Thursday, December 12, 2013

Russia Strengthens Ties With Vietnam


Russia Strengthens Ties With Vietnam

Print Text Size

Summary

Editor's Note: This is the first of a three-part series about Russia's intensifying focus on East Asia. Part 1 examines Russia's traditional interests in the region and its closer relationship with Vietnam.
Recent challenges in exporting energy to Europe have made an orientation toward Asia more desirable for Moscow. Russia's economy depends on hydrocarbon exports, and while Western Europe is attempting to become less dependent on Russia by seeking new energy sources, Asian markets have large and indiscriminate appetites for energy.
Although Russia's focus in Asia traditionally has been on China, Japan and South Korea, it also has ties to Southeast Asia, which remains a strategically significant -- though not absolutely essential -- area for Moscow's efforts to extend its influence and energy exports eastward. Notably, Moscow recently struck a spate of energy and defense deals with Hanoi in an effort to strengthen their relationship, open up new markets for Russian energy and balance against China's moves in Central Asia. Moscow's moves into Asia through Vietnam are proceeding piecemeal, paralleling Russian moves elsewhere in the region.

Analysis

More than 70 percent of Russian territory lies in Asia. Siberia and the Russian Far East -- sparsely populated regions holding significant mineral and hydrocarbon resources -- border China, North Korea, Mongolia and Kazakhstan and have a 4,500-kilometer (2,800-mile) Pacific coastline. Russia's Asian interests also lie to the south, in the former Soviet republics in Central Asia. Russia remains influential within these states and, under Vladimir Putin's leadership as president and prime minister, has made efforts to secure its southeastern flank anchored by the Tien Shan mountains. However, Russia's influence in Central Asia faces challenges from China, which naturally looks westward to extend its influence.
Central Asia is not the only area where Russian and Chinese interests collide. The Asian giants' relationship has long been tense, with Sino-Soviet border disputes erupting into violence several times during the Cold War. Russia and China clearly defined their borders in 1991 but have remained in competition abroad. Russia also has a history of conflict with Japan. The countries have been longtime rivals in the northwestern Pacific, and Japan defeated Russia in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. In the final years of the Soviet Union, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev began orienting his foreign policy toward Asia in response to a rising Japan. Putin has also piloted a much-touted pivot to Asia, coinciding with renewed U.S. interest in the area, and hosted the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in 2012 in Vladivostok, near Russia's borders with China and North Korea. Russia's efforts in Asia have been limited by the country's more direct interests in its periphery and in Europe, but Moscow recently has been able to look more to the east.
Part of this renewed interest involves finding new export markets for Russian hydrocarbons. Russia's economy relies on energy exports, particularly crude oil and natural gas exported via pipeline to the West. However, Western Europe is diversifying its energy sources as new supplies come online out of a desire to reduce its dependence on Russian energy supplies. This has forced Russia to look for new export markets. Because Asia is hungry for energy supplies and is less fearful than Western Europe of a reliance on Russia, Moscow is attempting to shift its energy exports eastward, first with oil and then with natural gas.
With Northeast Asian economies experiencing robust growth, Russia's push into Asia has concentrated on Japan and South Korea, with a strong interest in securing deals with China. But such markets make up only part of the potential Moscow sees in Asia. There are a number of growing energy consumers to the south as well.

