Obama camp, between a real tax cut and the type of "tax relief" that looks suspiciously like welfare. A true tax "cut" is a reduction in the taxes you're paying. In contrast, much of the "relief" in Obama's plan consists of "refundable credit" — payments you get even if you owe no taxes at all.
The plan does have some real tax cuts, such as the extension of President Bush's cuts for families making under $250,000. This relief is significant — though John McCain would go further and provide it for everyone. However, so are Obama's new or expanded refundable credits. These include, with five-year costs estimated by the Tax Policy Center:
• The "making work pay" credit of 6.2% up to $8,100 of earnings. Cost: $323.7 billion.
• A "universal mortgage" credit equal to 10% of mortgage interest for income-tax filers who don't itemize. Cost: $54 billion.
• An expansion of the child and dependent care credit, which would rise from 35% to 50% of expenses and would be refundable for the first time. Cost: $10.6 billion.
• The "American opportunity tax credit" to replace the (non-refundable) hope credit with a refundable credit of $4,000 for college costs. Cost: $58.2 billion.
• Expansion of the earned income tax credit to lower-income workers. Cost: $19.3 billion.
That's $465.8 billion in all over five years, all transferred from the $250K-plus set and going mostly to lower- and lower-middle-income Americans.
Millions of those in line for these benefits pay no income tax, and Obama's plan — both through these credits and a pure-pander policy of eliminating taxes for 7 million seniors — would increase the nontaxpaying class by millions more.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that the share of households not owing income tax would rise from 38% under current law to 48% under the Obama plan.
Another think tank, the Tax Foundation, says the number of nonpayers would rise from a third of tax filers to 44%.
So how many will get "tax relief" that is really just welfare? The number is impossible to pin down exactly, but it's likely to be huge.
Start with the nonpaying class of 48% or 44%, depending on whose calculation you use. That's well over 60 million tax filers. Many, if not most, of these would probably qualify for at least one of the Obama credits, because it doesn't take much, other than low income, to qualify.
For one of those credits, dependent and child care, you don't even have to have a job. You can simply be looking for one. Taking college courses (and agreeing to 100 hours of community service) qualifies you for the "American opportunity credit."
The most expensive credit, "making work pay," is aimed at low-wage workers but will have to be phased out at higher income levels. As the Tax Policy Center notes, the resulting jump in marginal tax rates in the phaseout zone "might actually give workers an incentive to work less."
What happens to our society and politics when so many Americans no longer expect to share the income-tax burden and instead think "tax relief" means getting checks extracted from "the rich"?
The country is on dangerous ground at such a point, because there may be no stopping the zeal of politicians to pad their majorities even more by squeezing the wealth producers and buying the votes of a new welfare class that once was proud of paying its own way.
Obama Tax Plan: Back To Welfare?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Obamanomics: To those of us who can still tell the difference between a tax cut and a government handout, the Democratic plan for "relief" looks more like a blueprint for dependency.
In the first presidential debate, Barack Obama repeated a claim he has made many a time — that his economic plan would cut taxes for "95% of working families." But is this really so? Yes, more or less, but only if you accept Obama's definition of a tax cut. And doing that may force you to leave your common-sense zone.
First of all, "working families" does not include all households. Throw in singles, retirees, students and the unemployed, and the share getting some tax-related benefit is a good deal less. The Tax Policy Center, a group affiliated with the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, says only about 80% of households would get a cut.
Then there's the difference, not acknowledged by the Obama camp, between a real tax cut and the type of "tax relief" that looks suspiciously like welfare. A true tax "cut" is a reduction in the taxes you're paying. In contrast, much of the "relief" in Obama's plan consists of "refundable credit" — payments you get even if you owe no taxes at all.
The plan does have some real tax cuts, such as the extension of President Bush's cuts for families making under $250,000. This relief is significant — though John McCain would go further and provide it for everyone. However, so are Obama's new or expanded refundable credits. These include, with five-year costs estimated by the Tax Policy Center:
• The "making work pay" credit of 6.2% up to $8,100 of earnings. Cost: $323.7 billion.
• A "universal mortgage" credit equal to 10% of mortgage interest for income-tax filers who don't itemize. Cost: $54 billion.
• An expansion of the child and dependent care credit, which would rise from 35% to 50% of expenses and would be refundable for the first time. Cost: $10.6 billion.
• The "American opportunity tax credit" to replace the (non-refundable) hope credit with a refundable credit of $4,000 for college costs. Cost: $58.2 billion.
• Expansion of the earned income tax credit to lower-income workers. Cost: $19.3 billion.
That's $465.8 billion in all over five years, all transferred from the $250K-plus set and going mostly to lower- and lower-middle-income Americans.
Millions of those in line for these benefits pay no income tax, and Obama's plan — both through these credits and a pure-pander policy of eliminating taxes for 7 million seniors — would increase the nontaxpaying class by millions more.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that the share of households not owing income tax would rise from 38% under current law to 48% under the Obama plan.
Another think tank, the Tax Foundation, says the number of nonpayers would rise from a third of tax filers to 44%.
So how many will get "tax relief" that is really just welfare? The number is impossible to pin down exactly, but it's likely to be huge.
Start with the nonpaying class of 48% or 44%, depending on whose calculation you use. That's well over 60 million tax filers. Many, if not most, of these would probably qualify for at least one of the Obama credits, because it doesn't take much, other than low income, to qualify.
For one of those credits, dependent and child care, you don't even have to have a job. You can simply be looking for one. Taking college courses (and agreeing to 100 hours of community service) qualifies you for the "American opportunity credit."
The most expensive credit, "making work pay," is aimed at low-wage workers but will have to be phased out at higher income levels. As the Tax Policy Center notes, the resulting jump in marginal tax rates in the phaseout zone "might actually give workers an incentive to work less."
What happens to our society and politics when so many Americans no longer expect to share the income-tax burden and instead think "tax relief" means getting checks extracted from "the rich"?
The country is on dangerous ground at such a point, because there may be no stopping the zeal of politicians to pad their majorities even more by squeezing the wealth producers and buying the votes of a new welfare class that once was proud of paying its own way.
Palin Gets Rave Reviews for Debate
Palin Gets Rave Reviews for Debate
On Thursday night, Sarah Palin showed that she has the "right stuff" to be one heartbeat away from the presidency.
Under fire for rambling answers in recent television interviews, Palin went into last night's debate the underdog against the sharp-tongued Joe Biden.
But Palin, in style and substance, demonstrated she can hold her own on the national stage.
Pollster Frank Luntz's focus group on Fox News watched the St. Louis debate. The group was evenly divided between Kerry and Bush supporters from the 2004 election. After the debate Luntz asked if she won, and his group almost unanimously said she had.
The New York Post cover Friday shared a similar sentiment , roaring: "PIT BULL SARAH SHOWS HER BITE."
The Post began "Sarah Palin used folksy language, winks, smiles and sharp elbows to try to put seasoned rival Joe Biden on the defensive in last night's vice-presidential debate."
The Post's star columnist, Andrea Peyser, offered effusive praise.
"I walked in last night expecting a train wreck from our gal of the moment. Instead, I saw fireworks," Peyser wrote. "Sarah rules," she continued, adding, "In her first, and last, vice-presidential debate, Sarah Palin was strong. Articulate. Folksy. And warm."
During the verbal fisticuffs, Palin made clear she is not one of the good old boys.
"It's so obvious that I'm a Washington outsider and I'm someone who's just not used to the way you guys operate," Palin said.
Palin employed a similar "outsider" strategy to defeat the incumbent Republican governor in Alaska.
Even the liberal New York Times had to admit, albeit grudgingly, that Palin scored points in the first and last vice presidential debate.
The Times began its coverage this way: "Gov. Sarah Palin made it through the vice-presidential debate on Thursday without doing any obvious damage to the Republican presidential ticket. By surviving her encounter with Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. and quelling some of the talk about her basic qualifications for high office, she may even have done Senator John McCain a bit of good, freeing him to focus on the other troubles shadowing his campaign."
Across the blogoshere, positive reviews for her debate performance were pouring in for the first woman on a national Republican ticket.
Michael Goodwin, writing in the New York Daily News, declared Palin had a "slim" victory over Biden.
"She sometimes sputtered nonsense, seemed like a Thanksgiving turkey stuffed with facts and was no match for his knowledge and experience on foreign affairs," Goodwin wrote. "But Sarah Palin demonstrated a remarkable political skill Thursday night: She looked into the camera and talked to people as one of them, while Joe Biden talked mostly to the moderator as a teacher to a student.
"On her ability to connect with the audience, and because the expectations for her were so pitifully low, Palin was the victor."
And Steve Huntley in the Chicago Sun-Times wrote, "Appearing assertive and confident in her national debate premiere, Palin battled Sen. Joseph Biden on a broad range of issues - the Wall Street meltdown, taxes and spending, Iraq, foreign relations, which candidate best represents change - and more than held her own."
Not every one so pleased about Palin's performance, especially among the pro-Obama cheerleaders in the major media.
Chris Matthews of MSNBC said Palin seemed like she was appearing at a spelling bee and CBS was quick to post an instant survey claiming "independents" believed Biden had won the debate.
On Thursday night, Sarah Palin showed that she has the "right stuff" to be one heartbeat away from the presidency.
Under fire for rambling answers in recent television interviews, Palin went into last night's debate the underdog against the sharp-tongued Joe Biden.
But Palin, in style and substance, demonstrated she can hold her own on the national stage.
Pollster Frank Luntz's focus group on Fox News watched the St. Louis debate. The group was evenly divided between Kerry and Bush supporters from the 2004 election. After the debate Luntz asked if she won, and his group almost unanimously said she had.
The New York Post cover Friday shared a similar sentiment , roaring: "PIT BULL SARAH SHOWS HER BITE."
The Post began "Sarah Palin used folksy language, winks, smiles and sharp elbows to try to put seasoned rival Joe Biden on the defensive in last night's vice-presidential debate."
The Post's star columnist, Andrea Peyser, offered effusive praise.
"I walked in last night expecting a train wreck from our gal of the moment. Instead, I saw fireworks," Peyser wrote. "Sarah rules," she continued, adding, "In her first, and last, vice-presidential debate, Sarah Palin was strong. Articulate. Folksy. And warm."
During the verbal fisticuffs, Palin made clear she is not one of the good old boys.
"It's so obvious that I'm a Washington outsider and I'm someone who's just not used to the way you guys operate," Palin said.
Palin employed a similar "outsider" strategy to defeat the incumbent Republican governor in Alaska.
Even the liberal New York Times had to admit, albeit grudgingly, that Palin scored points in the first and last vice presidential debate.
The Times began its coverage this way: "Gov. Sarah Palin made it through the vice-presidential debate on Thursday without doing any obvious damage to the Republican presidential ticket. By surviving her encounter with Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. and quelling some of the talk about her basic qualifications for high office, she may even have done Senator John McCain a bit of good, freeing him to focus on the other troubles shadowing his campaign."
Across the blogoshere, positive reviews for her debate performance were pouring in for the first woman on a national Republican ticket.
Michael Goodwin, writing in the New York Daily News, declared Palin had a "slim" victory over Biden.
"She sometimes sputtered nonsense, seemed like a Thanksgiving turkey stuffed with facts and was no match for his knowledge and experience on foreign affairs," Goodwin wrote. "But Sarah Palin demonstrated a remarkable political skill Thursday night: She looked into the camera and talked to people as one of them, while Joe Biden talked mostly to the moderator as a teacher to a student.
"On her ability to connect with the audience, and because the expectations for her were so pitifully low, Palin was the victor."
And Steve Huntley in the Chicago Sun-Times wrote, "Appearing assertive and confident in her national debate premiere, Palin battled Sen. Joseph Biden on a broad range of issues - the Wall Street meltdown, taxes and spending, Iraq, foreign relations, which candidate best represents change - and more than held her own."
