This post is part of Billy Hallowell and Stephen Nichols’ Static News project.  For more information, please visit www.static-news.com. 

“At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level.” - John McCain

For our first week we’ve decided to cover a really difficult topic: Human rights.  While it seems like such a simple issue on the surface, it’s actually quite complex.  To start, how does one even define human rights?  Is it the basics — food, shelter, clothing — or does it go beyond those simple attributes?  Furthermore, who is entitled to these “basic rights?”  During the Saddleback forum with Rick Warren last Saturday, John McCain and Barack Obama answered the following question quite interestingly: “…at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”  The disparities in their answers are mind boggling:

Obama: Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

McCain: At the moment of conception. (APPLAUSE). I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president. And this presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment. That’s my commitment to you.

Startling differences, no?  Without too much partisan rhetoric let me just say that Obama’s answer is unacceptable for someone who is running for the American presidency.  Either you’re pro-life or you’re pro-choice (and we all know that Obama is pro-choice).  To his credit, Obama did publicly admit being pro-choice following the above statement.  But, attempting to candy-coat the answer didn’t give anything of value to the American people.  Anyway, let me get back to addressing “basic human rights.”  While I believe wholeheartedly that human beings are entitled to suitable living conditions, food, clothing and all of the other amenities that we often under-appreciate when we have them here in America, I also believe that there are a plethora of other issues that fall under the “basic human rights” genre.

Civil rights.  Abortion.  Embryonic stem cell research.  Access to healthcare.  The breakdown of the American family unit.  Education.  Sure, these issues aren’t the most exciting conversational pieces, but as young Americans who are going to inherit a very broken world, it’s important that we’re prepared to confront each with open hearts and minds.  In some way, each issue encompasses the notion of “basic human rights.”  Dealing with these issues isn’t going to be easy, but trying to explain where the candidates stand is what Stephen and I are here to do (while inserting our own opinions along the way, of course).

On Abortion

John McCain — by his own words — believes that human life deserves basic rights at the moment of conception.  There are plenty of pro-choicers out there who would (and have) vocally denounced statement like this.  Agree with him or not, McCain was clear on his stance at the Saddleback forum and I couldn’t agree more.  One of McCain’s campaign issues is “human dignity and the sanctity of life.”  Allow me to better illustrate these ideals in his own (campaign’s) words:

“John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench…Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states.”

He is absolutely right in his notion that the power should be returned to the states.  Why is our federal government legislating what has often been slated as infanticide (when a baby’s life is terminated at five or six months, murder is the only descriptive that comes to mind)?  Also:

“Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby.”

These issues aren’t easy.  No one is saying that we should judge women who decide to have an abortion (although I am opposed to abortion, itself), but there needs to be greater consideration for the child’s life — the baby’s basic human rights.  At what point does a baby gain his or her individual rights?  Weigh in and comment highlighting where you stand on the issue at hand.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

(If you’re confused or thinking “what the heck is a stem cell,” be sure to read up on it (clue: it’s not plant-related).  Check out Wikipedia’s easy-to-read description).

And then there is embryonic stem cells.  Listen, this is a debate that can go on for hours.  We’ll be discussing it on our radio show today at 6 p.m. EST.  In the meantime, let me show you John McCain’s stance:

“…John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of “fetal farming,” making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes.”

It’s pretty clear that McCain is open to stem cells (as we all should be), but relatively closed to embryonic stem cells (as we all should be).  First off, one must recognize the differences between stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research.  Conservatives don’t stand against the former, but we do take issue with the latter.  Embryonic stems cells are being slated as the end all, cure-all but in reality, they are less viable than other types of stem cells.  Creating life for spare parts is counterproductive and lacks respect for human life.  Listen to our show for more in this, as we interview Carol Peterson — someone who knows firsthand about stem cells!

For the sake of brevity, I’m going to cut the conversation off there.  Trust me, we’ll have plenty more to talk about in terms of education, healthcare and other human rights issues.  Let’s take it one step at a time people!