Russia's Historical Ties to Vietnam

Vietnam is the pivot point of Southeast Asia, occupying a key position along the major corridors that connect the Strait of Malacca with the Northeast Asian economies, as well as those connecting the northeast to the smaller, dynamic economies to the south. The country is directly accessible by sea from ports in the Russian Far East.
Vietnam has long been Russia's closest partner in Southeast Asia, especially during periods in which both countries were seeking to balance against China. Historically, the country has been a major area of focus for China -- either as a potential client state extending the Chinese coastline south or as a potential thorn in Beijing's side. This is the essence of Russia's interest in Vietnam.
Russo-Vietnamese relations stretch back to Moscow's recognition of the Viet Minh government in 1950. Ho Chi Minh, the father of modern Vietnam, worked for the Comintern in Russia in 1923 before traveling to China to orchestrate his revolution at home. Many of the early regime's senior members were educated or trained in the Soviet Union, and members of Vietnam's current technocratic class were educated in Russian universities, which still accept large numbers of Vietnamese students. Energy cooperation between Russia and Vietnam began in 1959, when the Soviets conducted the first geological surveys of North Vietnam. This cooperation became stronger in 1981, when a joint venture, Vietsovpetro, became Vietnam's first oil company, extracting crude from the Bach Ho offshore fields starting in 1987.
Russian defense assistance to Vietnam also has a long history. The Soviet Union became North Vietnam's primary benefactor in 1965 amid Hanoi's widening split with Beijing, culminating in China's full withdrawal of assistance to Vietnam in 1968. In 1979, the Soviets established a naval base at Cam Ranh Bay in response to China's invasion of Vietnam and its proxy war in Cambodia.

Moscow's Renewed Interest

In 2001, Putin made his first visit to Vietnam, ending a post-Soviet lapse in Russo-Vietnamese relations. During the visit, the countries established a strategic partnership, and Putin's 2006 visit further strengthened the two countries' relationship. In 2012, the countries upgraded their ties to a comprehensive strategic partnership, and Russia invited Vietnam to join its Customs Union. Most recently, on Nov. 12, Putin signed 27 bilateral agreements on energy and defense cooperation during another visit to Hanoi.
In addition to helping establish a Southeast Asian market for Russian energy exports, Moscow's recent moves will also strengthen Vietnam as a counter against China's growing influence to Russia's south. This is why Moscow's deals with Hanoi over the past several years have focused on energy and defense. In 2009, Russia sold Vietnam six Kilo-class submarines, with two to be delivered in 2012 and four more by 2016. In 2011, Russia delivered two Gepard-class frigates to Vietnam, which then ordered two more in September. During his recent visit, Putin suggested that Russia would begin manufacturing military technology in Vietnam and would sign an accord on training and weapons deals.
Meanwhile, Vietnam's appetite for energy is indeed increasing. The country's annual gross domestic product has grown by an average of 6.95 percent since 2000, while oil consumption grew from 176,000 barrels per day in 2000 to 388,000 barrels per day in 2012, with annual growth expected to continue at a rate exceeding 6 percent through 2020. Natural gas consumption is also outpacing gross domestic product growth and production levels. It is expected to reach 3 billion cubic meters per year by 2015, 6 bcm by 2020 and 15 bcm by 2025.
During Putin's visit and the flurry of business meetings beforehand, Russian and Vietnamese firms struck deals on liquefied natural gas, oil sales and energy exploration. Russian state-owned energy giant Gazprom acquired a 49 percent stake in Vietnam's sole oil refinery at Dong Quat and contracted to expand its capacity by 50 percent to some 200,000 barrels per day by 2015. More important, Gazprom contracted to begin to supply oil to the refinery through Russia's Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline -- around 60,000 barrels per day initially, with the goal of ramping up to 120,000 barrels per day by 2018. Previously, all of Vietnam's crude imports had come from the Middle East.
Russian state-owned oil company Rosneft also became a strategic partner in Vietnam's Nhon Hoi mega-refinery project, which is set to produce an estimated 600,000 barrels per day, though it has been plagued with delays and questions about its viability. Rosneft also plans to acquire a minority stake in an offshore oil block and has expressed interested in another block in the disputed South China Sea. Meanwhile, PetroVietnam, Vietnam's state-owned petrochemical company, acquired the right to explore in Russia's Pechora Sea in Siberia. Gazprom -- which began exploring for natural gas in the South China Sea in 2009 and began pumping from two blocks in October -- plans to supply Vietnam with liquefied natural gas from its planned Vladivostok project. This could supply Vietnam's two planned regasification terminals at Thi Vai (which will have a capacity of 1.38 bcm by 2014) and Son My (4.14 bcm by 2018).