Not every one so pleased about Palin's performance, especially among the pro-Obama cheerleaders in the major media.
Chris Matthews of MSNBC said Palin seemed like she was appearing at a spelling bee and CBS was quick to post an instant survey claiming "independents" believed Biden had won the debate.
Obama Snubs Hillary for Supreme Court
Obama Snubs Hillary for Supreme Court
Obama Snubs Hillary for Supreme Court
Thursday, October 2, 2008 12:08 PM
By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size
Bill and Hillary Clinton are only half-heartedly working to help elect Barack Obama president because he wouldn’t guarantee Hillary a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court if he wins the White House, sources told The New York Post.
One insider said: “Hillary wants an assurance that if she shows loyalty and goes out there like a good soldier, she will be rewarded with a nomination for the Supreme Court should a seat become available.”
A representative for Hillary sent an e-mail to The Post’s “Page Six” column on Wednesday calling the report: “Absurd. Nonsense. Rubbish. Hogwash. Malarkey.”
But The Post asserted on Thursday: “The problem is, we’re told, Obama ‘balked’ at promising Hillary the judgeship, perhaps because he still resents how the Clintons attacked him during the primaries.”
Bill Clinton has recently called Obama’s Republican rival John McCain a “good man” and a “friend,” and said he understands why GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin “is hot out there.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, October 2, 2008 12:08 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Bill and Hillary Clinton are only half-heartedly working to help elect Barack Obama president because he wouldn’t guarantee Hillary a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court if he wins the White House, sources told The New York Post.
One insider said: “Hillary wants an assurance that if she shows loyalty and goes out there like a good soldier, she will be rewarded with a nomination for the Supreme Court should a seat become available.”
A representative for Hillary sent an e-mail to The Post’s “Page Six” column on Wednesday calling the report: “Absurd. Nonsense. Rubbish. Hogwash. Malarkey.”
But The Post asserted on Thursday: “The problem is, we’re told, Obama ‘balked’ at promising Hillary the judgeship, perhaps because he still resents how the Clintons attacked him during the primaries.”
Bill Clinton has recently called Obama’s Republican rival John McCain a “good man” and a “friend,” and said he understands why GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin “is hot out there.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Obama Snubs Hillary for Supreme Court
Thursday, October 2, 2008 12:08 PM
By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size
Bill and Hillary Clinton are only half-heartedly working to help elect Barack Obama president because he wouldn’t guarantee Hillary a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court if he wins the White House, sources told The New York Post.
One insider said: “Hillary wants an assurance that if she shows loyalty and goes out there like a good soldier, she will be rewarded with a nomination for the Supreme Court should a seat become available.”
A representative for Hillary sent an e-mail to The Post’s “Page Six” column on Wednesday calling the report: “Absurd. Nonsense. Rubbish. Hogwash. Malarkey.”
But The Post asserted on Thursday: “The problem is, we’re told, Obama ‘balked’ at promising Hillary the judgeship, perhaps because he still resents how the Clintons attacked him during the primaries.”
Bill Clinton has recently called Obama’s Republican rival John McCain a “good man” and a “friend,” and said he understands why GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin “is hot out there.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, October 2, 2008 12:08 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Bill and Hillary Clinton are only half-heartedly working to help elect Barack Obama president because he wouldn’t guarantee Hillary a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court if he wins the White House, sources told The New York Post.
One insider said: “Hillary wants an assurance that if she shows loyalty and goes out there like a good soldier, she will be rewarded with a nomination for the Supreme Court should a seat become available.”
A representative for Hillary sent an e-mail to The Post’s “Page Six” column on Wednesday calling the report: “Absurd. Nonsense. Rubbish. Hogwash. Malarkey.”
But The Post asserted on Thursday: “The problem is, we’re told, Obama ‘balked’ at promising Hillary the judgeship, perhaps because he still resents how the Clintons attacked him during the primaries.”
Bill Clinton has recently called Obama’s Republican rival John McCain a “good man” and a “friend,” and said he understands why GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin “is hot out there.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Don't Fall for the Bailout Panic
Don't Fall for the Bailout Panic
Thursday, October 2, 2008 9:10 AM
I listen to all this talk in the media about the failure of the bailout in the House Monday — what happened? Where did it go wrong? Why didn't it pass? They're running around pointing fingers — saying it was the Democrats, it was the Republicans, it was the White House — and nobody has a clue of what really happened and who made it happen.
They should have asked my wife, Colleen. That night she put her finger on it, saying that she — and millions of angry Americans who were dead-set against bailing out the very people who caused this mess — were the ones who killed the measure.
Congress was deluged by a flood of phone calls and e-mails all warning that Americans were violently opposed to the bailout and would exact punishment at the polls next month from members who voted for it. The people spoke loud and clear, and their voices were heard on Capitol Hill.
As Colleen said to me, it just may be that we're smarter than those people in Washington and Wall Street who think we're a bunch of ninnies who they can con whenever they feel like it. We get it and we understand it.
They forgot what Abraham Lincoln advised when he said, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time."
This was one of the times they tried to fool all of us. It didn't work. Back to the drawing boards.
We looked at it and we saw fear-mongering — attempts to panic us into believing that the banks had no money to lend, and credit was dried up and loans were almost impossible to get — all being peddled from the White House, the Treasury and the Fed, and all the way down to the House and Senate, Wall Street and much of the media.
We knew that was untrue because our daughter, Ashley, had just qualified and easily obtained a mortgage on a $360,000 townhouse from a small local bank. The bank had foreclosed on the house and was stuck with a defaulted mortgage of $560,000. Ashley, who is 25 and a schoolteacher, got the townhouse for $200,000 under what the bank held in bad paper.
Home sales in California in August were up 56 percent over August a year ago. Why? Because now is a good time to get in. There are all kinds of bargains available. Now there are possibilities of making a profit on investments. The market was up Tuesday. Why? Because it was a good time to get in. Maybe America just got it right.
Monday the market went down 6.7 percent, and it was panic time. Back in 1987, when my dad was president, the market dropped 22.6 percent — a 508-point drop in one day — it was the largest single drop in the history of the market.
Did President Reagan panic? Were there calls for bailouts? No. Instead, my dad simply said hold the course — what goes down must in fact go up. He made sure that there was no panic. By remaining calm and steady he kept the nation and the market calm, and what happened? Since 1987, the market has been up as high as almost 12,000 points. Now it's down to a little over 10,000. In 1987, the market dropped all the way down to about 1786 points. And we didn't panic.
What's going on now in Washington is a panic-driven attempt to cope with a temporary problem. We seem to have forgotten the old adage about the foolishness of acting in haste leading to repenting in leisure.
© 2008 Mike Reagan
Thursday, October 2, 2008 9:10 AM
I listen to all this talk in the media about the failure of the bailout in the House Monday — what happened? Where did it go wrong? Why didn't it pass? They're running around pointing fingers — saying it was the Democrats, it was the Republicans, it was the White House — and nobody has a clue of what really happened and who made it happen.
They should have asked my wife, Colleen. That night she put her finger on it, saying that she — and millions of angry Americans who were dead-set against bailing out the very people who caused this mess — were the ones who killed the measure.
Congress was deluged by a flood of phone calls and e-mails all warning that Americans were violently opposed to the bailout and would exact punishment at the polls next month from members who voted for it. The people spoke loud and clear, and their voices were heard on Capitol Hill.
As Colleen said to me, it just may be that we're smarter than those people in Washington and Wall Street who think we're a bunch of ninnies who they can con whenever they feel like it. We get it and we understand it.
They forgot what Abraham Lincoln advised when he said, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time."
This was one of the times they tried to fool all of us. It didn't work. Back to the drawing boards.
We looked at it and we saw fear-mongering — attempts to panic us into believing that the banks had no money to lend, and credit was dried up and loans were almost impossible to get — all being peddled from the White House, the Treasury and the Fed, and all the way down to the House and Senate, Wall Street and much of the media.
We knew that was untrue because our daughter, Ashley, had just qualified and easily obtained a mortgage on a $360,000 townhouse from a small local bank. The bank had foreclosed on the house and was stuck with a defaulted mortgage of $560,000. Ashley, who is 25 and a schoolteacher, got the townhouse for $200,000 under what the bank held in bad paper.
Home sales in California in August were up 56 percent over August a year ago. Why? Because now is a good time to get in. There are all kinds of bargains available. Now there are possibilities of making a profit on investments. The market was up Tuesday. Why? Because it was a good time to get in. Maybe America just got it right.
Monday the market went down 6.7 percent, and it was panic time. Back in 1987, when my dad was president, the market dropped 22.6 percent — a 508-point drop in one day — it was the largest single drop in the history of the market.
Did President Reagan panic? Were there calls for bailouts? No. Instead, my dad simply said hold the course — what goes down must in fact go up. He made sure that there was no panic. By remaining calm and steady he kept the nation and the market calm, and what happened? Since 1987, the market has been up as high as almost 12,000 points. Now it's down to a little over 10,000. In 1987, the market dropped all the way down to about 1786 points. And we didn't panic.
What's going on now in Washington is a panic-driven attempt to cope with a temporary problem. We seem to have forgotten the old adage about the foolishness of acting in haste leading to repenting in leisure.
© 2008 Mike Reagan
Obama and the Middle Class
Obama and the Middle Class
As I listen to Senator Obama speak in Wisconsin today (Wed, Oct 1st) he states that he will make sure a plan is in place for MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA in the Bail Out Package. Someone needs to inform the EMPTY SUIT that MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA is the Bail Out Package. As long as you are not on welfare or an illegal immigrant receiving a FREE monthly check, FREE medical benefits and FREE housing you must go to work (as an employee as well as small business owner) everyday and pay your taxes and your own way because NO ONE is going to Bail you out. He also proposes to cut taxes for 95% of middle America, National Health Care, rebuild infrastructure, build new schools, lower the cost of college education, 500 Billion for new energy programs just as a start. Cut taxes and increase spending...the last time I heard or read of a Miracle of that magnitude was when Jesus Christ fed the multitude with only 5 FISH and 5 LOAVES of BREAD. AAAAAAMEN
As I listen to Senator Obama speak in Wisconsin today (Wed, Oct 1st) he states that he will make sure a plan is in place for MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA in the Bail Out Package. Someone needs to inform the EMPTY SUIT that MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA is the Bail Out Package. As long as you are not on welfare or an illegal immigrant receiving a FREE monthly check, FREE medical benefits and FREE housing you must go to work (as an employee as well as small business owner) everyday and pay your taxes and your own way because NO ONE is going to Bail you out. He also proposes to cut taxes for 95% of middle America, National Health Care, rebuild infrastructure, build new schools, lower the cost of college education, 500 Billion for new energy programs just as a start. Cut taxes and increase spending...the last time I heard or read of a Miracle of that magnitude was when Jesus Christ fed the multitude with only 5 FISH and 5 LOAVES of BREAD. AAAAAAMEN
TAKE A FEW MOMENTS AND READ THIS LETTER.
TAKE A FEW MOMENTS AND READ THIS LETTER. THESE ARE STRONG, POWERFUL AND COURAGEOUS WORDS COMING FROM A RETIRED COLONEL, AND READ WHAT LINCOLN HAD TO SAY AT THE END. WOW!
33 Senators Voted Against English as America 's Official Language on June 6, 2007 .
On Wed. 6 June 2007, Colonel Harry Riley , USA , Ret. wrote:
Senators:
Your vote against an amendment to the immigration Bill 1348.... to make English America's official language is astounding.
On D-Day, no less, when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure the bedrock, character and principles of America , I can only surmise your vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens.
