Was Jill Biden's Charity Run Out of Joe Biden's Senate Office?
According to the Web of Deception website, it seems that a former assistant to then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Tonya Baker Garvin, who went on to work for Biden's successor, now works for Dr. Jill Biden's charity, the Biden Breast Health Initiative--and used the same email address, telephone numbers and street address for Joe Biden's local Senate Office that she used in her official capacity as Secretary for the charity.
That can be confirmed by comparing page 19 of this 2006 tax reutrn, with contact information taken from Biden's Senate website, viewable here.
The evidence presented by Web of Deception seems to suggest that the Biden Breast Health Initiative may have been using the government office to offset unusually large administrative costs.
The proportion of donations any charity uses for administrative costs relative the amount of giving it conducts is often used as a means of determining the best versus the worst charities. The Biden Breast Health Initiative's 2009 tax filing lists $54,867 in administrative costs, or approximately 60% of the total budget, compared to $35,026 for giving, or about 40%.
That puts the distribution well over on the high, or worst end of the spectrum in that regard--and the charity may have even more troubling problems.
The evidence presented by Web of Deception seems to suggest that the Biden Breast Health Initiative may have been using the government office to offset unusually large administrative costs.
The evidence presented by Web of Deception seems to suggest that the Biden Breast Health Initiative may have been using the government office to offset unusually large administrative costs. 
Mon, 21 May 2012 05:49:00 -0700
Like Warren, Obama Claims Cherokee Ancestry--But Offers No Proof
President Barack Obama and Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren have more in common than just their liberal political ideology, Harvard Law pedigree, and Democratic Party affiliation. Both claim Cherokee ancestry, and neither can prove it.
Ms. Warren's claims are current and well known, but President Obama's claims were made back in 1995, when his memoir, Dreams from My Father, was published. On pages 12 and 13 of the 2004 paperback edition, the President unequivocally asserts his Cherokee ancestry:
If asked, Toot [Obama’s maternal grandmother, Madelyne Payne Dunham] would turn her head in profile to show off her beaked nose, which, along with a pair of jet-black eyes, was offered as proof of Cherokee blood.
But an old, sepia toned photograph on the bookshelf spoke most eloquently of their [grandparents Stanley and Madelyne Dunham’s] roots. It showed Toot’s grandparents, of Scottish and English stock, standing in front of a ramshackle homestead, unsmiling and dressed in coarse wool, their eyes squinting at the sun baked flinty life that stretched before them…in their eyes one could see truths that I would have to learn later as facts…that while one of my great-great grandfathers, Christopher Columbus Clark, had been a decorated Union soldier, his wife’s mother was rumored to have been a second cousin of Jefferson Davis…that although another distant ancestor had indeed been a full-blooded Cherokee, such lineage was a source of shame to Toot’s mother [Leona McCurry Payne] who blanched whenever someone mentioned the subject and hoped to carry the secret to her grave.
Unlike Ms. Warren, no one has ever alleged that President Obama may have secured employment due to his claim of Native American ancestry. Like Ms. Warren, however, the President puts forth his claim with emphatic certitude, although until now no one has sought to ask him to provide evidence to prove it.
Like Ms. Warren, the proof the President has offered to date does not go beyond "family lore"--though he, at least, has not yet offered the Pow Wow Chow cookbook as evidence of his Cherokee ancestry.
Unlike Ms. Warren, the President has a family member who, though strongly opposed to the President’s political philosophies, firmly believes the family lore of Cherokee heritage--though he quickly acknowledges that he, like the President, has no concrete evidence to support that belief.
Dr. Milton Wolf is a Kansas radiologist and a vocal critic of Obamacare.
Dr. Milton Wolf is a Kansas radiologist and President Obama’s second cousin, once removed
Wolf is also the author of the e-book First, Do No Harm, a columnist at the Washington Times, and has his own blog at The Wolf Files. Mr. Wolf and his immediate family met the President personally for the first time last year.