Both Barack Obama and John McCain have issued lofty statements regarding their efforts to reduce the influence that lobbyists have on the hill and throughout the American political system. But, while the candidates often speak candidly of reducing the impact that special interests have in Washington, there are still a number of unaddressed loopholes. Despite the incessant rhetoric spewing from both sides of the aisle, little has been done to regulate the donations that have been pouring in for the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

Both candidates want to be perceived as reformers. Unfortunately for both McCain and Obama, true change is all encompassing. Touting one’s status as a reformer does next to nothing if all regulatory measures have not been considered. This is the subject of Fredreka Schouten’s piece in the USA Today entitled, “Donors Pick Up the Convention Tab.” According to Schouten,

Political action committees (PACs) of unions can give only $5,000 directly to a candidate for a primary or general election. Individuals are limited to $2,300. There is no cap on how much any union, company or individual can give to a political convention.

While individuals and PACs are reasonably restricted on the candidate level, large labor unions, companies and wealthy individuals have an unregulated playing field through which they can disseminate limitless funding to the Republican and Democratic conventions. Forget the loop; this hole is gaping.

Schouten points out recent — and might we add astronomical — donations from The American Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Both institutions donated nearly $500,000 to the Democratic National Convention. Additionally, Quest Communications “…has committed $6 million in cash and in-kind support to both conventions.” Even though companies are restricted from donating directly to the candidates, they, too, may provide funds for the conventions.

Beyond the fact that these donations still illicit influence over the parties and their respective candidates, there are other ramifications to consider. In addition to companies’ and unions’ potential fiscal influence, some organizations and corporations are also planning a physical presence at the conventions.

Last week, Bill Alliston, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, penned a piece that focused on special interests and the flagrant lack of regulatory measures that surround various convention activities. According to Alliston,

“Lobbyists wine and dine party insiders and elected officials, big donors feast with the party insiders who depend on their deep pockets, and corporations with business before the federal government pick up most of the tab.”

After scouring event lists released by a top Washington lobbying firm, Sunlight discovered a number of corporate-sponsored events. In sum, there are some 370 planned parties that are to be sponsored by large companies and organizations. According to Alliston, this revelation comes even after new ethics rules brought about via the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 have restricted lobbyists from throwing parties in honor of specific lawmakers.

While Schouten points out that Obama doesn’t take monies from PACS or from federal lobbyists and that McCain does not allow lobbyists on his paid campaign staff, one wonders why neither candidate has attempted to restrict the influence of unions, companies, and wealthy individuals and institutions that are currently infusing both parties with unregulated monies.

True reformers? Not entirely.

Aside from being utterly hilarious, John McCain’s portrayal of Barack Obama as a left-wing celebrity who has traits and a following that are comparable to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears fetched an extraordinary amount of media coverage. The campaign ad also nabbed the attention of one of its main characters: Paris Hilton. She quickly released a “counter” ad, offering a fun-filled response to McCain’s banter; the video went viral, reaching well over five million viewers.

With so much attention being diverted from Obama, his campaign is desperately seeking publicity. While he’s vacationing in Hawaii with his family, the campaign is working feverishly to chip away at John McCain’s credentials. Instead of coming up with their own innovative counter-attack, his staff members are simply regurgitating McCain’s “celeb” routine. Perplexed at the amount of media coverage McCain was able to garner and clearly annoyed with the “celebrity” taunts, the Obama campaign is shooting back:

In his new ad, Obama tries to turn the celebrity theme to his advantage, grafting it to his claim that a McCain presidency would amount to a third term for Bush. That claim has generated a defensive response from McCain.

The new Obama ad shows McCain hugging Bush while the voiceover says, “as Washington embraced him, John McCain hugged right back.”

Aside from the fact that the “third-term” rant is getting old, the Obama campaign continues to mislead voters into believing that McCain agrees wholeheartedly with Bush’s polities. The fact of the matter is that McCain differs greatly when considering a number of domestic and international policy issues. Furthermore, wouldn’t it make sense that McCain would agree with Bush on some issues? McCain and Bush are both Republicans, no? Obama agrees with the boilerplate ultra-liberal selling points: universal healthcare, no offshore drilling, higher taxes for pretty much everyone — so why shouldn’t McCain share in some of the more conservative characteristics Republicans typically embrace?