I don't much care where you come from. What your religion is. Whether you're black, white, or some other color...male or female......Democrat, Republican or Independent....... But I do care when you are a United States Senator representing Citizens of America ...and Vote against English as the official language of the United States
Your vote reflects Betrayal. Political Surrender. Violates Your Pledge of Allegiance. Dishonors historical principle. Rejects Patriotism. Borders on traitorous action and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United States Senator...impeachment... Recall.......Or other appropriate action is warranted, or worse.
Four of you voting against English as America 's Official Language are Presidential Candidates: Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd and Senator Obama.
Four Senators vying to lead America, but won't, or don't, have the courage to cast a vote in favor of English as America's Official Language when 91% of American Citizens want English officially designated as our language.
This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators have disgraced themselves as 'political Hacks'..... Unworthy as Senators and certainly unqualified to serve as President of the United States .
If America is as angry as I am, you will realize a backlash so stunning it will literally 'rock you out of your socks'........ And preferably totally out of the United States Senate.
The entire immigration bill is a farce... Your action only confirms this really isn't
about America ... it is about self-serving politics......despicable at best. It has been said: 'Never Argue with an Idiot....They'll drag you down to their level!'
PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAID:
'Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damages morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, quickly tried and hanged!!!"
PLEASE KEEP THIS GOING AROUND THE UNITED STATES UNTIL THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER!
33 Senators Voted Against English as America 's Official Language on June 6, 2007 .
On Wed. 6 June 2007, Colonel Harry Riley , USA , Ret. wrote:
Senators:
Your vote against an amendment to the immigration Bill 1348.... to make English America's official language is astounding.
On D-Day, no less, when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure the bedrock, character and principles of America , I can only surmise your vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens.
I don't much care where you come from. What your religion is. Whether you're black, white, or some other color...male or female......Democrat, Republican or Independent....... But I do care when you are a United States Senator representing Citizens of America ...and Vote against English as the official language of the United States
Your vote reflects Betrayal. Political Surrender. Violates Your Pledge of Allegiance. Dishonors historical principle. Rejects Patriotism. Borders on traitorous action and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United States Senator...impeachment... Recall.......Or other appropriate action is warranted, or worse.
Four of you voting against English as America 's Official Language are Presidential Candidates: Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd and Senator Obama.
Four Senators vying to lead America, but won't, or don't, have the courage to cast a vote in favor of English as America's Official Language when 91% of American Citizens want English officially designated as our language.
This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators have disgraced themselves as 'political Hacks'..... Unworthy as Senators and certainly unqualified to serve as President of the United States .
If America is as angry as I am, you will realize a backlash so stunning it will literally 'rock you out of your socks'........ And preferably totally out of the United States Senate.
The entire immigration bill is a farce... Your action only confirms this really isn't
about America ... it is about self-serving politics......despicable at best. It has been said: 'Never Argue with an Idiot....They'll drag you down to their level!'
PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAID:
'Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damages morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, quickly tried and hanged!!!"
PLEASE KEEP THIS GOING AROUND THE UNITED STATES UNTIL THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER!
Is It NBA Or NFL?
Is It NBA Or NFL?
36
have been accused of spousal abuse
7
have been arrested for fraud
19
have been accused of writing bad checks
117
have directly or indirectly
bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3
have done time for assault
71,
repeat
71 cannot
get a credit card due to bad credit
14
have been arrested on drug-related charges
8
have been arrested for shoplifting
21
currently
are defendants in lawsuits, and
84
have been arrested for drunk driving
in the last year
Can
you guess which organization this is?
Give
up yet? . . Scroll down,
Neither,
it's the 435 members of the
United States Congress
The same group of Idiots that crank out
hundreds of new laws each year
designed to keep the rest of us in line.
You
gotta pass this one on!
=
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find phone numbers fast with the New AOL Yellow Pages!
36
have been accused of spousal abuse
7
have been arrested for fraud
19
have been accused of writing bad checks
117
have directly or indirectly
bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3
have done time for assault
71,
repeat
71 cannot
get a credit card due to bad credit
14
have been arrested on drug-related charges
8
have been arrested for shoplifting
21
currently
are defendants in lawsuits, and
84
have been arrested for drunk driving
in the last year
Can
you guess which organization this is?
Give
up yet? . . Scroll down,
Neither,
it's the 435 members of the
United States Congress
The same group of Idiots that crank out
hundreds of new laws each year
designed to keep the rest of us in line.
You
gotta pass this one on!
=
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find phone numbers fast with the New AOL Yellow Pages!
October 2, 2008
Congress Needs An Ethics Bailout
Congress Needs An Ethics Bailout
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 01, 2008 4:20 AM PT
Public Trust: As members of Congress grab $700 billion from taxpayers' pockets for bad loans — encouraged for decades by the laws they passed — who will rescue them from ethical bankruptcy?
After the 2006 election giving Democrats a majority in both Houses of Congress for the first time in more than a decade, the incoming speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, promised that "the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history."
It hasn't turned out that way. Barely a month before presidential and congressional elections comes a cherry on top of the layers of congressional Democratic ethical lapses of the 110th Congress — a new scandal involving the speaker's own campaign cash.
The Washington Times reports that over the past decade, the speaker funneled $99,000 in rent, utilities and accounting charges from her political action committee to Financial Leasing Services, a real estate and investment firm owned by her husband, Paul Pelosi — a practice the House voted to ban last year with Pelosi's support (after which the bill failed in the Senate).
Since her husband became treasurer of the speaker's PAC to the Future, the payments have quadrupled, according to Federal Election Commission records.
According to the Times, the PAC's rent grew to four times what it was early this year; a Pelosi senior adviser told the paper this was due to San Francisco's expensive real estate market.
Placing spouses on their campaign and PAC payrolls was one of the key attacks Democrats made against Republicans in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, most notably during their successful 2006 campaign. The Pelosi revelations come four years after Team Majority, another Pelosi PAC, was fined $21,000 by the FEC for exceeding the legal limit on campaign contributions.
Pumping cash from your own campaign to your husband's firm is a strange way of trying to turn the institution over which Pelosi presides into the "most ethical Congress in history."
But then taking to the House floor last week in the face of a market meltdown and delivering a fallacious rant against "the Bush Administration's failed economic policies . . . built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system" was a strange way for a speaker of the House to try to gain passage of what was supposed to be a bipartisan financial rescue plan.
What both the speaker's new scandal and her reflexive partisanship show is that this Democratic Congress is not concerned about ethics, nor is it interested in working together with either the president or the minority party in Congress to solve problems.
House Democrats chose as their leader Nancy Pelosi, whose San Francisco congressional district is one of the most radical in the country, for the sake of grabbing and keeping power in the most effective way possible, and wielding that power to enact left-wing ideology into law. And, if possible, destroy or cripple the Bush presidency while they're at it.
The most ethical Congress in history?
With Chris Dodd, D-Conn., still serving as Senate Banking Committee chairman, who took a sweetheart loan deal from Countrywide mortgage? With Kent Conrad, D-N.D., still Senate Budget Committee chairman, who did the same?
How about Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., whose freezer in his Washington, D.C., home was found by the FBI to contain $90,000 in cash? He may be indicted by a grand jury on 16 corruption charges, but he still takes to the floor of the House of Representatives and votes as a member of this self-styled most ethical Congress ever.
Adding mirth to the muck, Jefferson was reportedly pressured, unsuccessfully, to resign his House Ways and Means Committee seat by none other than that panel's chairman, Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. (Jefferson was later thrown off). Maybe that's what Rangel was busy with when he forgot to report to the IRS the $75,000 in rental income for his Dominican Republic beach house. No sign of scandal shaming Rangel into stepping down.
Voters will have no shortage of things to think about as they step into the voting booth next month. One of them should be the Democratic Congress' shattered promise of setting and keeping the highest ethical standards.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 01, 2008 4:20 AM PT
Public Trust: As members of Congress grab $700 billion from taxpayers' pockets for bad loans — encouraged for decades by the laws they passed — who will rescue them from ethical bankruptcy?
After the 2006 election giving Democrats a majority in both Houses of Congress for the first time in more than a decade, the incoming speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, promised that "the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history."
It hasn't turned out that way. Barely a month before presidential and congressional elections comes a cherry on top of the layers of congressional Democratic ethical lapses of the 110th Congress — a new scandal involving the speaker's own campaign cash.
The Washington Times reports that over the past decade, the speaker funneled $99,000 in rent, utilities and accounting charges from her political action committee to Financial Leasing Services, a real estate and investment firm owned by her husband, Paul Pelosi — a practice the House voted to ban last year with Pelosi's support (after which the bill failed in the Senate).
Since her husband became treasurer of the speaker's PAC to the Future, the payments have quadrupled, according to Federal Election Commission records.
According to the Times, the PAC's rent grew to four times what it was early this year; a Pelosi senior adviser told the paper this was due to San Francisco's expensive real estate market.
Placing spouses on their campaign and PAC payrolls was one of the key attacks Democrats made against Republicans in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, most notably during their successful 2006 campaign. The Pelosi revelations come four years after Team Majority, another Pelosi PAC, was fined $21,000 by the FEC for exceeding the legal limit on campaign contributions.
Pumping cash from your own campaign to your husband's firm is a strange way of trying to turn the institution over which Pelosi presides into the "most ethical Congress in history."
But then taking to the House floor last week in the face of a market meltdown and delivering a fallacious rant against "the Bush Administration's failed economic policies . . . built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system" was a strange way for a speaker of the House to try to gain passage of what was supposed to be a bipartisan financial rescue plan.
What both the speaker's new scandal and her reflexive partisanship show is that this Democratic Congress is not concerned about ethics, nor is it interested in working together with either the president or the minority party in Congress to solve problems.
House Democrats chose as their leader Nancy Pelosi, whose San Francisco congressional district is one of the most radical in the country, for the sake of grabbing and keeping power in the most effective way possible, and wielding that power to enact left-wing ideology into law. And, if possible, destroy or cripple the Bush presidency while they're at it.
The most ethical Congress in history?
With Chris Dodd, D-Conn., still serving as Senate Banking Committee chairman, who took a sweetheart loan deal from Countrywide mortgage? With Kent Conrad, D-N.D., still Senate Budget Committee chairman, who did the same?
How about Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., whose freezer in his Washington, D.C., home was found by the FBI to contain $90,000 in cash? He may be indicted by a grand jury on 16 corruption charges, but he still takes to the floor of the House of Representatives and votes as a member of this self-styled most ethical Congress ever.
Adding mirth to the muck, Jefferson was reportedly pressured, unsuccessfully, to resign his House Ways and Means Committee seat by none other than that panel's chairman, Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. (Jefferson was later thrown off). Maybe that's what Rangel was busy with when he forgot to report to the IRS the $75,000 in rental income for his Dominican Republic beach house. No sign of scandal shaming Rangel into stepping down.
Voters will have no shortage of things to think about as they step into the voting booth next month. One of them should be the Democratic Congress' shattered promise of setting and keeping the highest ethical standards.
Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign
The article below was written by Kenneth Timmerman, President and director of the Middle East Data Project. He has authored a number of books including Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown in Iran. For his work in exposing the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear weapons program, he was nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. Mr. Timmerman is also a member of the Board of Advisors of our sister organization, American Congress for Truth.
Timmerman's article reveals extremely disturbing evidence that foreign nationals from the Muslim world are trying to influence our presidential election through illegal contributions to the Barack Obama campaign. We're not talking a few dollars here. As Timmerman notes, the Federal Election Commission has compiled a list of questionable foreign contributions totaling nearly $34,000,000! We urge you to read the entire article.
The "mainstream media" has virtually ignored this issue, in spite of the many, many news reports coming out of the Middle East and Muslim world that document the strong support Barack Obama has there. On WABC radio, April 13, 2008, Ahmed Yousef, political advisor for the Hamas terrorist organization, said "We like Mr. Obama and hope that he will win the election..." There have been reports that Hamas was running phone banks into the U.S. during the Democratic nomination campaign urging American Muslims to vote for Obama.
