http://www.weareillinois.org We Are Illinois: ILGOP en-us
But Tony (Antoin) Rezko is simply another middle-aged, bald, Chicago developer who was involved in an influence peddling and kick-back scheme that was connected to a number of politicians, a couple of pension funds, an Iraqi businessman (prepared to upfront millions for bail) and, oh yes, Senator Barack Obama. A jury hit Tony with a conviction on sixteen felony counts out of twenty four in the indictment.

Corruption, at least corruption old-fashioned Chicago style, is par for the city's political culture. Unlike corruption in other cities, Chicago corruption usually trickled down to the little guy. The myth is that everyone benefited. Of course, some people benefited a lot more than others.

And Chicago corruption was always underscored by a nice dose of reality. When one prominent politician was asked about directing the city's insurance business to his relatives, he gave a resoundingly uncomplicated answer: Why would anyone bother to go into politics, if he couldn't throw a little business to his loved ones.

We Chicagoans can resonate to the crisp truthfulness of the response.

Unlike academia where the corruption is so intense, the stakes are so small, and the justifications truly Kafkaesque, the guy on the right side of the take in Chicago could, well, like Tony Rezko, buy a great mansion in fashionable Wilmette, or like Barack Obama get a real discount on a mansion in trendy and liberal Hyde Park-Kenwood.

No further rationale would be required.

Since 1972, on average two Chicago politicians per year have been convicted of felonies. In 1991, when not one Chicago Alderman was convicted or even indicted, the Sun-Times ran that deviant event as a front-page story.

Michelle Obama spent just three years at the Chicago Law Firm of Sidley Austin, far less than a typical associate on the career path to be partner. In a move incongruous with the alleged iconic credentials that are a mainstay of the Michelle hagiography, she took a job with the Democratic machine.

Probably some people think you leave a high- powered, prestigious law firm like Sidley Austin to take a job with the Chicago machine to save the world. But no one who knows how Chicago works is going to buy that!

Michelle was subsequently hired by the University of Chicago, ultimately ending up as the University of Chicago Hospital's Vice President for External Affairs. Barack was chair of the Illinois Senate's powerful Health and Human Services Committee, the position tied by some to the Rezko scandal.

If you don't get the picture, you are definitely not from Chicago.

In 2007 the not-for-profit University of Chicago hospital turned out a profit of 143 million, and is up 118 million for 2008. The hospital is scheduled to receive a 30 million infusion from Medicaid, and will be turning some of its Medicaid patients to another hospital to free up space for its private insurance paying patients. According to the (London ) Daily Mail (online), in 2006 the hospital turned away an indigent man, who died.

When Michelle exhorts young people to turn down the profit system and do something meaningful with their lives, apparently this is not the example she means to convey.

Now you might ask what does a community relations director at a university do? That's really a naive question. The question is who does the community relation's director know?

The answer became apparent when Barack was elected to the U.S. Senate and Michelle's salary more than doubled.

Barack and Michelle were a power couple hooked into the Democratic machine. Tony Rezko cultivated them, the Chicago Way. When the Obamas bought their mansion in trendy Hyde Park-Kenwood, Mrs. Rezko bought the lot next door for asking price in a coordinated deal from the same seller. The Obamas got their house at a discount. Mrs. Rezko paid full price. Later, Mrs. Rezko sold part of the lot to the Obamas to expand their back yard.

What Rezko wanted from Obama became apparent later.

To understand the genius of Rezko, you need to understand that for generations, corruption in Chicago was partisan specific. As my mother used to say when she split her ticket, 'You need some Republicans. Then the machine can't steal as much.'

Rezko established a typical Chicago 'pay for play' scheme. You want to build a hospital, you had to pay Rezko, who paid the appropriate people who could help you play. The problem that Rezko faced was the hospital board had fifteen members and that is a lot of people to bribe and a lot of loose ends. But then Rezko had a friend who chaired the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee.

Enter State Senator Barack Obama, who is credited as the moving force behind a piece of bipartisan legislation (Il. Senate Bill 1332) that reduced the hospital board to nine people, to be appointed by Governor Rod Blagojevich (know as Governor 'Blago') with advice and consent of the Illinois Senate.

Blago immediately appointed three physicians, Rezko cronies, all of whom were coincidentally big contributors to Barack Obama. As they say downtown, Barack knows how to walk the Chicago Way. Rezko became the guy you saw if you wanted to build a health care facility. He controlled the board's votes.

The three appointed physicians have been convicted in the Federal probe and are rumored to be about ready to sing.

For his part, Rezko just sent a 'I will not rat out my pals letter,' to United States District Judge Amy St. Eve. Veteran observers of the Chicago crime scene note that the guys who don't sing, don't write letters. They just clam up. You write a letter because you want the other guys to be reminded to take care of your wife and kids' college is expensive.

So, what else does Rezko expect, a presidential pardon, ala Bill Clinton and Carlos Vignali, the dope dealer Clinton's brother-in-law, Hugh Rodham, represented?

If you want to make sure that the White House is not going to be tainted by corruption, don't elect a president who grew up in the Chicago political system and whose wife thinks that the country owes her some palliative to eliminate her sense of personal shame. Because unlike the stock market, when it comes to human behavior, past performance really is indicative of future results.


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4166 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4166 Sat, 05 Jul 2008 09:31:42 GMT
Twice, Rezko violated the home-confinement terms of his bail, formerly sealed court files show, by making "social calls" -- including last September to the home of former top Cook County official Orlando Jones after Jones committed suicide.

"FBI agents responding to information regarding the suicide of Rezko's associate Orlando Jones were surprised to find Rezko at the Jones home after Jones' suicide. This was not Rezko's only social call," federal prosecutors wrote on Feb. 25, 2008. " . . . it is a further indication that Rezko did not respect the strictures of home confinement.

"Obviously the government has not undertaken, and is not in a position, to determine how many such violations occurred."

Prosecutors never charged Rezko with violating the terms of his home confinement, which generally allowed him to leave his Wilmette home only to go to court and church and to meet with his lawyers.

Rezko's rule-bending became public last week, when U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve unsealed 18 previously secret documents from the federal corruption trial that culminated with his conviction June 4.

Two of those documents already made headlines. One showed that Gov. Blagojevich -- who once relied on Rezko's political fund-raising prowess and advice -- was questioned by federal agents "on multiple occasions" and denied having conversations described in court by two key prosecution witnesses. Another showed prosecutors considered calling witnesses -- but ultimately didn't -- to testify about money Rezko raised for his longtime friend, Sen. Barack Obama.

Other secrets that were hidden in those records:

• • Rezko had a net worth of $53 million in 2003, and his finances were so complicated that he hired several accountants to compile his 111-page federal income-tax return. Today, he's fighting a raft of lawsuits that accuse him of being a deadbeat, including the foreclosure of his mansion.

• • Prosecutors put a value on Rezko's schemes. "The government believes that Rezko's schemes cheated victims out of over $10 million," assistant U.S. attorney Reid Schar wrote in one filing. "Every dollar defendant spends to buy his way out of custody is one less dollar that could be used to repay these victims." Besides the corruption conviction, Rezko still faces trial early next year on business-fraud charges involving his fast-food franchises.

Schar's argument came as Rezko -- then in jail because the judge decided he'd lied about his finances and might flee to his native Syria -- was offering to pay for security to watch him if the judge would release him on bail. St. Eve rejected Rezko's offer but later released him on $8 million bail during his trial.

• • Rezko struck a deal last August with fellow Blagojevich fund-raiser Christopher G. Kelly to settle a $1.7 million debt -- money that Kelly, who is awaiting trial on tax charges related to gambling, had invested in Rezko companies between 2002 and 2006.

In the fall of 2006, Kelly "expressed concern that his investment with Rezko would be a total loss," prosecutors wrote.

The settlement had Rezko giving Kelly a small stake in a 62-acre South Loop site that Rezko was trying to develop. The property is now controlled by Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born billionaire. Kelly got a loan for an undisclosed amount from an Auchi company earlier this year. It's unclear if that's tied to his stake in the South Loop property.


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4165 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4165 Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:32:42 GMT
The heated exchange between the governor and reporters overshadowed what was supposed to be a feel-good news conference about Blagojevich beefing up gas-pump inspections statewide. Reporters surrounded the governor afterward, peppering him with questions about political fund-raiser Tony Rezko’s recent criminal convictions and the sway Rezko held in Blagojevich’s administration — a subject at the heart of Rezko’s trial.

When pressed by reporters, Gov. Blagojevich angrily denied being a target of a federal corruption investigation, calling questions about the matter "ridiculous."

At first, Blagojevich answered the questions as he had in the past. "Tony Rezko is a friend who helped me. He helped Sen. [Barack] Obama. He helped [Illinois Attorney General] Lisa Madigan. . . . He helped all kinds of political figures," Blagojevich said.

But when told by a reporter that -- unlike the governor -- neither Madigan nor Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has been questioned by federal authorities about Rezko, Blagojevich seemed to suggest the reporter might be wrong.

"We don't know that about the other people," he said. "And let me simply say I know what I do and know how I do things. And I know I do things right."

Aides to both Madigan and Obama said investigators never have questioned them about Rezko's corruption case. Like Blagojevich, both have returned campaign contributions linked to Rezko.

During his back-and-forth with reporters, Blagojevich pointed out that Rezko -- who was convicted on 16 of 24 criminal counts -- was found not guilty of shaking down an investment firm for contributions to his Friends of Blagojevich campaign fund. "There's no allegation of any of his wrongdoing related to my fund-raising. That was proven, and therefore it has no relevance," the governor said.

"I'm not going to get involved in inappropriate questions. I'm not involved in any of these cases," Blagojevich added later on.

"I'm not going to reward dishonest reporters who ask dishonest questions."

The questions came in the wake of a federal judge last week unsealing -- and then re-sealing -- court records that showed Blagojevich was questioned by federal agents "on multiple occasions."

Asked if he's been told he's a target of an investigation, Blagojevich replied, "The answer is I am not.

"And you know it's a ridiculous question because if you carefully look at the things that have happened and you're not just interested in sensationalizing something so you can do your big news story, you wouldn't even bother asking a question like that."


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4164 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4164 Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:27:31 GMT
The observation is not without interest (if military service automatically qualified someone for elective office, then everyone who had worn a uniform would be qualified -- which obviously is not true). Clark took it too far. He drew distinctions between combat in the air and combat on the ground, and implied that McCain really did not understand war as grunts (and generals as enlightened as Clark) understand it.