Vietnam's Appeal

Vietnamese energy growth could help Russia expand its export portfolio elsewhere in Asia. Incidentally, with more options in Southeast Asia, Russia will become more capable of leveraging its options to secure deals with major Northeast Asian consumers. At the moment, no single market rivals China, but a combination of countries -- including Japan, South Korea and those in Southeast Asia -- could provide a comparable alternative.
Vietnamese domestic energy demand is only part of the story. Russian assistance with energy and defense will also bolster Vietnam's ability to resist Chinese influence and protect vital sea routes. Russian defense assistance has come in the form of naval technology, and its energy assistance has pushed into blocks in the South China Sea, where Vietnam (along with the Philippines) has been arguing with China about sovereignty. Disputed hydrocarbon blocks in the Nam Con Son basin have been an issue in the disagreements. China National Petroleum Corp. attempted to auction these blocks in September 2012, but Gazprom's recent exploration and drilling operations, which Rosneft could join, have supported Vietnam's claims. The dispute presents an opportunity for Moscow, which could use its relationship with Vietnam as a negotiating tool to slow China's advance into Russia's periphery in Central Asia.
Next: Part 2 of this series will examine the role of South Korea in Russia's plans to strengthen its partnerships in East Asia.

Russia, Hamas Leaders Hold Rare Phone Conversation

Russia, Hamas Leaders Hold Rare Phone Conversation

Sergei Lavrov
Sergei Lavrov / AP
BY:

Gaza Strip Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov held a rare phone conversation on Wednesday, Israel Hayom reports.
Hamas government spokesman Taher Nunu said Haniyeh spoke with Lavrov for 35 minutes. He said the men discussed Israel’s peace talks with the rival Palestinian government in the West Bank, the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of the Gaza Strip and “common relations.”
The discussion was the first high-level conversation in months.
In a statement issued by Russia’s Foreign Ministry, Lavrov called for a “quick lifting” of the blockade on Gaza to “help relieve a difficult humanitarian situation of the Palestinian population.” He also voiced his support for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement.
According to the Russian statement, Haniyeh told Lavrov about the social and economic situation in Gaza and discussed overcoming differences between Hamas and its rival government in the West Bank.
The Washington Free Beacon reported Wednesday that Russia is also boosting ties with Iran. Lavrov met with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to discuss issues ranging from Tehran’s nuclear ambitions to Moscow’s goal of promoting “eye-catching growth” in Iran.

Sources: White House Has Killed Iran Sanctions

Sources: White House Has Killed Iran Sanctions

No new sanctions will pass Congress in 2013, insiders say
Harry Reid / AP
Harry Reid / AP
BY:

House lawmakers are lashing out at their Senate counterparts over the upper chamber’s failure to pass tighter Iran sanctions before Congress recesses.
With only two weeks left on the legislative calendar, congressional insiders say that a new Iran sanctions measure currently under consideration by the Senate is all but dead in the water.
Senate Democratic leaders appear poised to give in to White House demands that no new sanctions be imposed on Iran for the rest of the year and likely through most of 2014.
The two key avenues that senators could use to push through new sanctions—the Senate Banking Committee and the annual defense authorization bill—appear to have been shut down by the White House’s Democratic allies.
The situation has proved frustrating to House lawmakers who overwhelmingly voted months ago to approve a new Iran sanctions measure only to see it stall in the Senate under White House pressure.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.) described the congressional tug of war as “reprehensible” and a “tragedy.” She urged her Senate colleagues to stop taking marching orders from the White House when it comes to the Iranian nuclear situation.
Bachmann went on to praise Sens. Mark Krik (R., Ill.) and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) for authoring an Iran sanctions measure that could be offered as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a yearly defense-spending bill that must be approved before lawmakers leave town.
However, it remains unlikely that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) will allow the amendment to come to a vote.
Bachmann said that lawmakers should insist that new sanctions are approved before they leave for the holidays.
“It’s very important we send a very strong signal in the Middle East that the U.S. will not stand for Iran undercutting our words on not obtaining a nuclear weapon,” she told the Free Beacon. “The president, unfortunately, has already sent the signal that he would willingly abide by Iran enriching uranium.”
“This is our first president who has truly made a decision to be truly anti-Israel,” Bachmann said, referring to the Israeli government’s opposition to the nuclear accord.
Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill,), the GOP chief deputy whip and co-chair of the Republican Israel Caucus, slammed Senate Democrats for following the White House as Iran continues to enrich uranium.
“The Senate Democratic leadership’s capitulation to White House demands to ease pressure on Iran is deeply disappointing,” Roskam told the Washington Free Beacon. “This has long been a unifying issue for Congress, and even today, prominent voices in both parties in the House and the Senate agree that action must be taken to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions at all costs.”
“The Senate’s refusal to consider House-passed sanctions legislation significantly weakens U.S. negotiation leverage with Iran,” he said. “Unfortunately, some Senate leaders are choosing not to follow through on their long-held commitment to take every necessary step to prevent a nuclear Iran.”
Congressional insiders with knowledge of the sanctions debate blamed the White House and Senate Democratic leadership for ignoring the will of the majority of Congress.
“The American people deserve an up-or-down vote before senators go home for recess; the majority leader shouldn’t let the White House bully the Senate into silence,” said one senior Senate aide who is closely tracking the sanctions amendment. “If Democrats wanted this to become law, it would be on its way to the president’s desk—we deserve action, not illusory deals that go nowhere.”
A senior House GOP aide involved in the sanctions debate said that “every House effort to ratchet up pressure on Iran is met with a big middle finger from the White House and Senate leadership.”
“They continue to block sanctions legislation at every turn in an attempt to appease the Iranian regime,” the aide told the Free Beacon, echoing frustration felt by many in the House. “The fact that the Senate won’t even consider a bill that passed the House 400-20 means the Obama administration is, sadly, successfully driving a partisan stake in the heart of one of the few bipartisan issues in Washington.”
Even if the Senate approves the sanctions measure as an amendment to the NDAA, it would require that the House remain in Washington, D.C., to reconcile the two measures before being finalized.
However, this scenario is unlikely, as most House members will leave town at the end of this week when their legislative year comes to an end.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) lashed out at Reid late Tuesday for jamming up the Senate with needless votes.
The Senate should be discussing “the defense bill and open it up to amendments, as we always have in the past,” McConnell was quoted as saying by Politico. “I question the way the Senate is being run.”
“We’re spending weeks on nominations, none of which is an emergency,” he reportedly said.
The Senate Banking Committee, which was seen as an alternate route for a sanctions bill, also will avoid taking up the issue, according to Politico.
“The president and Secretary Kerry have made a strong case for a pause in congressional action on new Iran sanctions, so I am inclined to support their request and hold off on committee action for now,” Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D., S.D.) told Politico Tuesday.