As to evidence of their shared Cherokee ancestry, Dr. Wolf acknowledges that it is based on nothing more than family lore. "Unfortunately, I don't have in my possession any records to substantiate the family lore [of our Cherokee ancestry] or even know who does," he said. "But I believe it to be true. One of my aunts has an old family photo album that contains at least one photo of a woman who is clearly Native American and purported to be family…I know that's pretty thin but that the extent of what I know. This much I know: I've never checked the Native American box on any school or job application. I believe in a merit-based society.""
Dr Wolf’s mother, Anna Margaret McCurry Wolf, was first cousin to President Obama’s maternal grandmother, “Toot” Madelyne Payne Dunham.
President Obama with his maternal grandmother, “Toot” Madelyne Payne Dunham, New York City, circa 1981-1982
Dr. Wolf's grandfather, Franklin McCurry, was the brother of Leona McCurry Payne (1897-1968), Toot’s mother.
Leona McCurry Payne
Their closest common ancestors were the parents of Leona and Franklin--Thomas Creekmore McCurry,
Thomas Creekmore McCurry
born 1850 in Missouri, died 1939 in Peru, Kansas; and Margaret Bell Wright, born 1869 in Arkansas, and died in 1935 in Chautauqua County, Kansas. These two are President Obama’s great-great grandparents, and Milton Wolf’s great-grandparents.
The family lore about the children of Thomas Creekmore McCurry is consistent between the President and Dr. Wolf.
In Dreams, the President says: “Toot’s mother [Leona McCurry Payne]…blanched whenever someone mentioned the subject [of Cherokee ancestry] and hoped to carry the secret to her grave.” Wolf says that “my mother always told us that her father [Leona McCurry Payne’s brother, Franklin McCurry] didn't like to talk about [his Cherokee ancestry] due to prejudice against Indians. She said that he had said that she and her siblings were of sufficient Indian heritage (I think 1/8, but maybe 1/16) that they could have had free college tuition and other government benefits, but he wouldn't acknowledge it publicly--and neither should they.”
Following this line, if any one of Franklin McCurry’s grandparents were full-blooded Cherokee, Milton Wolf’s mother--as well as her first cousin, President Obama’s grandmother “Toot” Madelyne Payne Dunham--would be 1/8 Cherokee. If the ancestry traced back to any one of Franklin McCurry’s great-grandparents, Milton Wolf’s mother and “Toot” would be 1/16 Cherokee.
But, as we all know, family lore does not Cherokee ancestry make, and following the line back, neither Franklin McCurry’s parents, grandparents, nor great-grandparents were Cherokee, based on all available records.
Thomas Creekmore McCurry’s father, Harbin Wilburn McCurry, was born on March 11, 1823 in Indiana, and died in Center, Oklahoma Territory, on July 24, 1899. His mother, Elizabeth Edna Creekmore, was born March 23, 1827 in Illinois, and died in Ada, Oklahoma, on January 15, 1918. Available census records show both as white.
Harbin Wilburn McCurry’s father, Edward McCurry, was born around 1790 in Kentucky. His mother, Christina Wilson, was born in North Carolina on 1795. They were married on November 16, 1815, in Barren County, Kentucky. Available census records show both as white.
One amateur genealogist following this story noted that “other than a couple of people listed as born or living in North Carolina, I don't see anyone [from among President Obama’s ancestors] living anywhere the Cherokees were living. And not all people who lived in North Carolina were Cherokees. When families are from the Southeast and have a family story if it pans out there is Indian blood, it isn't always Cherokee, even if that is what the family was told.”
President Obama's only North Carolina ancestor in the Thomas Creekmore McCurry line, Christina Wilson McCurry, who was born there in 1795, appears to be listed in all census records as white. If President Obama is able to offer any proof to support his claim of Cherokee ancestry, it is likely to come from Christina Wilson McCurry’s ancestors, but most amateur genealogists who have looked into this are skeptical such proof exists.
Unlike Ms. Warren, who has been questioned numerous times over the past several weeks, but has failed to provide any evidence for her Cherokee ancestry claims, there has been no prior focus on President Obama’s claims of Cherokee ancestry until now. Phone calls and emails to the White House for President Obama to provide evidence of his 1995 claim that one of his ancestors was “full-blooded Cherokee” remain unreturned.