Clark missed the entire point about McCain and Vietnam. In the North Vietnamese prison camps, McCain not only survived but transcended the ultimate test of character. He proved his honor.

Galanti, too, walked through the valley and emerged as a hero. On Tuesday he saluted his comrade and friend. And he tore Clark's partisanship into shreds.

Obama repudiated Clark, so the stain does not attach to him. Clark, meanwhile, persists in promoting division.

...

Recent campaigns have heard similar, albeit less extreme, charges regarding the nature of a candidate's military service. Al Gore took hits because he spent his tour in Vietnam as a military journalist. Some sneered at Jim Gilmore's assignment to Europe with Army intelligence.

Do we really need arguments that a submariner outpoints a Seabee, but that a fighter pilot outpoints a submariner -- and that a Green Beret outpoints a fighter pilot? Enough.


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4161 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4161 Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:46:27 GMT
The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago. The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a "super super jumbo." Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates.

Compared with the average terms offered at the time in Chicago, Obama's rate could have saved him more than $300 per month.

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the rate was adjusted to account for a competing offer from another lender and other factors. "The Obamas have since had as much as $3 million invested through Northern Trust," he said in a statement.

Modest adjustments in mortgage rates are common among financial institutions as they compete for business or develop relationships with wealthy families. But amid a national housing crisis, news of discounts offered to Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the banking committee, and Kent Conrad (D-N.D) by another lender, Countrywide Financial, has brought new scrutiny to the practice and has resulted in a preliminary Senate ethics committee inquiry into the Dodd and Conrad loans.

Within Obama's presidential campaign organization, former Fannie Mae chief executive James A. Johnson resigned abruptly as head of the vice presidential search committee after his favorable Countrywide loan became public.

Driving the recent debate is concern that public officials, knowingly or unknowingly, may receive special treatment from lenders and that the discounts could constitute gifts that are prohibited by law.

"The real question is: Were congressmen getting unique treatment that others weren't getting?" associate law professor Adam J. Levitin, a credit specialist at Georgetown University Law Center, said about the Countrywide loans. "Do they do business like that for people who are not congressmen? If they don't, that's a problem."

Under financial disclosure rules, members of Congress are not obliged to disclose debts owed to financial institutions for personal residences. Names of lenders and rates paid on mortgages sometimes can be determined by scrutinizing property transaction records. In March, in response to media questions, Obama posted on his campaign Web site records related to his house purchase.

Last week, during debate on a bill to help homeowners caught in the foreclosure crisis, some members of the Senate ethics committee proposed an amendment to require that lawmakers disclose their mortgage lenders and loan terms in annual financial forms starting next year.

In Obama's case, he received a lower rate than the average offered at the time in Chicago for similarly structured jumbo loans. He secured his final mortgage commitment on June 8, 2005, and during that week, rates on similar loans for which information is available averaged 5.93 percent, according to HSH Associates, which surveys lenders. Another survey firm, Bankrate.com, placed the average at 6 percent.

"It's certainly safe to say that this borrower did better than average," said Keith Gumbinger, an HSH vice president, noting that consumer rates vary widely. "It's a good deal."

The Obama campaign called the rate "consistent with Northern Trust policies, and it reflected the base rate set for that period discounted to address the competition for the account and other opportunities, such as personal financial services, that the relationship would bring to Northern Trust."

When the Obamas secured the loan, their income had risen dramatically. Obama assumed his Senate seat in January 2005, with an annual salary of $162,100. That same month, Random House agreed to reissue an Obama memoir, for which it originally paid $40,000, as part of a $2.27 million deal that included two future nonfiction books and a children's book.

Around the same time, the University of Chicago Hospitals promoted Michelle Obama to a vice president and more than doubled her pay, to $317,000.

The couple wanted to step up from their $415,000 condo. They chose a house with six bedrooms, four fireplaces, a four-car garage and 5 1/2 baths, including a double steam shower and a marble powder room. It had a wine cellar, a music room, a library, a solarium, beveled glass doors and a granite-floored kitchen.

The Obamas had no prior relationship with Northern Trust when they applied for the loan. They received an oral commitment on Feb. 4, 2005, and locked in the rate of 5.625 percent, the campaign said. On that date, HSH data show, the average rate in Chicago for a 30-year fixed-rate jumbo loan with no points was about 5.94 percent.

Jumbo loans are for amounts up to $650,000, but the Obamas' $1.32 million loan was so large that few comparables are available. Mortgage specialists say that many high-end buyers pay cash.

Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, has no mortgages on properties he owns with his wife, Cindy, who is a multimillionaire.

Unlike Countrywide, where leaked internal e-mails documented a special discount program for friends of chief executive Angelo Mozilo, Northern Trust says it has no formal program to provide discounts to public officials. Loan officers may consider a borrower's occupation when establishing an interest rate, the bank said.

"A person's occupation and salary are two factors; I would expect those are two things we would take into consideration," said Northern Trust Vice President John O'Connell. "That would apply to anyone seeking to get a mortgage at Northern Trust." He added that the rates offered to Obama were "consistent with internal Northern Trust rates at that time."

"The bottom line is, this was a business proposition for us," he said. "Our business model is to service and pursue successful individuals, families and institutions."

O'Connell referred additional questions to the campaign.

Since 1990, Northern Trust employees have donated more than $739,000 to federal campaigns, including $71,000 to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Obama's house purchase has been a source of controversy. In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that on the day of the closing, the wife of Obama's longtime friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko closed on an adjoining lot that had been the estate's side yard.

The Obamas bought the house for $300,000 less than the asking price of $1.95 million, while Rezko's wife, Rita, bought the neighboring lot for the full asking price of $625,000. Rita Rezko later sold a portion of the undeveloped lot to the Obamas, enlarging the senator's yard.

Tony Rezko already had been linked to a grand jury investigation involving public corruption. Last month, he was convicted of 16 counts in an influence-peddling scheme that reached the highest levels of Illinois state government.


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4160 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4160 Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:38:30 GMT
“As Senate Majority Leader, Debbie Halvorson worked feverishly alongside Rod Blagojevich to sweep special funds set aside for veterans to use for Governor Blagojevich’s pet projects.

“Now, in a desperate attempt to re-write history, Senator Halvorson is holding a campaign stunt hoping voters will forget she once again chose Rod Blagojevich over them.

“How can we expect Debbie Halvorson to bring change to Washington when she can’t bring change to the people of Illinois?”

---Andy McKenna
Illinois Republican Party Chairman



]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4159 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4159 Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:34:14 GMT
When asked how his opponent should treat Clark, who has repeatedly questioned whether McCain's military tenure qualifies him for the White House, the senator replied, "I think it's up to Senator Obama now to not only repudiate him, but to cut him loose."

Initially, McCain appeared reluctant to talk about the connection between his being a prisoner of war and his presidential candidacy. "Please," he said. "I had an experience in serving -- I had the privilege and honor to serve in the company of heroes."

"If it helped me be president, it made me appreciate how wonderful and great and patriotic Americans are in their leadership . . . ," he said, before trailing off. . . .

McCain also outlined his other assignments in the military for reporters, including heading the navy's largest squadron at Cecil Field, as reasons why his service had prepared him to be president. But then, having apologized for bristling at the initial question, he delivered a short speech on why he shies away from discussing his role as a prisoner of war.

"I kind of reacted the way I did because I have a reluctance to talk about my experiences, and I apologize for maybe being a little reluctant because I really believed that I served in the company of heroes: People like Bud Day and Robbie Riesner and Jim Stockdale and those people were much braver and better men than I will ever hope to be, but they inspired me to do things that I otherwise wouldn't have been capable of," he said.

"But I think that the overriding theme of this campaign, or message of this campaign, is that I will put my country first. I even had the opportunity to go home early because my father was a high-ranking admiral: I put my country first. I stayed because I believe my code of conduct called for it, and I believe my loyalty to people like Edward Alvarez, a Mexican American who had been there for years before I was, was more important than me putting myself in to go home several years before the end of my [time]. That's probably the better answer and I -- again, I am always reluctant to talk about these things."


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4157 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4157 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:22:20 GMT
2. Why did you as Senate Rules Chairman personally stall legislation that would have prevented Rod Blagojevich from sweeping funds earmarked for veterans? (Kadner, Southtown Star, 09/30/07)

3. Do you support impeachment proceedings against Governor Blagojevich?

4. You were the Chairman of the committee that single handedly held up the ethics bill for a year – now that Governor Blagojevich has raised millions of dollars during that period, do you regret waiting so long to get something done? Why haven’t you been more public in your role as Majority Leader encouraging the Governor to sign this bill into law?

5. How do you rectify the fact that you claimed in a fundraising email that you want to kick the special interests out of the halls of Congress, yet in the 4th quarter of 2007 over half your money came from PAC's and 25% came from 49 registered Springfield lobbyists?

6. Do you plan to debate Marty Ozinga this summer? If so, how many debates would you like to see take place?

7. Why did you wait until you ran for Congress to oppose Senate President Emil Jones or Governor Rod Blagojevich? Can you point to specific public statements or issues where you disagreed with Gov. Blagojevich or President Jones before your congressional campaign launched?

8. Can you name issues where you and Senator Barack Obama disagree?

9. You voted for the GRT, the largest tax increase in Illinois history, in committee, didn't vote on the sales tax increases that raised taxes on suburban families, what is your feeling on a state income tax increase?

10. Do you think Jerry Weller's support in this race is crucial? You have worked with Congressman Weller on issues, are you going to seek his support?



]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4156 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4156 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:17:10 GMT
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 52% of voters say the federal government does not need additional tax revenue for important national programs such as highway repairs and health care reform.

At the same time, 57% think all tax increases should be approved first by voters. Only 30% disagree with this approach. Many states already provide that protection for voters.

While Republican John McCain has proposed maintaining the Bush tax cuts and cutting in other areas, his Democratic rival Barack Obama has proposed raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year.

A separate survey found that 51% believe Obama will raise taxes if elected as opposed to 33% who believe that of a President McCain.

In the latest survey, 47% of Democrats say new tax revenues are needed while only 17% of Republicans agree. A whopping 73% of GOP voters say more taxes are not needed and 34% of Democrats agree with them. Fifty-six percent (56%) of unaffiliated voters say the government does not need more tax revenue, but 32% disagree.

