jump to navigation

FBI’s corruption case snitch politically connected by money August 4, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in campaign finance, crime, Democrats, FBI, news, politics.
add a comment

Before he helped the government snare dozens of New Jersey public officials by offering bribes, the FBI’s informant in a corruption case was a prolific on-the-books campaign donor, giving roughly $190,000 to high-level candidates over an eight-year span.

None of the 30 or so politicians who received legal campaign donations from Solomon Dwek have been implicated in the scandal. Forty-four people, mostly Democrats, were arrested last week, including three mayors, two state assemblymen, five rabbis and many other public officials.

But many recipients are rushing to give the money to charity as they look to distance themselves from Dwek and the state’s culture of corruption.

“When you’ve taken money from somebody in involved in a scandal, you give it back as fast as you can,” said Peter Woolley, a political science professor and pollster at Fairleigh Dickinson-Public Mind. “In the public’s mind, giving money and influencing politicians is one in the same thing.”

Dwek and his wife, Pearl, donated to candidates at all levels of government — a sign of just how politically connected the former real estate developer was.

Dwek’s legal donations began in 1998, according to state and federal campaign finance records, and stopped just weeks before his April 2006 arrest for federal bank fraud. That crime put him under the FBI’s thumb and led to his undercover work offering money to dozens of public officials and politicians in exchange for their influence.

According to campaign finance records, recipients of his legitimate donations include a county officials, state assemblymen and senators, congressmen and two former gubernatorial candidates, and even a U.S. president. They do not include current Gov. Jon Corzine, however.

Among the biggest beneficiaries was Democratic Congressman Frank Pallone, who received $10,900 from Dwek and his wife, Pearl, from 1999 to 2005. The couple gave Pallone’s political action committee an additional $5,000 in 2005.

Other Democratic recipients include U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, Congressmen Rush Holt, former New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli, and former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt.

Republicans recipients were state Sens. Tom Kean, Jr. and Joseph Kyrillos, 2005 GOP gubernatorial candidate Doug Forrester, former Congressmen Bob Franks and Dick Zimmer, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter — who became a Democrat earlier this year — and even President George W. Bush.

The Dweks’ donations favored Republicans at the state level and Democrats at the federal level.

Excerpts from AP Report published by Transparency International, Jully 31, 2009.

Advertisements

Pres. Obama top beneficiary of Swiss Offshore Bank UBS AG funding February 24, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in campaign finance, ethics, news, politics.
add a comment

Swiss bank UBS AG agreed today to pay $780 million to settle claims by the U.S. Department of Treasury that it helped American customers evade paying taxes by hiding their Swiss bank accounts from U.S. tax authorities. But that’s not the only help that UBS has provided Americans. In the 2008 election cycle, the foreign bank’s employees and PAC contributed $3.1 million to federal candidates (including candidate committees and leadership PACs), parties and PACs, 54 percent of which went to Democrats. Among all finance, insurance and real estate companies, UBS has given more campaign donations than all but six other companies. It also spent nearly $1.3 million lobbying between 2007 and 2008.

UBS not only split its funds between Republicans and Democrats, it also made sure to help out more than one presidential candidate in the 2008 election cycle and directed its funds to a few of the higher ups of the finance-related congressional committees. Here are some of the notable recipients. (For a full list of recipients, download the Excel file below. All totals include contributions to candidates’ leadership PACs and candidate committees.):

* President Obama collected more from employees of the company than any other candidate or party committee, bringing in $512,800 for his presidential bid. As a senator, Obama co-sponsored a bill, S. 681, in 2007 that would have gotten tougher on tax havens, and listed Switzerland, among others, as an “offshore secrecy jurisdiction.” The bill didn’t appear to make it past the Senate Committee on Finance.

* Obama’s opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz), came in second with $170,900.

* Former presidential candidate and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was among the top 10 individual recipients ($108,500), in addition to former presidential candidates Mitt Romney ($123,350) and Rudy Giuliani ($111,300).

* Former congressman and current White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel collected $64,700. Emanuel received more from UBS than any other member of the House in the 2008 cycle.

* Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chair of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs (who also ran for president briefly) brought in $61,500. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee collected $60,100.

