Video | Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:10:03 am PDT
John Bolton has a few thoughts about Joe Biden’s dire warning that electing Barack Obama will result in an immediate international crisis.
One International Crisis, Coming Up
World | Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:00:14 am PDT
Looks like Joe “Nostradamus” Biden’s prediction of an international crisis if Obama is elected may come true even sooner than he thought: Top Iran officials recommend preemptive strike against Israel.
Senior Tehran officials are recommending a preemptive strike against Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear reactors, a senior Islamic Republic official told foreign diplomats two weeks ago in London.
The official, Dr. Seyed G. Safavi, said recent threats by Israeli authorities strengthened this position, but that as of yet, a preemptive strike has not been integrated into Iranian policy.
Safavi is head of the Research Institute of Strategic Studies in Tehran, and an adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The institute is directly affiliated with Khamenei's office and with the Revolutionary Guards, and advises both on foreign policy issues.
An Israeli political official said senior Jerusalem officials were shown Safavi's remarks, which are considered highly sensitive. The source said the briefing in London dealt with a number of issues, primarily a potential Israeli attack on an Iranian reactor.
Safavi said a small, experienced group of officials is lobbying for a preemptive strike against Israel. "The recent Israeli declarations and harsh rhetoric on a strike against Iran put ammunition in these individuals' hands," he said.
Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said in June that Israel would be forced to strike the Iranian nuclear reactor if Tehran continues to pursue its uranium enrichment program.
Safavi said Tehran recently drafted a new policy for responding to an Israeli or American attack on its nuclear facilities. While the previous policy called for attacks against Israel and American interests in the Middle East and beyond, the new policy is to target Israel alone.
He added that many Revolutionary Guard leaders want to respond to a U.S. attack on Iranian soil by striking Israel, as they believe Israel would be partner to any U.S. action.
Safavi said that Iran's nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes only, and that Khamenei recently released a fatwa against the use of weapons of mass destruction, though the contents of that religious ruling have not yet been publicized.
Regarding dialogue with the United States and the West, Safavi said Iran's decision would be influenced by the results of the U.S. presidential elections next month, as well as by the Iranian presidential elections in June and the economic situation in the Islamic Republic.
Safavi also said that a victory by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would pave the way for dialogue with Washington, while a John McCain presidency would bolster Iran's extreme right, which opposes dialogue. If conditions are favorable following the U.S. election, he said, Iran could draw back from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that "the nuclear case is closed," and put it back on the agenda.
Safavi said he believed that U.S. sanctions on Iran have run their course, and that there would be no point in strengthening them. Tehran would therefore demand "firm and significant" U.S. measures in return for stopping uranium enrichment. He also said Ahmadinejad is not guaranteed victory in the June 2009 elections, particularly given the dire economic situation in Iran. Still, Iranian experts believe his only real competition is former president Mohammad Khatami, who has not yet joined the race.
Safavi said the inflation rate in Iran is similar to that before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but that unrest among civilians today is not as strong. This is because the current government uses oil revenues to help the poor, he said.
Biden’s “generated crisis” will be a war against Israel
By Ted Belman http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=4330
Senator Biden recently warned about an upcoming generated crises and asked for political support for Obama re-action
- “Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”
I know what he is referring to. At least I believe I do.
In May of this year I wrote J-Street and Obama are in full agreement. It included J-Streets Statement of Principles
J Street brings together Americans who seek a new direction for American policy in the Middle East and broader public and policy debate in the U.S. about ways to achieve lasting peace in the Middle East.
We support:
* Consistent and concerted diplomatic engagement by the United States to achieve Israeli-Arab peace. A negotiated end to the Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts serves both U.S. and Israeli strategic and security interests. Achieving it must be a priority for any future U.S. administration; (They insist that Israel be forced to capitulate.)
* An enduring relationship between the US and Israel that promotes their common interests. We recognize and support Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, a democratic country that promises equal rights for all its citizens and that has the right to defend itself against external threats; (But not a a Jewish state.There is a difference.
* The creation of a viable Palestinian state as part of a negotiated two-state solution, based on the 1967 borders with agreed reciprocal land swaps. The future Palestinian state will require unprecedented levels of international economic and political support to succeed, including a resolution of the refugee issue within the new Palestinian state and in current host countries; (These borders would require the transfer of at least 150,000 Israelis.)
* An Israeli-Syrian peace agreement based on the land-for-peace formula, security guarantees, and details outlined in previous negotiations; (Of what value are security guarantees?)