It's bad enough that billions in Saudi money have been spent to set up Middle East studies programs on American college campuses that indoctrinate students in a whitewashed, sanitized version of Islam that covers up its violent history and the supremacist doctrines of political Islam.
Have we reached a point where petro-dollars in the hands of Muslim foreign nationals are trying to buy a presidential election as well? Whether one supports Obama or McCain is not the issue. If there's evidence of massive amounts of foreign contributions to McCain, we'll report that.
The issue is we are Americans first, and the prospect of foreign nationals trying to illegally influence our election process should be something that every American should oppose and want exposed, regardless of political party affiliation or candidate preference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign
Monday, September 29, 2008 9:23 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size
More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.
And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.
Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.
But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.
The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.
But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.
Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).
Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.
Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.
“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”
The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.
It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.
Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting.
But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money.
“We feel comfortable that it isn’t the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign,” he told Newsmax.
But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors.
Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.
“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”
The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud.
But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse.
“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.
Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum.
FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro
When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaign’s finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor.
Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to “redesignate” contributions in excess of the finance limits.
Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.
Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”
A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.
In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.
Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.
There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.
In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there’s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.
Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.
But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by “VCX” and that his profession was “VCVC.”
Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600.
Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date.
In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later.
In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each.
Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodad’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965.
Foreign Donations
And then there are the overseas donations — at least, the ones that we know about.
The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.
More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.
But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.
Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.
With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.
In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.
At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.
The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter.
Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities.
In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.
“All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..."
Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.
The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200.
Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to “root out fraud,” including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online.
One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store.
In response to an investigation conducted by blogger Pamela Geller, who runs the blog Atlas Shrugs, the Obama campaign has locked down the store.
Geller first revealed on July 31 that donors from the Gaza strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.
The online campaign store allows buyers to complete their purchases by making an additional donation to the Obama campaign.
A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show.
Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign’s year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned.
The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30.
The Edwan brothers listed their address as “GA,” as in Georgia, although they entered “Gaza” or “Rafah Refugee camp” as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms.
According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made.
Many of the Edwan brothers’ contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups.
The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December.
A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million.
But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date.
Many of the small donors participated in online “matching” programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs.
The Obama Web site described the matching contribution program as similar to a public radio fundraising drive.
“Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight,” campaign manager David Plouffe e-mailed supporters on Sept. 15. “And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate.”
FEC spokesman Biersack said he was unfamiliar with the matching donation drive. But he said that if donations from another donor were going to be reassigned to a new donor, as the campaign suggested, “the two people must agree” to do so.
This type of matching drive probably would be legal as long as the matching donor had not exceeded the $2,300 per-election limit, he said.
Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, “We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program.”
Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous — and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timmerman's article reveals extremely disturbing evidence that foreign nationals from the Muslim world are trying to influence our presidential election through illegal contributions to the Barack Obama campaign. We're not talking a few dollars here. As Timmerman notes, the Federal Election Commission has compiled a list of questionable foreign contributions totaling nearly $34,000,000! We urge you to read the entire article.
The "mainstream media" has virtually ignored this issue, in spite of the many, many news reports coming out of the Middle East and Muslim world that document the strong support Barack Obama has there. On WABC radio, April 13, 2008, Ahmed Yousef, political advisor for the Hamas terrorist organization, said "We like Mr. Obama and hope that he will win the election..." There have been reports that Hamas was running phone banks into the U.S. during the Democratic nomination campaign urging American Muslims to vote for Obama.
It's bad enough that billions in Saudi money have been spent to set up Middle East studies programs on American college campuses that indoctrinate students in a whitewashed, sanitized version of Islam that covers up its violent history and the supremacist doctrines of political Islam.
Have we reached a point where petro-dollars in the hands of Muslim foreign nationals are trying to buy a presidential election as well? Whether one supports Obama or McCain is not the issue. If there's evidence of massive amounts of foreign contributions to McCain, we'll report that.
The issue is we are Americans first, and the prospect of foreign nationals trying to illegally influence our election process should be something that every American should oppose and want exposed, regardless of political party affiliation or candidate preference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign
Monday, September 29, 2008 9:23 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size
More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.
And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.
Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.
But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.
The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.
But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.
Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).
Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.
Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.
“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”
The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.
It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.
Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting.
But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money.
“We feel comfortable that it isn’t the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign,” he told Newsmax.
But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors.
Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.
“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”
The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud.
But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse.
“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.
Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum.
FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro
When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaign’s finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor.
Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to “redesignate” contributions in excess of the finance limits.
Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.
Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”
A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.
In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.
Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.
There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.
In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there’s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.
Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.
But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by “VCX” and that his profession was “VCVC.”
Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600.
Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date.
In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later.
In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each.
Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodad’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965.
Foreign Donations
And then there are the overseas donations — at least, the ones that we know about.
The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.
More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.
But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.
Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.
With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.
In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.
At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.
The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter.
Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities.
In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.
“All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..."
Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.
The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200.
Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to “root out fraud,” including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online.
One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store.
In response to an investigation conducted by blogger Pamela Geller, who runs the blog Atlas Shrugs, the Obama campaign has locked down the store.
Geller first revealed on July 31 that donors from the Gaza strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.
The online campaign store allows buyers to complete their purchases by making an additional donation to the Obama campaign.
A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show.
Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign’s year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned.
The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30.
The Edwan brothers listed their address as “GA,” as in Georgia, although they entered “Gaza” or “Rafah Refugee camp” as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms.
According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made.
Many of the Edwan brothers’ contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups.
The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December.
A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million.
But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date.
Many of the small donors participated in online “matching” programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs.
The Obama Web site described the matching contribution program as similar to a public radio fundraising drive.
“Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight,” campaign manager David Plouffe e-mailed supporters on Sept. 15. “And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate.”
FEC spokesman Biersack said he was unfamiliar with the matching donation drive. But he said that if donations from another donor were going to be reassigned to a new donor, as the campaign suggested, “the two people must agree” to do so.
This type of matching drive probably would be legal as long as the matching donor had not exceeded the $2,300 per-election limit, he said.
Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, “We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program.”
Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous — and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 1, 2008
McCain Must Make His Move
McCain Must Make His Move
Wednesday, October 1, 2008 3:09 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Trailing six points in Rasmussen's poll, having fallen four points since he suspended his campaign last week, the question for John McCain is, Haven't you learned anything?
His failure to do much of anything in Washington, after teasing the whole country and riveting its attention on him by suspending his campaign, has let the voters down — and they are turning away from McCain.
But there is still time for him to make his move. The House Republicans bought McCain another shot by turning down the $700 billion bailout package on Monday. With no House vote scheduled until Thursday, McCain still has time to do the right thing.
He should publicly announce his support for the House Republican alternative package of insurance, loans and tax changes to deal with the financial crisis. He should attack Barack Obama and the Democrats for supporting the use of tax money for a massive bailout when the same purpose can be accomplished by other, cheaper means.
McCain should draw a line in the sand and take a firm position.
The Democrats are not prepared to pass their bailout proposal by themselves. If they were, they would have done so on Monday.
Instead, they withheld the votes of their most vulnerable congressmen and let the package fail. If the Republican Party poses a united front in the House, with McCain's leadership, the Democrats will have to fall in line. They cannot not do anything. By taking a firm line, McCain can turn the whole process around to his, and his country's, advantage.
Who would have imagined that John McCain would lose the election because he had a failure of courage at the last minute? Who would have guessed that he would fail to stand on principle for fear of being criticized and would fail as a result? If John McCain is to lose this election, let it at least be fighting for principle, as he has done throughout his storied career.
By backing an alternative, McCain forces Obama to defend the Democratic/Bush package. He can tie Obama to Bush and to the Washington insider/Wall Street crowd. He can give his populism a programmatic reality and a topical relevance. Obama would have to spend the rest of the election defending the $700 billion turkey the length and breadth of the country.
America detests the bailout package. Polls show better than 2-to-1 opposition. Were McCain and the Republicans able to project that there is another alternative that works, the opposition would swell to even greater proportions.
Obama and the Democrats could cite the views of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and Wall Street executives that the Republican relief package would be too little, too late. But voters can be pardoned for skepticism. Paulson, a few years removed from Wall Street, and Democrats, in hock to the street for campaign contributions, are naturally eager to get their hands on $700 billion. If Obama lends himself to that cause, it could cost him the election.
McCain needs to have the courage to free himself from the web of Washington deals and take a principled stand for the right side and stay there. Then the inevitable dynamics of the process will bring the country around to him.
Otherwise, his campaign will have missed the opportunity to draw the kind of clear issue that would have gotten him elected president.
It is admirable to see a candidate of principle and conviction lose an election by standing on his beliefs. It is sickening to see one lose by abandoning them.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Wednesday, October 1, 2008 3:09 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Trailing six points in Rasmussen's poll, having fallen four points since he suspended his campaign last week, the question for John McCain is, Haven't you learned anything?
His failure to do much of anything in Washington, after teasing the whole country and riveting its attention on him by suspending his campaign, has let the voters down — and they are turning away from McCain.
But there is still time for him to make his move. The House Republicans bought McCain another shot by turning down the $700 billion bailout package on Monday. With no House vote scheduled until Thursday, McCain still has time to do the right thing.
He should publicly announce his support for the House Republican alternative package of insurance, loans and tax changes to deal with the financial crisis. He should attack Barack Obama and the Democrats for supporting the use of tax money for a massive bailout when the same purpose can be accomplished by other, cheaper means.
McCain should draw a line in the sand and take a firm position.
The Democrats are not prepared to pass their bailout proposal by themselves. If they were, they would have done so on Monday.
Instead, they withheld the votes of their most vulnerable congressmen and let the package fail. If the Republican Party poses a united front in the House, with McCain's leadership, the Democrats will have to fall in line. They cannot not do anything. By taking a firm line, McCain can turn the whole process around to his, and his country's, advantage.
Who would have imagined that John McCain would lose the election because he had a failure of courage at the last minute? Who would have guessed that he would fail to stand on principle for fear of being criticized and would fail as a result? If John McCain is to lose this election, let it at least be fighting for principle, as he has done throughout his storied career.
By backing an alternative, McCain forces Obama to defend the Democratic/Bush package. He can tie Obama to Bush and to the Washington insider/Wall Street crowd. He can give his populism a programmatic reality and a topical relevance. Obama would have to spend the rest of the election defending the $700 billion turkey the length and breadth of the country.
America detests the bailout package. Polls show better than 2-to-1 opposition. Were McCain and the Republicans able to project that there is another alternative that works, the opposition would swell to even greater proportions.
Obama and the Democrats could cite the views of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and Wall Street executives that the Republican relief package would be too little, too late. But voters can be pardoned for skepticism. Paulson, a few years removed from Wall Street, and Democrats, in hock to the street for campaign contributions, are naturally eager to get their hands on $700 billion. If Obama lends himself to that cause, it could cost him the election.
McCain needs to have the courage to free himself from the web of Washington deals and take a principled stand for the right side and stay there. Then the inevitable dynamics of the process will bring the country around to him.
Otherwise, his campaign will have missed the opportunity to draw the kind of clear issue that would have gotten him elected president.
It is admirable to see a candidate of principle and conviction lose an election by standing on his beliefs. It is sickening to see one lose by abandoning them.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
3 former Fannie Mae executives
THESE THREE CORRUPT INDIVIDUALS THAT HELPED BRING DOWN FANNIE MAE ARE NOW WORKING HAND IN GLOVE WITH THE PERSON THAT WILL SURELY BRING SOCIALISM TO THE US. THINK ABOUT HOW YOU VOTE.
Here is a quick look into 3 former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street.
Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregulaties in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, " Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that "mistakes were made" and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years." Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion.
Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits.
The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner." These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,"
On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004.
Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae.
Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES?
Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor
TIM HOWARD?
Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama
JIM JOHNSON?
Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee
Here is a quick look into 3 former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street.
Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregulaties in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, " Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that "mistakes were made" and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years." Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion.
Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits.
The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner." These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,"
On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004.
Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae.
Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES?
Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor
TIM HOWARD?
Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama
JIM JOHNSON?
Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee
September 30, 2008
ACORN's Senator
THIS IS THE GROUP THAT IN ESSENCE IS THE PIVOT POINT FOR OBAMA'S PLAN FOR THE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN THE US. SO WATCH IT.
ACORN's Senator
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama wasn't just the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac political contributions. He was also the senator from ACORN, the activist leader for risky "affirmative action" loans.
Despite efforts to blame the rescue bill's failure on the GOP, it should be remembered that 95 Democrats — some 40% of the Democratic Caucus — withheld support. Obama himself also deserves blame — not only for the bill's failure, but also for the crisis it was designed to solve.
As the New York Times reports, "Aides to Mr. Obama said he had not directly reached out to try to sway any House Democrats who opposed the measure." Is the reason the fact that the slush fund for ACORN in the original bill, siphoning off 20% of any future profits for such activist groups, was trimmed from the tree?
Obama, who once represented ACORN in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois, was hired by the group to train its community organizers and staff in the methods and tactics of the late Saul Alinsky. ACORN would stage in-your-face protests in bank lobbies, drive-through lanes and even at bank managers' homes to get them to issue risky loans in the inner city or face charges of racism.
In the early 1990s, reports Stanley Kurtz, senior fellow at the Ethics and Policy Center, Obama was personally recruited by Chicago's ACORN to run training sessions in "direct action." That's the euphemism for the techniques used under the cover of the federal Community Reinvestment Act to intimidate financial institutions into giving what have been called "Ninja" loans — no income, no job, no assets — to people who couldn't afford them.
CRA was designed to increase minority homeownership. Whenever a bank wanted to grow or expand, ACORN would file complaints that it was not sufficiently sensitive to the needs of minorities in providing home loans. Agitators would then be unleashed.
Chicago's ACORN used Alinsky's tactics against institutions such as Bell Federal Savings and Loan and Avondale Federal Savings. In September 1992, the Chicago Tribune described the group's agenda as "affirmative action lending."
Obama also helped ACORN get funding. When he served on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, the Woods Fund frequently gave ACORN grants to fund its activist agenda.
In 1995, Kurtz reports, Obama chaired the committee that increased funding of ACORN and other community organizers. The committee report boasted that the fund's "non-ideological" image "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and governmental 'establishments' without undue risk of being accused of partisanship."
The CRA empowered regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority and distressed neighborhoods." It gave groups such as ACORN a license and a means to intimidate banks, claiming they were "redlining" poor and minority neighborhoods. ACORN employed its tactics in 1991 by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA.
As a former White House staff economist writes in the American Thinker, Obama represented ACORN in a 1994 suit against redlining. ACORN was also a driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton administration that greatly expanded the CRA and helped spawn the current financial crisis.
Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. Last November, he told the group, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career." Indeed he has. Obama was and is fully aware of what ACORN was doing with the money and expertise he provided. The voters should be aware on Nov. 4 of the roles of both in creating the current crisis.
ACORN's Senator
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Barack Obama wasn't just the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac political contributions. He was also the senator from ACORN, the activist leader for risky "affirmative action" loans.
Despite efforts to blame the rescue bill's failure on the GOP, it should be remembered that 95 Democrats — some 40% of the Democratic Caucus — withheld support. Obama himself also deserves blame — not only for the bill's failure, but also for the crisis it was designed to solve.
As the New York Times reports, "Aides to Mr. Obama said he had not directly reached out to try to sway any House Democrats who opposed the measure." Is the reason the fact that the slush fund for ACORN in the original bill, siphoning off 20% of any future profits for such activist groups, was trimmed from the tree?
Obama, who once represented ACORN in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois, was hired by the group to train its community organizers and staff in the methods and tactics of the late Saul Alinsky. ACORN would stage in-your-face protests in bank lobbies, drive-through lanes and even at bank managers' homes to get them to issue risky loans in the inner city or face charges of racism.
In the early 1990s, reports Stanley Kurtz, senior fellow at the Ethics and Policy Center, Obama was personally recruited by Chicago's ACORN to run training sessions in "direct action." That's the euphemism for the techniques used under the cover of the federal Community Reinvestment Act to intimidate financial institutions into giving what have been called "Ninja" loans — no income, no job, no assets — to people who couldn't afford them.
CRA was designed to increase minority homeownership. Whenever a bank wanted to grow or expand, ACORN would file complaints that it was not sufficiently sensitive to the needs of minorities in providing home loans. Agitators would then be unleashed.
Chicago's ACORN used Alinsky's tactics against institutions such as Bell Federal Savings and Loan and Avondale Federal Savings. In September 1992, the Chicago Tribune described the group's agenda as "affirmative action lending."
Obama also helped ACORN get funding. When he served on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, the Woods Fund frequently gave ACORN grants to fund its activist agenda.
In 1995, Kurtz reports, Obama chaired the committee that increased funding of ACORN and other community organizers. The committee report boasted that the fund's "non-ideological" image "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and governmental 'establishments' without undue risk of being accused of partisanship."
The CRA empowered regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority and distressed neighborhoods." It gave groups such as ACORN a license and a means to intimidate banks, claiming they were "redlining" poor and minority neighborhoods. ACORN employed its tactics in 1991 by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA.
As a former White House staff economist writes in the American Thinker, Obama represented ACORN in a 1994 suit against redlining. ACORN was also a driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton administration that greatly expanded the CRA and helped spawn the current financial crisis.
Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. Last November, he told the group, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career." Indeed he has. Obama was and is fully aware of what ACORN was doing with the money and expertise he provided. The voters should be aware on Nov. 4 of the roles of both in creating the current crisis.
Oppose Bailout That ‘Nationalizes’ Bad Mortgages
CNSNews.com
Pence Calls on Conservatives to Oppose Bailout That ‘Nationalizes’ Bad Mortgages
Sunday, September 28, 2008
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, left, talks with Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid, D- Nev., during a newss conference on the financial crisis Sunday, Sept. 28, 2008 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) is calling on conservatives to oppose the $700 billion financial industry bailout negotiated over the weekend because he believes it will permanently change the relationship between the government and the financial sector while giving the government the power to “nationalize almost every bad mortgage” in the country.
The $700-billion deal negotiated by the Bush Administration and congressional leaders of both parties over the weekend includes a mandate that the secretary of the Treasury work to bailout people who bought a house they could not afford by changing the terms of their mortgages or by providing them with other financial guarantees.
A summary of the bill published by the Senate banking committee on Sunday said the proposal “requires the Treasury to modify troubled loans--many the result of predatory lending practices--wherever possible to help American families keep their homes. It also directs other federal agencies to modify loans that they own or control.”
Section 109 of the proposed law is entitled “Mortgage Mitigation Efforts.” Section 110 is entitled “Assistance to Homeowners.” They address what the Treasury Department and other federal agencies must do about the mortgages that will be among the assets the government buys from financial institutions with the $700 billion in bailout money authorized by the bill.
The actual text of the proposed law says: “To the extent that the Federal property manager holds, owns, or controls mortgages, mortgage backed securities, and other assets secured by residential real estate, including multi-family housing, the Federal property manager shall implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use its authority to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages, and considering net present value to the taxpayer, to take advantage of the HOPE for Homeowners Program under section 257 of the National Housing Act or other available programs to minimize foreclosures.”
House Republican Leader, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Republican Whip, Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., speak to reporters after a lengthy House Republican conference meeting regarding legislation on the financial crisis Sunday, Sept. 28, 2008 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)“In the case of a residential mortgage loan,” the proposed law continues, “modifications made … may include: (A) reduction in interest rates; (B) reduction of loan principal; and (C) other similar modifications.”
The House Financial Services Committee released an explanation of these sections of the bill that mirrored the Senate Banking Committee’s explanation.
The bill authorizes the secretary of the Treasury to create an entity called the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to buy up mortgages and mortgage-backed securities from financial institutions, the Financial Services Committee explained.
Under the “mortgage mitigation” section of the bill, the committee’s explanation says, the secretary must turn around and find ways to ease the terms of the mortgages of people who purchased homes they cannot afford.
“For mortgages and mortgage-backed securities acquired through TARP, the Secretary must implement a plan to mitigate foreclosures and to encourage servicers of mortgages to modify loans through Hope for Homeowners and other programs,” says the committee’s explanation. “Allows the Secretary to use loan guarantees and credit enhancement to avoid foreclosures. Requires the Secretary to coordinate with other federal entities that hold troubled assets in order to identify opportunities to modify loans, considering net present value to the taxpayer.”
The “Assistance to Homeowners” section of the bill would require other federal agencies that deal with the mortgages and mortgage-backed securities bought up by the government with bailout money to do the same.
The bill, says the Financial Services Committee, “[r]equires federal entities that hold mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, including the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve to develop plans to minimize foreclosures. Requires federal entities to work with servicers to encourage loan modifications, considering net present value to the taxpayer.”
On Sunday, Pence (R-Ind.) sent a letter to his House colleagues urging them to oppose the bill.
“We now have a deal that promises to bring near-term stability to our financial turmoil, but at what price?” asked Pence.
“Economic freedom means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. The decision to give the federal government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts this basic truth of our free market economy,” said Pence.
“Republicans improved this bill but it remains the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector, and passes the cost along to the American people. I cannot support it,” said Pence.
“Before you vote, ask yourself why you came here and vote with courage and integrity to those principles,” said Pence. “If you came here because you believe in limited government and the freedom of the American marketplace, vote in accordance with those convictions.”
“Now we need to finish the race and make sure that posterity and the American people know there were conservatives who opposed the leviathan state in this dark hour,” said Pence.
According to a report in the New York Times, Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee flatly refused to even participate in the negotiations for the bill.
“I didn’t want to be in the negotiations because I object to the basic principles of this,” said Shelby, according to the Times. The paper said that when Shelby was pressed about his position, he said: “My position is no.”
President Bush applauded the members of Congress who worked to make the deal happen and called it a very good deal.
“I appreciate the leadership shown by Members on both sides of the aisle, who came together to write a very good bill,” said Bush in a statement released by the White House. “This bill provides the necessary tools and funding to help protect our economy against a system-wide breakdown. The bill will help allow access to credit so American families can meet their daily needs and American businesses can make purchases, ship goods, and meet their payrolls.”
Bush expressed confidence that the bill would become law.
“Members of Congress will vote on this legislation soon,” the president said. “This is a difficult vote, but with the improvements made to the bill, I am confident Congress will do what is best for our economy by approving this legislation promptly.”
Both major-party presidential candidates expressed general support for the deal.
"[R]egardless of how we got here, a failure to deal with the current crisis would have devastating consequences for our economy, costing millions of Americans their jobs and retirement security,” Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominees, said in a statement posted on his campaign website.
"That is why over the past ten days, in conversations with the President, Secretary of Treasury and leaders of Congress, I laid out the four core principles I believed had to guide any solution: oversight by an independent board; protections for taxpayers to ensure that they are treated like investors and that they receive any profits--and recoup any losses--from this plan; measures to help homeowners stay in their homes; and rules to make sure CEOs are not being rewarded at taxpayers' expense,” stated Obama. “While I look forward to reviewing the language of the legislation, it appears that the tentative deal embraces these principles.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) the Republican presidential nominee, appeared on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” before the final details of the deal were revealed. However, he stated his basic support for the deal when asked by Stephanopoulos.
“I, again, I would like to see the details, but hopefully, yes,” said McCain. “And the outlines that I have read of it, that this is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with. The option of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable option.”
Stephanopoulos asked McCain if his “principles” had been met by the deal.