And just as the company has invested in lawmakers, a few have invested their personal funds in the foreign bank and its subsidiaries. In 2007, seven members of Congress had between $207,187 and $500,180 of their own funds invested in the bank. (Members of Congress report the value of their assets in ranges, making it impossible to calculate their exact worth.) Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) had the most invested at between $100,001 and $250,000. Others with money wrapped up in the bank include Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif), Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.), Rep. Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla.), Rep. Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Texas), Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Clinton.

by Lindsay Renick Mayer

Source: OpenSecrets.Org

What is Obama and His Campaign All About? October 28, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, campaign finance, Islam, John McCain, Middle East, news, politics, presidential election.
1 comment so far

by Paul Eidelberg

In Obama Unmasked (2008), Floyd Brown & Leo Troxler raise the question, “Why is Obama trying so hard to deny that he was born a Muslim?” As his middle name Hussein implies, Barack Obama is a Muslim under Islamic law because his father was a Muslim, for descent in Islam is patrilineal.

Although his professed conversion to Christianity makes him an apostate subject to death under Islamic law, Muslims nonetheless support Obama overwhelmingly. These Muslims include Islamofascists and terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezballah. In fact, jihadists have contributed to Obama’s campaign funding.

This funding troubles New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, despite for her liberal-left reputation. In her op-ed piece of June 29, 2008, Dowd states she was informed by one of Obama’s campaign internet workers that his internet campaign raised some $200 million. That, she says, is more then twice the total amount raised by any candidate in history.

Dowd asks, “Where was this money coming from?” According to Dowd, one of the web site security monitors began to notice that the bulk of the contributions were coming in from overseas internet service providers. Although the security monitors were not able to track most of the sources, they were able to trace contributions from a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. These donations, she says, were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. Obama’s campaign people claimed that “none of these donations violated campaign financing laws.”

Dowd nonetheless asks, “Is it right for foreign investors to help decide who will be our next president?” Indeed, given Obama’s Muslim background and substantial funding from Muslim sources, a serious voter should be worried about Obama’s intellectual independence or integrity.

Consider his insistence on negotiating with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions, even though this Muslim ruler calls for a world without America and Israel. Never mind that five years of American and European negotiations with Iran have only given that despotic regime five additional years to develop nuclear weapons. Couldn’t Obama bring himself to state, as a precondition, that Ahmadinejad must renounce his genocidal ambition to wipe Israel off the map, a threat that violates international law?

And what about Ahmadinejad’s saying “death to America”? Surely any patriotic or self-respecting American would insist that Ahmadinejad apologize for such outrageous statements. Strange that Senator McCain and Governor Plain failed to take their opponents to task for this obvious lack of honor.

I wonder whether the honorable senator from Illinois would approve of negotiating with Hitler without preconditions? Comparing Hitler and Ahmadinejad is not hyperbole. Iran used thousands of its own children to walk through and explode minefields in the Iran-Iraq war.

Allow me to juxtapose Islam’s denial of human rights and Obama’s vote against the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” This act is intended to protect an infant that is actually born during an abortion procedure. To put it bluntly, Obama voted to kill the baby—something not even Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy voted for!

Returning to campaign financing: Brown and Troxler report that the AFL-CIO and its affiliates have raised an unprecedented $250 million to put 200,000 union workers to campaign for Obama. No wonder: Obama supports unionization of businesses with less than twenty employees. He also voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. And he supported subprime mortgages that led to the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the current economic crisis.

Obama is playing the “poor man’s” card, while he receives incalculable support from billionaire George Soros. With only one appearance, he raised $18 million from Hollywood movie stars, 95 percent of whom are leftstream.

Obama is also playing the “race” or guilt card. Countless Americans, especially the liberal-left, feel guilty about the injustices suffered by the black race—boatloads of whom were sold into slavery by Muslims and even by their own people. Voting for Obama, “liberals” feel, will absolve them of guilt or of any accusation of racism. To erase the stain of racism, these liberals are now applying affirmative action programs to Obama’s bid for the presidency regardless of whether he is qualified for the most important and complex office on this planet.

Liberals do not see that their pro-Obama attitude is not only an extension of affirmative action programs, but that those programs are really racist! After all, what is racism if not judging and treating people not according their intellectual and moral character, but by the color of their skin?

