Donor's Lists? Are We Sharing Donor Lists Now?

Because I'd sure like to see a record of every dime Dear Leader's machine raised in 2008 and a full disclosure of donors for this campaign.

I can almost garontee a list of donors to the Dhimmicrat Party would include some familiar names.

Like Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherthood, Nation of Islam, New Black Panther Party, and those guardians of free speech and tolerance, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Bill Maher and Lawrence O'Donnell.

By all means, lets all share.

Dissing SCOTUS Is Bad Karma

Attorney: Obama's remark reflects 'mob rule' mentality

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has taken issue with President Obama for comments during the State of the Union address.

During his speech in late January, the president criticized the Supreme Court for its
recent decision on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. "With all due deference to the separation of powers, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said while six of the nine justices were seated before him.

Speaking in Alabama on Tuesday, Roberts acknowledged anyone is free to criticize the court -- but that "the setting, the circumstances, and the decorum" must be considered. "The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court -- according the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling," said the chief justice. (See earlier article)

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel believes Roberts' comment about the president's statement as being "very troubling" is generous. Barber contends the administration has become more of a "mob rule."

Would that be "mob rule" as in a group of angry people, or "mob rule" as in Chicago style politics? No regard for the rule of law in either case, but the latter is deliberate and planned.

Justice Thomas On CU v FEC Decision

So it would appear that the original law dates back to the early 1900's with a Democrat Senator from Dixie trying to keep the black man in his place and silence the mean old Republican corporations.

Justice Defends Ruling on Finance

Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.

“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”

The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle.

He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.

“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”

Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”

Foreign Influence in American Elections

Zero is suddenly concerned about "foreign influence" in American elections. Maybe someone should investigate Jodie Evans and track all the money she "bundled" during the Presidential campaign. (Someone should investigate code pink, period.)

The louder the dhimmis holler about something, the more likely it is that they are guilty of doing that very thing.

Background here, here, and here.

Statement From Dan Lungren, R-Calif on CU vs FEC

Video of Justice Alito during the SOTU disagreeing with The Chosen One.

WASHINGTON – Today, the Committee on House Administration’s Ranking Republican Dan Lungren, R-Calif., issued the following statement on the President’s false assumption that the recent United States Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission will open the floodgates for foreign spending in U.S. elections:

“Justice Alito is correct. The assumption that the Court’s recent decision will open the floodgates for foreign spending in U.S. elections is simply not true. Since the Court’s decision to overturn unconstitutional restrictions on free speech, there has been a substantial amount of misinformation disseminated by Democrats in an attempt to scare the American electorate into supporting their attempts to stifle political speech.

“It’s time to set the record straight. The Court’s decision did not – in any way, shape or form – impact existing rules and regulations that specifically prohibit foreign nationals from directly or indirectly contributing to election activity. The legal prohibitions on foreign involvement in U.S. elections are broad, clear and completely intact.

“Instead of spreading misinformation in the hopes of silencing political free speech, Democrats should focus on solving the real problems plaguing American families.”

Hypocrisy Squared

I don't always agree with the Newt, but he's dead right on this one.

Can We Trust the American People Mr. President? Yes, We Can.

In a breathtaking display of hypocrisy, President Obama used his weekly radio address last week to pledge to work with Congress to reverse the decision and declared: "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest.
The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections" (emphasis added).

This, from the president who negotiated back-room deals with special interests in order to force Democratic health care reform on the American people. This, from a president whose massive expansion of government into the private sector has set off a stampede of lobbyists to Washington to claim their piece of the taxpayers' pie. But even more glaring than the hypocrisy is the obvious contempt that supporters of bureaucratic campaign finance have for the American people.

Ultimately, the question comes down to one of trust. Can we trust the people, and not the government, to determine our political future?

The answer, Mr. President, is a familiar one:

"Yes we can."