* A comprehensive regional peace that builds on the Arab Initiative, leading to recognition of Israel by all its neighbors in the Middle East and the creation of a new regional approach to cooperation and security; (Pie in the sky.)
* An American policy in the Middle East more broadly based on diplomacy, multilateralism and real partnership with the European Union, the Quartet and others. We support dialogue with a broad range of countries and actors, including Iran, over confrontation in order to find solutions to the region’s conflicts. (They want to appease them rather than confront them.)
Essentially they support the Saudi Plan. I believe they pay lip service to a negotiated settlement and understand, the settlement must be imposed.
Of the utmost importance is the fact that both Obama and J-Street are supported by George Soros if not created by him. The prosecution of AIPAC’s Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman was the first public move which was followed by Mearsheimer and Walt’s book The Israel Lobby to undermine the power of AIPAC. Then J-Street was created to replace it.
Thomas Friedman lent a hand by Redefining “What it means to be pro-Israel”
Biden’s remark suggests Pres Obama is going to administer tough love.
Thus the ground work has been laid for “tough love” but a “generated crises” is needed to set the plan in motion.
I expect that Intifadah III will soon break out which will spiral out of control with Hezbollah and Hamas joining in. Just this week Top Iran officials recommend preemptive strike against Israel and DEBKA Iran has developed a series of optional plans for pre-emptively attacking Israel The “floating dirty bomb.” was intended for this purpose.
The UNSC will then pass a Chapter VII resolution, without an American veto, demanding that Israel withdraw to the greenline and abandon all settlements. The UN sends a force consisting of soldiers from Jordan, Egypt and Syria to enforce it and establish “peace”.
And who would complain? Certainly not Olmert, the EU, J-Street or Obama’s foreign policy team.
In an interview in 2002, Samantha Power, who is expected to be in Obama’s cabinet, was asked,
- Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?
Power gave an astonishing answer:
- What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing—or investing, I think, more than sacrificing—billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.
Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called “Sharafat” [Sharon-Arafat]. I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention…. Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced.
Now you more fully understand Biden’s remarks.
In a 1992 Jerusalem Post story, reference was made to a Biden conversation with Begin ten years earlier,in which Biden threatened to cut off all aid to Israel unless all settlement activity was stopped. John Podhoretz discussed this conversation in his recent Commentary article Did Biden Call for a Cut-Off in Aid to Israel?
We already have witnessed UN efforts to demand Israel withdraw and efforts to establish an Arab force to keep the peace in Gaza and Judea and Samaria. Egypt is hosting discussions between Hamas and Fatah. What could they be discussing.
Remember, every time there is an Arab/Israeli war, the UN intervenes to stop it.
Obama Would Fail Security Clearance
by Daniel Pipes
Philadelphia Bulletin
October 21, 2008
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5983
 Obama's Indonesian school registration listing him as Muslim. Click to enlarge |
Instead, then, let us review a related subject – Obama's connections and even indebtedness, throughout his career, to extremist Islam. Specifically, he has longstanding, if indirect ties to two institutions, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), listed by the U.S. government in 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding trial; and the Nation of Islam (NoI), condemned by the Anti-Defamation League for its "consistent record of racism and anti-Semitism."
First, Obama's ties to Islamists:
-
The Khalid al-Mansour connection: According to former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton, Al-Mansour "was raising money for" Obama's expenses at Harvard Law School. Al-Mansour, a black American (né Don Warden), became advisor to Saudi prince Al-Walid bin Talal, CAIR's largest individual donor. Al-Mansour holds standard Islamist views: he absolves the Islamist government in Sudan of sponsoring slavery, he denies a Jewish tie to Jerusalem, and he wrote a booklet titled "Americans Beware! The Zionist Plot Against S. Arabia." (Both Obama and al-Mansour deny Sutton's account.)
-
The cover of one of Khalid al-Mansour's books, "The Mind and the Mindless - Will the West Rule Forever."
The Kenny Gamble (also known as Luqman Abdul-Haqq) connection: Gamble, a once-prominent pop music producer, cut the ribbon to the Obama campaign headquarters housed in a south Philadelphia building he owns. Gamble is an Islamist who buys large swaths of real estate in Philadelphia to create a Muslim-only residential area. Also, as the self-styled "amir" of the United Muslim Movement, he has many links to Islamist organizations, including CAIR and the Muslim Alliance in North America. (MANA's "amir" is Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.)
