FEDS INVESTIGATING McCAIN DONORS AS HIS CAMPAIGN LIES TO MEDIA ABOUT RETURNING DIRTY MONEY FROM CROOKED LAW FIRM

McCain with BFF Scott Rothstein


FEDS INVESTIGATING McCAIN DONORS AS HIS CAMPAIGN LIES TO MEDIA ABOUT RETURNING DIRTY MONEY FROM CROOKED LAW FIRM

Phoenix, AZ (JUNE 10) – Sen. John McCain must personally and publicly explain why he allowed his staff to lie to the media about returning all $1.1 million given to his presidential campaign by a convicted felon; if he accepted even more from the felon’s law partners; and why he has not donated all the dirty money to charity as his campaign claimed.
 
Federal authorities have been investigating 30 lawyers who worked in the now-defunct firm of Scott Rothstein, who yesterday was sentenced to 50 years in prison for running an elaborate Ponzi scheme.
 
According to his lawyer and media reports, the convicted felon is giving up the names of people involved and has even gone “undercover” which will likely lead to the arrest of lawyers, business associates and perhaps even politicians.
 
Tomorrow, Rothstein’s chief operating officer, who personally gave McCain’s political committees at least $30,000, is scheduled to plead guilty to assorted criminal activity.
 
The lawyers, along with 15 other Rothstein employees, made about $2.2 million in state and federal campaign contributions while he was running the Ponzi scheme from 2005 to 2009.
 
“McCain is knee-deep in this scandal and he needs to come clean,” said Mark Sanders, spokesman for U.S. Senate Candidate J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ). “He first lied to the media when his campaign said the entire $1.1 million Rothstein collected was given to charity and it was old news. Then he tried to cover it up by saying he gave back the few thousand dollars Rothstein and his wife gave directly.”
 
Federal officials are examining Rothstein’s use of money from his $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme to pay salaries and give huge bonuses to senior attorneys on the condition that they donate generously to his favorite politicians, including McCain.
 
“Rothstein and his wife Kimberly held fundraisers for McCain,” Sanders said. “His partner Stuart Rosenfeldt and his wife Susanne gave to McCain and to others, including Florida Gov. Charlie Crist.
 
“McCain likes to say character matters, but he is displaying his lack of it by keeping the $1.1 million and returning to Rothstein two small individual contributions,” Sanders said.
 
One employee close to Rothstein, chief operating officer Debra Villegas, donated about $46,000 to McCain, other politicians and political committees in Florida. They gave the dirty money back, while McCain kept his million.
 
“Everybody seems to get it but McCain,” Sanders said. “He needs to fully account for the distribution of the money he collected from everyone at this corrupt firm and explain to Arizona voters why accepting and keeping money gained from a criminal activity makes him worthy to serve in any public office.”
 
The racketeering charges against Rothstein allege that the firm’s donations to politicians and campaign committees were largely illegal because they were funded with money from the now-disbarred lawyer’s illegal Ponzi scheme.
 
“According to media reports, agents for the FBI and the IRS are investigating campaign records to determine how Rothstein used his investment scam to fund the political donations,” Sanders said. “Their next stop needs to be in Phoenix to interview McCain. If he didn’t know how his top contributor was making money he should have. Ignorance is not a defense when this contributor is the number one donor to the ‘McCain Victory 2008′ fund and the ‘McCain-Palin Victory 2008′ fund.”
 
Sanders said McCain should not try to hide behind his spokesman when it comes to answering these questions.
 
“McCain’s mouthpiece is the same guy who lied to the media in the first place and prior to joining the Senator’s campaign  was the research director for Al Gore while Gore was trying to convince everyone that planet Earth was about to turn into a fireball because of global warming,” Sanders said. “It’s time for Mr. McCain to step up and personally disavow his acceptance of more than a million dollars he took from a convicted felon.”

 
For more information, please visit http://www.JDforSenate.com or contact info@jdforsenate.com.