Its About Philosphy, Not Party

TO REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITEE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL STEELE:

http://conservativehq.com/petitions/republican-leadership/
Whereas, broadcasters and commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage are now seen as the de facto leaders of the Republican Party;

Whereas, this result is the natural and inevitable result of the fact that those who are supposed to provide leadership – Republican elected officials and party officers – are doing little to stand up to the socialist policies of the Obama administration;

Whereas, the GOP absolutely refuses to fire the Congressional leaders who helped get the party and the country into this mess;

Whereas, current Republican leadership cowers in fear of the President’s popularity;

Whereas, the anger of grassroots conservatives continues unabated towards weak-kneed, spineless, earmark-loving, Big Government, establishment Republicans;

Whereas, Americans are already beginning to realize that the new president is every bit as reckless and extreme as conservatives said he was;

Whereas, the Republican Party can’t get any traction, because the party leadership is as confused and clueless as the Obama administration;

Whereas, this problem will continue until all Big Government, anti-conservative Republican politicians are replaced with principled conservative leaders.

Resolved, the signers of this petition will withhold support and contributions from all Republican committees until Big Government Republican politicians are replaced with principled conservatives. Conservatives will no longer tolerate incompetent, weak-kneed, spineless, earmark-loving, Big Government, establishment Republican leadership, and we demand an immediate return to principled conservatism and a leader that will stand up to President Obama and the Congressional Democrats in their efforts to make America a socialist country. http://conservativehq.com/petitions/republican-leadership/
http://conservativehq.com/petitions/republican-leadership/

Where is THIS MONEY Coming From?

