Senator Brownback Address the Problems with Closing Guantanamo

Senator Brownback talked to bloggers today laying out the problems with closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. The most pressing of these problems is what to do with the detainees. Senator Brownback explains that one commonly overlooked risk of bringing prisoners to U.S. prisons is that the surrounding prison communities may be subject to violent acts by groups making political statements about the prisoners' detention. He also explains that the Geneva Convention says that prisoners of war will not be held along with a general prison population. Senator Brownback lays out numerous reasons why closing Guantanamo is poorly thought out, and is decisively lacking a realistic and safe plan. The propsal also lacks support both in Congress and among the American people. A new Gallup poll shows that by a 2 to 1 margin Americans Oppose Closing Gitmo and Moving Prisoners to U.S.

This call is worth listening to as one may be surprised at the number of solid reasons the Senator gives for opposing the Obama adminstration's call to close Guantanamo.
Blogger Call with Senator Brownback

Brownback Talks Guantanamo and Foreign Policy « Purple People Vote

Americans Will Pay the Bill for Overloaded Stimulus Package

Rasmusen reports that support for the Emergency Stimulus plan is slipping. This is not surprising since the stimulus has been packed with pork, which by anyone's definition seriously stretches the meaning of emergency. Regular Americans know better than many politicians the basic fact that bills have to be paid, and this proposal leaves Americans holding the tab for a pile of pork. President Obama and House Republicans have shown some willingness to compromise, but the House bill that passed yesterday had not one Republican vote for it and 11 Democrats also oppose it for good reason. Just take a look at a few of the items in this bill that have been stuffed into this bill...

• $20 million “for the removal of small- to medium-sized fish passage barriers.”
• $400 million for STD prevention
• $25 million to rehabilitate off-roading (ATV) trails
• $34 million to remodel the Department of Commerce HQ
• $70 million to “Support Supercomputing Activities” for climate research
• $150 million for honey bee insurance

Cited from Earmarks In House Bill

---

Americans Will Pay the Bill for Overloaded Stimulus Package

Obama, FactCheck.org, Ayers, and the Annenburg Foundation

There is a disturbing link between Barack Obama, FactCheck.org, and William Ayers. National Review reports that William Ayers and Barack Obama both served as co-chairs of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge. Obama called for an $3.5 million dollar earmark for the Annenburg Foundation that sponsors FactCheck.org. Several FactCheck articles have been viewed as promoting the Obama campaign line instead of truly acting as a fact checkers. Controlling the ‘facts’ is a hallmark of a totalitarian regime, and this is a truly unsettling connection.

Mission statement from FactCheck.org.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.
The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.

Requested Annenberg Earmark from Barack Obama - Citation from Answers.BarackObama.com

Obama Requested $3.5 Million For The USC Annenberg Research Network. In 2005, Obama requested $3.5 million for the USC Annenberg Research Network on International Communication, in partnership with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, to support the deployment of pervasive broadband for education and economic development.Funding was for the construction of a large-scale broadband wireless systems in two communities—one in South Los Angeles and the other in small-town Illinois. In each community, broadband network coverage will be provided over a minimum of about a half-square mile area, utilizing leading edge wireless technologies. In Los Angeles, this will include the five schools in USC’s immediate neighborhood, with about 8,000 K-12 students. USC also will provide wireless equipment and access to every family with a student entering the first grade of a new Science Center School, and in Illinois, a similar group of students will be selected to receive wireless equipment and access within the coverage area. The impact of these technologies on the students and their families will be tracked. [Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, Education, 6/7/05]

Obama’s Challenge from the National Review

Let’s first review CAC’s [Chicago Annenburg Challenge] initial setup. In the first year, 1995, Obama headed the board, which made fiscal decisions, and Ayers co-chaired the Collaborative, which set education policy. During that first year, Obama’s formal responsibilities mandated close cooperation and coordination with the Collaborative. As board chair and president of the CAC corporation, Obama was authorized to “delegate to the Collaborative the development of collaborative projects and programs . . . to obtain assistance of the Collaborative in the development of requests for proposals . . . and to seek advice from the Collaborative regarding the programmatic aspects of grant proposals.” All this clearly involves significant consultation between the board, headed by Obama, and the Collaborative, co-chaired by Ayers.

Hat Tip to Death by 1000 Papercuts for first reporting this in their article Obama, Bill Ayers, and FactCheck.Org: All Have Ties To Annenberg Foundation

---

Clarification: The connection between Obama and Ayers is through
the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that received money from the Annenburg
Foundation, but the Chicago Annenburg Challenge Challenge and the
Annenburg Foundation are not directly connected philosophically.  The
earmark Senator Obama requested was for the Annenburg Foundation, which
funded the Chicago Annenburg Challenge and also funds FactCheck.org. 
Obama is tied to both groups one via earmark, the other via direct
participation, however, Ayers is not directly connected to
FactCheck.org.

