interesting to see who got contributions

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

By Matthew Mosk
The campaign of Sen. Barack Obama will refund a small number of contributions made by Obama's aunt, who has been living in the United States illegally, according to a published report.

The woman, Zeituni Onyango, lives in public housing in Boston and is the half-sister of Obama's late father.

The Associated Press reported today that Obama's aunt had been instructed to leave the country four years ago by an immigration judge who rejected her request for asylum from her native Kenya.

Obama campaign reports filed with the Federal Election Commission show Onyango gave $265 to the campaign. Foreign nationals are not permitted to donate to American presidential campaigns.

"Given the information that has been brought to our attention, the contributions are being refunded," Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, told The Washington Post this morning.

The campaign told the AP that Obama was not aware that questions had been raised about his aunt's legal status.

"Senator Obama has no knowledge of her status but obviously believes that any and all appropriate laws be followed," the statement said, according to the AP.

"No knowledge of her status." Why does that not surprise me? A man who is so "family oriented" and has such a wonderful extended family with which he goes to Kenya to visit and strengthen his roots with, yet he has no clue as to what their "status" is.

It's working, too!! So far, American citizens have donated a whopping $39.00!!

By Cam Simpson Washington BureauSun Sep 18, 9:40 AM ET

From the Indian Ocean tsunami to the church around the corner, Americans have shown time and again they are willing to open their pocketbooks for charity, for a total of about $250 billion last year alone.

But now, amid pleas for aid after Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration has launched an unusual effort to raise charitable contributions for another cause: the government's attempt to rebuild Iraq.

Although more than $30 billion in taxpayer funds have been appropriated for Iraqi reconstruction, the administration earlier this month launched an Internet-based fundraising effort that it says is aimed at giving Americans a further stake in building a free and prosperous Iraq.

Contributors have no way of knowing who's getting the money or precisely where it's headed because the government says it must keep the details secret for security reasons.

But taxpayers already finance the projects for which the administration is seeking charitable donations, such as providing water pumps for farmers. And officials say any contributions they receive will increase the scope of those efforts rather than relieve existing taxpayer burdens.

The campaign is raising eyebrows in the international development and not-for-profit communities, where there are questions about its timing--given needs at home--and whether it will set the government in competition with international not-for-profits.

On a more basic level, experts wonder whether Americans will make charitable donations to a government foreign aid program and whether the contentious environment surrounding Iraq will make a tough pitch even tougher.

I'm a little skeptical, and the timing certainly isn't the best, said James Ferris, director of the Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy at the University of Southern California. It's going to be a hard sell.

Cost of rebuilding skyrockets

The U.S. Agency for International Development, the federal government's primary distributor of foreign aid, said Friday, Charitable contributions play an important role in enriching and extending U.S. government efforts.

The effort is just the newest twist in the administration's struggle to rebuild Iraq. Andrew Natsios, head of USAID, first predicted it would cost taxpayers no more than $1.7 billion. The tab has since risen to more than $30 billion, with congressional Republicans and Democrats sharply critical of the high cost and slow pace of progress.

In addition, the new campaign comes amid increasing concerns that some of the administration's major projects in Iraq will be scrapped or only partially completed because of rising costs, especially for security. Some officials fear money may run out before key projects are completed.

Natsios announced the campaign in a speech Sept. 9. In a press release issued the same day, USAID said its new Web site will help American citizens learn more about official U.S. assistance for Iraq and make contributions to high-impact development projects.

Although USAID has received private donations from corporations in the past, this might be the first time it has geared a charity pitch for U.S. foreign aid dollars to citizens.

Initially, the Web site, called Iraqpartnership.org, is offering potential contributors a choice of eight projects, each seeking $10,000 or less. They include purchasing computers for centers designed to assist Iraqi entrepreneurs, buying furniture and supplies for Iraqi elementary and high schools, paying for the production of posters to promote awareness of disabilities and rights issues, and buying water pumps for farmers.