-
The Mazen Asbahi connection: The Obama campaign's first Muslim outreach coordinator resigned after it came to light that he had served on the board of a subsidiary of the Saudi-sponsored North American Islamic Trust, with Jamal Said, another unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Hamas funding trial. Asbahi has ties to CAIR's Chicago and Detroit offices, to the Islamic Society of North America, yet another unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas funding trial, and to other Islamist organizations.
-
The Minha Husaini connection: The campaign's second Muslim outreach coordinator has an Islamist background, having served as an intern in the Muslim Public Service Network. Immediately upon her appointment by Obama, she met with a group of about thirty Muslims including such notorious figures as CAIR's Nihad Awad; the Muslim American Society's Mahdi Bray, who has publicly supported the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups; and Johari Abdul Malik of the Dar Al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church, Va., who has advised American Muslims: "You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work."
Second, Obama's ties to the Nation of Islam:
Obama's long-time donor and ally Antoin "Tony" Rezko partnered for nearly three decades with Jabir Herbert Muhammad, a son of NoI leader Elijah Muhammad, and says he gave Jabir and his family "millions of dollars over the years." Rezko also served as executive director of the Muhammad Ali Foundation, a rogue organization that, without Ali's permission, exploited the name of this CAIR awardee.
 Kenny Gamble |
Jeremiah Wright, Obama's esteemed pastor for twenty years, came out of a Nation background, recently he accepted protection from an NoI security detail, and has praised Louis Farrakhan, the NoI's leader, as one of the "giants of the African American religious experience." Wright's church celebrated Farrakhan for his having "truly epitomized greatness."
Farrakhan himself endorsed Obama, calling him "the hope of the entire world," "one who can lift America from her fall," and even "the Messiah."
That Obama's biography touches so frequently on such unsavory organizations as CAIR and the Nation of Islam should give pause. How many of politicians have a single tie to either group, much less seven of them? John McCain charitably calls Obama "a person you do not have to be scared [of] as president of the United States," but Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees.
Islamic aggression represents America's strategic enemy; Obama's many insalubrious connections raise grave doubts about his fitness to serve as America's commander-in-chief.
America the weak
US RISKS TURMOIL UNDER PREZ O
By RALPH PETERS, NY POST October 20, 2008 http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/america_the_weak_134398.htm
IF Sen. Barack Obama is elected president, our public will survive, but our international strategy and some of our allies may not. His first year in office would conjure globe-spanning challenges as our enemies piled on to exploit his weakness. Add in Sen. Joe Biden - with his track record of calling every major foreign-policy crisis wrong for 35 years - as vice president and de facto secretary of State, and we’d face a formula for strategic disaster. Where would the avalanche of confrontations come from?
* Al Qaeda. Pandering to his extreme base, Obama has projected an image of being soft on terror. Toss in his promise to abandon Iraq, and you can be sure that al Qaeda will pull out all the stops to kill as many Americans as possible - in Iraq, Afghanistan and, if they can, here at home - hoping that America will throw away the victories our troops bought with their blood.
* Pakistan. As this nuclear-armed country of 170 million anti-American Muslims grows more fragile by the day, the save-the-Taliban elements in the Pakistani intelligence services and body politic will avoid taking serious action against “their” terrorists (while theatrically annoying Taliban elements they can’t control). The Pakistanis think Obama would lose Afghanistan - and they believe they can reap the subsequent whirlwind.
* Iran. Got nukes? If the Iranians are as far along with their nuclear program as some reports insist, expect a mushroom cloud above an Iranian test range next year. Even without nukes, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would try the new administration’s temper in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf.
* Israel. In the Middle East, Obama’s election would be read as the end of staunch US support for Israel. Backed by Syria and Iran, Hezbollah would provoke another, far-bloodier war with Israel. Lebanon would disintegrate.
* Saudi Arabia. Post-9/11 attention to poisonous Saudi proselytizing forced the kingdom to be more discreet in fomenting terrorism and religious hatred abroad. Convinced that Obama will be more “tolerant” toward militant Islam, the Saudis would redouble their funding of bigotry and butchery-for-Allah - in the US, too.