“Yes. Yes,” said McCain. “Protect the taxpayer. Make sure that there isn’t excessive compensation for CEOs. A oversight body, not leaving all the decisions in the hands of one individual. There are other provisions that I think are met here. And, frankly, I think the people up on the Hill deserve great credit that conducted these negotiations, I think [Treasury] Secretary [Henry] Paulson does. And I think we saw both a bipartisan and bicameral approach to this that is welcome.”
The bill is expected to come up for a vote in the House and Monday and could move through the Senate as early as Wednesday.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-2 of 2 Comments Loading...
edeldoug at 10:58 AM - September 29, 2008
Isn't it funny? The HATED GWBush is now lauded as the one with THE Answer? And the Dems are RUSHING to vote WITH BUSH? And the Conservatives are the ones standing in opposition to PROTECT Main Street FROM Wall Street? Say NO DEAL! No deal that doesn't REMOVE the requirements to MAKE these bad loans. No deal that doesn't ELIMINATE Mark to Market. No deal that offers Taxpayer Dollars to Paulson to buy bad paper. No deal that gives ANYTHING to ACORN! The markets don't want a FAST deal... they want a GOOD FIX.
Elblogo at 09:31 AM - September 29, 2008
We are doing nothing but the same thing over and our Congress critters are trying to protect their friends and their own spoils. Congress must be stopped from destroying America.
Related Articles
Britain's Conservatives See Huge Lead in Polls
Chavez Says Crisis Is Failure of Capitalism
Treasury Could Begin Spending $1 Trillion on Bailout Without Congressional Approval, McCain Says
Parties Blame Each Other for Bailout’s Failure
Defeat of Bailout Seen As Victory for ‘New and Alternative Media’
White House, Lawmakers Plan New Bailout Deal
Serbia, Kosovo Target Islamic Nations Ahead of Key U.N. Vote
MLK’s Niece: Planned Parenthood Lied to Me
Related Videos
Dems Justify Gov't Buying Bad Mortgages, Easing Terms
Bill Clinton: Bailout Could Be Profitable
Newt Gingrich: 'Elite Media Is Totally Pro-Obama'
...
The CNSNews.com E-Brief is a free publication delivered once daily, Monday through Friday, to your e-mail account. CNSNews.com will occasionally issue "special" E-Briefs as news events warrant. View a sample E-brief.
News • CNSNews TV • Commentary • Cartoons • Subscribe • Donate • RSS Feed
Pence Calls on Conservatives to Oppose Bailout That ‘Nationalizes’ Bad Mortgages
Sunday, September 28, 2008
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, left, talks with Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid, D- Nev., during a newss conference on the financial crisis Sunday, Sept. 28, 2008 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) is calling on conservatives to oppose the $700 billion financial industry bailout negotiated over the weekend because he believes it will permanently change the relationship between the government and the financial sector while giving the government the power to “nationalize almost every bad mortgage” in the country.
The $700-billion deal negotiated by the Bush Administration and congressional leaders of both parties over the weekend includes a mandate that the secretary of the Treasury work to bailout people who bought a house they could not afford by changing the terms of their mortgages or by providing them with other financial guarantees.
A summary of the bill published by the Senate banking committee on Sunday said the proposal “requires the Treasury to modify troubled loans--many the result of predatory lending practices--wherever possible to help American families keep their homes. It also directs other federal agencies to modify loans that they own or control.”
Section 109 of the proposed law is entitled “Mortgage Mitigation Efforts.” Section 110 is entitled “Assistance to Homeowners.” They address what the Treasury Department and other federal agencies must do about the mortgages that will be among the assets the government buys from financial institutions with the $700 billion in bailout money authorized by the bill.
The actual text of the proposed law says: “To the extent that the Federal property manager holds, owns, or controls mortgages, mortgage backed securities, and other assets secured by residential real estate, including multi-family housing, the Federal property manager shall implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use its authority to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages, and considering net present value to the taxpayer, to take advantage of the HOPE for Homeowners Program under section 257 of the National Housing Act or other available programs to minimize foreclosures.”
House Republican Leader, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Republican Whip, Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., speak to reporters after a lengthy House Republican conference meeting regarding legislation on the financial crisis Sunday, Sept. 28, 2008 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)“In the case of a residential mortgage loan,” the proposed law continues, “modifications made … may include: (A) reduction in interest rates; (B) reduction of loan principal; and (C) other similar modifications.”
The House Financial Services Committee released an explanation of these sections of the bill that mirrored the Senate Banking Committee’s explanation.
The bill authorizes the secretary of the Treasury to create an entity called the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to buy up mortgages and mortgage-backed securities from financial institutions, the Financial Services Committee explained.
Under the “mortgage mitigation” section of the bill, the committee’s explanation says, the secretary must turn around and find ways to ease the terms of the mortgages of people who purchased homes they cannot afford.
“For mortgages and mortgage-backed securities acquired through TARP, the Secretary must implement a plan to mitigate foreclosures and to encourage servicers of mortgages to modify loans through Hope for Homeowners and other programs,” says the committee’s explanation. “Allows the Secretary to use loan guarantees and credit enhancement to avoid foreclosures. Requires the Secretary to coordinate with other federal entities that hold troubled assets in order to identify opportunities to modify loans, considering net present value to the taxpayer.”
The “Assistance to Homeowners” section of the bill would require other federal agencies that deal with the mortgages and mortgage-backed securities bought up by the government with bailout money to do the same.
The bill, says the Financial Services Committee, “[r]equires federal entities that hold mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, including the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve to develop plans to minimize foreclosures. Requires federal entities to work with servicers to encourage loan modifications, considering net present value to the taxpayer.”
On Sunday, Pence (R-Ind.) sent a letter to his House colleagues urging them to oppose the bill.
“We now have a deal that promises to bring near-term stability to our financial turmoil, but at what price?” asked Pence.
“Economic freedom means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. The decision to give the federal government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts this basic truth of our free market economy,” said Pence.
“Republicans improved this bill but it remains the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector, and passes the cost along to the American people. I cannot support it,” said Pence.
“Before you vote, ask yourself why you came here and vote with courage and integrity to those principles,” said Pence. “If you came here because you believe in limited government and the freedom of the American marketplace, vote in accordance with those convictions.”
“Now we need to finish the race and make sure that posterity and the American people know there were conservatives who opposed the leviathan state in this dark hour,” said Pence.
According to a report in the New York Times, Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee flatly refused to even participate in the negotiations for the bill.
“I didn’t want to be in the negotiations because I object to the basic principles of this,” said Shelby, according to the Times. The paper said that when Shelby was pressed about his position, he said: “My position is no.”
President Bush applauded the members of Congress who worked to make the deal happen and called it a very good deal.
“I appreciate the leadership shown by Members on both sides of the aisle, who came together to write a very good bill,” said Bush in a statement released by the White House. “This bill provides the necessary tools and funding to help protect our economy against a system-wide breakdown. The bill will help allow access to credit so American families can meet their daily needs and American businesses can make purchases, ship goods, and meet their payrolls.”
Bush expressed confidence that the bill would become law.
“Members of Congress will vote on this legislation soon,” the president said. “This is a difficult vote, but with the improvements made to the bill, I am confident Congress will do what is best for our economy by approving this legislation promptly.”
Both major-party presidential candidates expressed general support for the deal.
"[R]egardless of how we got here, a failure to deal with the current crisis would have devastating consequences for our economy, costing millions of Americans their jobs and retirement security,” Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominees, said in a statement posted on his campaign website.
"That is why over the past ten days, in conversations with the President, Secretary of Treasury and leaders of Congress, I laid out the four core principles I believed had to guide any solution: oversight by an independent board; protections for taxpayers to ensure that they are treated like investors and that they receive any profits--and recoup any losses--from this plan; measures to help homeowners stay in their homes; and rules to make sure CEOs are not being rewarded at taxpayers' expense,” stated Obama. “While I look forward to reviewing the language of the legislation, it appears that the tentative deal embraces these principles.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) the Republican presidential nominee, appeared on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” before the final details of the deal were revealed. However, he stated his basic support for the deal when asked by Stephanopoulos.
“I, again, I would like to see the details, but hopefully, yes,” said McCain. “And the outlines that I have read of it, that this is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with. The option of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable option.”
Stephanopoulos asked McCain if his “principles” had been met by the deal.
“Yes. Yes,” said McCain. “Protect the taxpayer. Make sure that there isn’t excessive compensation for CEOs. A oversight body, not leaving all the decisions in the hands of one individual. There are other provisions that I think are met here. And, frankly, I think the people up on the Hill deserve great credit that conducted these negotiations, I think [Treasury] Secretary [Henry] Paulson does. And I think we saw both a bipartisan and bicameral approach to this that is welcome.”
The bill is expected to come up for a vote in the House and Monday and could move through the Senate as early as Wednesday.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-2 of 2 Comments Loading...
edeldoug at 10:58 AM - September 29, 2008
Isn't it funny? The HATED GWBush is now lauded as the one with THE Answer? And the Dems are RUSHING to vote WITH BUSH? And the Conservatives are the ones standing in opposition to PROTECT Main Street FROM Wall Street? Say NO DEAL! No deal that doesn't REMOVE the requirements to MAKE these bad loans. No deal that doesn't ELIMINATE Mark to Market. No deal that offers Taxpayer Dollars to Paulson to buy bad paper. No deal that gives ANYTHING to ACORN! The markets don't want a FAST deal... they want a GOOD FIX.
Elblogo at 09:31 AM - September 29, 2008
We are doing nothing but the same thing over and our Congress critters are trying to protect their friends and their own spoils. Congress must be stopped from destroying America.
Related Articles
Britain's Conservatives See Huge Lead in Polls
Chavez Says Crisis Is Failure of Capitalism
Treasury Could Begin Spending $1 Trillion on Bailout Without Congressional Approval, McCain Says
Parties Blame Each Other for Bailout’s Failure
Defeat of Bailout Seen As Victory for ‘New and Alternative Media’
White House, Lawmakers Plan New Bailout Deal
Serbia, Kosovo Target Islamic Nations Ahead of Key U.N. Vote
MLK’s Niece: Planned Parenthood Lied to Me
Related Videos
Dems Justify Gov't Buying Bad Mortgages, Easing Terms
Bill Clinton: Bailout Could Be Profitable
Newt Gingrich: 'Elite Media Is Totally Pro-Obama'
...
The CNSNews.com E-Brief is a free publication delivered once daily, Monday through Friday, to your e-mail account. CNSNews.com will occasionally issue "special" E-Briefs as news events warrant. View a sample E-brief.
News • CNSNews TV • Commentary • Cartoons • Subscribe • Donate • RSS Feed
Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign
THIS IS A MUST READ TELLS WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM FOR OBUM
Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign
Monday, September 29, 2008 9:23 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.
And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.
Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.
But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.
The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.
But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.
Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).
Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.
Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.
“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”
The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.
It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.
Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting.
But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money.
“We feel comfortable that it isn’t the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign,” he told Newsmax.
But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors.
Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.
“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”
The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud.
But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse.
“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.
Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum.
FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro
When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaign’s finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor.
Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to “redesignate” contributions in excess of the finance limits.
Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.
Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”
A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.
In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.
Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.
There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.
In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there’s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.
Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.
But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by “VCX” and that his profession was “VCVC.”
Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600.
Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date.
In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later.
In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each.
Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodad’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965.
Foreign Donations
And then there are the overseas donations — at least, the ones that we know about.
The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.
More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.
But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.
Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.
With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.
In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.
At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.
The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter.
Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities.
In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.
“All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..."
Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.
The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200.
Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to “root out fraud,” including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online.
One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store.
In response to an investigation conducted by blogger Pamela Geller, who runs the blog Atlas Shrugs, the Obama campaign has locked down the store.
Geller first revealed on July 31 that donors from the Gaza strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.