Washington’s Al Qaeda doesn’t exist and never did

Washington’s Al Qaeda doesn’t exist and never did

Virtually every incident involving this fictional organization refutes the narrative. Photo: (AQAP YouTube screen shot)
TAMPA, December 11, 2013 — For twelve years, the Bush and Obama Administrations have promoted a narrative about the War on Terror. It has changed slightly in superficial ways, as when President Obama gave it a new name, but the crux of the narrative has not changed. The United States is fighting a war against a worldwide terrorist organization called al-Qaeda, formerly headed by über-terrorist Osama bin Laden.
Americans are led to believe that this organization has a single mission against the United States and is directed by a hierarchy of terrorist leaders, all reporting up to a senior command located somewhere in Afghanistan. Many of the lawmakers and cabinet personnel who promote this narrative likely believe it themselves, at least to some degree.
Washington sees al-Qaeda the way it sees itself, a centralized, top-down hierarchy with a chain of command reporting up from every corner of the earth. It makes for a good story, but it’s not even remotely true. Virtually every incident involving this fictional organization refutes the narrative.
Veteran reporter Eric Margolis never believed it. He’s been reporting on the true nature of the Islamic militant groups from the very beginning. He should know what he’s talking about. He was embedded in Afghanistan in the 1980’s when bin Laden and what is now al-Qaeda and the Taliban were U.S. allies, fighting the Soviet Union.
For what it’s worth, bin Laden and other Islamic militants apparently regarded Margolis’ reporting as accurate. He was named as one of a small group of reporters who “fairly and accurately reported on the region” in alleged al-Qaeda letters released last year.
Commenting on that release in “Osama’s Almost Letter to Me,” Margolis wrote, “Al-Qaida was not founded by Osama bin Laden, as many wrongly believe, but in the mid-1980’s in Peshawar, Pakistan, by a revolutionary scholar, Sheik Abdullah Azzam. I know this because I interviewed Azzam numerous times at al-Qaida HQ in Peshawar while covering the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. Azzam set up al-Qaida, which means ‘the base’ in Arabic, to help CIA and Saudi-financed Arab volunteers going to fight in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. In those days, the west hailed them as ‘freedom fighters.’”
Margolis goes on to report that neither Al Qaeda in Afghanistan nor the Taliban had anything to do with 9/11. Their raison d’etre is fighting foreign troops within their borders. When the invaders were Soviet, they fought the Soviets, using similar but updated tactics to those previously used against the British. When the invaders were American, they fought the Americans. Thus Afghanistan’s ominous nickname, “Graveyard of Empires.”
According to this alternate narrative, the “extremists” in Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 nor any tangible connection to the group that perpetrated the attacks. Those were mostly Saudi Arabian nationals who planned the attack in Hamburg, Germany and Madrid. The only thing the attackers had in common with al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan was hatred of the United States. But they hated the United States for different reasons.
The 9/11 attackers, being Saudi, most likely hated America for precisely the reason Osama bin Laden stated: U.S. bases in the Muslim holy land and (secondarily) its support for Israel. Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan hated America because the United States invaded, ignoring the Taliban’s quite reasonable request for the U.S. to produce evidence of bin Laden’s guilt before demanding his extradition.
What Washington is calling “al-Qaeda in Syria” is also a completely different group. They exist to overthrow the Assad regime. Since that regime is a longtime ally of Russia’s, the U.S. has actually supported these rebels, amidst heavy criticism from within Washington’s ranks that the Obama administration is supporting al-Qaeda. This was apparently confirmed when Syrian Jabhat al Nusra Front chief Abou Mohamad al-Joulani pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda leader Sheik Ayman al-Zawahri.
However, the pledge of allegiance actually supports the alternative narrative, not Washington’s. It is apparent from the reports on the pledge that the Syrian group had no previous connection to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. It came immediately following an announcement by the Islamic State of Iraq that al Nusra was part of its network.
The ISI is one of many militant groups that filled the vacuum left after the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and which had no active presence before Saddam Hussein’s regime was toppled. ISI similarly pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda in 2004 while fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.