* Russia. Got Ukraine? Not for long, slabiye Amerikantsi. Russia’s new czar, Vladimir Putin, intends to gobble Ukraine next year, assured that NATO will be divided and the US can be derided. Aided by the treasonous Kiev politico Yulia Timoshenko - a patriot when it suited her ambition, but now a Russian collaborator - the Kremlin is set to reclaim the most important state it still regards as its property. Overall, 2009 may see the starkest repression of freedom since Stalin seized Eastern Europe.
* Georgia. Our Georgian allies should dust off their Russian dictionaries.
* Venezuela. Hugo Chavez will intensify the rape of his country’s hemorrhaging democracy and, despite any drop in oil revenue, he’ll do all he can to export his megalomaniacal version of gun-barrel socialism. He’ll seek a hug-for-the-cameras meet with President Obama as early as possible.
* Bolivia. Chavez client President Evo Morales could order his military to seize control of his country’s dissident eastern provinces, whose citizens resist his repression, extortion and semi-literate Leninism. President Obama would do nothing as yet another democracy toppled and bled.
* North Korea. North Korea will expect a much more generous deal from the West for annulling its pursuit of nuclear weapons. And it will regard an Obama administration as a green light to cheat.
* NATO. The brave young democracies of Central and Eastern Europe will be gravely discouraged, while the appeasers in Western Europe will again have the upper hand. Putin will be allowed to do what he wants.
* The Kurds. An Obama administration will abandon our only true allies between Tel Aviv and Tokyo.
* Democracy activists. Around the world, regressive regimes will intensify their suppression - and outright murder - of dissidents who risk their lives for freedom and justice. An Obama administration will say all the right things, but do nothing.
* Women’s rights. If you can’t vote in US elections, sister, you’re screwed. Being stoned to death or buried alive is just a cultural thing.
* Journalists. American journalists who’ve done everything they can to elect Barack Obama can watch as regimes around the world imprison, torture and murder their foreign colleagues, confident that the US has entered an era of impotence. The crocodile tears in newsrooms will provide drought relief to the entire southeastern US. Sen. John McCain’s campaign has allowed a great man to be maligned as a mere successor to George W. Bush.
The truth is that an Obama administration would be a second Carter presidency - only far worse. Think Bush weakened America? Just wait.
Iranian parliament speaker votes for Barack Obama
Iranian Speaker Larijani: Iran Prefers Obama as US President
MANAMA, Bahrain (AFP)--Iranian parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said Wednesday that Iran would prefer Democrat Barack Obama in the White House next year. Larijani also dismissed any idea that the U.S. would attack Iran.
"We are leaning more in favor of Barack Obama because he is more flexbile and rational, even though we know American policy will not change that much," Larijani said at a press conference during a visit to Bahrain.
Tehran wants Barack Obama in the White House, rules out war
DEBKAfile Special Report http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5670
October 23, 2008
Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani
During a visit to Bahrain, Iran’s parliament speaker Ali Larijani said Wednesday, Oct. 22, that Tehran would prefer Democratic senator Barack Obama in the White House next year. He also ruled out any US attack on his country. “The risk was low before, but now I am 100 percent certain that the United States will not unleash a war against Iran,” he said at a new conference in Manama.
“We lean more in favor of Obama,”, “because he is more flexible and rational, even through we know American policy will not change that much.”
DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources note that Larijani is one of the most powerful voices in Tehran’s conservative camp and a close confidant of supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He would not have spoken out in favor of Obama without top-level sanction.
The location Larijani chose for his statement is significant: Bahrain is one of America’s greatest friends in the Gulf region, host to the US 5th Fleet headquarters. Tehran was laying claim to a foothold in the Gulf region.
The argument he advanced against a US attack was arithmetical: “The economic crisis has cost America 1,400 billion dollars and Washington is working to resolve its internal problems and not a war.”
Larijani: Iran prefers Obama
Iranian parliament speaker says his country is leaning towards Democratic candidate in US presidential election 'because he is more flexible and rational'
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3611840,00.html
Iranian parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said Wednesday that Iran would prefer Democrat Barack Obama in the White House next year. Larijani also dismissed any idea that the US would attack Iran.
"We are leaning more in favor of Barack Obama because he is more flexible and rational, even though we know American policy will not change that much," Larijani said at a press conference during a visit to Bahrain.
How to deal with Iran and the crisis over its nuclear drive has been one of the foreign policy issues in the Nov. 4 race for the White House between Obama and Republican John McCain.
Larijani, a leading figure in the conservative camp in Iran, also said the United States was too busy dealing with the global financial crisis to consider waging an attack on Iran.