Voters across virtually all income groups oppose additional taxes.

Voters’ responses also parallel the views of their party’s presidential candidate. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Republicans favor a candidate who opposes all tax increases, while a virtually identical 66% of Democrats like a candidate who will raise taxes only on the rich.

While 67% of Republicans also think voter approval should be necessary for all tax increases, only 53% of Democrats and 50% of unaffiliated voters agree.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters say Americans pay more than 25% of their income in local, state and federal taxes, but only a plurality of 43% think the government should be required to provide a taxpayer with an annual report showing how much he or she has paid.

--------
IL GOP Note:

Overwhelming numbers of Republicans in Illinois have been standing up against taxes - now you know why!!! Most people think Obama's going to raise their taxes and most Americans oppose tax increases.

Change for Illinois starts now and it starts with standing up with the people of Illinois AGAINST higher taxes!!


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4155 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4155 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:38:44 GMT
McCain has been on the hustings for days now, promoting his proposals for conservation, offshore oil drilling, nuclear power, and other initiatives to wean America off foreign oil. He calls it the "Lexington Project," a reference to the Revolutionary War battle in Massachusetts.

At the same time, he has been deriding Democrat Barack Obama as "Dr. No" -- opposed to his proposals for energy independence, though Obama is pushing a plan to invest $150 billion over 10 years on alternative energy.

"American technology protected the world," the announcer says in the ad, which is to air on national cable and in undisclosed battleground states. "We went to the moon, not because it was easy, but because it was hard.

"John McCain will call America to our next national purpose: Energy Security," the narrator continues. "A comprehensive bipartisan plan to: Lower prices at the pump. Reduce dependence on foreign oil through domestic drilling. And champion energy alternatives for better choices and lower costs. Putting country first. McCain." . . .


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4154 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4154 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:10:58 GMT
Will Rod Blagojevich give back the $1.4 million Tony Rezko raised for his campaign fund?


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4151 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4151 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:55:11 GMT
He also pounded the theme of federal judicial nominations, a subject of importance and enthusiasm among conservative activists -- and warned of potential Supreme Court picks if Barack Obama becomes president:

"It will fall to the next president to nominate hundreds of men and women to the federal courts. These choices will have far-reaching consequences for all Americans, and perhaps especially for law enforcement. When a serious crime is investigated, prosecuted, and punished, it takes many hours and the best efforts of police, trial courts, and juries. Yet one badly reasoned opinion, by one overreaching judge, can undo it all. Just like that, evidence of guilt can be suppressed, or a dangerous predator released because of judge-made laws having little or nothing to do with the requirements of the Constitution. Even worse, when such opinions issue from the highest court, they set a precedent for many more injustices, and they add one more obstacle to the work of law enforcement. . . .

"It's a peculiar kind of moral evolution that disregards the democratic process, and inures solely to the benefit of child rapists. It was such a jarring decision from the Court that my opponent, Senator Obama, immediately and to his credit expressed his disagreement. I'd like to think this signals a change of heart on his part about his votes against the confirmation of two of the four dissenters in the case, Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. More to the point, why is it that the majority includes the same justices he usually holds out as the models for future nominations? My opponent may not care for this particular decision, but it was exactly the kind of opinion we could expect from an Obama Court. . . .



]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4150 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4150 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:47:36 GMT
Seals was a political novice who didn't even reside in the district he was running in and it was unclear if he was gainfully employed.

Today Dangerous Dan is back once again trying to unseat Kirk. He still doesn't live in the district, his work credentials are questionable and he is still chummy with the Queen of Socialism rep. Schakowsky and her felon husband fast Bobby.

Recently a video has surfaced exposing a few of Seals machine connections in the terribly corrupt 43rd ward of Chicago. As a resident of the 10Th congressional district, the last thing I want happening to the community I'm raising my children in is to see those values brought to my front yard.

Sadly 10th Congressional Democrats tend to excuse and ignore these corrupt practices, viewing the (D) next to the name as the only thing that matters. Then again what do you expect from liberals who were raised or reside in Cook County.


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4149 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4149 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:48:43 GMT
My bottom line is this: The gulf between John McCain and conservatives is miniscule compared to the gulf between John McCain and Barack Obama. This is true regarding virtually every issue of significance to America. The America that a President Barack Obama would shape, with the help of a Democratic Congress and a liberal Supreme Court, would be very dissimilar from the America shaped by a President John McCain.

Conservatives who will not vote for McCain are well-intentioned utopians. They are comparing McCain to a consistently conservative candidate. The reality, however, is that McCain is not running against a consistently conservative candidate. He is running against a consistently left-wing candidate. And America cannot afford to have its first leftist president ever. It can afford liberal presidents -- such as Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter (who governed as a liberal but became a leftist after leaving the White House), or John F. Kennedy, or Lyndon Johnson, or Harry Truman -- i.e., all the Democrats who have been president since World War II. But the Democratic Party has moved well to the left of liberalism. And Barack Obama is at the left of that left-wing party.

Furthermore, given the strong possibility of a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and a liberal Supreme Court for decades to come, given the number of Supreme Court appointments a Democratic president will be able to make, an Obama victory will move America more radically leftward than ever in its history.

That is why the argument that an Obama administration will be so destructive that Americans will reject the left and then elect a real conservative to undo the damage done in an Obama presidency is deeply flawed.

First of all, other than impeachment, there is no way to undo Supreme Court appointments, two or three of which a President Obama would likely make. And given how active most liberal judges are, it won't matter much if the country has some conservative epiphany and then elects a Republican president and Congress. Because even if the Congress and the president will not pass liberal legislation, a liberal Supreme Court will. On almost any social issue that matters -- the right to bear arms, late-term abortion, the definition of marriage, capital punishment, and many others -- a liberal Supreme Court will rule on these issues, and there will be nothing that a post-Obama Republican president, even with a Republican congress, will be able to do about them.

Moreover, the argument that Americans will have a conservative epiphany after four years of an Obama presidency is predicated on America being greatly damaged by his policies. What kind of mindset welcomes such damage to the country it loves for the sake of potentially gaining politically after the damage is done? Is it, for example, really worth a considerably weakened economy (which Barack Obama's tax and other economic policies would likely lead to), with its widespread suffering and unforeseeable social and political consequences, just to -- hopefully -- get a conservative into the White House four or eight years later?

And the damage won't necessarily be undone. Even Ronald Reagan, the most popular conservative to ever serve as president, could not roll back most liberal creations. He never could get rid of the useless Department of Education, for example. Nor could a then-popular President George W. Bush do a thing about Social Security even when he had a Republican House and Senate. And how will Barack Obama's successor undo the damage done to Iraq, the Middle East, the War on Islamic Terror, and the credibility of America's assurances to allies once Iraq slides into chaos as a result of America's precipitous withdrawal from Iraq?

Therefore, as well meaning and sincere as many conservatives are, this mode of thinking -- let the country suffer under a left-wing president, Congress, and Supreme Court and then it will come to its conservative senses -- will likely lead to a downward spiral from which it is hard to see the country escaping for a generation, if it is lucky.

There is one person who can prevent this unhappy future -- John McCain.

He will not raise taxes, the last thing we should be doing in a weakened economy.

He will reduce government spending, and thereby prevent the state from controlling even more of American life.

He will ensure that America wins in Iraq. That will make one of the biggest and richest Arab states the freest of the Arab states. And it will hand Islamic terrorists the biggest defeat they have ever suffered. It will teach potential enemies not to attack America (whether Iraq did so directly is irrelevant to the point). And it will reassure America's allies around the world, many of whom, as in Iraq, risk their lives for America and liberty, that America will never abandon them.

He will appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court and to federal benches, thereby depriving the left of its most powerful weapon in reshaping America in its image.

He may attract enough Hispanic votes (while securing the borders) to prevent that critical constituency from identifying with the Democratic Party, something that would ensure left-wing victories for decades to come.

He will develop nuclear power, environmentalist (read leftist) opposition to which has been morally indefensible. We would all love to have a solar powered or wind powered country. However, on planet earth at this time, nuclear power may be the cleanest source of energy we have. That is why France, not heretofore known as politically conservative, relies on nuclear power for nearly 80 percent of its electricity.

However noble their intentions, conservatives who do not vote for John McCain will be morally complicit in what happens to America during an Obama presidency.



]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4146 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4146 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:52:07 GMT
Much like Barack Obama will do if elected president, Obama's pick for Cook County Board President, Todd Stroger, fought vigorously to ensure Chicago became the highest taxed city in the nation.

"Barack Obama's vision for America is playing out daily in his hometown, especially when it comes to tax policy," said Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna. "With a struggling economy, this is not the kind of change Americans need."

Under Barack Obama's plan for America he would:

- Double the capital gains tax
- Double the dividend tax
- Raise the top tax bracket to nearly 40%
- Raise the cap on the payroll tax

"It's pretty clear that Barack Obama's friends like Todd Stroger are giving a glimpse into what life will be like under an Obama presidency," said McKenna. "I have to believe if Senator Obama felt differently he would have spoken against this tax increase."

"How can we expect Barack Obama to bring change to Washington if he cannot bring change to Illinois?"

BACKGROUND

Obama Voted In Favor Of The Democrats' FY 2009 Budget, Which Would Raise Tax Rates For Americans Earning $31,850 Or More:

Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats' FY 2009 Budget Resolution.(S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85, Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

The Democrats' Budget Would Raise Taxes On Individuals Earning $31,850 Or More. "Under both Democratic plans, tax rates would increase by 3 percentage points for each of the 25 percent, 28 percent and 33 percent brackets. At present, the 25 percent bracket begins at $31,850 for individuals and $63,700 for married couples. The 35 percent bracket on incomes over $349,700 would jump to 39.6 percent." (Andrew Taylor, "Presidential Hopefuls To Vote On Budget," The Associated Press, 3/13/08)

NOTE: Obama's Vote For The Democrats' Budget Is At Odds With His Rhetoric On The Campaign Trail, Where He Claims He'll Provide Tax Relief For Working Americans. Obama: "I'll give a tax cut to working people …"(Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Rally, Denver, CO, 1/30/08)


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4145 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4145 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:20:17 GMT STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
June 30, 2008

TAYLORVILLE — Launching the third week of their tour of Illinois prisons, Republican state Sens. Dan Rutherford and Christine Radogno stopped Monday at the Taylorville Correctional Center and called again on the governor to temporarily halt any prison closures.