The online campaign store allows buyers to complete their purchases by making an additional donation to the Obama campaign.
A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show.
Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign’s year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned.
The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30.
The Edwan brothers listed their address as “GA,” as in Georgia, although they entered “Gaza” or “Rafah Refugee camp” as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms.
According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made.
Many of the Edwan brothers’ contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups.
The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December.
A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million.
But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date.
Many of the small donors participated in online “matching” programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs.
The Obama Web site described the matching contribution program as similar to a public radio fundraising drive.
“Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight,” campaign manager David Plouffe e-mailed supporters on Sept. 15. “And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate.”
FEC spokesman Biersack said he was unfamiliar with the matching donation drive. But he said that if donations from another donor were going to be reassigned to a new donor, as the campaign suggested, “the two people must agree” to do so.
This type of matching drive probably would be legal as long as the matching donor had not exceeded the $2,300 per-election limit, he said.
Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, “We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program.”
Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous — and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign
Monday, September 29, 2008 9:23 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.
And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.
Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.
But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.
The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.
But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.
Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).
Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.
Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.
“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”
The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.
It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.
Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting.
But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money.
“We feel comfortable that it isn’t the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign,” he told Newsmax.
But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors.
Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.
“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”
The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud.
But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse.
“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.
Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum.
FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro
When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaign’s finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor.
Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to “redesignate” contributions in excess of the finance limits.
Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.
Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”
A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.
In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.
Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.
There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.
In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there’s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.
Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.
But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by “VCX” and that his profession was “VCVC.”
Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600.
Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date.
In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later.
In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each.
Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodad’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965.
Foreign Donations
And then there are the overseas donations — at least, the ones that we know about.
The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.
More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.
But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.
Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.
With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.
In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.
At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.
The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter.
Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities.
In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.
“All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..."
Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.
The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200.
Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to “root out fraud,” including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online.
One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store.
In response to an investigation conducted by blogger Pamela Geller, who runs the blog Atlas Shrugs, the Obama campaign has locked down the store.
Geller first revealed on July 31 that donors from the Gaza strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.
The online campaign store allows buyers to complete their purchases by making an additional donation to the Obama campaign.
A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show.
Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign’s year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned.
The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30.
The Edwan brothers listed their address as “GA,” as in Georgia, although they entered “Gaza” or “Rafah Refugee camp” as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms.
According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made.
Many of the Edwan brothers’ contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups.
The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December.
A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million.
But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date.
Many of the small donors participated in online “matching” programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs.
The Obama Web site described the matching contribution program as similar to a public radio fundraising drive.
“Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight,” campaign manager David Plouffe e-mailed supporters on Sept. 15. “And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate.”
FEC spokesman Biersack said he was unfamiliar with the matching donation drive. But he said that if donations from another donor were going to be reassigned to a new donor, as the campaign suggested, “the two people must agree” to do so.
This type of matching drive probably would be legal as long as the matching donor had not exceeded the $2,300 per-election limit, he said.
Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, “We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program.”
Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous — and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
McCain Should Not Support Bailout
McCain Should Not Support Bailout
Monday, September 29, 2008 10:05 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
During Friday's debate, John McCain assiduously and inexplicably avoided using the issue that might have won him the debate and the presidency: opposition to a taxpayer-funded bailout of the financial crisis.
Congress is about to pass, and the president is about to sign, a bill that the American people detest by 2-to-1 margins. When Americans realize that there is, indeed, an alternative to handing over $700 billion to financial institutions as a reward for their failure, opposition to the idea will swell even further.
The bailout ideas proposed by the House Republicans and trumpeted by former Speaker Newt Gingrich make eminent sense. Indeed, they make so much sense that it is as if the roles of the parties have been reversed.
It is the Republicans who are demanding that the banks and financial institutions pay for their own bailout, granting them only a mixture of loans and premium-paid insurance, while the Democrats want to pass the hat among the taxpayers to buy their dirty paper.
In an unusual act of political foresight and skill, the normally dead-headed House Republican leadership has crafted a platform that can carry the party to victory in November. All that remains is for the party's candidate, and perhaps even its president and Treasury secretary, to get on board.
McCain can recover at the negotiating table the economy issue he lost in Friday's debate. He needs to have the courage of his convictions and insist on a bailout without requiring taxpayer-funded purchase of defunct mortgages from failing institutions.
The difference in the bailout plans is, of course, largely cosmetic. Dead paper is dead paper whether it is on the books of the government, purchased from banks, or on the books of the banks, insured by the government. The game is the same: Loans or grants fund the deficient debt service on the defaulted mortgages until homes can recover their value in the cyclical real estate market.
But it makes all the difference in the world politically if this task is accomplished by buying bad debt or by lending the bankers the money to cover their current losses while they keep their bad debts on their books and by insuring them against future losses.
Loans are politically viable. Purchase of bad debt with tax money is not.
The Democrats and our politically-challenged president have failed to appreciate the difference between spending and lending. Treasury Secretary Paulson can be excused for not realizing it. Politics is not his thing.
But John McCain must realize the crucial distinction and must use his leverage to stop a taxpayer-funded bailout, insisting instead on loans and insurance.
If McCain stands firm, the Democrats will either have to pass the bailout package on their own, without Republican votes, and rely on Bush's signature on the bill to provide a fig leaf of bipartisanship, or they will have to cave in and pass the Republican package.
Either way, McCain comes out ahead.
If he gets his way, he gets credit for the bailout. If he doesn't, he can spend the campaign attacking Obama and the Democrats for spending $700 billion of taxpayer money.
If the Democrats don't adopt either course and play a game of chicken with the Republicans, their congressional status as the majority party dooms them to taking the blame for any ensuing collapse.
Voters can count.
They know that Reid and Pelosi are Democrats and that they control Congress. With this power comes responsibility.
And if the Democrats do nothing — that is, if they fail to use their majorities to pass a bailout or to cooperate with the Republicans in adopting the GOP version of the package — it is they who will get the blame for the catastrophe which will follow.
The Democrats don't dare take that chance.
The cards are dealt for John McCain. All he has to do is have the guts to do what he didn't have the courage to do in the debate: Play the hand.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Monday, September 29, 2008 10:05 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
During Friday's debate, John McCain assiduously and inexplicably avoided using the issue that might have won him the debate and the presidency: opposition to a taxpayer-funded bailout of the financial crisis.
Congress is about to pass, and the president is about to sign, a bill that the American people detest by 2-to-1 margins. When Americans realize that there is, indeed, an alternative to handing over $700 billion to financial institutions as a reward for their failure, opposition to the idea will swell even further.
The bailout ideas proposed by the House Republicans and trumpeted by former Speaker Newt Gingrich make eminent sense. Indeed, they make so much sense that it is as if the roles of the parties have been reversed.
It is the Republicans who are demanding that the banks and financial institutions pay for their own bailout, granting them only a mixture of loans and premium-paid insurance, while the Democrats want to pass the hat among the taxpayers to buy their dirty paper.
In an unusual act of political foresight and skill, the normally dead-headed House Republican leadership has crafted a platform that can carry the party to victory in November. All that remains is for the party's candidate, and perhaps even its president and Treasury secretary, to get on board.
McCain can recover at the negotiating table the economy issue he lost in Friday's debate. He needs to have the courage of his convictions and insist on a bailout without requiring taxpayer-funded purchase of defunct mortgages from failing institutions.
The difference in the bailout plans is, of course, largely cosmetic. Dead paper is dead paper whether it is on the books of the government, purchased from banks, or on the books of the banks, insured by the government. The game is the same: Loans or grants fund the deficient debt service on the defaulted mortgages until homes can recover their value in the cyclical real estate market.
But it makes all the difference in the world politically if this task is accomplished by buying bad debt or by lending the bankers the money to cover their current losses while they keep their bad debts on their books and by insuring them against future losses.
Loans are politically viable. Purchase of bad debt with tax money is not.
The Democrats and our politically-challenged president have failed to appreciate the difference between spending and lending. Treasury Secretary Paulson can be excused for not realizing it. Politics is not his thing.
But John McCain must realize the crucial distinction and must use his leverage to stop a taxpayer-funded bailout, insisting instead on loans and insurance.
If McCain stands firm, the Democrats will either have to pass the bailout package on their own, without Republican votes, and rely on Bush's signature on the bill to provide a fig leaf of bipartisanship, or they will have to cave in and pass the Republican package.
Either way, McCain comes out ahead.
If he gets his way, he gets credit for the bailout. If he doesn't, he can spend the campaign attacking Obama and the Democrats for spending $700 billion of taxpayer money.
If the Democrats don't adopt either course and play a game of chicken with the Republicans, their congressional status as the majority party dooms them to taking the blame for any ensuing collapse.
Voters can count.
They know that Reid and Pelosi are Democrats and that they control Congress. With this power comes responsibility.
And if the Democrats do nothing — that is, if they fail to use their majorities to pass a bailout or to cooperate with the Republicans in adopting the GOP version of the package — it is they who will get the blame for the catastrophe which will follow.
The Democrats don't dare take that chance.
The cards are dealt for John McCain. All he has to do is have the guts to do what he didn't have the courage to do in the debate: Play the hand.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
September 29, 2008
Conservatives to Oppose Bailout
CNSNews.com
Pence Calls on Conservatives to Oppose Bailout That ‘Nationalizes’ Bad Mortgages
Sunday, September 28, 2008
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, left, talks with Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid, D- Nev., during a newss conference on the financial crisis Sunday, Sept. 28, 2008 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) is calling on conservatives to oppose the $700 billion financial industry bailout negotiated over the weekend because he believes it will permanently change the relationship between the government and the financial sector while giving the government the power to “nationalize almost every bad mortgage” in the country.
The $700-billion deal negotiated by the Bush Administration and congressional leaders of both parties over the weekend includes a mandate that the secretary of the Treasury work to bailout people who bought a house they could not afford by changing the terms of their mortgages or by providing them with other financial guarantees.
A summary of the bill published by the Senate banking committee on Sunday said the proposal “requires the Treasury to modify troubled loans--many the result of predatory lending practices--wherever possible to help American families keep their homes. It also directs other federal agencies to modify loans that they own or control.”
Section 109 of the proposed law is entitled “Mortgage Mitigation Efforts.” Section 110 is entitled “Assistance to Homeowners.” They address what the Treasury Department and other federal agencies must do about the mortgages that will be among the assets the government buys from financial institutions with the $700 billion in bailout money authorized by the bill.
The actual text of the proposed law says: “To the extent that the Federal property manager holds, owns, or controls mortgages, mortgage backed securities, and other assets secured by residential real estate, including multi-family housing, the Federal property manager shall implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use its authority to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages, and considering net present value to the taxpayer, to take advantage of the HOPE for Homeowners Program under section 257 of the National Housing Act or other available programs to minimize foreclosures.”
House Republican Leader, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Republican Whip, Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., speak to reporters after a lengthy House Republican conference meeting regarding legislation on the financial crisis Sunday, Sept. 28, 2008 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)“In the case of a residential mortgage loan,” the proposed law continues, “modifications made … may include: (A) reduction in interest rates; (B) reduction of loan principal; and (C) other similar modifications.”
The House Financial Services Committee released an explanation of these sections of the bill that mirrored the Senate Banking Committee’s explanation.
The bill authorizes the secretary of the Treasury to create an entity called the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to buy up mortgages and mortgage-backed securities from financial institutions, the Financial Services Committee explained.
Under the “mortgage mitigation” section of the bill, the committee’s explanation says, the secretary must turn around and find ways to ease the terms of the mortgages of people who purchased homes they cannot afford.
“For mortgages and mortgage-backed securities acquired through TARP, the Secretary must implement a plan to mitigate foreclosures and to encourage servicers of mortgages to modify loans through Hope for Homeowners and other programs,” says the committee’s explanation. “Allows the Secretary to use loan guarantees and credit enhancement to avoid foreclosures. Requires the Secretary to coordinate with other federal entities that hold troubled assets in order to identify opportunities to modify loans, considering net present value to the taxpayer.”