"The risk was low before," he said. "But now I am 100% certain that the United States will not unleash a war against Iran. The economic crisis has cost the United States $1.4 trillion and Washington is working to resolve its internal problems and not a war."
Washington severed ties with Iran in 1980 in the wake of the Islamic revolution. US President George W. Bush famously denounced the country as part of an "axis of evil".
Tensions have mounted over Iran's nuclear program, which many Western countries believe is a cover for ambitions to build atomic weapons, although this is vehemently denied by Tehran.
Obama, the stealth candidate
Obama continues to refuse to provide the media with school records, passports, college theses, law school records, law firm clients, medical records, Illinois State Senate files, and other documents about his record.
- Original birth certificate - not released
Obama/Dunham marriage license - not released
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license - not released
Soetoro adoption records - not released
Besuki School application - released
Punahou School records - not released
Selective Service Registration - released
Occidental College records - not released
Passport (Pakistan) - not released
Columbia College records - not released
Columbia thesis - not released
Harvard College records - not released
Harvard Law Review articles - none
Baptism certificate - none
Medical records - not released
Illinois State Senate records - none
Illinois State Senate schedule – not released (alleged to have been lost)
Law practice client list - not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles - none
Obama campaign refusing to debate Republican Jewish Coalition officials
Representatives and surrogates for the Democratic nominee are refusing to participate in debates and forums with representatives of the RJC, but will continue to take part in such activities with representatives of the McCain campaign.
The decision comes as Jewish Democrats have become increasingly upset by advertisements attacking Obama that the RJC has run in Jewish newspapers across the country. The ads have called Obama's views on Israel "dangerous" and "reckless," and his advisers "pro-Palestinian," "anti-Israel" and "hostile to Jews."
An Obama Jewish outreach official did not return a call requesting comment, but a source familiar with the Obama camp's thinking emphasized that the campaign is ready and willing to debate whomever the McCain campaign designates.
Obama representatives will not appear alongside anyone from the RJC, said the source, because it believes the organization is spreading false information about Obama through its series of advertisements and the poll of Jews in swing states it sponsored last month.
The survey, which the RJC said tested "negative messages" about Obama, included questions stating that Obama had served on a board that donated to a "pro-Palestinian organization" and that he had been endorsed by a Hamas leader. (Democrats noted that the "pro-Palestinian organization" primarily was devoted to social service work in Chicago and that Hamas later rescinded its endorsement.)
The RJC's executive director, Matt Brooks, said he was "disappointed and saddened" by the Obama campaign's decision.
"It does a disservice to the community" and "stifles debate," said Brooks, who has defended the group's ads as accurate and said the RJC is "raising important issues."
The campaign's decision already has affected one debate scheduled for Sunday evening at a Jewish community center in Van Nuys, Calif. Obama adviser Mel Levine said he pulled out of the event -- sponsored by Council of Israeli Community, Los Angeles -- after he was told last week of the Obama campaign's new policy.
Levine, a former U.S. congressman, already had debated his scheduled opponent, RJC California director Larry Greenfield, three times, and said he was prepared to proceed with Sunday's event prior to the campaign's directive. But as a critic of the RJC's tactics -- Levine said last month that the group was "weakening Israel" by undermining the traditional notion of bipartisan support for the Jewish state -- he backed the decision.
"I happen to agree with it," he said, because appearing on the same stage with RJC gives the group an unwarranted "stature."
"They've consistently misstated and misrepresented" the facts, Levine said, adding that at one of the debates his counterpart never even mentioned John McCain in his opening statement.
Levine emphasized that he was happy to appear with "any legitimate surrogate" from the McCain campaign. He noted that he was speaking to JTA on his way to the airport for a trip to Las Vegas to debate U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
Levine did assist the Council for Israeli Community, Los Angeles in finding a replacement, UCLA law
professor David Kaye, for Sunday's debate. Council first vice president Haim Linder said he was upset initially by the cancellation -- he compared it to having the rabbi and photographer cancel a couple days before a wedding -- but noted that Levine "went to work" and "got us a wonderful person" to replace him.
It is unclear how many other such events could be affected by the campaign's decision.
The Jewish Republican group said that an Obama campaign representative had refused to appear with an RJC leader at an Oct. 26 forum at Temple Sinai in suburban Philadelphia. But an organizer of the forum told JTA that it had Pennsylvania leaders from both campaigns lined up for the event.