There is also a general Iraq country fund, offering donors another high-impact giving opportunity without making them have to specify a project.

All of the projects are from USAID's existing portfolio of reconstruction programs in Iraq, according to the agency.

Security issues obscure details

Heather Layman, a USAID spokeswoman, said the efforts are being carried out by five private organizations working on Iraq reconstruction with USAID funding. The site does not provide details about the groups involved or the project locations because of security issues in Iraq.

The government says all contributions are tax-deductible.

William Reese, the president and CEO of the International Youth Foundation, said USAID officials did not discuss the campaign with a special advisory committee that he serves on and formerly headed.

That committee, made up primarily of representatives from non-profit groups working overseas, is supposed to help provide the underpinning for cooperation between the public and private sectors in U.S. foreign assistance programs, according to USAID.

Reese said some not-for-profit groups may see the effort as competition, but he predicted few would be concerned because of a more basic issue: While Americans are generous, he said, I don't think your average Joe is going to write a check to the U.S. government.

Carol Lancaster, a foreign aid expert and associate professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, also questioned the premise of the program.

Places that are seen as public agencies or clones of public agencies don't get private donations, said Lancaster, a former deputy administrator at USAID. People generally believe, `It's government, so government should pay for it.'

Nassarie Carew, a spokeswoman for InterAction, an umbrella group of more than 160 non-profits working overseas, said her organization also was not aware of the effort. Its CEO, Mohammad Akhter, serves on the USAID advisory panel. Carew declined to comment until the group had a chance to survey its members.

Layman, the USAID spokeswoman, called the Web site a passive solicitation, saying potential donors would likely find it only if they were looking for a way to support Iraq's redevelopment.

She also said some people who might have donated to projects in Iraq will now choose to put money toward Katrina relief, but that others will still want to help in Iraq.

She said Iraqi-Americans specifically had asked USAID to help them find an avenue for contributions.

Raising charitable contributions for overseas projects can be a challenge even when the U.S. government is not at the center of the pitch. And Iraq is one of the government's more controversial foreign policy ventures in decades.

DevelopmentSpace Foundation Inc., the group that set up the Web site for USAID, operates its own, separate Web site seeking charitable donations for small-scale projects in developing countries.

Since its founding in 2001, that effort has raised a total of about $2 million, said Allison Koch, a foundation spokeswoman.

The organization keeps a 10 percent commission for contributions and has received most of its operating funds through major grants from several other foundations. USAID also gave it a grant of $1.5 million.

So far, $39 donated

Although in its infancy, the Iraqpartnership.org Web site had generated contributions totaling $39 as of Friday night.

According to the Giving USA Foundation, which tracks annual charitable donations by Americans, international giving accounted for 2.1 percent of all charity in the U.S. last year.

Ferris, the director of the USC philanthropy center, said that's because people want to donate to causes closer to home.

Except for the fact that the aim of foreign aid is to bolster U.S. foreign policy objectives overseas, Ferris said the new USAID campaign seems like a natural extension of the growing trend toward public-private partnerships.

There is this blurring of the lines, he said. A lot of things once paid for by the public are now paid through private sources.

----------

csimpson@tribune.com

Republicans always trot out the slogan that they oppose big government and want to shrink the federal payroll. President Bush tells us that big government is not the answer.

But for more than 75 years, no Republican administration has cut the size of government. Since George W. Bush became president, government spending has risen nearly 25 percent.

And the spending increase isn't just tied to the war on terrorism. The Office of Management and Budget says spending at the Environmental Protection Agency is up 12 percent; it's up 14 percent at the Agriculture Department, 30 percent at the Department of the Interior; 64 percent at the Department of Labor, and 70 percent at the Department of Education.

And the pork keeps pouring out. Even the Peanut Festival in Dothan, Ala., got $200,000.

Alabama congressman Terry Everett, a Republican, got them the money. He wouldn't talk to us about it, but the locals said they like getting your money. I think it's a waste of money, but if they're going to waste money, I guess it's better to waste it here than anywhere else, one man told me.