It will be interesting to see if President Obama will adopt Elizabeth Warren’s strategy of stonewalling on questions of claimed Cherokee ancestry--or if he will forthrightly either offer proof, or admit that he cannot provide evidence to support his claim.
Michael Patrick Leahy is a Breitbart News contributor, Editor of Broadside Books’ Voices of the Tea Party e-book series, and author of Covenant of Liberty: The Ideological Origins of the Tea Party Movement. 
Sun, 20 May 2012 22:30:00 -0700
GM's Pathetic Stock Price Means a $30 Billion Taxpayer Tab
Has General Motors (GM) forgotten We the Taxpayers are still out $30+ billion on the $82 billion auto bailout?
Apparently so.
General Motors Co. — which owned the auto and mortgage lender Ally Financial Inc. until 2006 and still holds a 9.9 percent stake in the company — said it will consider a bid for Ally's foreign operations.
GM CEO Dan Akerson told Bloomberg News on Monday that the Detroit automaker may buy if the price is right...
Ally's troubled mortgage unit Residential Capital LLC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy early Monday, as the Detroit-based Ally said it may sell its international businesses.
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, shall we, Mr. Akerson?
At least $15 billion of the auto bailout loss is gone forever. The rest we own in stock.
We still own 500+ million shares of General Motors (GM), which is currently trading at an anemic, pathetic sub $22--which is down more than a third from the post-bankruptcy IPO price.
Let us ponder that precipitous drop for but a moment.
After a 2011 of tax-free “record” profits and multiple awards for the (unprofitable, unpopular, combustible) Chevy Volt, GM stock is down by more than a third.
Meaning GM’s “success” is just so much more disingenuous President Barack Obama campaign hype.
For We the Taxpayers to break even on our GM shares, they must be sold at $53 per. Given the direction the stock is headed, that ain’t looking good. Were our shares sold today, we’d lose another nearly $16 billion.
Just another facet of the Obama Administration’s “success.”
Which brings us back to GM’s contemplated purchase of Ally Financial. GM has--while owing us billions--purchased before.
In a similar move in 2010, GM acquired AmeriCredit and renamed it GM Financial to expand its subprime auto lending and leasing.
Subprime lending? Meaning like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for Government Motors? Why, yes.
Just another in a long series of brilliant GM business moves.
Government Motors, as we said, sells Volt hybrids for $41,000. Volt hybrids cost GM $41,000 to make. It’s a zero-sum, non-profit product...
GM (in 2010) received more green (non-energy) energy patents than any other organization on Planet Earth...
And in bad joke harmonic convergence, GM spent $3 million to install solar panels at a (non-profit) Volt manufacturing plant - in order to save $15,000 a year in electricity.
It’ll take GM 200 years to break even on these solar panels. Except they won’t, because in 20-25 years they’ll have to replace them all, which means they’ll save--at most--$375,000, before spending another $3 million (plus inflation) to start the inanity all over again.
And if you haven’t yet had enough GM solar, and you liked Solyndra, and Beacon Power, and Ener1, and...
Through Venture-Capital Arm, General Motors Pushing Boundaries of Innovation
...Since its inception, General Motors Ventures has closed on 13 investments worth around $60 million, according to (GM's Tim) Brumbaugh.
They include a $7.5 million investment in Sunlogics PLC -- a manufacturer of solar-energy systems -- and a $6 million investment in Proterra Inc., which makes zero-emission transit buses.
Fantastic. But fret not:
"We are only investing in technologies that can be utilized in the automobile itself or through our manufacturing facilities -- something that's going to give us a competitive advantage," Brumbaugh said.
Like their $3 million Volt factory solar panel fiasco.
And the visual of GM incorporating “solar-energy systems” in their vehicles is at once mind-numbing and absurdly hilarious. Given that a 12-hour charge of a Volt’s 400 pound battery gets you less than 40 miles down the road, how much additional juice will a GM-venture-capital solar panel on the car’s roof provide?
"That would be a big strategic win for us," he said.