Coincidently, it took the Obama campaign nearly two weeks to come up with a response to McCain’s celebrity ad. And now, the campaign is hoping to dupe its supporters into helping it reach its maniacal fundraising goals. According to CNN’s Political Ticker,

Barack Obama’s campaign manager said Monday John McCain’s now-famous Paris Hilton/Britney Spears television ad wasn’t just insulting to the Illinois senator, but to his campaign’s legion of supporters as well.

And in an e-mail to those supporters Monday, campaign manager David Plouffe is hoping a backlash from that television spot will push Obama over the two million individual donor mark by the party’s convention at the end of August — only six months after the campaign topped one million donors.

Aside from the fact that many supporters of Obama’s campaign (unfortunately members of my generation) are a bit Lemmistic in their inclinations that Obama is going to literally and figuratively save the planet, it is important to note the inherent weaknesses in the above statements. First off, Obama’s campaign supporters may, indeed, respond by donating more money to push the campaign over its goal of two million individuals donors, but wouldn’t an infusion of campaign donations make Obama supporters look like Lemmings? The campaign has apparently admitted that it is hoping that the “backlash from that television spot” will push it towards its fiscal goal. Exploitation? I think so. And the campaign is actually admitting that it hopes to see supporters respond.

Secondly, I would think that a campaign that has reneged on its promise to accept the federal grant for general election spending would do everything in its power to not call attention to yet another flapjack.

Obama continues to act as though he is an anomaly — untouched by the corruption that is so vigorously wedded to the American political system. Simply saying that one is a champion for “change” is ineffective. Obama has yet to champion change; he simply uses the word to ignite a mistaken ideology that he differs from other Washington heavy-hitters. Look at his record. In 2004 he claimed that he did not have the experience to be the nation’s leader and today he is touring the country with an entirely different diatribe:

“You know, I am a believer in knowing what you are doing when you apply for a job, and I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there are some people that might be comfortable doing that, but I am not one of those people. ” - Barack Obama, November 2004

Don’t believe me about his politics as usual demeanor? Read about his initial state Senate run in Illinois. Obama’s campaign disqualified an incumbent and another potential candidate for office by invalidating signatories one by one. Dirty, though legal, Chicago politics as usual.

Obama sees himself as some sort of pseudo-messianic character who has come to change American politics forever. But, simply reading his past political actions and his current contradictory statements shows that he is no different from the politicians he is consistently criticizing. Maybe McCain’s right:

“Sen. Obama says that I’m running for a Bush’s third terms. It seems to me he’s running for Jimmy Carter’s second.”

Touché.

By Lyle Hickman and Billy Hallowell

Today’s Transparency Recap starts way up north with our coldest state, Alaska. According to Talking Points Memo’s, Republican Senator Ted Stevens was “arraigned last week on seven counts of false statements”. After a federal indictment, without stagnation, Stevens regrouped and organized a rally. According to Talking Points Memo:

At 9:30 AM AKDT today, Stevens held a rally at his campaign headquarters in Anchorage, Alaska. While his poll numbers have not flagged for the upcoming Alaska Republican primary, they have plummeted in general election polls. Stevens’ likely Democratic opponent Mark Begich leads the incumbent Stevens (sub. req.) 56% to 35% according to a July 30-31 study.

Stevens, followed by a fleet of leather-draped motorcyclists, made a grand entrance warming the atmosphere in the typically cold climate of Anchorage, Alaska. Talking Points Memo quotes Senator Stevens before his supporters saying, “The primary is the goal right now. Help me win that primary and help me be the candidate for the Republican party. September will take care of itself.”

In other news, Secrecy News penned an interesting piece about Congress’ failure to adequately provide online access to CRS reports. According to the Secrecy News blog, the military judge handling Salim Ahmed Hamdan’s case (bin Laden’s taxi driver who was convicted yesterday for “material support of terrorism”) referenced a CRS report that was published on the Federation of American Scientists’ web site. Since Congress did not officially release the document, the judge utilized the FAS source by providing the link to the document in his footnotes. According to Secrecy News:

“Perhaps [the judge] . . . implicitly affirmed that FAS and other public interest publishers of CRS collections are helping to compensate for that continuing policy defect by providing the online access to CRS reports that Congress has denied.”

According to OMB’s RegWatch blog, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act that was recently passed by Congress provides many improvements that will benefit the general public. In a market that is dominated by cheap imports, OMB claims that the act will potentially lead the Consumer Product Safety Committee to better regulate the market, while providing consumers with the protection they deserve.

Moving on to the American Constitution Society’s Blog, the “Justice Integrity Act,” introduced by Senators Joseph Biden (D-Del.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), and Arlen Specter (R-Penn), is “a bill that would require the U.S. Attorney General to study racial and ethnic disparities in the judicial system… The measure, S.3245, would require the Attorney General to create advisory groups in ten federal districts to examine and determine the pervasiveness of racial and ethnic disparity in the criminal justice system.”

According to ACS Blog, this bill awaits the Senate Judiciary Committee. On an interesting transparency note, we were delighted to read that “the bill would require the Attorney General to make public the findings of the groups’ studies and recommendations on how to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities.”

Over at All Things Whistleblower, John McCain’s support for nuclear energy is under scrutiny. According to the ATW blog:

“McCain supports the creation of over 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, but he has not come close to adequately addressing concerns about the safety or cost of further developing this energy source. When addressing the current and future energy crisis, America’s leaders have to be more creative and more responsible than that.”

“Vote Republican – Save 10 Percent on All Purchases,” reads the title of www.opensecrets.org’s Capital Eye blog. According to the Capital Eye, the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, urged its employees to place their ballots for a Republican candidate, “arguing that Democrats would pass a harmful bill allowing labor organizations to unionize workplaces without secret ballot elections. “ Wal-Mart denies suggesting its employees vote republican, while referencing their financial contributions to both the Democratic and Republican parties by their political action committee. The Capital Eye states:

“This year the Big Box retailer, which has resisted being unionized, has given more to Democrats than ever before–$565,500, or 43 percent of its total contributions–when including both PAC contributions and individual donations. Wal-Mart employees have also given Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama $10,600 so far this cycle, compared to $6,850 to Republican opponent John McCain.“

This week’s Transparency Recap opens with a Corruption Chronicles blog entry entitled “‘Nonpartisan’ La Raza Council Endorses Obama.” The National Council of La Raza was founded in 1968 in Washington D.C. as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. While the organization touts nonpartisan status, Judicial Watch (via its blog, the Corruption Chronicles) is charging partisan support for the presumed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. According to Corruption Chronicles:

“. . . La Raza President Janet Murguia stood by as Los Angeles’ renowned Chicano mayor (Antonio Villaraigosa) praised the Illinois senator during the group’s annual convention in San Diego. A former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman, Villaraigosa assured the crowd of thousands that Obama is Latinos’ best hope for reforming the nation’s federal immigration policies.”

Moving on, ABC News’ The Blotter covers a warning issued by the United States embassy located in Baghdad, Iraq. According to The Blotter, “Weapons are continuing to be left unattended throughout the Embassy compound . . .” Unattended weaponry in an embassy is unacceptable, especially when considering the current situation in Iraq. The war makes the embassy a prime target of the Iraqi insurgents. According to The Blotter the U.S. embassy warns its employees and cohorts:

“. . . Just to be clear, the embassy reminds employees:

– Don’t leave your gun unattended when using the embassy pool. “If using the Embassy Pool, you must designate a gear guard.”
– Don’t leave guns unattended in vehicles, even if the vehicle is locked.
– And don’t carry your gun if you’ve been drinking. “No weapon will be carried while drinking alcoholic beverages.”

Anyone caught violating the rules will have his or her weapons confiscated, the document warns, and a supervisor will have to sign a letter requesting that it be returned after the individual has “been counseled on proper weapons retention . . .”

In other news, Secrecy News penned a piece about the “Foreign Relations of the United States” — a series that the State Department defines as “. . . [a presentation of] the official documentary historical record of major U.S. foreign policy decisions and significant diplomatic activity. The series, which is produced by the State Department’s Office of the Historian, began in 1861 and now comprises more than 350 individual volumes.”

While one can easily see the importance of such an official historical account of U.S. activity, Secrecy News reports the following:

“The “Foreign Relations of the United States” (FRUS) series . . . remains unlikely to meet the legal requirement that it be published no later than 30 years after the events that it describes, an official advisory committee has told the Secretary of State.”

Over on the Sunlight blogs, Ellen Miller covers the growing divide between Sen. Joe Lieberman and the Democratic Party. According to Miller,

“The Connecticut Independent’s high-profile support for the Iraq War and a bellicose demeanor toward Iran, as well as his enthusiastic endorsement of and active campaigning for Sen. John McCain’s presidential bid and his criticism of Sen. Barack Obama as the presumptive Democratic nominee, have all helped to put his relationship with the Democrats in quite the precarious spot.”

The relationship is in such shambles that left-wing activists are petitioning for Lieberman to be stripped of his rank and removed from his Homeland Security chairmanship. Democrats are calling for these actions to be taken following the 2008 presidential election in November.

And in other news, former Arlington National Cemetery Public Affairs Director Gina Gray was allegedly fired for advocating for more media access to soldiers’ funeral processions. After publicly disclosing the fact that ceremony officials are not allowing media access at funerals — even after families agreed to said coverage — Gray was fired. All Things Whistleblower poses an interesting thought regarding the next administration:

“With the images of funerals being so powerful, and thought of to raise the conscious level of the casualties of war, it will be very interesting to see how this issue is handled by the next presidential  administration.”

In closing, OpenSecrets.org’s Capital Eye is “Calling All Citizen Journalists.” Check the contest out and you could potentially win $100!

Today’s recap starts with a piece entitled, “Red, White and Green” from the Capital Eye blog. While our entire nation has been celebrating our independence from Great Britain, we might actually be more dependent than we realize. According to Capital Eye,

“…36 current members of Congress have collected at least 20 percent of their contributions from a single industry, setting up a scheme of dependence and perhaps the expectation of a tit-for-tat.”

Moreover, this dependency on certain industries should concern Americans. If our representatives in government are receiving money from companies, organizations and specific industries, how likely are they to represent our interests over the interests of their donors?

And over on the Corruption Chronicles blog, Detroit is the subject of conversation. According to CC, the city’s governing council is being investigated by the federal government for allegedly accepting bribes; the bribes were allegedly accepted by council members in exchange for the approval of a multi million dollar contract. According to CC:

“…several members of the Detroit City Council are suspected of taking bribes to approve a $47 million contract last fall with a Houston company to handle sludge waste from the city’s wastewater treatment plant. The FBI has electronic surveillance evidence of City Council President Pro Tem Monica Conyers taking bribes from the company, Synagro Technologies.”

In other news, Karl Rove will not be testifying in front of the House Judiciary Committee. According to CREW, Rove has apparently invoked executive privilege. According to Politico (as per CREW):

“Karl Rove, former White House deputy chief of staff and President Bush’s top political adviser, is refusing to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to testify on “politicization” within the Justice Dept. Rove had been scheduled to appear next Thursday, July 10.”

And over on the Washington Post’s Indep Dump blog, focus is centered upon detainees who have been apprehended abroad. Over the past six-and-a-half years, detainees apprehended in the War on Terror have been fingerprinted and processed. As it turns out, hundreds of these individuals have criminal records. According to Post:

“The records suggest that potential enemies abroad know a great deal about the United States because many of them have lived here, officials said. The matches also reflect the power of sharing data across agencies and even countries, data that links an identity to a distinguishing human characteristic such as a fingerprint.”

And over on the CommonBlog, it’s all about Iran/U.S. relations and the measures currently brewing in the House and Senate.

Also, be sure to check out TPM’s Daily Muck for intriguing daily news briefs.

Does anyone else find it painfully ironic that John Kerry — a man who the American people found, via the electoral system, unfit to lead — is engaging in pointless commentary, while waging baseless claims against Sen. John McCain?

Over the weekend, Kerry called McCain “unfit to lead.” Am I incorrect in my assertion that it was Kerry who approached McCain in 2004, asking him to join in the formation of a bi-partisan ticket? Here we are four years later and John “The Flapjack” Kerry is at it again, flipping and flopping faster than a speeding light (whatever that means). On CBS’ Face The Nation, Kerry said:

“John McCain has changed in profound and fundamental ways that I find personally really surprising, and frankly upsetting.”

Ironically, I am not surprised to find Kerry acting as childish and irreverent as ever. Kerry and Obama are totally fringe, but for some reason the Democrats continue to nominate their kind. They were and are two of the most liberal senators, as they stand firmly grounded on the left wing of the American political spectrum. Bipartisanship? Not from these guys. And during a time when we need nothing short of extreme collaboration and inter-party cohesiveness, the fact that the Democrats continue to nominate wing-nuts is extremely disconcerting.

In the interview, Kerry went on to bash McCain, citing the familiar “Bush’s third term” diatribe. I’m not sure if the Democrats realize this yet, but that statement is tired at best. Everyone knows that there are profound differences between McCain and Bush, so continuing to drive home an invalid point is useless. Kerry then proceeds to state the following:

“If you like what has happened to oil prices, John McCain is going to continue that policy. If you like what you see about health care, John McCain has no health care plan.”

Aside from the fact that McCain has an energy plan that greatly differs from George W. Bush’s (which is common knowledge), one wonders if Kerry has even glanced at Obama’s energy plan. Allow me to pull out a snippet for him:

“Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.”

Now, let’s explore ethanol in brief:

“… producing ethanol requires huge amounts of energy — most of which comes from coal. Second, the production process creates a number of hazardous byproducts, and some production facilities are reportedly dumping these in local water sources. Third, food-to-fuel mandates are helping drive up the price of agricultural staples, leading to significant changes in land use with major environmental harm.”

And I’m not even going to touch healthcare. McCain does have a plan, but Kerry’s probably too bitter over his 2004 loss to take the time and read it. And then there’s Iraq. Kerry has plenty to say about McCain’s judgment on the war:

“Kerry criticized McCain’s continued support of the occupation, given the effect of a continuing presence of U.S. troops on the situation in Iraq and the region at large. He pointed to remarks by leaders in the Middle East who told him during a recent visit, “You, America, have served up to Iran Iraq on a platter.”

And this is where Kerry loses me entirely. The surge has worked and that’s something that Obama is going to have to contend with come November. Continuing to lament the war, while demanding that the troops come home immediately is nonsensical. When success is so close, why would we exit the region? Doing so would mean a total disservice to the Iraqi people. Leaving Iraq would surely “serve up to Iran Iraq on a platter.” Is this not common sense?

I suppose that writing this piece has given Kerry credence he simply doesn’t deserve. In the end, he’s proven himself painfully irrelevant. Not much has changed since 2004.

This weekend’s edition of the Transparency Recap focuses begins with the POGO blog’s coverage of a Washington Post piece by Professor Paul Light. According to POGO, Light tackles the challenges the next president will face upon entering office. From organizing the many titles and positions within the executive branch, to better managing contractors, the needs associated with reformation are plentiful. POGO ends the entry with the following words:

“With the retirement of the baby boomers from government, the time is right for the next president to reform the bureaucracy and create a more effective federal governing body.  Change is imperative not only for the next president’s approval numbers, but for America’s well-being.”

And over at All Things Reform, David Weller is encouraging synergy! Check out his new list of online collaboration projects. If your organization is currently involved in implementing a project, this might be the perfect place to have it listed.

On the Sunlight blogs, Ellen Miller covers research conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics. According to Miller, the research surrounds the Personal Financial Disclosure forms of Congressional members. According to the Center for Responsive Politics:

“Forty-six husbands and wives of Congress members reported owning stock in 2006 in companies that have a vested interest in their spouses’ committees, worth a total of $27.3 million to $46.7 million.”