Geraldine Ferraro said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position” Ferraro was Walter Mondale’s vice-presidential running mate for the Democratic Party in 1984.

Obama is also playing: the “image” card despite his associations with questionable public figures. His youth and glibness, together with his being half black and half white, trumps his having had anti-American tutors such as black nationalist Rev. Jeremiah Wright and communist Saul Alinsky. Such associations do not alienate self-hating American multiculturalists of the liberal-left. Obama’s attraction to anti-Americans means nothing to youth ignorant of the American heritage, which has made America the most powerful and beneficent nation on earth. Obama is a novelty, mystifying, for democracy’s bored and impressionable youth.

Obama has cleverly translated the novelty and audacity of his candidacy into campaign slogans: CHANGE and YES WE CAN. How appropriate—since change and cheek flourish the further democracies are removed in time from the aristocratic and religions traditions.

What do Obama and his adulators know about a living tradition, one that reconciles permanence and change, that unites reverence for the past and creativity, national pride and progress?

Like contemporary liberals and all-too-many self-styled conservatives, he disdains conservatives like Justice Clarence Thomas who subordinates himself to the Constitution, which cannot be revered as the nation’s fundamental law if it changes with every generation. Unlike Mr. Justice Thomas or that other great American, Thomas Sowell, Obama regards the Constitution as mere wax on which the majority can stamp its transient prejudices, which can only deprive youth of national purpose and identity. Given the idolatry of CHANGE, is it any wonder that youth are preoccupied with fads and steeped in hedonism? How can it be otherwise when so many universities propagate moral relativism and thus teach nothing of human excellence or greatness—yes, and when so many academics, including mentors of Obama, spew anti-Americanism?

These academics take civilization for granted. They forget how much virtue and sacrifice are required to build civilization and prevent its relapse into barbarism. Raised in a consumer or self-indulgent society, today’s crop of liberals cannot face the reality of Islamic penetration of the United States. A thousand mosques preach hatred of America and Jews, and these liberals hardly blink. They are not disturbed by the growing network of jihadists, including Hezballah sleeper cells, now dotting America. They cannot imagine how Muslims throughout the world would exult and be incited to greater violence if the Crescent and the Sword flew over eastern Jerusalem, as Obama advocates and without a word of criticism from McCain and Palin.

The word “Islam” has yet to appear in the campaign debates. This can hardly be attributed to the economic crisis. True, this crisis distracts U.S. decision-makers from America’s most lethal enemy, Iran, the epicenter of Islamic terrorism.

Judging from his rhetoric, Obama does not comprehend the enormous danger posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. He does not see that Iran’s proxy, Hezballah, defeated Israel in the Second Lebanon War—Israel, the most powerful nation in the Middle East. He does not see that Israel’s defeat was largely the result of irresolute and inexperienced leadership. Neither Israel nor the United States has seen the full consequences of the Lebanon fiasco. Perhaps this will only come to light if Obama enters the White House. This he may well do if Senator McCain and Governor Palin fail to reveal what Obama is really about, and this will require them to be teachers of what America is all about, beginning with America’s Founding Fathers

Prof. Paul Eidelberg is founder and president of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy. In 1976, he joined the faculty of Bar-Ilan University where he taught political science. Before that time, he served as first lieutenant in the United States Air Force, and earned his doctoral degree at the University of Chicago, and wrote a trilogy on America’s founding fathers: The Philosophy of the American Constitution, On the Silence of the Declaration of Independence, and a Discourse on Statesmanship. Since then, he has written over 1,000 articles, policy papers, and books on Israeli, European, and American politics.

Facts About the Economic Bailout That Make Democrats Cringe October 6, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, campaign finance, capitalism, Congress, Democrats, economy, George W. Bush, Joe Biden, John McCain, morality, news, politics, Republicans, socialism.
1 comment so far

On October 4, Real Clear Politics published an article by Thomas Sowell titled “Do Facts Matter?” In his commentary, Sowell outlines some pretty damning facts incriminating Congressional Democrats for creating the economic disaster America still faces. The following are some rather juicy excerpts:

“It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years– including the present year– denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.”

“It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

“It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today’s financial crisis.”

“Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.”

Sowell continues by addressing the issue of Democrats being against greedy CEOs and for the people. However, Democrats defended Frank Raines who was ousted a head of Fannie Mae for mismanaging it into financial crisis. Raines racked in $90 million a year a CEO of fat Fannie. So Congressional Democrats really do not care about CEO greed as long as it their man ripping off the the system.

If gets even better!

Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!

Even more interesting is the the implications that Raines was instrumental in the Fannie Mae’s campaign contributions to Obama, which was second only to Christopher Dodd, according to Sowell.

Sowell’s point is this: The accusations made by Obama, Biden, and the Democratic party that Bush’s “right-wing: ideology and deregulated financial markets are to blame is patently false. Democrat-led easy money, sub-prime loan policy debacle is largely to blame for the near-depression crisis.

If you look carefully at the $700+ billion bailout, most Democrats were strongly behind the taxpayer fix for their own mismanagement of national economic policy. Democrat party socialism is definitely a problem in a nation built on moral capitalism. As long the moral aspect was maintained the problem of human greed was kept in check. That check that keeps man-made economic policies and practices balanced needs to be restored. It Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin who are promising to do just that.

A Presidential Candidates Financial Campaign Christmas December 16, 2007

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, campaign finance, Christmas, elections, Fred Thompson, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, political campaigns, presidential election, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani.
add a comment

fed-bptw.jpgChristmas is only few days away and presidential candidates want Santa Claus to bring them more campaign funds. Actually, they want Santa to bring them a guaranteed win in the primaries beginning January 3 and ending June 3. Nonetheless, presidential candidates require lots of money to advertise their superior leadership qualities and issue solving plans to every person in every state and the entire nation. (more…)

Let’s Impeach Bush—Liberal Anti-American Election Strategy August 17, 2007

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Bill Clinton, campaign finance, Dick Cheney, disnformation, elections, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, impeachment, Iraq, liberals, lies, Nancy Pelosi, news, Ramsey Clark, war, weapons, WMD.
1 comment so far

Will a liberal dominated Congress cave in to public pressure also led by liberal democrats to impeachment of President Bush and his administration? Democrats have already proposed two bills of impeachment. They want the heads on both Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Vice President Dick Cheney on the golden party plate. Washington State Democrat Jay Inslee
leads the effort to impeach Gonzales while Ohio Representative Dennis Kunich leads the charge to impeach Cheney. Democrats and other liberal haters of President Bush are dedicated to winning their war against the Whitehouse. By trumping up charges against Gonzales, they may be able to eliminate one particularly disliked conservative from sitting on the Supreme Court. By removing Cheney from office, power-mongering Pelosi would move into Cheney’s spot. Democrats would then be in a position to impeach Bush and replace him with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (more…)

Buying the Presidency? August 13, 2007

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, campaign finance, Democrats, elections, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, political campaigns, political primary, politics, presidential election, Republicans, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback.
1 comment so far

The total amount raised by presidential candidates so far is $295 million, according to Federal Elections Commission. If the candidate raising the most money could buy the popular vote, Hillary Clinton would be the winner. Her piggy bank bulges at about $63 million. Barak Obama trails her green smoke by $4 million. For a new Washington politician, raising nearly $59 million is impressive. Looking at the bigger picture, the party of jackasses does exemplify the ability to win the rich special interest jackpot. The party of big dumb elephantés is not doing as well. Not far behind in the collection of promissory votes from the rich by donations is Republican Mitt Romney. He leads the Jumbo pack with campaign funds of over $44 million. Contributions to Rudy Giuliani’s collection plate overflows at $36 million and the nearly broke John McCain used to have $26 million. McCain’s current cash on hand at a mere $3 million is still more than what other Republican candidates have raised. Just to show that Democrats are better at convincing like- minded millionaires to dish out their money in order to end the restoration a limited government and previous moral principles, other Democrat party candidates are raising two to four times more than their Republican counterparts. For example, John Edwards raised over $23 million, Bill Richards, $13 million, Chris Dodd, over $12 million, and Joe Biden has raised about $6.4 million. It must be remembered that all of those millions of dollars flowing into political coffers probably came from the millions who the rich have and keep impoverished. (more…)