According to The Telegraph’s April 10, 2013 report, Syria’s al-Nusra pledges allegiance to al-Qaeda,” al-Joulani (al Jawlani) was quick to clarify the relationship with ISI:
“’We inform you that neither the al-Nusra command nor its consultative council, nor its general manager were aware of this announcement [the announcement by ISI]. It reached them via the media and if the speech is authentic, we were not consulted,’” Jawlani said. ‘We reassure our brothers in Syria that al-Nusra Front’s behaviour will remain faithful to the image you have come to know, and that our allegiance (to al-Qaeda) will not affect our politics in any way,’ he added.”
In other words, the Syrian rebel group al Nusra was a group organized around toppling the Assad regime in Syria. It pledged allegiance to what Washington calls “al-Qaeda in Iraq,” but which is really the ISI. The ISI in turn was a group organized to fight U.S. forces in Iraq, with the long term goal of establishing an Islamic state there after U.S. forces withdrew.
None of these groups were part of a worldwide, centralized organization to fight the “Great Satan.” Instead, they are all disparate groups which formed for different, localized reasons and discovered after the fact that they all had a common enemy, the United States. The one exception to this is the group in Syria, whose western, industrialized enemy is Russia. That is why “al-Qaeda in Syria” has sought to work with the United States instead of fight against it. The United States is useful in its goal of toppling the Assad regime and establishing an Islamic state in Syria.
All of this leads to one, inescapable conclusion. The United States has accomplished nothing in twelve years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Iraq War actually expanded the presence of Islamic militant groups and led to a fundamentalist Islamic state there, with strong ties to Iran.
Rather than waging a war against a centralized, top-down organization with divisions in several Middle Eastern countries and agents embedded all over the world, Washington is actually playing a deadly game of “whack a mole,” with new moles popping up out of new holes every time Washington swings its mallet.
That means that triumphant announcements about killing “the number three man in al-Qaeda” mean absolutely nothing. That al-Qaeda hierarchy doesn’t exist. Instead, independent groups all over the world discover a kinship with each other all centered around one phenomenon: U.S. intervention in their nations. Intervention could be military, covert or merely aid to a local dictator.
Iranian militants hate America because the CIA helped overthrow their democratically-elected government in 1953 and then maintained the hated Shah as dictator there for almost three decades afterwards.
Militant groups in Saudi Arabia hate America for maintaining the Kingdom of Saud and for the additional insult of previously garrisoning troops in their holy land.
Militant groups in Iraq hate America for first supporting Saddam Hussein over the wishes of the Shiite majority and then destroying their country when Hussein became troublesome for the United States.
Militant groups in Afghanistan hate America merely because they are the latest western empire to invade their homeland. It will soon be apparent that they have expelled the United States the same way they did the Soviet and British empires.
The Tsarnaev brothers took direction from no one overseas. They just dreamed up their horrible crime and executed it. Their stated reason? U.S. military interventions in the Middle East.
That doesn’t mean the terrorists are justified. If a wife catches her husband with another woman and shoots him, no reasonable person would conclude that she “hated her husband for his freedom.” Acknowledging that cheating on her was the reason she shot him is not the same as condoning the murder. If she confesses to the murder and states her motive, nobody questions it.
Given the complete failure to accomplish anything in twelve years of war, the true, decentralized nature of the various Islamist groups and the likelihood that new ones will emerge wherever Washington intervenes, nonintervention seems to be the only effective way for Washington to reduce the risk of terrorism in the United States.
Washington should have learned this from the Cold War. Wherever nations succeeded in establishing communism, including in Viet Nam after the U.S. withdrawal, communism eventually died of natural causes. The only places it still exists is Cuba and North Korea, both still under siege by the U.S. military. The U.S. military presence in and sanctions on both countries have kept communist regimes in power long after their shelf life, solely because the people rally around their leaders in the face of a foreign threat.
History is repeating itself. Islamic fundamentalism is the new communism. The difference is that the U.S. is no longer capable of squandering its resources for decades whacking moles. It’s time to start playing the game smart, before America loses it for good.