The moratorium would stay in effect until a special panel completes a comprehensive review of the state’s existing prisons and comes up with a long-range strategic plan for them. Rutherford, of Chenoa, and Radogno, of Lemont, say Gov. Rod Blagojevich could implement a prison-closing moratorium and create the new panel by issuing an executive order.

The senators’ tour, which on Monday also included prisons in Vandalia and Hillsboro, was inspired by the Blagojevich administration’s plan earlier this year to close part of Stateville prison near Joliet and its subsequent announcement that it would instead close the Pontiac Correctional Center.

“We’re not here to pull a fire alarm about Taylorville potentially being a closed facility,” Rutherford said. “That is not at all what this is about. But this is saying that you in Taylorville and Vandalia and Hillsboro have just as much of a vested interest (as Stateville and Pontiac) in making sure that there’s good, strategic long-range planning for Corrections. You don’t know what the governor may do overnight.”

“We need a plan,” Radogno said. “The department (of Corrections) doesn’t have a plan, or they have failed to produce it.”

In an e-mailed response, Corrections spokesman Derek Schnapp said: “These are very tough decisions to make when improving efficiency and closing facilities. DOC has internal experts who are well equipped to make such decisions. IDOC’s senior staff (possesses) decades of experience and a wealth of expertise and knowledge when it comes to these issues — they know the correctional system inside and out.”

The state budget that lawmakers sent to Blagojevich at the end of May includes full funding for the Pontiac and Stateville prisons, as well as for the expanded occupation of a newer prison at Thomson, Rutherford said.

Administration officials said last week that while money for the prisons is in the budget, that still could change because cuts might be made.

State government’s new fiscal year starts today, but no new budget is in place.

Blagojevich has said the budget that lawmakers sent him is $2 billion out of balance. Last week, he threatened to make $1.5 billion in cuts unless the House votes for certain revenue-generating plans that the Senate already approved.

Comptroller Dan Hynes has said that July 10 is a key date because if there is still no budget in place by then, state government could start missing payrolls.

Rutherford said he expects the budget issue won’t be resolved until right around then.

“I think right now it is probably going to go all the way to the morning of when those checks need to be written to force the issue and to try to put as much pressure on (House Speaker Michael Madigan) as possible,” he said.



]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4143 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4143 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:44:36 GMT
In Florida, Sen. John McCain leads Sen. Barack Obama, 49% to 43%, with Libertarian Bob Barr getting 1%.

In Georgia, McCain leads Obama, 51% to 43%, with Barr pulling 3% in his home state.







]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4141 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4141 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:40:26 GMT
July 1, 2008
BY SANDRA GUY sguy@suntimes.com

If you think you're paying more sales tax today in Cook County, you are. The sales tax rate jumps 1 percent today, thanks to a Cook County Board vote, giving Chicago the dubious distinction of having the highest municipal sales tax rate in the nation.

You'll pay the highest rate of sales tax in restaurants inside a special taxing district of Chicago that originated with the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority's renaming and Navy Pier's renovation in 1989.

» Click to enlarge image Cook County is reaching a little deeper into the cash register starting today. Restaurant meals will cost more, too.
(AP)

RELATED PDFU.S. cities with highest taxes Map of the tax zone

The County Board adopted the latest increase to pay for a hole in the budget, including supporting the county's public health care system.

Sales tax rates differ from town to town in Illinois because certain municipalities are given home-rule authority, allowing them to implement their own sales taxes among other powers. So west suburban Stone Park's 10.5 percent sales tax includes a 1 percent sales tax take for all Illinois municipalities, plus Stone Park's additional 1.5 percent home-rule-enabled sales tax.

Outside Cook County, a municipality's sales tax revenues are divided like this: 5 percent goes to the state; 1 percent goes to the city, except for unincorporated areas, in which case it goes to the county, and 0.25 percent to the county, according to Mike Klemens, spokesman for the Illinois Department of Revenue in Springfield.

The collar counties surrounding Cook -- DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will -- impose sales taxes of 6.25 percent each, plus a 0.75 percent RTA tax. Cook is the only county with home-rule sales tax authority.

A further complication is that some cities and towns lap into two counties, causing sales tax rates to differ inside a single town. Schaumburg, for example, lies in Cook and DuPage counties, as does Hinsdale.




]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4140 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4140 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:26:40 GMT
In hiding behind a campaign surrogate to level attacks on John McCain’s military service, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has reached an all-time low in credibility. Previously promising Americans a new kind of politics this election season, Obama has gone back on his word one too many times, revealing to Americans a hypocrisy of epic proportions.

The most recent installment, in which Gen. Wesley Clark — an Obama surrogate and failed presidential primary contender in 2004 — went on Face the Nation Sunday and attacked McCain’s record of military service to our country, was a despicable act of old-style politics. This is not the first time, however, Obama’s surrogates have taken cheap shots at McCain’s military service, while Obama and his campaign predicate nearly every attack with something along the lines of “we honor his service.” This is a page straight out of the dirty-tricks Democrat playbook. This is not “new politics.” This is an escapist tactic to avoid the real issues Americans are concerned about.

Obama’s campaign surrogates have run the gamut of media outlets taking cheap shots at McCain’s military service and how it will affect the country if he is elected president. West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller took to the stump in April to attack McCain’s character and service, saying, “McCain was a fighter pilot who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they [the missiles] hit the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.” This bold attack on McCain’s compassion for the victims of war was not the last bit of campaign propaganda Obama had his surrogates spreading around.

Obama supporter Ed Schultz warmed up a fundraiser crowd in April by calling McCain “a warmonger.” Such harsh language left Obama unfazed, and he neglected to condemn Shultz’s remark.

Obama supporter and Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin criticized McCain’s service in the military because of his lifelong military background, saying McCain’s views come “from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.” Still, these comments received no condemnation from Obama.

As these surrogates attack the character of a man who is seen by many Americans as a true patriotic hero, Obama’s denouncements of their attacks come rarely and only when he is pushed to do so. This lack of leadership and judgment are showing up more and more in recent weeks, and voters are taking notice of the politics-as-usual campaign Obama is running.

— Orson Swindle is a decorated, retired lieutenant colonel of the United States Marine Corps. He was held as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War and occupied the same cell with John McCain at the Hanoi Hilton in Vietnam.


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4139 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4139 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:08:05 GMT
Yet, there is so much of his life that reveals an absolutely sterling character, but remains largely unknown to the public. And in spite of the tremendous political advantages that publicity could confer, McCain instinctively keeps that information private. Although as a presidential candidate he may be forced to overcome this reticence, he honorably shies away from using his personal heroics for political gain.

How aware is the public that McCain has raised seven children? Or that he adopted his two oldest sons as small boys (children from his wife's prior marriage)? Or that he has raised a Bangladeshi girl with severe health problems adopted from Mother Theresa's orphanage? Or that his own sons have served in the military, including in Iraq?

It's widely known that McCain, a Navy pilot, was shot down, captured and tortured by the North Vietnamese for 5 and a half years - an episode worth a forthcoming column all its own. But few are aware that he refused early release until all the POWs captured before him were freed, and that he refused special treatment offered once it was discovered that he was the "crown prince" (the son of the admiral in charge of the Pacific Fleet) because he wouldn't provide the enemy with any propaganda victories.

Even fewer seem to know that those years were a fraction of a 22-year Navy career. Although broken and battered, after his release from Vietnamese captivity he went right back to the Navy, where he continued to serve for an additional eight years.

Both Israel and America honor military service, knowing all too well the sacrifice of those who step up, stand guard, and put their lives on the line to protect their fellow citizens from the ever-present threat of harm.

Readers in Israel, where military and national service is intertwined with society perhaps more than in any other free country, especially appreciate the McCain family's tradition of military service and the intergenerational transmission of values that comes with it.

Anyone can talk about "supporting our troops"; the McCains serve. McCain's father and grandfather were respected American admirals. Of McCain's four sons, three have gone the military route. One was a Navy pilot like his father, one enlisted in the Marines at age 17 and recently completed a tour in Iraq, and one is completing his education at the Naval Academy (raising the strong possibility that, for the first time in half a century, the United States will have a president with a son at war).

Yet, likely because of those same values, McCain maintains a strict code of silence about his sons' military service, no matter how legitimate his pride or politically useful their military status. Through 2007, McCain was the strongest Senate advocate of vastly increasing troop levels in Iraq, strongly influencing the administration's wildly successful "surge" strategy.

Yet McCain never brought up his own son's service in some of the roughest areas of Iraq. His principled refusal of political advantage from his son's Iraq service extends to refusal even to be interviewed on the subject, or to introduce his son to campaign audiences.

Also little-known is the story of McCain's youngest child. As a result of a 1991 Cindy McCain visit to Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, the McCains adopted an infant daughter dying from a host of health issues. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save the little girl's life, so the McCains, already the parents of six children, brought the child home to America, and paid for desperately needed surgeries and years of rehabilitation. That child is their teenage daughter Bridget. In fact, there was a second infant girl brought back from the orphanage that the McCains saved. She ended up being adopted by one of McCain's aides, Wes Gullett, and his wife. "We were called at midnight by Cindy," Gullett has stated, and "five days later we met our new daughter Nicki at the LA airport."

This fall, Nicki will be a high school junior. Even after years of expensive medical treatment for the child, Gullett says, "I never saw a hospital bill" for her care. It is an extraordinary man who commits himself to such generous and heroic acts; it is an extraordinary politician who won't utter a word about such acts for political aggrandizement.

So, it turns out that McCain, standard-bearer of the party constantly slandered as racist, has, without fanfare, raised as his own a Bengali daughter of color. But the character demonstrations regarding his daughter are even more impressive: during his 2000 presidential run, as he was on the verge of becoming the front-runner, rogue staffers of other candidates reportedly conducted a whisper campaign in South Carolina disparaging the McCains for having a "black baby."

Yet, with every justification to unload with both barrels for such nasty politicking, and with as great an opportunity to set the record straight and tell the world about the heroics of being an adoptive father, McCain chose to shield his child by ignoring the smear. Some analysts believe that move may have ultimately cost him the nomination. But McCain has never questioned his choice. It says a lot about the man that he would readily sacrifice the pinnacle of personal political achievement to protect his family's feelings and privacy.