There’s that Obama-Government Motors bizarre definition of “success” again.
"It's not chasing a hot trend," Brumbaugh said. "It's something that if you're doing to do it, you have to stick to it -- and management has to stick to it -- over decades."
That sounds an awful lot like President Obama’s “doubling down” on his Solyndras, and Beacon Powers, and Ener1s, and the rest.
Much of Europe spent the last decade subsidizing non-green non-energy at levels far greater than ours and are now giving it up as absurdly wasteful and futile.
With decisions like all of these, is anyone shocked by GM’s stellar stock performance?
So before GM takes yet another flyer on yet another bankrupt idea, perhaps they should instead begin to pay down the huge debt they owe We the Taxpayers.
It would be the first good General Motors decision in quite a while.
And it might actually, finally begin to drag the stock price up from its current pathetic position. 
Sun, 20 May 2012 21:56:00 -0700
Polling 101: Navigating the Polls in an Election Year
As the campaign season gets into full swing, voters can expect a deluge of polls. Every major media outfit and several independent polling organizations will provide almost real-time information on every twist and turn in the political landscape. The polls will not only cheer or frighten partisans on all sides, they will likely have a gravitational affect on individual campaigns themselves, as candidates adjust their campaigns to polling results. But, voters should beware. Even modern day polling is more art than science.
All polls reflect certain biases--not necessarily in the political sense--of pollsters. Taking a small sample and extrapolating it to the overall electorate involves lots of judgement calls that may not provide an accurate picture of the political landscape. While voters should look to sites like RealClearPolitics, which average a basket of recent polls to smooth out aberrations, the occasional "outlier" poll, showing results wildly different than other polls, is occasionally correct. It mostly comes down to the choices pollsters make in conducting their poll.
If you are reading this, you're likely fairly politically aware and understand some basic differences between many polls. You understand that the first step in accessing a poll is looking at what's called the "voter screen." In other words, is the poll of adults, registered voters or likely voters. The difference matters a lot:
Both Pew Research and Nate Silver have each looked at the differences for different elections from 2004, 2008 and 2010; and they both came to essentially the same answer:
- Polling “adults” generally favors Democrats by a net of 7%.
- Polling “registered voters” generally favors Democrats by a net of 4%.
- Polling “likely voters” is always the most accurate.
So if you have one poll of “adults” which says D53.5-R46.5, another of “registered voters” which shows D52-R48, and another of “likely voters” which shows D50-R50, they’re all saying the same thing. When you factor in the relevant adjustments for each screen, they’re all showing a tie at somewhere around an exact 50/50 split of those who will actually wind up choosing between Democrats and Republicans.
For the life of me, I don't understand why media outlets like The Associated Press continue to poll "adults" on political issues. Around 20% of adults aren't registered to vote. Putting aside the rather large inherent bias toward Democrats, why do we even care to know the political views of those who won't be voting? Its about as useful as polling Canadians on their preference of U.S. politicians.
With the exception of Rasmussen Reports, however, most media and polling organizations use the registered voter screen until late in the campaign. This is due to the not unreasonable belief that, early in the campaign season, it is difficult to estimate who is most likely to show up at the polls. It won't come as a shock to learn that people often lie in polls, claiming they will definitely vote but then, for a variety of reasons, fail to do so. So, as you see polls of registered voters, keep in mind that there is a general bias of +4% for Democrat candidates.
But, even polls using a likely voter screen can be misleading. At this point, we need to discuss one of the less talked about and least understood aspects of polling: weighting.
When you start from a random sample of voters and begin conducting the actual interviews, it is very likely that the total universe of voters you actually speak with aren't representative of the overall populace. You may have too many male, white, low-income, high education or Midwestern voters. Polling firms deal with this by "weighting" the sample, essentially tossing certain interviews so that the final results reflect responses from a representative sample that matches the nation's demographics.
Most of this is fairly technical and, with the exception of the occasional disreputable firm, fairly straightforward. Where it gets very tricky is where polling firms "weight" their sample based on their estimate of the partisan breakdown of the electorate. In other words, how many democrats, republicans and independents they include in their sample. This judgement call can throw off even the more accurate likely voter screen.