And a representative of the Stephen S. Wise Temple in Los Angeles said an Oct. 23 debate between Greenfield and Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), a leader of Obama's Los Angeles Jewish Community Leadership Committee, was still scheduled.
Asked what was wrong with the Obama campaign insisting on debating its McCain counterparts while RJC representatives could square off against perhaps National Jewish Democratic Council officials, Brooks said that such choices should be left up to organizers.
"The host organization should be free to invite who they wish," he said. "It's not up to us to decide who participates."
The executive director of National Jewish Democratic Council, Ira Forman, has participated in a number of debates with RJC representatives this year and said he will continue to do so. Still, he said he could "sympathize" with the Obama campaign's decision, calling the RJC's tactics throughout the campaign "really low."
Brooks said he would be glad to publicly defend his group's advertisements, and issued a challenge.
"I will debate anybody the Obama campaign chooses," he said, and "we will go through every single ad" and discuss the RJC's poll as long as "we debate their polls," too.
"I want to have that conversation with the Jewish community," he said.
Hannity sets the record straight on Obama’s radical past
Opinion | Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:35:27 am PDT
A great post at Hot Air with mucho video goodness, by Mary Katharine Ham, Guy Benson, and Ed Morrissey: The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama.
Obama’s Plan: Driver’s Licenses for Illegals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbyocX-9_mo&eurl=http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/
Obama’s Secret Campaign Cash: Has $63 Million Flowed from Foreign Sources?
As Barack Obama reaped a stunning $150 million in campaign donations in September, bringing his total to more than $600 million, new questions have arisen about the source of his amazing funding.
By Obama’s own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain’s campaign, Obama won’t release the names of these donors.
A Newsmax canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws.
For example, Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit.
Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them.
And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.
According to a Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign data before the latest figures were released, potential foreign currency donations could range anywhere from $12.8 million to a stunning $63 million in all. With the addition of $150 million raised in September, this amount could be much more.
When asked by Newsmax about excess contributions, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said that contributions already identified as excess had been returned and that those the campaign was just learning about -- either through news accounts or from the Federal Election Commission -- “will be returned.”
“Every campaign faces the challenge of screening and reviewing its contributions,” LaBolt said. “And we have been aggressive about taking every available step to make sure our contributions are appropriate, updating our systems when necessary.”
But many of the donors Newsmax canvassed said they had “never” been contacted by the Obama campaign or seen any refunds, even though their contributions went over the limit months ago.
In all, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had contributed in excess of the $4,600 limit for individuals per election cycle.
Such donations, if not returned within 60 days, are a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws.
Lisa Handley, a stay-at-home mom from Portland, Ore., recalled giving $4,600 to the Obama campaign by credit card, contributions she made because “I love Obama,” she said.
According to FEC records, however, she gave an additional $2,300 to the campaign, putting her over the limit.
The Obama campaign reported that it had “redesignated” the excess money, which could mean that it had contributed it to a separate party committee or a joint fundraising committee, which have higher limits.
But if that happened, it’s news to Handley. “No one ever contacted me to return any of the money or told me they were redesignating some of the money,” she said.
Ronald J. Sharpe Jr., a retired teacher from Rockledge, Fla., appears in the Obama campaign reports as having given a whopping $13,800.
The campaign reported that it returned $4,600 to him, making his net contribution of $9,200 still way over the legal limit.
But there’s one problem with the Obama data: Sharpe doesn’t remember giving that much money to the Obama campaign in the first place, nor does he recall anyone from the campaign ever contacting him to return money.
“At the end, I was making monthly payments,” he told Newsmax. The Obama campaign records do not show any such payments.
Many donors refused to answer questions about the political campaign contributions appearing in their name when they learned that the caller was from a news organization.
John Atkinson, an insurance agent in Burr Ridge, Ill., refused to discuss his contributions, which totaled $8,724.26, before numerous refunds.
Atkinson and others gave in odd amounts: $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one rounded contribution of $2,300.
Sandra Daneshinia, a self-employed caregiver from Los Angeles, made 36 separate contributions, totaling $7,051.12, according to FEC records. Thirteen of them were eventually refunded.
In a bizarre coincidence, those 13 refunded contributions -- for varying amounts such as $223.88 and $201.44 -- added up exactly to $2,300, the amount an individual may give per federal election.
Also giving in odd amounts was Robert Porter, an accountant for the town of Oviedo, Fla. Porter gave a surprising $4,786.02 to the Obama campaign.