Religious Rally Against Israel

Religious Rally Against Israel

Posted By Mark D. Tooley On June 11, 2010 @ 12:19 am In FrontPage | 18 Comments

Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) tries to organize American religious opinion against Israel with relatively measured tones.  Its participants predictably include officials from the left-dominated Mainline Protestant denominations, liberal Catholic orders, and the Greek Archdiocese of North America, as well as the Antiochian Orthodox Church in the U.S.  Its official “friends” include more overtly anti-Israel diehards like Friends of Sabeel – North America, which essentially wants to dissolve Jewish Israel in favor of a multi-ethnic “Palestine.”   Various advocates of anti-Israel divestment, an otherwise largely defeated cause, are also “friends” to CEMP, including the Episcopal Peace Fellowship, the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship, and the Methodist Federation for Social Action.

The star of CMEP’s annual “advocacy” conference in Washington, D.C. starting June 13 will be Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.  Comfortably liberal Episcopal refinement is exactly the sort of tone that CMEP often prefers to mask its more provocative agenda.  Bishop Schori is enmeshed in the melt-down of her own denomination, including lawsuits against departing local congregations, and its schism with the more theologically orthodox global Anglican Communion.  But denouncing Israel still merits her attention.

Last week, she wrote President Obama a relatively long, substantive and, by Religious left standards, temperate denunciation of Israel’s interception of the Gaza-bound flotilla. But the bias and preoccupation with Israeli sins, perceived or real, are still obvious, even if cloaked in Episcopalian politesse.  Admitting all the details of the flotilla event are still unclear, she still insisted:   “It is clear, however, that the deaths of civilians working to deliver humanitarian aid could not have happened absent the counterproductive Israeli blockade of Gaza.”  Ostensibly there are “far better ways to protect Israel’s security and promote moderate political leadership in Gaza than a blockade that intensifies human suffering and perpetuates regional insecurity.”

What are the alternatives to counteracting Hamas rule in Gaza short of a partial blockade against it?  Like most Israel critics, Bishop Schori does not say.  And as with other professions of supposed concern about Israel’s “security,” Bishop Schori and other clerics who publicly pontificate about the Middle East almost never offer substitute proposals for whatever Israeli defenses they reject.  The security wall is supposedly an outrage, but what else will impede suicide bombers?  Israel’s continued security oversight of the West Bank is purportedly oppresses the Palestinians.  But since most Palestinians still seem to reject a Palestinian state existing peacefully alongside a Jewish Israel, what are the other options?  Religious and secular complainants insist that removal of Jewish settlements from the West Bank is prerequisite for peace.  But the abrupt closure of all Jewish settlements in Gaza hardly generated good will and instead seemed only to stimulate appetite for more Israeli concessions.  Browbeating Israel into endless accommodations that only feed an inexhaustible expectation by Palestinians for further Israeli retreat and eventual Arab/Islamist triumph seems to be the Religious Left’s main strategy for Middle East “peace.”

“Instead of enhancing Israel’s security, the blockade has harmed its international standing and imposed an inexcusable humanitarian toll on the people of Gaza,” Bishop Schori insisted in her letter to Obama.  ”While Israel has allowed a very limited amount of humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, the restriction on basic goods for agriculture, fishing, and infrastructure construction has caused poverty and joblessness to soar.”  This may be true, but why is Israel exclusively at fault for Gaza’s suffering?  How was Gaza faring before to the blockade, and under the rule of the Palestinian Authority?  What evidence is there for Palestinian leadership genuinely interested in responsible governance rather than indefinite conflict?

Bishop Schori provided details about the number of trucks with supplies entering Gaza per day. The concern is partly admirable, if sincere.  But why is a U.S. Episcopal Bishop obsessed with living standards for Gaza, or the Palestinians, when hundreds of millions globally live in far greater poverty?  Would Palestinian GNP, in Gaza or the West Bank, interest liberal U.S. bishops at all, absent Israel as the targeted culprit?  How many anti-Western dictators have blockaded or literally starved hostile populations much larger than Gaza, without a murmur from Bishop Schori or the Religious Left?