Tom Mullen is the author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.

Ryan Deal Limits Senate GOP’s Power to Block Tax Increases

Ryan Deal Limits Senate GOP’s Power to Block Tax Increases

Text  

Senate Republicans scrubbing the Ryan-Murray budget deal have come across a little-noticed provision that will limit the GOP’s ability to block tax increases in future years.
The bill includes language from the Senate Democrats’ budget that voids senators’ ability to raise a budget “point of order” against replacing the sequester cuts with tax increases.
The process is quite complicated, but in practice it grants Harry Reid the authority to send tax increases to the House with a bare majority, rather than the 60-vote threshold that would be required under a point of order.
The provision has angered key Republican senators. Reeling from Harry Reid’s unprecedented use of the “nuclear option” to end the filibuster on executive-branch nominations, they are dismayed that Paul Ryan would have backed another limit to their power.
“This is an appalling power grab that should never have been allowed to be in a final agreement. It’s essentially the ‘nuclear option’ part two, eroding minority rights in the Senate even further. Harry Reid must be very happy,” a Senate GOP aide says.
A House aide says Reid can send tax bills to the House all he wants, since they will never fly in the lower chamber. “House Republicans would never approve a tax increase,” he says.
While that’s true, the change will likely give Reid a potent political cudgel to hit Republicans, since passage of one bill can put pressure on the other chamber to take it up.
In the Ryan-Murray bill, the change is found on pages 17 to 18 in the legislative text, where the bill sets up a “deficit neutral reserve fund” and incorporates 57 individual sections of the Senate Democrats’ budget as having “force and effect.”
These provisions are a big loophole for PAYGO rules that give senators the authority to raise a point of order on spending and tax bills, creating a 60-vote threshold. There is a detailed explanation for the process in this 2009 document from then-senator Judd Gregg’s staff when he was the ranking member on the Budget Committee.
Although the (current) Senate rules generally require 60 votes for passage of a bill, a bill can be amended after cloture has been achieved. In the case of the fall shutdown fight, Republicans helped provide the 60 votes to obtain cloture on the CR, after which Reid took out the defund-Obamacare provision and passed the bill with a bare majority.
Under normal rules, even after cloture had been achieved, any amendment would still be subject to points of order and a 60-vote threshold if it “pays for” spending increases by raising taxes. The Ryan-Murray deal waives that point of order in many cases, prompting the fear that Reid will use it to put political pressure on the House to replace the sequester with new taxes.

Obama’s Untraceable Donations: $100M’s from Overseas? Campaign Turns Off AVS Verification?

Obama’s Untraceable Donations: $100M’s from Overseas? Campaign Turns Off AVS Verification?

Maggie’s Notebook
Saudi Arabia is the largest funder of terrorism in the world. How many Saudi Riyals would they commit to keep Barack Obama in office? How many Egyptian pounds will the Muslim Brotherhood give back from the billions we give them, to keep Obama in office? How will the Federal Election Commission know what is fraudulent and what is not? They did, after all, allow a Guyana-Born naturalized American to file to run for the Presidency, forcing us to fund a defense of Natural-born status. Here’s the latest on Abdel Hassan. Is Hassan a Muslim? Yes he is. I don’t think Saudis wants a nuclear Iran with mentally deranged Ayatollahs in charge, but neither do they want another George W. Bush or Mitt Romney in the Oval Office.
According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws. Get the details at Libertarian Republican
It’s okay be Americans of Arab descent, or American Muslims who donate to Obama, but it isn’t okay to do so fraudulently from any place in the world, including from inside the U.S. Has that happened? I have no doubt that it has and is. Our government offices are out-of-control and baldly Liberal-leaning. Our government has no shame and I’m sick of it, and sick of paying for it, both through my tax dolars and the demise of my country.
Powerline April 2, 2012:
The Obama campaign even went the extra mile to raise campaign funds by failing to adopt standard protections against fraudulent and illegal giving. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions and requires the disclosure of identifying information for contributions in excess of $200. Campaigns must accordingly keep running totals for each donor and report them once they exceed $200…
The Obama campaign was able to take these donations because it had turned off the standard Address Verification System that screens credit-card charges for matching names and addresses.
As we and other noted, the 2008 Obama campaign’s records revealed big contributors with names like “Doodad Pro” (employer: “Loving,” profession: “You”) and “Good Will (same employer and profession). Both donated via credit card. I believe it was Pamela Geller who reported some donations came from overseas — raising the question of whether Obama was accepting donations from foreigners. (It can also screen cards issued by foreign banks.)
The McCain campaign used AVS and provided a searchable database of all donors, including those who fell below the $200 threshold. The Obama campaign chose not to use the AVS system to screen donations. (The McCain campaign rejected such donations through the use of the AVS system.) You can find a good description of the AVS and CVV fraud prevention devices here.
Later in the Powerline article, a reader verified to Powerline that the same thing is going on today, leading up to the November 6th election. This blog followed the lead at Powerline and made a fraudulent donation as well. See the screen shots at A Fistful of Neurons.
Today I went to the Obama donation site. Step 1 was how much I was donating. Step 2 asked for name, address, city, state, zip code and phone number. Step 3 moves to the page shown below, with one step left – I didn’t go there. I have no way to know if AVS (Address Verification System (allows verifying that the billing address for the credit card is the same as entered on the donation form) is turned off, but the CCV, the three digit number on the back of the card (maybe 4 digit as well) is not asked for on Obama’s site.
The CCV verifies that the number matches the card, with the assumption that if it does, the card holder has the card in his/her hand. Obama doesn’t have the CCV unless it is asked for in the last step, after giving the credit card number. Maybe it does, but usually the card number and the CCV are together. Notice that Romney’s site does ask for the CCV and everything is on one page to be seen by the donor.