In all, Newsmax found an astonishing 37,265 unique donors to the Obama campaign whose contributions were not rounded up to dollar amounts. That amounts to more than 10 percent of the total number of unique donors whose names have been disclosed by the Obama campaign to the public.
Of those, 44,410 contributions came in unrounded amounts of less than $100. FEC regulations only require that campaigns disclose the names of donors who have given a total of $200 or more, so that means that all these contributors were repeat donors.
Another 15,269 contributions gave in unrounded amounts between $101 and $999, while 704 of the unrounded contributions were in amounts of more than $1,000.
Campaign finance experts find the frequent appearance of unrounded contributions suspicious, since contributors almost invariably give in whole dollar amounts.
One expert in campaign finance irregularities offers a possible explanation.
“Of course this is odd. They are obviously converting from local currency to U.S. dollars,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.
“The overwhelming number of large dollar contributors -- and even small donors -- are in even dollar amounts,” he told Newsmax. “Anyone who doubts that can go to FEC.gov and look through the campaign contribution data bases. You will not find many uneven numbers.”
Boehm said he had rarely seen unrounded contributions in his 30 years as a lawyer doing campaign finance work.
“There’s always the odd cat who wants to round up his checkbook, but they are very rare,” he said.
Richard E. Hug, a veteran Republican fundraiser in Maryland who who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and spearheaded the successful 2002 gubernatorial race for Bob Ehrlich that brought in a record $10 million, told Newsmax that unrounded contributions were extremely unusual.
“I’ve never seen this in all my years of raising money for political candidates,” he said. “The first thing it suggests is foreign currency transactions -- contributions from foreign donors, which is clearly illegal.”
Top Republican fundraiser Steve Gordon, who has raised $65 million for GOP candidates over the past 30 years, told Newsmax that such contributions in uneven amounts would be “pretty unusual.”
“You might have a rounding process if there was some kind of joint event, but since all appears to be on the Internet, it’s pretty unusual. At the very least, it would need to be explored.”
LaBolt attributed the uneven amounts to the online “Obama store,” which sells T-shirts and other campaign items.
“Contributions made to the Obama store often produce totals that are not exact dollar amounts,” he said.
But the campaign has never produced any accounting for proceeds from its online store, which virtually shut down several weeks ago after Newsmax and news organizations revealed that Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and other foreigners had made large purchases there.
The Republican National Committee has filed a complaint against the Obama campaign for “accepting prohibited contributions from foreign nationals and excessive contributions from individuals,” which incorporated reporting from Newsmax and other news organizations.
“Their responses to FEC inquiries have often been inadequate and late,” RNC general counsel Sean Cairncross told Newsmax.
The Obama camp claims to have 2.5 million donors in all. But until now, they have kept secret the names of the overwhelming majority of these money-givers. According to a Newsmax analysis, the Obama campaign finance records contain just 370,448 unique names.
Even accounting for common names such as Robert Taylor or Michael Brown, which can signify multiple donors, Obama’s publicly known donor base is less than 20 percent of the total number of donors the campaign claims to have attracted. But the identity of the other 2 million donors is being kept secret.
As of the end of August, those secret donors have given an incredible $222.7 million to Obama, according to the FEC -- money whose origin remains unknown to anyone other than Obama’s finance team, who won’t take calls from the press.
While no exact figures are available, if the same percentage of potential foreign contributions found in the itemized contribution data is applied to the total $426.9 million the Obama camp says it has taken in from individuals, this could mean that Obama is financing his presidential campaign with anywhere from $13 million to a whopping $63 million from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases.
The sum of all unrounded contributions in the itemized FEC filings for the Obama campaigns comes to $6,437,066.07. That is the actual amount of money that appears to have been charged to foreign credit cards that the Obama campaign has disclosed.
If the same ratio applies to the unitemized contributions, which are again as large, then the Obama campaign may have taken as much as $13 million from foreign donors.
However, the donors who made those unrounded contributions gave a total of $31,484,584.27, meaning that as much as $63 million may have come from questionable sources.
Both presidential campaigns are required to submit detailed fundraising reports for September on Monday.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Obama Allegedly Broke Illinois Ethics Laws As A State Legislator
http://www.kxmc.com/News/Nation/287374.asp
- Apparently, on Obama’s released tax records, he discloses income from speaking fees. The problem? Accepting payment for speaking fees when you’re a legislator is against Illinois state law.
Posts