Rather than tacitly backing an ill-advised blockade, the U.S. should work with its ally, Israel, to promote constructive new policies toward Gaza that serve the aims of peace and security,” Bishop Schori lectured.  The former oceanographer and teacher wants “continued efforts to halt violence, and credible long-term strategies to support Palestinian leaders who are actively working for peace,” while also drawing “support and legitimacy from across Palestinian society.”  She suggests “political reconciliation so that a future Palestinian government can draw strength both from its internal support and from its external actions on behalf of peace.”  How does the Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop, unable to reconcile the divisions within her own denomination of tea sippers and Volvo drivers, propose to reconcile Hamas with other Palestinians, much less Israel?

For Schori, the goals for the Middle East are simple.  The Episcopal Church has “repeatedly” supported a “secure Israel with defined borders, whose right to exist is universally recognized; a sovereign, independent and secure state for the Palestinian people; and shared custody and protection of the holy sites in Jerusalem held sacred by the three great Abrahamic faiths.”  This rhetoric appeals to Episcopalians snugly secure in their New England hamlets.  But how many Palestinians, even outside Hamas, share this vision?

Schori instructed Obama to shift our nation’s posture” towards “lifting the blockade,” while also “robustly” encouraging “long-term peace.”  She also expects “direct negotiation between the parties,” i.e. apparent recognition for Hamas.  How will abandoning the Gaza blockade and recognizing Hamas, which would surely inflate that Islamist group’s prestige and ambitions, advance peace?   In the rarified and often beautiful world of Episcopal liturgy, noblesse oblige, gothic spires, and ancient endowments, simply demanding “long-term peace’ may seem quite attainable over a lunch at the country club.  In the real world of guns, power, and even more ancient hatreds, appeasement often only breeds greater conflict.

Bishop Schori’s pleas to appease Hamas were relatively more thoughtful than other Religious Left voices.  United Methodist lobbyist Jim Winkler histrionically bewailed Israel’s “high-seas piracy” against the “Freedom Flotilla.”  But her appeal to Obama, and her likely commentary to Churches for Middle East Peace later this week, are just as feckless, and, if heeded, just as dangerous.

Obama Failing on the Things the Public Cares Most About

Obama Failing on the Things the Public Cares Most About

Rick Moran

As Ed Lasky wryly points out in an email on this poll, “But he gave himself (modestly for him) a B+…”

Jennifer Rubin on a new poll in the Economist of all adults – not just registered or likely voters which would skew the results more toward the right:

The results show a president struggling. On the oil spill, 28% approve and 42% disapprove of his performance. On taxes, government spending, immigration, gun control, national defense, and terrorism the respondents say they are closer to the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. On gun control and national defense there is a double-digit gap. Democrats do better on regulating business (but within the margin of error), the environment, abortion (also within the margin of error), gay marriage, health care (by four points) and energy policy. In an enormous turnaround since Obama took office, the parties tie on the economy.

38 percent support the goals of the Tea Party movement; 27 percent do not. In a slew of areas (the Middle East, Afghanistan, energy policy, the environment, the economy, job security, health-care coverage, education, entitlement programs, the financial system, and Wall Street) the public thinks we are worse off than two years ago. There is no area in which the public thinks things have improved. They disapprove of Obama’s performance on Iraq, the economy (39 percent strongly so), immigration (41 percent strongly so), the environment, terrorism, gay rights, social security, the deficit ( 57 percent strongly or somewhat), Afghanistan, and taxes. On education they approve, but within the margin of error. Overall 44 percent approve of his performance and 49 percent do not.

With the exception of education and health care, the areas respondents are most concerned about (the economy, terrorism, social security, the budget deficit, and taxes) are ones on which Obama is doing very poorly and which most respondents believe have gotten worse in the last two years.

The first peg is in place to defeat Obama in 2012; people have lost faith in him as a leader and it seems problematic whether he can regain enough respect before 2012 to win.

The second peg is much more difficult; the GOP must find someone to run against him and come up with a positive agenda that the American people can rally behind. Currently, Obama leads all Republican challengers despite his lowly approval ratings. While the public appears to be souring on Obama, there is no one in the GOP field that excites them enough to defeat an incumbent president – a feat last achieved in 1992 but  rare otherwise. 

Obama is slowly being Carterized. And given the bleak outlook on the economy, the oil spill, foreign affairs, and the mid terms, the president may very well find himself with a primary challenge of his own.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers