ISIS is Israeli Secret Intelligence Service

Thursday, July 29, 2010

White House predicts record $1.47 trillion deficit

White House predicts record $1.47 trillion deficit
By Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer
Posted: July 23, 2010 3:12 pm ET

WASHINGTON – New estimates from the White House on Friday predict the budget deficit will reach a record $1.47 trillion this year.

The government is borrowing 41 cents of every dollar it spends.

That's actually a little better than the administration predicted in February.

The new estimates paint a grim unemployment picture as the economy experiences a relatively jobless recovery.

The unemployment rate, presently averaging 9.5 percent, would average 9 percent next year under the new estimates.

The Office of Management and Budget report has ominous news
for President Barack Obama should he seek re-election in 2012
— a still-high unemployment rate of 8.1 percent.

That would be well above normal, which is closer to a rate of
5.5 percent to 6 percent. Private economists don't think the unemployment rate will drop to those levels until well into this decade.

The gaping deficits are of increasing concern to voters.

But Obama and Democrats controlling Congress are mostly
taking a pass on deficit reduction this year as they await
possible recommendations from Obama's deficit commission.

While there's a slight improvement in the deficit for the current
year, next year's predicted $1.42 trillion worth of red ink — that's
37 cents of borrowing for every dollar spent — is looking worse.

It's about $150 billion more than previously predicted, because of still-slumping tax revenues.

White House budget director Peter Orszag said the numbers represent a "fiscal situation that requires attention."

Deficits have skyrocketed since the recession took hold in 2008 and Congress responded with a massive bailout of the financial system and last year's $862 billion stimulus measure.

Associated Press writer Jeannine Aversa contributed to this report.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010


By Paul Krugman
Nobel Peace Prize Winner for Economics, Author, Editor, Professor
of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University
Posted: February 10, 2010, 10:59 am

I’m with Simon Johnson here: how is it possible, at this late date,
for Obama to be this clueless?

The lead story on Bloomberg right now contains excerpts from an interview with Business Week which tells us:

President Barack Obama said he doesn’t “begrudge” the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.

The president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is “an extraordinary amount of money” for Main Street, “there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well.”

“I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,” Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.”

Obama sought to combat perceptions that his administration is anti-business and trumpeted the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies. He plans to reiterate that message when he speaks to the Business Roundtable, which represents the heads of many of the biggest U.S. companies, on Feb. 24 in Washington.

Oh. My. God.

First of all, to my knowledge, irresponsible behavior by baseball players hasn’t brought the world economy to the brink of collapse
and cost millions of innocent Americans their jobs and/or houses.

And more specifically, not only has the financial industry has been bailed out with taxpayer commitments; it continues to rely on a taxpayer backstop for its stability. Don’t take it from me, take it from the rating agencies:

The planned overhaul of US financial rules prompted Standard & Poor’s to warn on Tuesday it might downgrade the credit ratings of Citigroup and Bank of America on concerns that the shake-up would make it less likely that the banks would be bailed out by US taxpayers if they ran into trouble again.

The point is that these bank executives are not free agents who are earning big bucks in fair competition; they run companies that are essentially wards of the state.

There’s good reason to feel outraged at the growing appearance that we’re running a system of lemon socialism, in which losses are public but gains are private. And at the very least, you would think that Obama would understand the importance of acknowledging public anger over what’s happening.

But no. If the Bloomberg story is to be believed, Obama thinks his key to electoral success is to trumpet “the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies.”

We’re doomed.

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Spare, "Change?"

from Barack Obama
to Tony Whitcomb
date Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 7:21 PM
subject Change

Tony --

When you and I set out on this journey three years ago, we knew that ours would be a lengthy struggle to build a new foundation for this country -- one that would require squaring off against the special interests who had spent decades stacking the deck in their favor.

Today, it is clear that you have shifted the odds.

This morning, I signed into law a bill that represents the most sweeping reforms of Wall Street since the Great Depression, and the toughest consumer financial protections this nation has ever seen.

I know that I am able to do so only because the tens of thousands of volunteers who make up the backbone of this movement overcame the most potent attack ads and the most powerful lobbying the special interests could put forward.

Our special-interest opponents and their Republican allies have now set their sights on the elections in November as their best chance to overturn the historic progress we've made together.

Organizing for America counts entirely on supporters like you to fight back -- no special interests, no corporate PACs. To keep making change and to defend the change we have already won, we need you -- and at least 89 other people in Minneapolis -- to contribute so we have the resources necessary going into the election.

Please donate $5 today and help Organizing for America lay the groundwork for the fights ahead.

Because of Wall Street reform, we will ensure that Americans applying for a credit card, a mortgage, or a student loan will never again be asked to sign their name under pages of confusing fine print. We will crack down on abusive lending practices and make sure that lenders don't cheat the system -- and create a new watchdog to enforce these consumer protections.

And we will put an end to taxpayer-funded bailouts, giving us the ability to wind down any large financial institution if it should ever fail.

The passage of Wall Street reform is at the forefront of the change we seek, and it will provide a foundation for a stronger and safer economy.

It is a foundation built upon the progress of the Recovery Act, which has turned 22 months of job losses into six consecutive months of private-sector job growth. And it is a foundation reinforced by the historic health reform we passed this spring, which is already giving new benefits to more than 100 million Americans, ushering another 1 million Americans into coverage by next year.

But today's victory is not where our fight ends.

Organizing for America and I will move forward in the months ahead on the tough fights we have yet to finish -- even if cynics say we should wait until after the fall elections. This movement has never catered to the conventional wisdom of Washington. And we have fought to ensure that our progress is never held hostage by our politics.

You and I did not build this movement to win one election. We did not come together to pass one single piece of legislation. We are fighting for nothing less than a new foundation for our country -- and that work is not complete. As we face the challenges ahead, I am relying on you to stand with me.

Please donate $5 or more today:

Thank you for helping us get here,

President Barack Obama

Thursday, July 22, 2010

True Lies

Don't tell me words don't matter! 'I have a dream', just words? 'We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal' - just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself?' - just words. Just speeches?

It's true that speeches don't solve all problems, but what is also true is if we cannot inspire the country to believe again then it doesn't matter how many policies and plans we have...That is why we just won eight elections straight, because the American people want to believe in change again. Don't tell me words don't matter!

People question if words matter? Words do matter. Words challenge us to reach higher. Words are a catalyst for change and words motivate us to chase our dreams.

Text from Senator Barack Obama speech to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin Founders Day Gala on February 16, 2008

It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.

For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.

In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.

Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America.

You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma.

We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was President - when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.

We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job - an economy that honors the dignity of work.

The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great - a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.

Because in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.

In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.

When I listen to another worker tell me that his factory has shut down, I remember all those men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I stood by and fought for two decades ago after the local steel plant closed.

And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman.

She's the one who taught me about hard work.

She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. And although she can no longer travel, I know that she's watching tonight, and that tonight is her night as well.

I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me.

And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as President of the United States.

Transcript: Senator Barack Obama, "The American Promise" acceptance speech to the Democratic Convention on August 28, 2008

This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.

It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.

Let us remember that, if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers.

In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.

Let's remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House, a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity.

Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.

As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.

Transcript: President-elect Barack Obama, "This Is Your Victory" acceptance speech November 04, 2008

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. (Applause.) At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

Transcript: President Barack Obama, "A New Beginning" speech at Cario University June 04, 2009

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation??

Office of the Press Secretary

President Obama to Request $50 Million to Identify and Expand Effective, Innovative Non-Profits

White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation to Coordinate Efforts

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama, in his FY2010 budget, will ask Congress to provide $50 million in seed capital for the Social Innovation Fund to identify the most promising, results-oriented non-profit programs and expand their reach throughout the country.

Many solutions to our nation’s most challenging social problems are being generated outside of Washington; the Social Innovation Fund will identify what is working in communities across the country, provide growth capital for these programs, and improve the use of data and evaluation to raise the bar on what programs the government funds.

"The idea is simple: to find the most effective programs out there and then provide the capital needed to replicate their success in communities around the country that are facing similar challenges," First Lady Michelle Obama will say Tuesday at the Time 100 Most Influential People Awards in New York City, according to her prepared remarks. "By focusing on high-impact, result-oriented non-profits, we will ensure that government dollars are spent in a way that is effective, accountable and worthy of the public trust."

Melody Barnes, Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council, also highlighted the Fund Tuesday in a keynote speech to the Council on Foundations. "The Social Innovation Fund reflects the President’s new governing philosophy: finding and investing in what works; and partnering with and supporting others who are leading change in their communities," Barnes said. "We are also working with Federal agencies across the government to identify new solutions to problems that have resisted traditional approaches."

The Social Innovation Fund was authorized in the recent Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. The Fund will focus on priority policy areas, including education, health care, and economic opportunity. It will partner with foundations, philanthropists, and corporations which will commit matching resources, funding, and technical assistance.

The White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation will coordinate efforts to enlist all Americans –individuals, non-profits, social entrepreneurs, corporations and foundations – as partners in solving our great challenges. Located within the Domestic Policy Council, it will:

Catalyze partnerships between the government and nonprofits, businesses and philanthropists in order to make progress on the President’s policy agenda

Identify and support the rigorous evaluation and scaling of innovative, promising ideas that are transforming communities like, for example, Harlem Children’s Zone, YouthVillages, Nurse-Family Partnership, and Citizen Schools.

Support greater civic participation through new media tools

Promote national service.

Mrs. Obama’s full remarks at the Time 100 Most Influential People Awards in New York City will be released later in the day.

Friday, July 16, 2010

Social Entrepreneur or Sociopath?

My Dear Fellow American Citizens:

Yesterday a nameless individual(s) on Craigslist called me a, "Sociopath" in response to my, "Sleepless in Seattle" post:

At this time I would like to once again publicly state for the
record, I am a, "Social Entrepreneur" not a, "Sociopath" and
below for everyone's independent review, are the definitions
for each given title and I am perfectly willing to allow God, the
American People and History, to determine whether I, President
Barack Obama, Bill Gates, and/or all of my former bosses, and
business partners in Expotera, are the true, "Social Entrepreneurs"
or are the true, "Sociopaths" of our time?


Tony E. Whitcomb
Founder/CEO Expotera


A person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

Glibness and superficial charm, manipulative and conning.

They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used.

Grandiose sense of self and feels entitled to certain things as, "their right."

Pathological lying. Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis and can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities.

Lack of remorse, shame or guilt. A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core.

Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow emotions. When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person.

Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for love and a callousness and lack of empathy. Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Poor behavioral controls and impulsive nature. Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim.

Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, irresponsibility, unreliability and not concerned about wrecking others lives and dreams and oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause.

Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed. Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial versatility and changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution.


A social entrepreneur is someone who recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to make social change (a social venture). Whereas a business entrepreneur typically measures performance in profit and return, a social entrepreneur focuses on creating social capital.

Thus, the main aim of social entrepreneurship is to further social and environmental goals. However, whilst social entrepreneurs are most commonly associated with the voluntary and not-for-profit sectors, this need not necessarily be incompatible with making a profit.

Social entrepreneurs are individuals with innovative solutions to society’s most pressing social problems. They are ambitious and persistent, tackling major social issues and offering new ideas for wide-scale change.

Rather than leaving societal needs to the government or business sectors, social entrepreneurs find what is not working and solve the problem by changing the system, spreading the solution, and persuading entire societies to take new leaps.

Social entrepreneurs often seem to be possessed by their ideas, committing their lives to changing the direction of their field. They are both visionaries and ultimate realists, concerned with the practical implementation of their vision above all else.

A social entrepreneur identifies and solves social problems on a large scale.

Just as business entrepreneurs create and transform whole industries, social entrepreneurs act as the change agents for society, seizing opportunities others miss in order to improve systems, invent and disseminate new approaches and advance sustainable solutions that create social value.

Unlike traditional business entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs primarily seek to generate "social value" rather than profits. And unlike the majority of non-profit organizations, their work is targeted not only towards immediate, small-scale effects, but sweeping, long-term change.

Social entrepreneurs identify resources where people only see problems. They view the villagers as the solution, not the passive beneficiary. They begin with the assumption of competence and unleash resources in the communities they're serving.

The job of a social entrepreneur is to recognize when a part of society is stuck and to provide new ways to get it unstuck.

He or She finds what is not working and solves the problem by changing the system, spreading the solution and persuading entire societies to take new leaps.

Identifying and solving large-scale social problems requires a committed person with a vision and determination to persist in the face of daunting odds.

Ultimately, social entrepreneurs are driven to produce measurable impact by opening up new pathways for the marginalized and disadvantaged, and unlocking society's full potential to effect social change.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Sleeping with the Enemy

from tony whitcomb
cc stacy ming
date Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 1:31 PM
subject: Stephanie Devaan/Stephanie Devann Illegal Campaign Contributions

Dear Federal Bureau of Investigation:

Could you please forward this e-mail containing the below additional information related to, "Jon Devaan" on to your Election Fraud Agent.

Thank You,

Tony Whitcomb
Founder/CEO Expotera

Stephanie Devaan
Political Campaign Contributions
2010 Election Cycle
Contribution Totals

Download all contribution records for this person
from 1999 to present
To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
2010 Transaction Count/Amount3/$3,000
2008 Transaction Count/Amount3/$2,350
2006 Transaction Count/Amount4/$7,100
2004 Transaction Count/Amount5/$11,000
2002 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2000 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0

Download all contribution records for this person
from 1999 to present
To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type

Stephanie Devaan Contribution List in 2010
Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar
Amount Date Primary/
General Contibuted To
Devaan, Stephanie
98039 Self/Artist $1,000 06/23/2009 P DELBENE FOR CONGRESS - Democrat
98039 SELF/ARTIST $1,000 03/07/2009 P FRIENDS OF BLANCHE LINCOLN - Democrat
Devaan, Stephanie
98039 Self/Print Artist $1,000 03/06/2009 P WASHINGTON WOMEN FOR CHOICE

Stephanie Devann
Political Campaign Contributions
2004 Election Cycle
Contribution Totals

Download all contribution records for this person
from 1999 to present
To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
2010 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2008 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2006 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2004 Transaction Count/Amount2/$3,000
2002 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2000 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0

Download all contribution records for this person
from 1999 to present
To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type

Stephanie Devann Contribution List in 2004
Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar
Amount Date Primary/
General Contibuted To
Devann, Stephanie
98039 Self Employed/Artist $1,000 10/19/2004 P MINNESOTA DEMOCRATIC FARMER LABOR PARTY - Democrat
Devann, Stephanie
98039 Self employed/Print Artist $2,000 07/10/2004 P ALBEN2004 - Democrat

Monday, July 12, 2010

Corporate Special Interest for Controls on Campaign Spending?

Corporate Special Interests for Controls on Campaign Spending?
By James Love
Director, Knowledge Ecology International
Posted: April 10, 2010 07:31 AM

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the US Supreme Court has presented the United States with an astonishing future -- one of unlimited spending on campaigns by corporations.

No developed country has faced this possibility -- it is really uncharted waters, even for a political system as openly corrupt as the current one. We are facing the possibility of a true failed state, which can lose any semblance of ethics or democratic responsiveness to the public interest or good government.

In the past presidential election, the Obama ticket spent about $730 million, and the McCain ticket spent about $333 million, or $1.063 billion. The combined total was less than one month of the sales of Lipitor, a single patented pharmaceutical drug sold by Pfizer, or a little more than one percent of sales for Exxon Mobil in the 4th quarter of 2009.

The total spending on the 2006 Congressional election was $2,9 billion, less than one quarter of revenue for Haliburton, a firm heavily dependent upon government policy and contacts.

Given the benefits of "owning" shares of members of Congress, it is hard to predict the equilibrium of this market, but it certainly will involve corruption of biblical proportions, bad government decision making, and vast outlays to exercise parity with competing "investors" in influence.

Clearly there is a need for reform. The traditional civil society sector where I work is weak these days, and no one high up in the White House or the Congress seems to be breaking a sweat to fix the problem either.

One possible strategy for reform is to mobilize political support from the very entities that have created the mess in the first place -- the corporate special interests. The argument runs as follows.

While there may be short term gains in openly buying influence, the longer run scenario makes everyone worse off. Over the top corruption has hardly been good for economic development anywhere. And, when everyone can do it, the competition will drive up the price of influence, dissipating the very profits companies hope to make.

Right now the U.S.A. is the biggest profit center in the world for most companies. Can they really afford for the United States to enter a predictable slide into a third rate economic power? And how much of their quarterly profits do they want to allocate to financing television ads for politicians who rarely stay bought.

Maybe as the momentous consequences of the Citizens United Decision become more obvious and concrete, Exxon, Pfizer, Disney and others will start bribing Congress and the President to put some reasonable limits on the amount of the bribes it is legal to accept -- acting not out of concern for democracy or the public interest, but for the bottom line.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Sleepless in Seattle

from tony whitcomb
cc stacy ming
date Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM
subject FBI Election Fraud Agent/Illegal Campaign Contributions Microsoft

Dear Federal Bureau of Investigation:

My name is Tony Whitcomb and this is my former boss/business partner,

Below is a list of Political Campaign Contributions Mr. Devaan has made to the Democratic Party going back to the year 2000 under the correct spelling of his last name, "Devaan."

On this list you will see in 2008, Mr. Devaan donated $28,500.00 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on March 31, 2008.

Below this list is another list of Political Campaign Contributions Mr. Devaan made in 2008 to the, "Obama Victory Fund" on July 25, 2008 for another, $28,500.00.

But you will notice Mr. Devaan made this second large political campaign contribution to the Obama Victory Fund under a slightly different spelling of his last name, "Devann?"

You will also notice, "Mr. Devann" has all of the same address and employment information as, "Mr. Devaan" but, "Mr. Devann" has only donated money in the 2008 election cycle while, "Mr. Devaan" has donated money in every election cycle going back to the year 2000.

I am not an attorney, but is it normal/legal for a private citizen to be able to make multiple large political campaign contributions under two different spellings of their last name?

It is my understanding the following limits apply to contributions from individuals to candidates for all Federal offices:

$2,400 per Election to a Federal candidate -- Each primary, runoff, and general election counts as a separate election.

$30,400 per calendar year to a national party committee -- applies separately to a party's national committee, and House and Senate campaign committee.

$10,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committees.

$5,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committee.

It is also my understanding that, "No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution, and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person."

And it is also my understanding, "It is a federal crime to evade the following donation limits listed above through a straw donor scheme" which is exactly what I think Mr. Devaan may have been a part of through the 4th largest contributors to President Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign, Microsoft.

Upon your request I can provide the FBI with a copy of a $10,000,000.00 Confidential Private Placement Memorandum that Mr. Devaan and I put together back in 2007 in regards to my Intellectual Property called Expotera to help you verify my relationship to Mr. Devaan and his relationship to me.

Thank you for your time and for your immediate considerations into these matters and if you should need any additional information from me you can feel free to reach me via this e-mail address.


Tony E. Whitcomb
Founder/CEO Expotera

Jon Devaan Political Campaign Contributions 2008 Election Cycle Contribution Totals

Download all contribution records for this person from 1999 to present To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type

2010 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2008 Transaction Count/Amount3/$33,100
2006 Transaction Count/Amount5/$13,300
2004 Transaction Count/Amount12/$50,000
2002 Transaction Count/Amount3/$3,000
2000 Transaction Count/Amount4/$4,000

Download all contribution records for this person from 1999 to present To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type

Jon Devaan Contribution List in 2008

Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar Amount Date Primary/General Contributed To


$2,3000 3/12/2007 P AL FRANKEN FOR SENATE - Democrat Farm Labor

$2,3000 3/12/2007 G AL FRANKEN FOR SENATE - Democrat Farm Labor

Jon Devann Political Campaign Contributions 2008 Election Cycle Contribution Totals

Download all contribution records for this person from 1999 to present To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type

2010 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2008 Transaction Count/Amount2/$30,800
2006 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2004 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2002 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2000 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0

Download all contribution records for this person from 1999 to present To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type

Jon Devann Contribution List in 2008

Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar Amount Date Primary/General Contributed To

Devann, Jon S Mr.MEDINA, WA 98039 Microsoft Corp/Executive
$28,5000 7/25/2008 P OBAMA VICTORY FUND - Democrat

DeVann, Jon S MEDINA, WA 98039 Microsoft Corp/Executive
$2,300 12/27/2007 P OBAMA FOR AMERICA - Democrat

Barack Obama (D)Top Contributors this table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle.

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Microsoft's secret 'screw Google' meetings in D.C.

Microsoft's secret 'screw Google' meetings in D.C.
By Sam Gustin Posted 1:25 PM 08/28/09

Microsoft's chief Washington lobbyist has been convening regular meetings attended by the company's outside consultants that have become known by some beltway insiders as "screw Google" meetings, Daily Finance has learned.

The meetings are part of an ongoing campaign by Microsoft (MSFT), other Google (GOOG) opponents, and hired third parties to discredit the Web search leader, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the matter.

"Microsoft is at the center of a group of companies who see Google as a threat to them in some combination of business and policy," said a source familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity to avoid retribution. "The effort is designed make Google look like the big high-tech bad guy here."

The meetings have occurred as frequently as once a week, sources with knowledge of the meetings say.

Microsoft employs several D.C.-based public relations firms, including Law Media Group, a secretive outfit founded by former Democratic operative Julian Epstein, and the Glover Park Group, which the software giant retains for issues related to "public policy and governmental affairs," according to Microsoft's website. LMG declined to discuss its work for Microsoft; GPG says it had never been involved with any "screw Google" meetings.

Nevertheless, one source familiar with the meetings says, "Law Media Group has several people who work full-time on Google-bashing. Everybody knows Microsoft is trying to throw roadblocks at Google and knock them off their game. Microsoft is trying to harm Google in the regulatory, legal, and litigation arenas because they're having problems with Google in the competitive marketplace."

"This is textbook Microsoft," the source adds. "Microsoft has got some of the best, highest-priced lobbyists that money can buy in Washington."

The meetings have been led by Fred Humphries, Microsoft's chief lobbyist in D.C. Ginny Terzano, Microsoft's Washington spokesperson, acknowledged that Google has come up in Microsoft meetings with "lawmakers, regulators, and our own consultants.

"But of Humphries's alleged "screw Google" meetings, she says,
"This is absurd. While Google is a healthy competitor, Fred is
focused on advancing policies that benefit our partners and
consumers, and not running meetings of the type you describe.
Your sources are badly misinformed, and your information is wrong."

"As you would expect, Microsoft and Fred are working to educate policymakers and regulators about the benefits of the Microsoft/Yahoo deal," Terzano says. "When you talk about the Microsoft/Yahoo deal, of course Google is going to come up."

A source with knowledge of the matter called Terzano's statement a "non-denial denial," saying, "This is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that they are indeed having 'screw Google' meetings."

Microsoft is working to allay Justice Department antitrust concerns over its proposed 10-year web search tie-up with Yahoo (YHOO), which would unite the No. 2 and 3 competitors in the space.

The new details about Microsoft's D.C.-based efforts to undermine Google shine a light on the role of third-party firms, funded by tech giants, that engage in activities such as astroturfing, corporate propaganda, and misinformation. Media reports have hinted at a "whisper campaign" undertaken by entities acting at Microsoft's behest to undermine Google, both with policymakers and the public.

In recent months, two heavily detailed, annotated versions of
confidential Google slide presentations -- one dealing with
competition issues, the other with behavioral targeting -- have
been published by a Santa Monica–based group called Consumer
Watchdog. The annotations are highly critical of Google and
seek to rebut the search giant's arguments. Consumer Watchdog
has thus far declined to reveal the source of the documents.

"We consulted with someone outside our organization who did the mark-ups. We published them because we thought they were right on the issue," says John M. Simpson, who leads coverage of issues related to Google at Consumer Watchdog. Microsoft and its PR firms LMG and GPG deny any involvement in producing the annotated Google presentations.

Simpson says the news of the "screw Google" meetings comes as "no surprise whatsoever." "I suspect that such meetings are happening at Microsoft, and I would suspect that Google has had similar meetings," Simpson says. "It's obvious that Microsoft is engaged in some sort of organized campaign to undermine Google."

That there is no love lost between the two companies is well-documented.

Microsoft chieftain Steve Ballmer once famously hurled a chair
across his office during an anti-Google tirade in which he raged,
"I'm going to f*cking kill Google."

The incident was revealed in court documents related to Google's
poaching of Microsoft's former point man in China, Li Kai-Fu.
Google lured Li to head its effort there, leading to a lawsuit
from Microsoft, which Google won.

Of course, just as Microsoft holds Washington meetings to discuss its Google strategy, Google does the same. The two companies compete on multiple fronts, and each seeks to enhance its own position while undermining its rival.

"Of course we keep an eye on what's happening in the industry," Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich says, "but the focus of our Washington advocacy has always been advancing good public policy for the Internet and our users."

In less than a decade, Google has become nearly as dominant in
the Internet search market as Microsoft is in desktop software.

Microsoft recently launched a high-profile foray into the search
market with a new search engine, Bing, and it seeks to partner
with Yahoo to mount a stronger challenge.

But Google, with nearly 70 percent of the search ad market, has little to fear from Bing or the planned joint partnership, and that dominance remains an immense source of Microsoft's frustration.

Microsoft and Google are also gearing up for an intense showdown over the very future of the PC operating system.

Google recently said it plans to introduce a new web-based operating system based on its Chrome browser (though to date, Chrome has barely dented Microsoft Internet Explorer's lead in the browser market).

Google's fundamental strategy to shift the focus of computing onto in the Internet, and into "the cloud," represents an ambitious assault on Microsoft's dominance of the desktop-based operating system market.

With billions of dollars at stake, the sophisticated D.C. operations and message machines are an inevitable result of Google and Microsoft's epic struggle for dominance.

With the Obama administration perceived as "Google-friendly," despite ongoing federal inquests into Google on antitrust grounds, Microsoft has little choice but to ensure that its voice is heard amid the cacophony of Capitol Hill lobbying.

And if secret "screw Google" meetings are any indication, this could get very ugly -- and very entertaining.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Obama vs. Obama

Obama vs. Obama
By Michael Brenner
Senior Fellow, the Center for Transatlantic Relations
Posted: February 12, 2010 01:29 PM

The enigma that is Barack Obama grows day by day. Contradiction after contradiction, abrupt gear shifts, perpetual motion that never reaches a destination.

'Obscene' Wall Street bonuses suddenly transmute into well earned rewards for a good guy golfing buddy; the imperative to act boldly on the jobs crisis means placing it the callous hands of Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley of health care fame; the plotting of exit strategies from Afghanistan by 2011 becomes a 'long as we have to' occupation.