The contrast with other politicians couldn't be more stark. How many candidates have we heard try to score political points as they crow in the public limelight about their own brief military stints, or their wife's cancer, son's car accident, or sister's death from smoking? The contrast is consistent with McCain's internalizing the codes of honor and military conduct since his youth: the veneration of courage and resilience; the expectation of fidelity to principles of honor; the homage paid to Americans who sacrificed for their country; the nobility of service and sacrifice; the expectation that one would prove worthy of the country's trust; and the humility that comes from recognizing that there are causes and people greater than oneself. It is, in short, a contrast in character.

Character matters. In a president-and particularly in a commander-in-chief, that kind of character arguably counts more than any particular political orientation or policy. From character flows leadership, as it is character which dictates morally grounded direction and engenders public trust.

Character is critical to determining how a leader will respond to crisis. Will he reach deep within himself and in the traditions that shaped him and find the courage and grace to inspire strength and greatness? Will soldiers trust the wisdom and integrity of his decision when he orders them to war? Will he truly understand the terrible toll of war, as well as the price of appeasement? Will he make decisions based on considerations greater than cheap political expediency?

Now, ask yourself: which candidate has repeatedly demonstrated that kind of character?


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4136 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4136 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:16:20 GMT
The three winners of American taxpayer-funded Fulbright grants to study in America — Fidaa Abed, Osama Dawoud, and Zohair Abu Shaban — have studied or taught at the Islamic University of Gaza. An Israeli newspaper, Yediot Ahronot, reported in 2007 that Islamic U. was one location where a kidnapped Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, was kept after his abduction in 2006. The newspaper also said forces loyal to President Abbas had raided the university in 2007 and found stocks of rifles and rocket launchers.

"On its face, the State Department's decision to award Fulbright Scholarships to employees or affiliates of Islamic University of Gaza is a direct violation of new U.S. Law," Rep. Mark Kirk, a Republican from Illinois, wrote in a letter to the acting inspector general of the State Department, Harold Geisel, on June 10.

The letter also cites an Israeli press report that an officer in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard taught a course at the university in explosives-making, though one source cautioned that that claim may be propaganda from a rival Palestinian Arab faction.

During the weekend, Secretary of State Rice pressed Israel to allow the three Fulbright winners to leave Gaza, as Israel had allowed four other Gazan Fulbright winners to leave earlier this month. This week, Israeli officials had announced that two of Islamic University's Fulbright recipients would not be granted exit visas because their names were on an Israeli terror watch list.

The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times have taken up the cause of the Palestinian Arab Fulbright winners. But for Mr. Kirk the episode discloses a potential weakness in the Fulbright screening process.

In his letter to Mr. Geisel, the Republican lawmaker urged the acting inspector general to "investigate the Department's compliance mechanism so that U.S. taxpayer money never again ends up in the hands of those affiliated with institutions controlled by certified foreign terrorist organizations in violation of U.S. law." Specifically Mr. Kirk wants the Fulbright winners to be vetted through the U.S. Agency for International Development's Terrorist Screening Center, a new vetting process created to keep development aid out of the hands of terrorists.

"Since the appropriations committee on behalf of the U.S. taxpayer paid for the TSC system, can't we run these names? The answer from State is, we don't do that," Mr. Kirk said in an interview.

The Islamic University of Gaza is intertwined with Hamas. In his letter, Mr. Kirk quotes Jameela El Shanty, a professor at the school who told the Baltimore Sun in 2006: "Hamas built this institution. The university presents the philosophy of Hamas. If you want to know what Hamas is, you can know it from the university."

While America has supported a recent cease-fire announced this week between Hamas and Israel, the State Department since 1997 has considered Hamas a foreign terrorist organization.

In a response to questions from Mr. Kirk, the State Department responded that it does not have formal ties with the Islamic University of Gaza, or IUG. "The U.S. Consulate does not deal with the IUG as an institution because of its links to Hamas. However, we continue to accept applications from individual students and professors. These applications go through the same vetting process as all other USG funded grantees," the State Department wrote in response.

Mr. Kirk however said he was dumbfounded as to why the Fulbright applicants from the Islamic University of Gaza were not fully screened.

"I am an internationalist, I am for exchange programs," he said. "But look at it like this. The upside is three guys get a U.S. education. The downside is the taxpayers funded terrorists entering the United States for God knows what."

The State Department's work on Fulbright scholarships in Gaza in the past has been cause for tragedy. On October 15, 2003, a roadside bomb blew up a convoy of American contractors who were in Gaza to interview applicants for the Fulbright program.

The scholarship awarded to both Americans to study abroad and foreigners to study here was named for Senator William Fulbright, a Democrat from Arkansas. In 2007, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released the minutes from the executive meetings of that panel in 1967 that Fulbright chaired. In one meeting before the Six-Day War, Fulbright proposed eliminating the tax-exempt status of the United Jewish Appeal because it had lobbied to support Israel in that war. "The trouble is they think they have control of the Senate and they can do as they please," Fulbright was quoted as telling the secretary of state, Dean Rusk.


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4134 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4134 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:07:46 GMT
But it's not safe to live here.

About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale - a score so bad the buildings now face demolition.

Grove Parc has become a symbol for some in Chicago of the broader failures of giving public subsidies to private companies to build and manage affordable housing - an approach strongly backed by Obama as the best replacement for public housing.

As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year.

But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies - including several hundred in Obama's former district - deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.

Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama's close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama's constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.

Some of the residents of Grove Parc say they are angry that Obama did not notice their plight. The development straddles the boundary of Obama's state Senate district. Many of the tenants have been his constituents for more than a decade.

"No one should have to live like this, and no one did anything about it," said Cynthia Ashley, who has lived at Grove Parc since 1994.

Obama's campaign, in a written response to Globe questions, affirmed the candidate's support of public-private partnerships as an alternative to public housing, saying that Obama has "consistently fought to make livable, affordable housing in mixed-income neighborhoods available to all."

The campaign did not respond to questions about whether Obama was aware of the problems with buildings in his district during his time as a state senator, nor did it comment on the roles played by people connected to the senator.

Among those tied to Obama politically, personally, or professionally are:

Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama's presidential campaign and a member of his finance committee. Jarrett is the chief executive of Habitat Co., which managed Grove Parc Plaza from 2001 until this winter and co-managed an even larger subsidized complex in Chicago that was seized by the federal government in 2006, after city inspectors found widespread problems.

Allison Davis, a major fund-raiser for Obama's US Senate campaign and a former lead partner at Obama's former law firm. Davis, a developer, was involved in the creation of Grove Parc and has used government subsidies to rehabilitate more than 1,500 units in Chicago, including a North Side building cited by city inspectors last year after chronic plumbing failures resulted in raw sewage spilling into several apartments.

Antoin "Tony" Rezko, perhaps the most important fund-raiser for Obama's early political campaigns and a friend who helped the Obamas buy a home in 2005. Rezko's company used subsidies to rehabilitate more than 1,000 apartments, mostly in and around Obama's district, then refused to manage the units, leaving the buildings to decay to the point where many no longer were habitable.

Campaign finance records show that six prominent developers - including Jarrett, Davis, and Rezko - collectively contributed more than $175,000 to Obama's campaigns over the last decade and raised hundreds of thousands more from other donors. Rezko alone raised at least $200,000, by Obama's own accounting.

One of those contributors, Cecil Butler, controlled Lawndale Restoration, the largest subsidized complex in Chicago, which was seized by the government in 2006 after city inspectors found more than 1,800 code violations.

Butler and Davis did not respond to messages. Rezko is in prison; his lawyer did not respond to inquiries.

Jarrett, a powerful figure in the Chicago development community, agreed to be interviewed but declined to answer questions about Grove Parc, citing what she called a continuing duty to Habitat's former business partners. She did, however, defend Obama's position that public-private partnerships are superior to public housing.

"Government is just not as good at owning and managing as the private sector because the incentives are not there," said Jarrett, whose company manages more than 23,000 apartments. "I would argue that someone living in a poor neighborhood that isn't 100 percent public housing is by definition better off."

In the middle of the 20th century, Chicago built some of the nation's largest public housing developments, culminating in Robert Taylor Homes: 4,415 apartments in 28 high-rise buildings stretching for 2 miles along an interstate highway.

By the late 1980s, however, Robert Taylor Homes and the rest of the Chicago developments had become American bywords for urban misery. The roughly 30 developments operated for poor families by the Chicago Housing Authority were plagued by crime and mired in poverty.

In Stateway Gardens, a large complex just north of Robert Taylor, a study of 1990 census data found the per-capita annual income was $1,650. And the projects were falling apart after decades of epic, sometimes criminal, mismanagement.

Similar problems plagued public housing in other cities, leading the federal government to greatly increase funding to address the problems. Many cities, including Boston, mostly used that money to rehabilitate their projects, maintaining public control.

Chicago chose a more dramatic approach. Under Mayor Richard M. Daley, who was elected in 1989, the city launched a massive plan to let private companies tear down the projects and build mixed-income communities on the same land.

The city also hired private companies to manage the remaining public housing. And it subsidized private companies to create and manage new affordable housing, some of which was used to accommodate tenants displaced from public housing.

Chicago's plans drew critics from the start. They asked why the government should pay developers to perform a basic public service - one successfully performed by governments in other cities. And they noted that privately managed projects had a history of deteriorating because guaranteed government rent subsidies left companies with little incentive to spend money on maintenance.

Most of all, they alleged that Chicago was interested primarily in redeveloping projects close to the Loop, the downtown area that was seeing a surge of private development activity, shunting poor families to neighborhoods farther from the city center. Only about one in three residents was able to return to the redeveloped projects.

"They are rapidly displacing poor people, and these companies are profiting from this displacement," said Matt Ginsberg-Jaeckle of Southside Together Organizing for Power, a community group that seeks to help tenants stay in the same neighborhoods.

"The same exact people who ran these places into the ground," the private companies paid to build and manage the city's affordable housing, "now are profiting by redeveloping them."

Barack Obama was among the many Chicago residents who shared Daley's conviction that private companies would make better landlords than the Chicago Housing Authority.

He had seen the failure of the public projects in the mid-1980s as a community organizer at Altgeld Gardens, a large public housing complex on the far South Side.

He once told the Chicago Tribune that he had briefly considered becoming a developer of affordable housing. But after graduating from Harvard Law School in 1991, he turned down a job with Tony Rezko's development company, Rezmar, choosing instead to work at the civil rights law firm Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, then led by Allison Davis.

The firm represented a number of nonprofit companies that were partnering with private developers to build affordable housing with government subsidies.