---

Obama Controlling the Facts

Obama Funding Complaints

As mentioned in the previous post Reports of Obama Fundraising Fraud (below) there have been questions about the manner in which the Obama campaign has raised such large sums of money. Newsweek has also taken notice of the problems with small donors in its article Obama’s ‘Good Will’ Hunting, and has noted that the McCain campaign has made all of its small donor information public while the Obama campaign has refused.

"Good Will" listed his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You," while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries. Suzanha Burmeister, marketing director for Goodwill, said the group had "no clue" who the donor was. She added, however, that the group had received five puzzling thank-you letters from the Obama campaign this year, prompting it to send the campaign an e-mail in September pointing out the apparent fraudulent use of its name.
...(In a similar case earlier this year, the campaign returned $33,000 to two Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip who had bought T shirts in bulk from the campaign's online store. They had listed their address as "Ga.," which the campaign took to mean Georgia rather than Gaza.) "While no organization is completely protected from Internet fraud, we will continue to review our fund-raising procedures," LaBolt said. Some critics say the campaign hasn't done enough. This summer, watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about its small donors. The McCain campaign agreed; the Obama campaign did not. "They could've done themselves a service" by heeding the suggestions, said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics.

The American Spectator in its article Obama's Fishy $200 Million reports that an unnamed auditor for the Federal Elections Commission is being prevented investigating questionable fundraising techniques by the Obama campaign.

The Obama campaign has already had to deal with several FEC complaints about fraudulent donors and illegal foreign contributions, and the FEC says it has no record that those complaints have been resolved or closed. As well, the Obama campaign has been cagey at times about the means by which it has made its historic fundraising hauls, which now total almost $500 million for the election cycle. The Hillary Clinton campaign raised questions about the huge amount of e-retail sales the Obama campaign was making for such things as t-shirts and other campaign paraphernalia, and how such sales were being tracked and used for fundraising purposes. While the profits of those items counted against the $2,300 personal donation limit, there have always been lingering questions about the e-retail system...

...The FEC analyst says that Obama's filings indicate he has received large, bundled sums of donations from overseas, sometimes exceeding a quarter millions dollars. "It's suspicious, but it's the small donations made by credit card that need to be examined. We've raised red flags on many of these and the Obama campaign just ignores us. After this election, after we've sifted through everything -- if we're allowed to sift through everything -- I am confident that we are looking at perhaps the largest fine every leveled against a national campaign entity."

Similarly Newsmax reports in their article Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign that online fund raising combine with no requirement to report donors who contribute less than $200 has lead to serious questions about Obama contributors.

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.

Foreign contributions are particularly suspect.

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.

The National Review is also reporting on "Sen. Obama's eye-popping fundraising operation" in their article Obama's Funny Money, or Who's "Loving" "You," Barry?

At TD Blog the article Whistleblower Ignored by DOJ, FEC, FBI: $200 Million in Fishy Obama Donations! they are asking readers to contact the authorities and request that they investigate these allegations.

DOJ, Office of Inspector General
e-mail: oig.hotline@usdoj.gov
hotline: (contact information in English and Spanish): (800) 869-4499

FEC Office of Complaints Examination & Legal Administration Division
(202/694-1650)

FBI Tip Hotline
866-483-5137

---

Update: Washington Post reports RNC to File FEC Complaint on Obama Fundraising Practices

The RNC is alleging that the Obama campaign was so hungry for donations it "looked the other way" as contributions piled up from suspicious, and possibly even illegal foreign donors.

"We believe that the American people should know first and foremost if foreign money is pouring into a presidential election," said RNC Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross.

Cairncross alleged there was mounting evidence of this, and cited a report in the current issue of Newsweek magazine that documents a handful of instances where donors made repeated small donations using fake names, such as "Good Will" and "Doodad Pro."

---

Funny Funding for Obama

McCain Palin Take on Economic Crisis

Obama Palin and the About to Die Argument

If one were to listen to the Democrats over the last couple weeks, you might conclude that Senator McCain is terribly ill just waiting for November or January to keel over. The line of attack is to tell voters that Sarah Palin will be president, and that she is not qualified for that job.

So for a moment lets ignore the morbid, and highly suspect premise of this argument. It's Palin v. Obama. It's a first term Governor v. a first term Senator. Both are short on foreign policy experience. They each have some experience, but not an extensive foreign policy record. Palin wins on executive experience; she's run a state, she has run a town; she's the commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard. What's particularly surprising is that Governor Palin has the edge of legislative achievements. This is an area that Senator Obama should win as his experience is almost completely in the legislative branch, yet he has no major pieces of legislation in his name in the U.S. or State Senate. It's not that he has no legislative experience but it is sparse and it is mainly on politically safe issues.