The “Assistance to Homeowners” section of the bill would require other federal agencies that deal with the mortgages and mortgage-backed securities bought up by the government with bailout money to do the same.
The bill, says the Financial Services Committee, “[r]equires federal entities that hold mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, including the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve to develop plans to minimize foreclosures. Requires federal entities to work with servicers to encourage loan modifications, considering net present value to the taxpayer.”
On Sunday, Pence (R-Ind.) sent a letter to his House colleagues urging them to oppose the bill.
“We now have a deal that promises to bring near-term stability to our financial turmoil, but at what price?” asked Pence.
“Economic freedom means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. The decision to give the federal government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts this basic truth of our free market economy,” said Pence.
“Republicans improved this bill but it remains the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector, and passes the cost along to the American people. I cannot support it,” said Pence.
“Before you vote, ask yourself why you came here and vote with courage and integrity to those principles,” said Pence. “If you came here because you believe in limited government and the freedom of the American marketplace, vote in accordance with those convictions.”
“Now we need to finish the race and make sure that posterity and the American people know there were conservatives who opposed the leviathan state in this dark hour,” said Pence.
According to a report in the New York Times, Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee flatly refused to even participate in the negotiations for the bill.
“I didn’t want to be in the negotiations because I object to the basic principles of this,” said Shelby, according to the Times. The paper said that when Shelby was pressed about his position, he said: “My position is no.”
President Bush applauded the members of Congress who worked to make the deal happen and called it a very good deal.
“I appreciate the leadership shown by Members on both sides of the aisle, who came together to write a very good bill,” said Bush in a statement released by the White House. “This bill provides the necessary tools and funding to help protect our economy against a system-wide breakdown. The bill will help allow access to credit so American families can meet their daily needs and American businesses can make purchases, ship goods, and meet their payrolls.”
Bush expressed confidence that the bill would become law.
“Members of Congress will vote on this legislation soon,” the president said. “This is a difficult vote, but with the improvements made to the bill, I am confident Congress will do what is best for our economy by approving this legislation promptly.”
Both major-party presidential candidates expressed general support for the deal.
"[R]egardless of how we got here, a failure to deal with the current crisis would have devastating consequences for our economy, costing millions of Americans their jobs and retirement security,” Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominees, said in a statement posted on his campaign website.
"That is why over the past ten days, in conversations with the President, Secretary of Treasury and leaders of Congress, I laid out the four core principles I believed had to guide any solution: oversight by an independent board; protections for taxpayers to ensure that they are treated like investors and that they receive any profits--and recoup any losses--from this plan; measures to help homeowners stay in their homes; and rules to make sure CEOs are not being rewarded at taxpayers' expense,” stated Obama. “While I look forward to reviewing the language of the legislation, it appears that the tentative deal embraces these principles.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) the Republican presidential nominee, appeared on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” before the final details of the deal were revealed. However, he stated his basic support for the deal when asked by Stephanopoulos.
“I, again, I would like to see the details, but hopefully, yes,” said McCain. “And the outlines that I have read of it, that this is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with. The option of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable option.”
Stephanopoulos asked McCain if his “principles” had been met by the deal.
“Yes. Yes,” said McCain. “Protect the taxpayer. Make sure that there isn’t excessive compensation for CEOs. A oversight body, not leaving all the decisions in the hands of one individual. There are other provisions that I think are met here. And, frankly, I think the people up on the Hill deserve great credit that conducted these negotiations, I think [Treasury] Secretary [Henry] Paulson does. And I think we saw both a bipartisan and bicameral approach to this that is welcome.”
The bill is expected to come up for a vote in the House and Monday and could move through the Senate as early as Wednesday.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-2 of 2 Comments Loading...
edeldoug at 10:58 AM - September 29, 2008
Isn't it funny? The HATED GWBush is now lauded as the one with THE Answer? And the Dems are RUSHING to vote WITH BUSH? And the Conservatives are the ones standing in opposition to PROTECT Main Street FROM Wall Street? Say NO DEAL! No deal that doesn't REMOVE the requirements to MAKE these bad loans. No deal that doesn't ELIMINATE Mark to Market. No deal that offers Taxpayer Dollars to Paulson to buy bad paper. No deal that gives ANYTHING to ACORN! The markets don't want a FAST deal... they want a GOOD FIX.
Elblogo at 09:31 AM - September 29, 2008
We are doing nothing but the same thing over and our Congress critters are trying to protect their friends and their own spoils. Congress must be stopped from destroying America.
Pence Calls on Conservatives to Oppose Bailout That ‘Nationalizes’ Bad Mortgages
Sunday, September 28, 2008
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, left, talks with Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid, D- Nev., during a newss conference on the financial crisis Sunday, Sept. 28, 2008 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) is calling on conservatives to oppose the $700 billion financial industry bailout negotiated over the weekend because he believes it will permanently change the relationship between the government and the financial sector while giving the government the power to “nationalize almost every bad mortgage” in the country.
The $700-billion deal negotiated by the Bush Administration and congressional leaders of both parties over the weekend includes a mandate that the secretary of the Treasury work to bailout people who bought a house they could not afford by changing the terms of their mortgages or by providing them with other financial guarantees.
A summary of the bill published by the Senate banking committee on Sunday said the proposal “requires the Treasury to modify troubled loans--many the result of predatory lending practices--wherever possible to help American families keep their homes. It also directs other federal agencies to modify loans that they own or control.”
Section 109 of the proposed law is entitled “Mortgage Mitigation Efforts.” Section 110 is entitled “Assistance to Homeowners.” They address what the Treasury Department and other federal agencies must do about the mortgages that will be among the assets the government buys from financial institutions with the $700 billion in bailout money authorized by the bill.
The actual text of the proposed law says: “To the extent that the Federal property manager holds, owns, or controls mortgages, mortgage backed securities, and other assets secured by residential real estate, including multi-family housing, the Federal property manager shall implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use its authority to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages, and considering net present value to the taxpayer, to take advantage of the HOPE for Homeowners Program under section 257 of the National Housing Act or other available programs to minimize foreclosures.”
House Republican Leader, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Republican Whip, Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., speak to reporters after a lengthy House Republican conference meeting regarding legislation on the financial crisis Sunday, Sept. 28, 2008 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)“In the case of a residential mortgage loan,” the proposed law continues, “modifications made … may include: (A) reduction in interest rates; (B) reduction of loan principal; and (C) other similar modifications.”
The House Financial Services Committee released an explanation of these sections of the bill that mirrored the Senate Banking Committee’s explanation.
The bill authorizes the secretary of the Treasury to create an entity called the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to buy up mortgages and mortgage-backed securities from financial institutions, the Financial Services Committee explained.
Under the “mortgage mitigation” section of the bill, the committee’s explanation says, the secretary must turn around and find ways to ease the terms of the mortgages of people who purchased homes they cannot afford.
“For mortgages and mortgage-backed securities acquired through TARP, the Secretary must implement a plan to mitigate foreclosures and to encourage servicers of mortgages to modify loans through Hope for Homeowners and other programs,” says the committee’s explanation. “Allows the Secretary to use loan guarantees and credit enhancement to avoid foreclosures. Requires the Secretary to coordinate with other federal entities that hold troubled assets in order to identify opportunities to modify loans, considering net present value to the taxpayer.”
The “Assistance to Homeowners” section of the bill would require other federal agencies that deal with the mortgages and mortgage-backed securities bought up by the government with bailout money to do the same.
The bill, says the Financial Services Committee, “[r]equires federal entities that hold mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, including the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve to develop plans to minimize foreclosures. Requires federal entities to work with servicers to encourage loan modifications, considering net present value to the taxpayer.”
On Sunday, Pence (R-Ind.) sent a letter to his House colleagues urging them to oppose the bill.
“We now have a deal that promises to bring near-term stability to our financial turmoil, but at what price?” asked Pence.
“Economic freedom means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. The decision to give the federal government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts this basic truth of our free market economy,” said Pence.
“Republicans improved this bill but it remains the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector, and passes the cost along to the American people. I cannot support it,” said Pence.
“Before you vote, ask yourself why you came here and vote with courage and integrity to those principles,” said Pence. “If you came here because you believe in limited government and the freedom of the American marketplace, vote in accordance with those convictions.”
“Now we need to finish the race and make sure that posterity and the American people know there were conservatives who opposed the leviathan state in this dark hour,” said Pence.
According to a report in the New York Times, Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee flatly refused to even participate in the negotiations for the bill.
“I didn’t want to be in the negotiations because I object to the basic principles of this,” said Shelby, according to the Times. The paper said that when Shelby was pressed about his position, he said: “My position is no.”
President Bush applauded the members of Congress who worked to make the deal happen and called it a very good deal.
“I appreciate the leadership shown by Members on both sides of the aisle, who came together to write a very good bill,” said Bush in a statement released by the White House. “This bill provides the necessary tools and funding to help protect our economy against a system-wide breakdown. The bill will help allow access to credit so American families can meet their daily needs and American businesses can make purchases, ship goods, and meet their payrolls.”
Bush expressed confidence that the bill would become law.
“Members of Congress will vote on this legislation soon,” the president said. “This is a difficult vote, but with the improvements made to the bill, I am confident Congress will do what is best for our economy by approving this legislation promptly.”
Both major-party presidential candidates expressed general support for the deal.
"[R]egardless of how we got here, a failure to deal with the current crisis would have devastating consequences for our economy, costing millions of Americans their jobs and retirement security,” Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominees, said in a statement posted on his campaign website.
"That is why over the past ten days, in conversations with the President, Secretary of Treasury and leaders of Congress, I laid out the four core principles I believed had to guide any solution: oversight by an independent board; protections for taxpayers to ensure that they are treated like investors and that they receive any profits--and recoup any losses--from this plan; measures to help homeowners stay in their homes; and rules to make sure CEOs are not being rewarded at taxpayers' expense,” stated Obama. “While I look forward to reviewing the language of the legislation, it appears that the tentative deal embraces these principles.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) the Republican presidential nominee, appeared on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” before the final details of the deal were revealed. However, he stated his basic support for the deal when asked by Stephanopoulos.
“I, again, I would like to see the details, but hopefully, yes,” said McCain. “And the outlines that I have read of it, that this is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with. The option of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable option.”
Stephanopoulos asked McCain if his “principles” had been met by the deal.
“Yes. Yes,” said McCain. “Protect the taxpayer. Make sure that there isn’t excessive compensation for CEOs. A oversight body, not leaving all the decisions in the hands of one individual. There are other provisions that I think are met here. And, frankly, I think the people up on the Hill deserve great credit that conducted these negotiations, I think [Treasury] Secretary [Henry] Paulson does. And I think we saw both a bipartisan and bicameral approach to this that is welcome.”
The bill is expected to come up for a vote in the House and Monday and could move through the Senate as early as Wednesday.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-2 of 2 Comments Loading...
edeldoug at 10:58 AM - September 29, 2008
Isn't it funny? The HATED GWBush is now lauded as the one with THE Answer? And the Dems are RUSHING to vote WITH BUSH? And the Conservatives are the ones standing in opposition to PROTECT Main Street FROM Wall Street? Say NO DEAL! No deal that doesn't REMOVE the requirements to MAKE these bad loans. No deal that doesn't ELIMINATE Mark to Market. No deal that offers Taxpayer Dollars to Paulson to buy bad paper. No deal that gives ANYTHING to ACORN! The markets don't want a FAST deal... they want a GOOD FIX.
Elblogo at 09:31 AM - September 29, 2008
We are doing nothing but the same thing over and our Congress critters are trying to protect their friends and their own spoils. Congress must be stopped from destroying America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)