Obama sometimes worked on their cases. In at least one instance, he represented the nonprofit company that owned Grove Parc, Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., when it was sued by the city for failing to adequately heat one of its apartment complexes.

Shortly after becoming a state senator in 1997, Obama told the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin that his experience working with the development industry had reinforced his belief in subsidizing private developers of affordable housing.

"That's an example of a smart policy," the paper quoted Obama as saying. "The developers were thinking in market terms and operating under the rules of the marketplace; but at the same time, we had government supporting and subsidizing those efforts."

Obama translated that belief into legislative action as a state senator. In 2001, Obama and a Republican colleague, William Peterson, sponsored a successful bill that increased state subsidies for private developers. The law let developers designated by the state raise up to $26 million a year by selling tax credits to Illinois residents. For each $1 in credits purchased, the buyer was allowed to decrease his taxable income by 50 cents.

Obama also cosponsored the original version of a bill creating an annual fund to subsidize rents for extremely low-income tenants, although it did not pass until 2005, after he had left the state Senate.

"He was very passionate about the issues," said Julie Dworkin of the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, who worked with Obama on affordable housing issues. "He was someone we could go to and count on him to be there."

The developers gave Obama their financial support. Jarrett, Davis, and Rezko all served on Obama's campaign finance committee when he won a seat in the US Senate in 2004.

Obama has continued to support increased subsidies as a presidential candidate, calling for the creation of an Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which could distribute an estimated $500 million a year to developers. The money would be siphoned from the profits of two mortgage companies created and supervised by the federal government, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"I will restore the federal government's commitment to low-income housing," Obama wrote last September in a letter to the Granite State Organizing Project, an umbrella group for several dozen New Hampshire religious, community, and political organizations. He added, "Our nation's low-income families are facing an affordable housing crisis, and it is our responsibility to ensure this crisis does not get worse by ineffective replacement of existing public-housing units."

One of the earliest public-private partnerships of the type supported by Daley and Obama took place in the Woodlawn neighborhood, a checkerboard of battered apartment buildings and vacant lots just south of the University of Chicago.

Grove Parc Plaza opened there in 1990 as a redevelopment of an older housing complex. The buildings had a new owner and a major renovation funded by the federal government. Even the name Grove Parc Plaza was new.

The owner, a local nonprofit company called Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., was led by two of the neighborhood's most powerful ministers, Arthur Brazier and Leon Finney. Obama had relationships with both men. In 1999, he donated $500 of his campaign funds to another of their community groups, The Woodlawn Organization.

Woodlawn Preservation hired a private management firm, William Moorehead and Associates, to oversee the complex. In 2001, the company lost that contract and a contract to manage several public housing projects for allegedly failing to do its job. The company's head, William Moorehead, was subsequently convicted of embezzling almost $1 million in management fees.

Woodlawn Preservation hired a new property manager, Habitat Co. At the time, the company was headed by its founder, Daniel Levin, also a major contributor to Obama's campaigns. Valerie Jarrett was executive vice president.

Residents say the complex deteriorated under Moorehead's management and continued to decline after Habitat took over. A maintenance worker at the complex says money often wasn't even available for steel wool to plug rat holes. But as late as 2003, a routine federal inspection still gave conditions at Grove Parc a score of 82 on a 100-point scale.

When inspectors returned in 2005, they found conditions were significantly worse. Inspectors gave the complex a score of 56 and warned that improvements were necessary. They returned the following year and found things had reached a new low. Grove Parc got a score of 11 and a final warning. Three months later, inspectors found there had been insufficient improvements and moved to seize the complex from Woodlawn Preservation.

After negotiations with tenants, the government agreed to allow a new company, Preservation of Affordable Housing, a Boston-based firm, to replace Habitat as the manager of Grove Parc. The company is negotiating to buy the development, which would then be demolished and replaced with new housing.

Officials at Woodlawn Preservation say the government didn't give them enough money to properly maintain Grove Parc. Habitat's Jarrett declined to comment on Grove Parc in particular but said it is hard to manage something you don't own.

But other Chicago developers and housing activists say federal subsidies can be adequate if managed properly. They say Grove Parc stands apart for how badly it fell into disrepair.

Preservation of Affordable Housing has assumed responsibility for numerous subsidized complexes across the country.

"Grove Parc is quite an exception to what we've normally done because it's in such bad shape," said the nonprofit's chief executive, Amy Anthony. "These complexes are often tired, they're always denser than today's philosophy, but they're not usually anywhere near as deteriorated."

Similar problems also plagued the next generation of affordable housing de velopment in Obama's district, created as part of the Daley administration's efforts to subsidize smaller apartment buildings scattered throughout neighborhoods.

One of the largest recipients of the subsidies was Rezmar Corp., founded in 1989 by Tony Rezko, who ran a company that sold snacks at city beaches, and Daniel Mahru, who ran a company that sold ice to Rezko. Neither man had development experience.

Over the next nine years, Rezmar used more than $87 million in government grants, loans, and tax credits to renovate about 1,000 apartments in 30 Chicago buildings. Companies run by the partners also managed many of the buildings, collecting government rent subsidies.

Rezmar collected millions in development fees but fell behind on mortgage payments almost immediately. On its first project, the city government agreed to reduce the company's monthly payments from almost $3,000 to less than $500.

By the time Obama entered the state Senate in 1997, the buildings were beginning to deteriorate. In January 1997, the city sued Rezmar for failing to provide adequate heat in a South Side building in the middle of an unusually cold winter. It was one of more than two dozen housing-complaint suits filed by the city against Rezmar for violations at its properties.

People who lived in some of the Rezmar buildings say trash was not picked up and maintenance problems were ignored. Roofs leaked, windows whistled, insects moved in.

"In the winter I can feel the cold air coming through the walls and the sockets," said Anthony Frizzell, 57, who has lived for almost two decades in a Rezmar building on South Greenwood Avenue. "They didn't insulate it or nothing."

Sharee Jones, who lives in another former Rezko building one block away, said her apartment was rat-infested for years.

"You could hear them under the floor and in the walls, and they didn't do nothing about it," Jones said.

By the time Rezmar asked Chicago's city government for a loan on its final subsidized development, in 1998, the city's housing commissioner was describing the company in a memo as being in "bad shape." The Daley administration still made the $3.1 million loan.

Shortly thereafter, Rezmar switched from subsidized housing to high-end development, fueled by the money it had made in subsidized work. Rezko's companies also stopped managing the subsidized complexes.

"Affordable housing run by private companies just doesn't work," Mahru, who no longer works with Rezko, said in an interview with the Globe. "It's difficult, if not impossible, for a private company to maintain affordable housing for low-income tenants."

Responsibility for several buildings fell to the Chicago Equity Fund, which had purchased government tax credits from Rezmar to help finance the projects. After Rezko walked away, the fund was obliged to maintain the buildings as affordable housing. If it did not, it would have to repay the government for the tax credits.

The fund found the buildings in terrible condition. In a 2001 plea to the state to temporarily suspend payments on its mortgages, a fund executive wrote that heating problems, lapsed maintenance, and uncollected rent made the buildings almost impossible to manage.

Most of the buildings have since been foreclosed upon, forcing the tenants to find new housing.

All the while, Tony Rezko was forging a close friendship with Barack Obama. When Obama opened his campaign for state Senate in 1995, Rezko's companies gave Obama $2,000 on the first day of fund-raising. Save for a $500 contribution from another lawyer, Obama didn't raise another penny for six weeks. Rezko had essentially seeded the start of Obama's political career.

As Obama ascended, Rezko became one of his largest fund-raisers. And in 2005, Rezko and his wife helped the Obamas purchase the house where they now live.

Eleven of Rezmar's buildings were located in the district represented by Obama, containing 258 apartments. The building without heat in January 1997, the month Obama entered the state Senate, was in his district. So was Jones's building with rats in the walls and Frizzell's building that lacked insulation. And a redistricting after the 2000 Census added another 350 Rezmar apartments to the area represented by Obama.

But Obama has contended that he knew nothing about any problems in Rezmar's buildings.

After Rezko's assistance in Obama's home purchase became a campaign issue, at a time when the developer was awaiting trial in an unrelated bribery case, Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times that the deterioration of Rezmar's buildings never came to his attention. He said he would have distanced himself from Rezko if he had known.

Other local politicians say they knew of the problems.

"I started getting complaints from police officers about particular properties that turned out to be Rezko properties," said Toni Preckwinkle, a Chicago alderman.

She had previously received campaign contributions from Rezmar and said she had regarded the company as a model, one of the city's best affordable housing developers.

But in the early 2000s, she called Rezko to ask for an explanation for the declining conditions. He told her Rezmar was "getting out of the business," she said - walking away from its responsibility for managing the developments.

"I didn't see him nor have anything to do with him after that," she said.

Preckwinkle, who will be an Obama delegate at the Democratic National Convention, said she would not answer any questions about Obama's role in her district, nor his relationship with Rezko.

Allison Davis, Obama's former law firm boss, dabbled in development for years while he worked primarily as a lawyer. He participated in the development of Grove Parc Plaza. And in 1996, Davis left his law firm to pursue a full-time career as an affordable housing developer, fueled by the subsidies from the Daley administration and aided, on occasion, by Obama himself.

Over roughly the past decade, Davis's companies have received more than $100 million in subsidies to renovate and build more than 1,500 apartments in Chicago, according to a Chicago Sun-Times tally. In several cases, Davis partnered with Tony Rezko. In 1998 the two men created a limited partnership to build an apartment building for seniors on Chicago's South Side. Obama wrote letters on state Senate stationery supporting city and state loans for the project.

In 2000 Davis asked the nonprofit Woods Fund of Chicago for a $1 million investment in a new development partnership, Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners. Obama, a member of the board, voted in favor, helping Davis secure the investment.

The following year, Davis assembled another partnership to create New Evergreen/Sedgwick, a $10.7 million renovation of five walk-up buildings in a gentrifying neighborhood. The project, a model of small-scale, mixed-income development, was subsidized by almost $6 million in state loans and federal tax credits.

Conditions deteriorated quickly. Chronic plumbing failures consumed the project's financial reserves while leaving undrained sewage in some of the apartments. In October, after repeated complaints from building residents, the city government sued the owners, and a judge imposed a $5,500 fine.

New Evergreen/Sedgwick is managed by a company run by Cullen Davis, Allison Davis's son and also a contributor to Obama's campaigns. Cullen Davis said the problems were rooted in the way New Evergreen/Sedgwick was financed. Like most new projects, it is owned by a company created to own one building. That company determined how much to spend on renovations, how much to set aside for maintenance - and how much to keep as profit. When the maintenance funds ran out, there was no other source of money.

"All these deals are set up as islands," Cullen Davis acknowledged. In this case, "The margin of error at Sedgwick was a little too close to begin with."

Chicago's struggles with the deterioration of its subsidized private developments seemed to reach a new height in 2006, when the federal government foreclosed on Lawndale Restoration, the city's largest subsidized-housing complex. City inspectors found more than 1,800 code violations, including roof leaks, exposed wiring, and pools of sewage.

Lawndale Restoration was a collection of more than 1,200 apartments in 97 buildings spread across 300 blocks of west Chicago. It was owned by a company controlled by Cecil Butler, a former civil rights activist who came to be reviled as a slumlord by a younger generation of activists.

Lawndale Restoration was created in the early 1980s, when the federal government helped Butler take control of a group of old buildings, including lending $22 million to his company to redevelop the buildings and agreeing to subsidize tenant rents. In 1995, Butler's company got a $51 million loan from the state to fund additional renovations at Lawndale Restoration. In 2000 Butler's company brought in Habitat Co. to help manage the complex.

Nonetheless, the buildings deteriorated badly. The problems came to public attention in a dramatic way in 2004, after a sport utility vehicle driven by a suburban woman trying to buy drugs struck one of the buildings, causing it to collapse. City inspectors arrived in the ensuing glare, finding a long list of code violations, leading city officials to urge the federal government to seize the complex.

In the midst of the uproar, a small group of Lawndale residents gathered to rally against the Democratic candidate for the US Senate, Barack Obama.

Obama's Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, trailed badly in the polls and was not seen as a serious challenger. But the organizers had a simple message: Cecil Butler had donated $3,000 to Obama's campaign. Habitat had close ties to Obama. And Obama had remained silent about Lawndale's plight.

Paul Johnson, who helped to organize the protest, said Obama must have known about the problems.

"How didn't he know?" said Johnson. "Of course he knew. He just didn't care."

Butler did not return messages but in the past has said the government did not give him enough money to maintain the project. Habitat emphasized in a statement that its role at Lawndale was restricted to tasks that included financial oversight and management.

In 2006, following the foreclosure, the federal government sold the buildings to the city for $10. The city has since parceled out the buildings among two dozen developers, who are rebuilding Lawndale for the fourth time with yet another round of government loans and subsidies.

Even as Lawndale Restoration and Rezmar's buildings were foreclosed upon, and Grove Parc and other subsidized developments fell deeper into disrepair, Obama has remained a steadfast supporter of subsidizing private development.

And although he has distanced himself from Rezko, Obama has remained close to others in the development community. Jarrett participates in the campaign's senior staff meetings. And Obama chose another close friend, Martin Nesbitt, as his campaign treasurer. Nesbitt is chairman of the Chicago Housing Authority, one of the key overseers of the shift toward private management and development.

"Throughout his career in public service, Barack Obama has advocated for the development of mixed-income housing and public-private partnerships to create affordable housing as an alternative to publicly subsidized, concentrated, low-income housing," the Obama campaign said in a statement provided to the Globe.

As a result, some people in Chicago's poorest neighborhoods are torn between a natural inclination to support Obama and a concern about his relationships with the developers they hold responsible for Chicago's affordable housing failures. Some housing advocates worry that Obama has not learned from those failures.

"I'm not against Barack Obama," said Willie J.R. Fleming, an organizer with the Coalition to Protect Public Housing and a former public housing resident. "What I am against is some of the people around him."

Jamie Kalven, a longtime Chicago housing activist, put it this way: "I hope there is not much predictive value in his history and in his involvement with that community."


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4132 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4132 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:45:12 GMT
Change is the theme of Obama — change to suit what is politically convenient.

Sen. Obama wants the American people to believe he is something new and exciting — a fresh face with equally fresh ideas. Now, with the nomination a mere formality, we're seeing him as same-old, same-old. Politics as usual in a new suit.

Obama supports public financing for political campaigns. No, that was before he heard the promise of contributions reaching $300 million. Now we're seeing and hearing a new Obama.

Time and again we heard the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois extol the merits of public financing — referring over and over again to the evils of special interest money dominating elections in our country.

Last fall, Common Cause circulated a questionnaire among candidates asking, "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?" Obama's response was an unqualified "yes."

It was the response of someone struggling for his party's nomination. Now that he is the presumptive nominee, he welcomes all the special interest money he is offered.

But Barack Obama will not be tainted by special interest money, say his supporters and handlers. No, of course not — not until the first payments come due.

Large campaign donations, no matter the source, buy at least one thing — access. And access is what politics is all about.

The person or interest with an ear of a president or a highly-placed acquaintance of a president is well-positioned on the ladder of getting what he, she or they are seeking.

Americans who mark the public financing box on their income tax form do so with the hope of a more level playing field. It's an admirable yearning, but a naive one, nevertheless.

Once Barack Obama no longer needed the cover of a public funding limit — about $84 million — he set it aside. Once he learned there a limitless amount of money available to him, he rejected the limits he first embraced. Once he knew it was there, and concluded he could raise more of it than John McCain, he acknowledged he was going after it.

Obama's principled support of public financing has fallen victim to another political principle — do what you have to do to get elected.

When Barack Obama campaigned in New Hampshire he ran as someone who could be trusted to keep his word. No matter the issue — Iraq, the economy, energy, broadened access to health insurance — if Obama said it, you could take it to the bank. At least that's what he said or implied. Now we know better. Now more Americans know better.

Barack Obama was supposed to be something different — something new. Obama was supposed to be the agent of change. It is obvious Barack Obama is the agent of paper money and checks, as well as change.

Obama has broken one promise. It leads to wondering how many more pledges he will break in his quest for the power of the presidency.



]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4131 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4131 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:04:43 GMT
James McConaha served as Bill Clinton's Farm Service Agency director in New Hampshire. Former Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen named him to be the state's director of historical resources.

McConaha's co-chair is his wife, Valery Mitchell, a longtime party activist who's volunteered to work on several past Democratic campaigns.

"I think in general both of us felt that this is such an important position, perhaps the most important job in the world that it requires a person who has the experience and the competence to hold it," McConaha said.

"We just liked Senator McCain for a lot of reasons. In our minds, he is that person."

The announcement came on the eve of Democrat Barack Obama's return to the state at a rally in Unity with Hillary Clinton, the first joint campaign appearance since Clinton exited the primary race and endorsed Obama's candidacy.

Last winter, the couple had supported the Democratic presidential campaign of Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd until he dropped out of the race right after the Iowa caucus.

McConaha said the last Republican he supported was Barry Goldwater in 1964.

"Never in my adult life have I done this," he said.

After Sen. Hillary Clinton withdrew from the race two weeks ago, McConaha said the couple received a few, "friendly'' telephone calls from Obama supporters.

"I've been surprised at peoples' interest in John McCain, not too many hard-core Democrats or party people He is very appealing across the political spectrum," McConaha added.

The last time McCain ran for president in 2000, the pair activly supported then-Vice President Al Gore who won the New Hampshire primary and lost the general election to George W. Bush.

The McCain campaign also announced Marcia Moran, of Concord, and David Lee, of Londonderry, will co-chair independent voters for McCain.

Both had come on board with McCain before the Jan. 8 primary.


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4126 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4126 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:11:36 GMT
John McCain's vision and leadership on securing our energy future sets him apart as the candidate with solutions to the failed policies of the past, proposals to achieve energy security to better our nation, and the courage and leadership to achieve these goals.

The United States faces growing energy challenges and we need a leader who will take on the tough issues, while putting America's interests first. America currently imports approximately two thirds of the oil it needs. This dependence on foreign sources of oil contributes to the wealth of undemocratic governments, some of which are supportive of terrorist attacks. By providing wealth to state sponsors of terror, such as Iran that receives more than $66 billion a year in oil sales, we are enriching our worst enemies.

America's addiction to oil affects various aspects of the global marketplace. There is a direct correlation between the rising cost of fuel for transportation and the redirection of grains and feed toward the production of ethanol for our fuel supply, increasing global food costs. The doubling of oil imports since 1973 makes up 41 percent of America's rising trade deficit.

McCain knows America needs to reform its energy portfolio to include both new and proven sources of energy. He supports harnessing solar, wind and clean coal as well as expanding the use of nuclear power. Further still, McCain has called for carefully lifting the federal ban on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf with care for environmental concerns and would allow jurisdictions and local stakeholders to decide whether to drill and create more oil for our consumption.

Nuclear power is also critical to America's energy security. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission energy source that is being used in countries across Europe and Asia, yet the United States hasn't begun construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. While nuclear counts for 20 percent of our overall energy portfolio, it's critical we increase its use.

Coal also will play an important role in our energy security and economic security. The federal government must make a commitment to advancing clean coal technologies in order to make its use market-ready.

It is past time for our economy to adapt and embrace the limitless possibilities of green technologies, and McCain is committed to a prosperous, clean-technology agenda and to becoming the world leader in green technologies. Until this becomes a reality, however, we must address the fact that high oil prices that are burdening hard working American families.

McCain recognizes that we must better understand the role speculators are playing in the high cost of energy. By finding abusers of the system and punishing them immediately, he will ensure a near-crisis will not happen again. McCain knows we must also reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market to be comparable to the transparent rules applied to other financial instruments. He does not, however, support a windfall profits tax on oil companies, which would transfer the cost to consumer and would do nothing to reduced dependence, nor increase production.

John McCain understands that our economic prosperity is closely tied to our energy security. Thoughtful, comprehensive solutions to our energy challenges boost our economy and leave a planet for our children that we can be proud of.



]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4125 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4125 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:06:04 GMT
That raises the possibility that either the witnesses lied under oath or that Blagojevich lied to federal agents about statements he was said to have made, tying state business to support for his campaign.

Prosecutors held back on Obama Backers turn out for gov's fund-raiser Eye on Rezko: Updates from our blog Special section: The Tony Rezko trial Special section: Gov. Blagojevich and Operation Board Games

Late Thursday, Blagojevich's office confirmed that he met with federal investigators but downplayed doing so "several" times.