Economist Stephen Moore, a Republican, says, We fought a war against big government and you know what? Big government won.

He noted, You look at what's happened to the government in the 10 years since the Republicans took control of Congress, the government is twice as big.

I heard this a few days ago, but since everyone only pays attention to articles in mainstream papers and TV news, thought I would post it. Could explain why Bush is acting like a brat. The pressure coming from the families, the public, and the truth movements is getting intense.

Apparently, CIA officers are buying legal insurance to cover the cost of their defense should they be indicted by a federal grand jury for their roles in 9/11. They are worried that the results of an internal CIA investigation into some CIA agents� roles in 9/11 may soon become public and the public outcry would immediately lead to their arrest for murder and conspiracy among other charges.

CIA officers who are charged with something that was done in the line of duty, i.e., for something that is constitutional and legal; are defended by the largest law firm in the world; the U.S. Justice Department. However, for illegal and unconstitutional charges they are on their own. That is why this private legal insurance has suddenly become so attractive to some employees of the CIA; they know that they will not be defended by the Justice Department because what they did was so illegal and reprehensible. That is why they are busy buying private legal insurance. For a well-researched, excellent article found in the mainstream media see the Washington Post for R. Jeffrey Smith�s story titled, �CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance�

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001286.html?nav=hcmodule

OKay, so based on your analogy.....if someone trespasses on my land with intent to do me harm and I order them off my property and remind them that it is illegal to harm me or to trespass......you imply that I am NOT allowed to mention what the law states and that it is illegal for them to harm me UNLESS I am a law enforcement officer?

You never stated a time frame for cons ordering liberals off the board, ....you stated it was never done and that suggests an indefinite period of time. Once again, pretty shoddy logic.

This was actually the first debate I watched this year. I wanted to watch the others but just missed them somehow. I will definitely be watching them from now on! I found it so interesting, and it really gave me more hope about our country's future. I just loved hearing so many great ideas for the future of America (from all of the candidates). I have been very discouraged over the last 7 years. Things just keep getting worse and worse and worse. I cannot wait to have a strong, intelligent leader running this country who can help heal our very injured nation!

I was most impressed with Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. I don't know if Richardson has what it takes, but I loved what he had to say about education being the most important thing (I agree!) and just how he presented himself and his ideas in general. Biden seems to have the experience behind him and a good solid head on his shoulders, and I really appreciated his ability to get right to the point instead of dancing around aimlessly.

Obama may not have had the strongest night (and I was not happy about how he interrupted Hillary!), but he is my favorite candidate, so I am giving him the benefit of the doubt because I know where he stands on the issues more than I know any other candidate. He just needed to be much more quick and direct with some of his answers, but of course, I still think he's the man. :) I do fully expect him to learn from his mistakes and completely wow me at the next debate.

Hillary is a very impressive politician. I really find her to be extremely intelligent, extremely strong, and very likeable in general. She would indeed be an incredibly strong leader for this country. She is a great speaker. Although people keep talking about how she is being attacked, I do agree with a lot of the critism she receives on her voting record and her alliances (best word I could think of) with major corporations. That makes me a bit nervous because to me one of the biggest problems in America is that the corporations are using our politicians like their own personal puppets. However, I am really impressed with her knowledge overall and how she plans to turn this country around, and obviously we would be at least 100 times better off having her in office than Bush and the current sorry excuse for an administration! January of 2009 cannot come soon enough.

Dick Morris was an advisor to the Bill Clinton administration. He was also the campaign manager of Clinton's successful 96 re-election. He knows the Clintons inside and out. Very interesting reading (and watching).

I'm not trying to bash your opinion just making an observation about how 2 people look at the same thing and see 2 different things.