Over at ReadtheBill.org, praise is in abundance for Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) who has been voicing concern over Congress’ inability to read bills prior to voting on them. ReadtheBill.org is encouraging Culberson to sponsor H.Res.504. According to Open Congress, the resolution would do the following: “[Amend] the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that legislation and conference reports be available on the Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and for other purposes.”

The always-useful Secrecy News blog highlights some intriguing and relevant CRS reports. From Iran’s economy to the costs associated with war on terror operations, these reports are essential to explore. CDT covers one CRS report, in particular, on the PolicyBeta blog: CRS No. RL34454 — an overview of U.S. technology and science policy.

In California, judicial corruption was just dealt an impressive blow. As per the Corruption Chronicles, a California judge has been removed for “manifestly unjudicial” misconduct. According to CC:

“The Orange County Superior Court judge (Kelly MacEachern), a former county prosecutor, filed false and misleading expense claims for a legal conference in San Diego and then lied under oath when questioned about them.”

Over at All Things Whistleblower, talk is centered upon three Congressional senators who are calling on Congress to investigate the FBI’s alleged treatment of an agent whistleblower. The agent testified in front of Congress back in May; his testimony focused on internal issues that have hampered counterterrorism strategy and effectiveness. Two days after the statements were made, he was accused of violating FBI rules and regulations.

And over on the Common blog, Common Cause discusses the launch of its new campaign: Recapture the Flag!

To conclude the weekend edition of the recap, be sure to check out Democracy21’s response to the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment.” According to the Democracy21 blog:

“While we are disappointed in the decision, however, it is important to keep in mind that the Supreme Court ruling does not in any way disturb the earlier Court decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission that upheld the constitutionality of the soft money ban contained in BCRA.”

 

From race relations to the federal tax system, Obama continues to prove that his policies and allegiances possess the characteristics of nothing more than typical, run-of-the-mill political fodder. He’s no different from a traditional politician, yet for some reason his charismatic nature has inebriated my generation, in particular, severely impairing rational exploration of his actions, inactions and incessant flip-flops. Judicial Watch reports the following:

“While Barack Obama campaigns as an anomaly not corrupted by Washington politics or special interests, he has repeatedly contradicted this illusion by accepting big bucks from convicted entrepreneurs as well as oil company executives, steering millions of federal earmark dollars to his wife’s employer and a top donor and hiring powerful corporate insiders to run his campaign.”

When we talk about proposed tax systems, Obama fares not much better than McCain. According to the Brooking Institution and the Urban Instutite, McCain’s plans would cut receipts by $3.72 trillion from over a 10 year period, while Obama’s plans would cut revenues by $2.73 trillion during the same time frame.

And what about a more general sense of fiscal discipline? The sad reality is that neither of the candidates’ proposals would balance the U.S. budget:

“The left-leaning Tax Policy Center concludes: “Obama’s generosity comes at a price. … He’d raise the national debt by a staggering $3.3 trillion over the next decade, and that includes more than $900 billion in promised revenue raisers that TPC could not verify.”

Obama’s spending plans for health care, infrastructure, education and energy aren’t even included in TPC’s estimate. With Social Security and Medicare in grave danger, allowing our officials to manage a health care system in the current political climate is frightening at best.

But his hypocrisy transcends these issues and extends into nearly every facet of his campaign. Last week, he went back on his word and announced that he would be forgoing more the $85 million in public financing — a move that has McCain and many others (even Obama supporters) frustrated and disheartened. So much for bi-partisan negotiations. According to OpenSecrets:

“Last March, before Obama became the candidate to beat in the money race, his campaign said he would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election” if he were to win his party’s nomination.”

And while I’m at it, allow me to mention his insane endorsement of ethanol as a viable fuel alternative. I can’t imagine that he has missed the media’s coverage of the destruction that has been caused by the utilization of ethanol. Damaging the world’s fuel supply and potentially worsening the alleged global warming phenomenon apparently doesn’t matter to Obama. Judicial Watch reports the following:

“It turns out that Obama’s national campaign co-chairman, former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and his top advisor on environmental issues, Jason Grumet, used to work for a bipartisan initiative (National Commission on Energy Policy) that strongly supports ethanol…Obama is also very tight with Illinois agriculture giant Archer Daniels Midland, the nation’s largest ethanol producer…”

I suppose forgetting to mention Rev. Wright would be irresponsible of me. See, Obama attended the same church for years. He listened to anti-American and anti-white statements and seemed completely content with his pastor’s rants — that is, until his church membership hurt his campaign. It was not until pressures mounted that Obama formerly removed his allegiances to Wright and company.

Are we supposed to believe that Obama was never happy at his church — that he always differed ideologically from Rev. Wright? Believing such an idea would be nonsensical. No one stays at a church if they disagree with the leading pastor. And if by some chance Obama did stay despite some difference in opinion he surely wouldn’t have allowed his pastor to marry he and his wife or baptize his children. And wasn’t Wright an inspiration for one of his books? Obama agrees with Rev. Wright entirely — he just can’t admit that to the American people.

Perhaps Judicial Watch said it best: “Somehow, the charismatic young lawmaker that the mainstream media loves to portray as a sort of rock star doesn’t seem any different than most Washington heavy hitters.”

Undoubtedly, one of the biggest issues this week has been the privatization of Obama’s campaign finances. According to OpenSecrets’ Capital Eye blog, Obama has forgoed more than $80 in public financing “…making him the first major party nominee to reject the taxpayers’ grant since the program began in 1976.” While Obama insists that the system if broken, McCain (who plans to use the public financing system) is accusing Obama of going back on his word to stay within the public system.

On this same issue, Democracy 21 issued a pointed statement about Obama’s decision to privatize:

“We had hoped and expected that Senator Obama would stick with the public pledge he made to accept public financing and spending limits for the presidential general election, if he was nominated, and if his Republican opponent also agreed to accept public financing and spending limits for the general election. These conditions have been met.”

This morning, Capital Eye shifted gears and posted a piece that focuses on two of the nation’s biggest lobbying firms. These firms — Cassidy and Associates and Van Scoyoc Associates — will not “…attend either political party’s gathering, sponsor parties or donate to the host committees that organize the four-day fetes.” Sure, these big-wigs aren’t participating in the aforementioned terms, but the money flow is still coming through:

“What these lobbyists lack in convention participation, they make up for in campaign contributions to federal candidates, committees and parties. Among lobbying firms, Van Scoyoc Associates is the third-ranked contributor in this election cycle, associated with at least $583,000. Cassidy and Associates is right behind with campaign contributions totaling $490,300. Both firms have favored Democrats with about 60 percent of their employees’ total contributions.”

And if that’s not hair-raising enough, according to the Judicial Watch blog, the U.S. military has lost nuclear missile components. According to Judicial Watch,

“A British international business newspaper disclosed this week that a Pentagon investigation found that the Air Force could not account for more than 1,000 sensitive components previously included in its nuclear inventory.”

Over on the Sunlight blogs, Ellen Miller coins her own phrase: “Tweetalogue.” Over the past few days, she and Rep. John Culberson have been twittering back and forth. The issue at hand? Ample time for government officials — and citizens — to read bills before they are voted on. According to Miller (and VoterWatch mirrors this sentiment),

“Sunlight thinks if bills and amendments were actually posted online in advance of votes citizens would have an opportunity to get on the act too.”

Over at All Things Whistleblower, John McCain is taking heat for his energy proposal that calls for 45 nuclear energy plants over the next 22 years. From pricing to safety, some individuals have serious problems with the construction of more nuclear power plants. With this said, others see this plan as a step in the right direction — away from America’s current reliance on fossil fuels.

On the POGO blog, focus is centered upon the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008. Signed into law by President Bush on Tuesday, this law “requires foreign subsidiaries of federal contractors to be treated as American companies for tax purposes.” Due to the changes it is expected that $850 million in tax revenues will be generated over the next 10 years:

“Some contractors have been creating subsidiary companies in jurisdictions with advantageous tax laws, such as the Cayman Islands, without even conducting any operations there. American workers are technically employed by these subsidiaries, allowing the contractor to avoid paying payroll taxes.  These taxes are used to fund programs such as Social Security and Medicare, so other taxpayers end up assuming the burden.”