"The governor has acknowledged being cooperative, having discussions with the federal government. He met with them twice, the last time nearly two years ago," Blagojevich spokesman Lucio Guerrero said.

Federal authorities have been investigating Blagojevich and hiring practices under his administration, as well as pay-to-play politics, given allegations that the governor traded jobs and state business for campaign cash.

Now, they may well be exploring false-statement allegations against him. Former Gov. George Ryan is serving a 6½-year sentence, in part because of making false statements to federal agents, which is a felony.

The two witnesses in the Rezko case -- former Democratic Party official Joseph Cari and former Rezko associate Stuart Levine -- helped convict the Wilmette businessman early this month of far-reaching fraud and corruption charges tied to state deals.

The court documents made public Thursday were filed earlier this year by attorneys for Rezko -- a former top campaign fund-raiser for Blagojevich and for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. Rezko was also a key adviser to the governor.

Testifying for the prosecution at Rezko's two-month federal trial in Chicago, Cari and Levine each described having conversations with the governor aboard a private jet on fund-raising trips to New York.

In news interviews, the governor has repeatedly denied having those conversations.

He told federal agents the same thing, according to the newly disclosed court papers, which indicated that agents interviewed Blagojevich regarding the Rezko case and that his statements were made available to Rezko's lawyers. Rezko's defense team had tried to cast doubt about the prosecution witnesses and about another former top Blagojevich adviser, Chris Kelly, who has been charged in an unrelated tax case.

"Gov. Blagojevich was interviewed on multiple occasions and denies these conversations," a January defense filing made public Thursday says. "Cari failed to recall his conversation with the governor until his fifth interview by government agents, and Kelly, the only other witness to these conversations, has never been interviewed and will not testify at trial."

Levine testified that the governor told him during another flight, "Stick with us, and you'll make lots of money." Levine said he thought Blagojevich meant Levine would make money in Blagojevich's administration -- if he gave to his campaign fund.

The U.S. attorney's office in Chicago had no comment on the newly released documents.

---From the Chicago Sun-Times


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4124 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4124 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:36:09 GMT
The documents were made public in the Antoin "Tony" Rezko criminal case on the same day that Blagojevich held a major fundraising event at the River East Arts Center. Similar events in past years have reaped millions of dollars for the governor's campaign, much of it coming from firms that landed lucrative state contracts and individuals given coveted state jobs or board appointments.

A spokesman for Blagojevich said Thursday that the governor had met twice with federal agents, most recently "nearly two years ago."

Rezko was convicted by a federal jury this month on sweeping corruption charges stemming from his role as a fundraiser and influential adviser for Blagojevich. With the trial now over, U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve has begun to remove seals on some documents she had previously ordered kept under wraps.

Included in the newly released material was a defense filing answering government allegations leveled by key witnesses against Rezko. Veteran Democratic fundraiser Joseph Cari testified at the trial that on a flight to New York in 2003 with Blagojevich, the governor offered to give Cari his pick of contracts and state business in exchange for assistance in developing a national fundraising operation.

"Gov. Blagojevich was interviewed on multiple occasions and denies these conversations," said the defense filing, filed in January.

Blagojevich in 2005 acknowledged that he had been interviewed about allegations that state board and commission appointments were traded for campaign cash. But the governor revealed little about the extent of his interaction with federal agents.

Blagojevich has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

The governor's campaign fund has disclosed it has been billed more than $2 million in legal fees since federal investigators began stepping up their probe into allegations of wrongdoing involving state hiring, contracts, fundraising and board and commission appointments since 2006.

Blagojevich made no mention of the newly unsealed revelations at his fundraiser Thursday night, but in a speech to donors he did allude to critical coverage of him by the media and sarcastically gave that as a reason why he needed to keep raising campaign funds.

"We can't just rely on all this good press we've been getting these days," Blagojevich said while an audience of several hundred chuckled. Campaign funds were needed to counter media criticism and to "be in a strong position to tell it the way it is."

Cari had testified that Blagojevich was interested in running for president and that he told Cari that sitting governors were in a good fundraising position because they could award contracts and state jobs to help pull in campaign cash.

The newly unsealed defense document challenged Cari's truthfulness, also noting that "Cari failed to recall his conversation with the governor until his fifth interview by government agents."

Rezko was convicted of using Stuart Levine, a member of a state pension board as well as a board that regulated hospitals in Illinois, to rig decisions in exchange for kickbacks.

Levine was the government's star witness against Rezko, but a newly unsealed defense filing alleges that Levine only agreed to cooperate after realizing that the government had learned that he frequented male prostitutes.

During the trial, jurors heard unsavory details about all-night drug binges that Levine had engaged in with a regular group of male friends, but St. Eve had barred any testimony about Levine's sexual habits.

"I am absolutely not going to engage in speculative discourse about motions filed by the defense in a pending case," Levine's lawyer, Jeffrey Steinback, said Thursday.

--From The Chicago Tribune


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4123 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4123 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:20:05 GMT
Barack Obama has crafted an image as an unconventional candidate, a change agent and a post-partisan politician who represents a dramatic break from the status quo. But since securing the Democratic presidential nomination, when confronted with a series of thorny issues the Illinois senator has pursued a conspicuously conventional path, one that falls far short of his soaring rhetoric.

Faced with tough choices on fronts ranging from public financing and town hall meetings to warrantless surveillance and the Second Amendment, Obama passed up opportunities to take bold stands and make striking departures from customary politics. Instead, he has followed a familiar tack, straddling controversial issues and choosing politically advantageous routes that will ensure his campaign a cash edge and minimize damaging blowback on several highly sensitive issues.

Obama's embrace of political pragmatism came into sharp focus Thursday with the landmark Supreme Court ruling that overturned Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and declared for the first time an individual right to possess a gun.

As an Illinois state legislator, Obama generally supported tighter restrictions on firearms and served on the board of a foundation that funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners' rights, as well as 14 separate groups that ultimately signed an amicus brief supporting the D.C. ban.

Though he had tried to avoid taking a firm stand on either the ban or the case, an unnamed staffer last year told the Chicago Tribune that "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional."

On Thursday, though, the Obama campaign distanced itself from that record, which would have considerable downside risk for a presidential candidate running on a 50-state landscape.

Obama's top spokesman, Bill Burton, said that the statement to the Chicago Tribune "was not worded as well as it could have been" and that Obama believes that generally the Constitution "doesn't prevent local and state governments from enacting their own gun laws."

After the high court ruling, Obama said in a statement he has "always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures."

The Court "has now endorsed that view," Obama asserted, citing a passage in Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion which begins: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

Shortly before the court decision, Obama sought to sidestep another political land mine over controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act legislation. His support for a government surveillance bill that offers retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies — a bill that he vowed last year to filibuster — angered liberal Internet activists who felt betrayed by what they saw as a politically expedient move designed to inoculate himself against GOP charges that he's weak on national security.

But Obama explained it to reporters Wednesday by pointing out that the bill has changed from when he made his filibuster pledge, saying the latest version allayed several concerns, including providing closer oversight of the government surveillance program. Yet it still effectively offers retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that aided the administration's warrantless wiretapping efforts, a key point Obama said he would oppose. He said Wednesday that he was satisfied with the requirement for an inspector general's review.

He is expected to vote for an amendment stripping out the immunity provision, but even if the effort fails, Obama likely would back the underlying bill.

"It is not all that I would want," Obama said in a statement last week. "But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence-collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay," he said.

The calculations that mark Obama's delicate approach toward the FISA bill and the Supreme Court gun ruling come on the heels of his decision last week to reverse a pledge he made last year to participate in the public financing system in the general election if his Republican opponent agreed to do the same — a move that made him the first modern presidential candidate to decline public financing in a general election.

McCain has agreed to participate in the system, which provides candidates $84 million in taxpayer cash but limits their campaign spending to that amount. Obama, whose historic fundraising ability was unknown when he made the pledge, is expected to easily surpass that tally.

Though he did not frame it as such, Obama's reversal was widely viewed by campaign finance reformers and editorial boards as a strategic choice to put his likely huge campaign cash advantage over his commitment to government reform.

They've been mostly receptive to Obama's forays on campaign finance issues, but many reformers dismissed his explanation for the shift: that his massive base of small online donors constitute a "parallel public financing," and that he needed to exit the program to defend himself from the independent spending of 527 groups.

Obama's decision to opt out of the public financing program followed his campaign's earlier derailment of another bold campaign proposal he had at one time supported: McCain's call for a series of town halls featuring the two candidates.

After declaring last month he would meet McCain "anywhere, anytime" to debate foreign policy — a risky proposition that had the potential to work to McCain's political advantage — Obama backtracked and would only offer one town hall and one extra debate in response to McCain's suggestion of 10.

In explaining the offer to the McCain campaign, Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, said in a statement that Obama's offer "would have been the most of any presidential campaign in the modern era — offering a broad range of formats — and representing a historic commitment to openness and transparency."

He charged McCain's campaign "would rather contrive a political issue than foster a genuine discussion about the future of our country."



]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4122 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4122 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:06:32 GMT


]]> http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4119 http://www.weareillinois.org/connect/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=4119 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:26:05 GMT
Sen. John McCain vowed Wednesday to break OPEC's stranglehold on U.S. energy and to have the country achieve what he termed "strategic" energy independence by 2025, saying he will pursue almost every option for conservation and new production.

"Never again will we leave our vital interests at the mercy of any foreign power," Mr. McCain said in a speech in Las Vegas, casting energy as a national security issue and calling for "new production, building nuclear plants, perfecting clean coal, improving our electricity grid, and supporting all the new technologies that one day will put the age of fossil fuels behind us."

The move, his latest effort to capitalize on record energy prices that have voters spooked, comes a day after his Democratic presidential opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, challenged him to think bigger than drilling, tax breaks and innovation incentives that have characterized the Arizona senator's energy proposals this month.

The United States imports well over half of the crude oil it consumes, with Canada being the biggest exporter to the U.S., followed by Saudi Arabia and Mexico. Mr. McCain said as that percentage has increased, it's turned the situation from being merely "troubling" to "dangerous."

He dubbed his series of energy proposals the "Lexington Project," saying it was "named for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before."

During the past few weeks, Mr. McCain has touted his proposal for a federal gas-tax holiday, proposed building more nuclear reactors, called for expanded offshore drilling to boost U.S. production and promised government incentives to push alternative-fuels technology. He has still ruled out drilling in the Arctic Na