One last thing, I’m listening to Bob Woodward on Hannity (night of 10-5-12) who is saying that there is a major, looming campaign donation scandal, involving overseas contributions and Obama’s campaign.
Remember the name DooDadPro from the Powerline story above.
According to knowlegable sources, a national magazine and a national web site are preparing a blockbuster donor scandal story.
Sources told Secrets that the Obama campaign has been trying to block the story. But a key source said it plans to publish the story Friday or, more likely, Monday. Source: Hot Air
Why would a campaign turn-off credit card verification systems?
Before the 2008 election, I spent hours at the Federal Election Commission website, documenting the donations to Obama from Arabic/sounding/seeming names, and linked back to them.
Never had so much hate mail in all my 5+ years of blogging. It was exhausting. I omitted all first/given names that sounded Western or other than Arabic. I got through the first 25 pages of the ‘A’s’ only before I gave up.  I did the same for John McCain but it was immediately clear that if I found any Arabic/sounding/seeming names in his donor list, it would be a rare find. I searched the letters A, F, H, I, M, O, U and Z and didn’t find a single donation.  This link will take you to all of Obama’s donors (supposedly) .
I’m ready for energy independence from Saudi Arabia and want to prove to Barack and Michelle Obama that they will not “equalize” my income or yours, or ever again vote against a bill and ten days later lie about it, with a lie designed to promote racial hate, call the death of a U.S. Ambassador and our Military, a bump in the road, try to take away our Second Amendment rights through programs like Fast and Furious, and that we will not forget that he has  refused to set foot on Israeli soil, while tromping all over surrounding areas and…and…and…  Many thanks to Facebook friend, Fred Hopkins for the tip.
Linked at BadBlue – the baddest news on the planet! – thank you!
Linked at Doug Ross and Larwyn’s Linx in Obama, Dems Almost Answerable to No One
Linked at SayAnythingBlog in a Saturday Linkaround – great links here!

Manchurian President: Russia Picked Obama As POTUS


Manchurian President: Russia Picked Obama As POTUS

An American physicist living in the Soviet Union in 1992 claims that he was told: “The USA will have a black, Soviet agent as president soon.” Is Obama a fulfillment of this statement? Is this why Obama told Russia, “I’ll more ‘flexibility’ with the missile treaty after I’m re-elected?”






Loophole" from Obama's IRS: Protect your IRA or 401(k) with gold and silver... click here to get a NO-COST Info Guide >

Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven't already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.