Palin's legislative accomplishments actually eclipse Obama's. She pushed through bipartisan ethics reform bill in Alaska. She passed a tax increase on oil company profits, and she enacted the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) to set up a natural gas pipeline in Alaska. She has taken on her own party in big ways by ousting two entrenched incumbants, resigning her post at the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission as a protest to 'lack of ethics', and opposed the reelection of Republicans Don Young and Ted Stevens because of ethics/corruption charges. Senator Obama does not have a bipartisan record, or a history of taking on his own party in any way.

So if Governor Palin were running for president I would have some doubts about her foreign policy experience, somewhat similar to those I have about Senator Obama's foreign policy experience. However, she's not running for president. Yes, it is possible that she could become president, but on the other hand Senator Obama would definitely be bringing a lack of foreign policy experience to the White House. If Governor Palin did have to take over the Presidency, her vice presidential experience would eclipse any experience Senator Obama now claims to have on foreign policy. The only way the Obama campaign has even the slightest opportunity to win the experience argument against Palin is to convince everyone McCain is on his last legs. Granted no one is guaranteed a particular life span, but this argument is a stretch and rather grim.

It is the team element of the Palin pick that makes McCain/Palin combination so strong. There is legislative and executive experience on the Republican ticket. There is a foreign policy expert, and there is an energy expert, they both have a history of working across party lines and battling corruption, there is military experience, there is 'beyond the beltway' experience. They both have a background and history of reform. On the Democratic side Obama chose an experienced Washington insider, who brings foreign policy experience, but dilutes the message of change. The match is awkward with the experienced candidate in the two slot and the novice at the top of the ticket. This has left the Obama campaign with the 'About to Die' argument leaving another ding in the 'politics of hope' mantra.

Obama Palin and the About to Die Argument

McCain Palin Reform Ticket Tackle Change

Reform: 1.the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc.: social reform; spelling reform.

Change: 1.to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone: to change one's name; to change one's opinion; to change the course of history.

From Dictionary.com

---

There is a difference in the promise of a change versus the promise of a reform. First, a reform ticket acknowledges the good of the initial structure, and seeks to route out what has corrupted it. The promise of change simply says things will be different; possibly better, possibly worse, but definitely different. Change lacks specifics, reform seeks the goal of fixing the problems.

While reform includes some change, the basic promise differs, and this is evident in the two campaigns. The Obama campaign promises to be different than President Bush. Different how? In party affiliation, in political philosophy, a broad sweeping promise to not be 'him'. However, the McCain campaign says through reform they'll fix Washington. Washington is 'broken', but it is not inherently bad. The government structures of America are quite remarkable, however, with power comes corruption and the McCain/Palin ticket seeks to rectify problems of waste and corruption. The 'reform mantle' take a sliver of the 'change argument' and focus it on specifics. The idea of change is often appealing, but change can be good and it can be bad. Simply promising not to be 'that guy' is not concrete plan for what type of change one seeks.

McCain Palin Reform Ticket Tackle Change

Experience and Judgement Are Not Seperate Issues

The Weekly Standard article Rewards of Wisdom - As McCain's stand on the surge shows, experience cannot be separated from judgment, makes an important point. Judgement and exerience are inextricably tied together. Senator McCain's position on the surge is a vivid illustration of this. His extensive military and foreign policy experience is the reason he knew what strategy would be most effective. Now success in Iraq is a reality not a political debate.

Bush sided with McCain, who had been calling for additional troops and a counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq since late summer 2003. We wonder what might have been averted--and what might have been accomplished--if Bush had adopted McCain's strategy five years ago. Whatever might have been, it was Bush's decision in 2007 that clearly put the United States and Iraq on the path to success. Those who attribute the gains in Iraq to other causes are deluding themselves. The Anbar Awakening might not have survived a year had it not been for the surge's demonstration of American commitment and resolve. Sadr fled to Iran and declared numerous "cease-fires" because Generals Petraeus and Odierno's full-spectrum warfare caught him off-guard. The sectarian militias were denied a safe haven and separated from the Iraqi population through effective counterinsurgency policies.

There is plenty to complain about in how we went to war, or why we went to war. However, denying success and pretending that that success was not due to the surge is foolish, and it's dishonest. This is important not because it shows that Senator McCain was 'right'. It's important because it shows that Senator McCain knows how handle military strategy. The United States is still engaged in military actions in Afghanistan, and there are still serious threats posed by radical Islamists. Foreign policy is often discussed as if time could be reversed and the country could fix its mistakes. It can't. As a country we have to play the cards that are on the table, and Senator McCain has shown that he is the most capable person to play that hand.

Experience and Judgement Key in the Surge's Success