You said you felt that Bush did a good job in keeping the country safe after 9/11, etc. I look at the situation as Bush preying on our fears and using them to invade Iraq. We did a fast hit on Afghan. which was needed, but then that was it. Osama bin Laden is still at large (maybe dead for all we really know) and he was behind the whole incident. But we have torn apart Iraq for what real reason? Oil. It can be sugar coated and denied, but we all know that is what it was. It wasn't for any supposed WMD that he knew were not there.

I don't think our country can take more war, and that is what McCain has said he believes in (unless he has since changed that statement).

I believe Bush has done more hurt than good for this country, our country. BTW, I am an independent too and will be voting Democrat.

The paragraph above it (not included in chart) states Obama's plan benefits the lowest income brackets while JM's benefits the middle class (if you make $5 million or more per year- joke) or the upper class. Go to the website and read the paragraph above the chart.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C04%5C11%5Cstory_11-4-2008_pg7_32

For those who haven�t yet seen it, here is the accompanying summary of a 2003 New York Times Article:

September 11, 2003

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac � which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt � is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

... Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

��These two entities � Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac � are not facing any kind of financial crisis,�� said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ��The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.��

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
��I don�t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,�� Mr. Watt said

Also, he laughed in the background and wanted extra time to talk? Does he need extra time to do everything? At least Obama respected the fact that John McCain was talking and didn't laugh and smile with an evil grin. He would gently say "you are wrong about that John" and that's pretty much it. There was no smirk that I could see.

Senator Obama was very cordial, but I thought John McCain was egotistical and trying to quote people "of importance" as if that is going to make a difference.

Again, I repeat again, he has the same old Bush way of doing things, which is the same old way for the past 8 years.

We need change and we need it for the middle class not the tycoons who are already wallowing in money one of them being John McCain and the others being all his croneys...

Someone sent me the following link. I know you die-hard Republicans will say Huffington Post is a Democrat thing. I do not know as I don't usually get my information there. Regardless, there is the printed exchange with Hannity (sp?, I don't get my news from him either). It is absolutely brilliant.....NOT. Since that is true, I know this because I heard the exchange myself from her own lipsticked mouth.

This is certainly worthy of a read and I hope some of you will wise up and see that a McCain administration is not going to be good for this country as his first major job of picking a running mate shows us he is reckless and self-centered. Palin, herself, in the oval office?? This is not scary, it is TERRIFYING!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/18/the-palin-plunge-voters-s_n_135857.html

When polls go up in Obama's favor, the stock market is taking a diving lower and lower in direct correlation with this. And in direct correlation, those everyday folks like myself who are in the stock market and everyday people all over are taking their money out DIRECTLY in relation to Obama going up in the polls. WHy? Because they know he is going to be the death of their money. These aren't the rich folks....everyday people. He will raise taxes so high on what they make in the market, their 401K, their IRA, etc., that they will be left with nothing after he is through draining them dry, all to give to those he feels have been so left out.

Obama is going to create nothing but chaos in the workforce.....Lower employee threshold.....lower family leave act. Send employees to staffing agencies, automate, move jobs offshore. Businesses will not be able to afford his garbage. These are everyday businesses, not the bigshots on wall street. These are the very people who employ you.....they will not be able to employ more, but they will have to let many go just in hopes of staying in business. He will definitely do a hatchet job on this country. Then you can wonder who will come in and take over.

�The bottom line is that Obama is not being honest about his tax and spending plans. It is impossible � impossible! � for him to finance his giveaways by taxing only those making $250,000 or more. He will have to raise taxes substantially on people making much, much less than that. If you think you are going to avoid a tax increase on Obama�s watch because you aren�t �rich,� remember this: A government that arbitrarily picks $250,000 as a dividing line can, using the same purely political considerations, pick any number as a dividing line.� � New Hampshire Union Leader

No, the American people did not listen, you're right about that. And I can only hope that he tries to follow through on what he promised. Obama has been linked to some very interesting people in Chicago. It wasn't just about the Ayers issue. I truly hope he can stand up to the tough road ahead of him. For if his own Vice President's words hold true, he will be tested here shortly.