All these contrapuntal reversals against a sound track of non-stop exhortation and a restless shuttling from one photo-op to another.

Who is this guy, anyway?

A few elements of Obama's personality are now evident: a strong narcissistic streak, an ingrained sense of superiority, a nimbleness - intellectual and political - enabled by the incredible lightness of his conviction about anything, an audacious ambition yet no gumption for a fight.

Behind these traits, there is something even more basic discernible. Obama is two people, one superimposed on the other. The visible, surface man is the epitome of an enlightened, Ivy League, socially responsible liberal.

This is Obama the community organizer (albeit an exceptionally non-confrontational one), Obama the African American political activist who attends Jeremiah Wright's cosmopolitan church, Obama the orator who routinely hits the high 'Cs' of the call to conscience, Obama the optimist who appeals to, and for the better angels of our idealistic American selves.

This is Obama the African-American who moved enough voters to be elected President of the United States.

To this portrait, we must juxtapose the other Barack Obama - the Barack Obama who has surfaced as he quickly shed his 'liberal' skin amidst the trappings of the White House.

This other personality, I contend, is the underlying one - truer to the man's core nature.

This is the Obama who twice in his young career sought out positions in big corporate law firms; this is the Obama who was raised by three Kansans who instilled in him conservative heartland values; this is the Obama who relishes wealth and what it can buy; this is the Obama who feels more at ease with his Wall Street buddies (Jaime Dimon, et al) playing golf than with anyone of the Move On American crowd; this is the Obama who chose as his trusted confidant that unscrupulous, liberals-be-damned fixer - Rahm Emanuel; this is the Obama who absorbed the spirit of Ronald Reagan's America he himself has said stands as the model of inspirational leadership.

Far-fetched? Let's take a clear eyed look at what President Obama actually has done and said.

He placed his supposedly signature health care reform initiative in the hands of those dedicated to thwarting it, he has curried favor with the criminally incompetent financial establishment, he orphaned the proposal to help underwater homeowners through the bankruptcy courts, he stiffed the trade unions on the loosening of rules for organizing workers, he has retained all of Bush's policies on surveillance, he has refused the slightest chastisement of the CIA and their mercenaries, he has retained Bush's practice of Executive statements interpreting legislation, he has followed a behind closed doors style of policy-making, he has followed the Pentagon hawks in escalating the war in Afghanistan, he has made repeated advances toward the evangelical right.

This is the behavioral pattern of a deeply conservative personality and conventional thinker who tips his hat to every establishment he encounters.

The evidence supports my thesis that this latter Obama is the truer personality, and that it has liberated itself now that the man is at the apex of his achieved ambition.

There is, of course, a more prosaic explanation of Obama's repudiation of the ideas and outlook that won him the White House.

It argues that his about faces and incongruous acts merely reflect practical political calculations.

That argument does not stand up to scrutiny, though. First, Obama's conduct in the White House has severely weakened his political position to the point where he managed to resuscitate a moribund Republican Party while putting at risk reelection of the Democratic Congress and himself.

Second, Obama initiated most of these reversals in the early months of his administration when he was still riding high in the polls and had every opportunity to take the initiative.

The unhappy conclusion is that we have in Obama a President who is what we used to call a moderate Republican before the species became extinct.

Moreover, someone who is very much a man of his times - those times being the 1980s and 1990s.

That means suspicions of government programs (last week Obama declared that New Deal thinking wasn't applicable to day's problems), a strong belief that we should always give private interests the benefit of the doubt, an assumption that the rich deserve their riches, and an insensitivity to the plight of salaried Americans (Obama's push for a Bipartisan Commission to recommend budget cutting measures to be voted 'up or down' by Congress clearly had Social Security in its sights).

Abroad, Obama is ready to deploy military might in dubious causes defined by the country's hawkish defense establishment.

The implication for progressives?

Let Barack Obama know in no unspoken terms that if he wants to revel in the White House for a full eight years he has to garb himself in that old liberal persona.