In 2008, an obviously big year for Democrats, the partisan breakdown of the actual electorate was:
- Democrats 39%
- GOP 32%
- Independents 29%
By ideology, the breakdown was:
- Liberal 22%
- Conservative 34%
- Moderate 44%
In 2010, an obviously big year for the GOP, the partisan breakdown of the actual was:
- Democrats 35%
- GOP 35%
- Independents 29%
By ideology, the breakdown was:
- Liberal 20%
- Conservative 42%
- Moderate 38%
So, any poll in 2010 that used 2008 as their baseline, i.e. weighting their polling sample to reflect the partisan breakdown of 2008, would have been wildly off. Remember, the pollster would have "tossed" certain interviews to get to the D-39, R-32 and I-29 sample.
So, is the electorate in 2012 going to be more like 2008 or 2010? Personally, with an energized GOP and conservative base, I don't think the 2012 electorate is going to come remotely close to the partisan breakdown we saw in 2008. But, most pollsters seem to disagree and are weighting their polls for just such an outcome.
Organizations like Gallup and The Associated Press make it almost impossible to find out their partisan screen. Newer organizations, though, like Politico, DailyKos and Fox News do make this information available.
A recent poll by DailyKos/PPP, which had Obama up by 3 points, had the following partisan screen:
- Democrats 40%
- GOP 37%
- Independents 24%
- Liberal 27%
- Conservative 42%
- Moderate 32%
So, the DailyKos poll expects a bigger Democrat and liberal turnout than in 2008. Somehow, I don't think that's likely.
Politico's recent poll, which found Romney with a 1-point lead had the following partisan screen:
- Democrats 37%
- GOP 34%
- Independents 28%
(Note: I've done my own "weighting" and assigned "leans GOP" and "leans Democrat" to "Independents.")
A recent FoxNews poll, which showed Obama with a 7-point lead had this partisan breakdown:
- Democrats 42%
- GOP 34%
- Independents 20%
What color is the sky in FoxNews' world if they think the Democrats, in 2012, are going to increase their share of the electorate from 2008? When was it, exactly, that a bunch of independents suddenly switched to the Democrat party?
I think all of these polls are oversampling Democrats and undersampling Republicans. The nadir for the GOP was 2008, when they only made up 32% of the electorate. In the wake of ObamaCare and a stalled economy, there is no way the GOP is going to sit home like they did when faced with a McCain candidacy. Also, the Democrats were at the high-water mark of the "hope and change" promise of Obama in 2008, when they made up 39% of the electorate. There is no way they reach that level again.
So, every poll you see, dig deep into the partisan breakdown. Your mileage may vary, but you'd be right to adjust the numbers accordingly.
Sun, 20 May 2012 14:26:00 -0700
FBI Probe Of JP Morgan Chase Won't Matter; Firm Donated $808,799 To Barack Obama
In their latest Daily Beast article, Newsweek
reporter Peter Boyer and contributing Breitbart News editor Peter
Schweizer argue that JP Morgan Chase and Jamie Dimon have little to fear
from the FBI's probe into the financial giant's nearly $3 billion bad
bet.
For starters, President Obama has between $500,000 to $1 million with
JP Morgan Chase in a "private client asset management account."
Second, as Boyer and Schweizer revealed last week, the Department of Justice has not charged or prosecuted a single "top
executive from a major Wall Street firm." Furthermore, financial-fraud prosecutions by DOJ are at 20-year lows.
Third, JP Morgan Chase's Jamie Dimon has visited the Obama White House 18 times.
And finally, as Nick Sorrentino of the AgainstCronyCapitalism.org blog points out, in 2008, JP Morgan Chase employees donated $808,799 to then-candidate Barack Obama.
For these reasons and more, say Boyer and Schweizer, JP Morgan Chase
and Jamie Dimon appear not to have too much to worry about. They are
safe and sound inside the protective cone of crony capitalism. 
Sun, 20 May 2012 13:48:00 -0700
|