from NewsMax.com

As Barack Obama reaped a stunning $150 million in campaign donations in September, bringing his total to more than $600 million, new questions have arisen about the source of his amazing funding.
By Obama’s own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain’s campaign, Obama won’t release the names of these donors.
A Newsmax canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws.
For example, Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit.
Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them.
And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.
According to a Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign data before the latest figures were released, potential foreign currency donations could range anywhere from $12.8 million to a stunning $63 million in all. With the addition of $150 million raised in September, this amount could be much more.
When asked by Newsmax about excess contributions, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said that contributions already identified as excess had been returned and that those the campaign was just learning about -- either through news accounts or from the Federal Election Commission -- “will be returned.”
“Every campaign faces the challenge of screening and reviewing its contributions,” LaBolt said. “And we have been aggressive about taking every available step to make sure our contributions are appropriate, updating our systems when necessary.”
But many of the donors Newsmax canvassed said they had “never” been contacted by the Obama campaign or seen any refunds, even though their contributions went over the limit months ago.
In all, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had contributed in excess of the $4,600 limit for individuals per election cycle.
Such donations, if not returned within 60 days, are a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws.
Lisa Handley, a stay-at-home mom from Portland, Ore., recalled giving $4,600 to the Obama campaign by credit card, contributions she made because “I love Obama,” she said.
According to FEC records, however, she gave an additional $2,300 to the campaign, putting her over the limit.
The Obama campaign reported that it had “redesignated” the excess money, which could mean that it had contributed it to a separate party committee or a joint fundraising committee, which have higher limits.
But if that happened, it’s news to Handley. “No one ever contacted me to return any of the money or told me they were redesignating some of the money,” she said.
Ronald J. Sharpe Jr., a retired teacher from Rockledge, Fla., appears in the Obama campaign reports as having given a whopping $13,800.
The campaign reported that it returned $4,600 to him, making his net contribution of $9,200 still way over the legal limit.
But there’s one problem with the Obama data: Sharpe doesn’t remember giving that much money to the Obama campaign in the first place, nor does he recall anyone from the campaign ever contacting him to return money.
“At the end, I was making monthly payments,” he told Newsmax. The Obama campaign records do not show any such payments.
Many donors refused to answer questions about the political campaign contributions appearing in their name when they learned that the caller was from a news organization.
John Atkinson, an insurance agent in Burr Ridge, Ill., refused to discuss his contributions, which totaled $8,724.26, before numerous refunds.
Atkinson and others gave in odd amounts: $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one rounded contribution of $2,300.
Sandra Daneshinia, a self-employed caregiver from Los Angeles, made 36 separate contributions, totaling $7,051.12, according to FEC records. Thirteen of them were eventually refunded.
In a bizarre coincidence, those 13 refunded contributions -- for varying amounts such as $223.88 and $201.44 -- added up exactly to $2,300, the amount an individual may give per federal election.
Also giving in odd amounts was Robert Porter, an accountant for the town of Oviedo, Fla. Porter gave a surprising $4,786.02 to the Obama campaign.
In all, Newsmax found an astonishing 37,265 unique donors to the Obama campaign whose contributions were not rounded up to dollar amounts. That amounts to more than 10 percent of the total number of unique donors whose names have been disclosed by the Obama campaign to the public.
Of those, 44,410 contributions came in unrounded amounts of less than $100. FEC regulations only require that campaigns disclose the names of donors who have given a total of $200 or more, so that means that all these contributors were repeat donors.
Another 15,269 contributions gave in unrounded amounts between $101 and $999, while 704 of the unrounded contributions were in amounts of more than $1,000.
Campaign finance experts find the frequent appearance of unrounded contributions suspicious, since contributors almost invariably give in whole dollar amounts.
One expert in campaign finance irregularities offers a possible explanation.
“Of course this is odd. They are obviously converting from local currency to U.S. dollars,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.
“The overwhelming number of large dollar contributors -- and even small donors -- are in even dollar amounts,” he told Newsmax. “Anyone who doubts that can go to FEC.gov and look through the campaign contribution data bases. You will not find many uneven numbers.”
Boehm said he had rarely seen unrounded contributions in his 30 years as a lawyer doing campaign finance work.
“There’s always the odd cat who wants to round up his checkbook, but they are very rare,” he said.
Richard E. Hug, a veteran Republican fundraiser in Maryland who who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and spearheaded the successful 2002 gubernatorial race for Bob Ehrlich that brought in a record $10 million, told Newsmax that unrounded contributions were extremely unusual.
“I’ve never seen this in all my years of raising money for political candidates,” he said. “The first thing it suggests is foreign currency transactions -- contributions from foreign donors, which is clearly illegal.”
Top Republican fundraiser Steve Gordon, who has raised $65 million for GOP candidates over the past 30 years, told Newsmax that such contributions in uneven amounts would be “pretty unusual.”
“You might have a rounding process if there was some kind of joint event, but since all appears to be on the Internet, it’s pretty unusual. At the very least, it would need to be explored.”
LaBolt attributed the uneven amounts to the online “Obama store,” which sells T-shirts and other campaign items.
“Contributions made to the Obama store often produce totals that are not exact dollar amounts,” he said.
But the campaign has never produced any accounting for proceeds from its online store, which virtually shut down several weeks ago after Newsmax and news organizations revealed that Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and other foreigners had made large purchases there.
The Republican National Committee has filed a complaint against the Obama campaign for “accepting prohibited contributions from foreign nationals and excessive contributions from individuals,” which incorporated reporting from Newsmax and other news organizations.
“Their responses to FEC inquiries have often been inadequate and late,” RNC general counsel Sean Cairncross told Newsmax.
The Obama camp claims to have 2.5 million donors in all. But until now, they have kept secret the names of the overwhelming majority of these money-givers. According to a Newsmax analysis, the Obama campaign finance records contain just 370,448 unique names.
Even accounting for common names such as Robert Taylor or Michael Brown, which can signify multiple donors, Obama’s publicly known donor base is less than 20 percent of the total number of donors the campaign claims to have attracted. But the identity of the other 2 million donors is being kept secret.
As of the end of August, those secret donors have given an incredible $222.7 million to Obama, according to the FEC -- money whose origin remains unknown to anyone other than Obama’s finance team, who won’t take calls from the press.
While no exact figures are available, if the same percentage of potential foreign contributions found in the itemized contribution data is applied to the total $426.9 million the Obama camp says it has taken in from individuals, this could mean that Obama is financing his presidential campaign with anywhere from $13 million to a whopping $63 million from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases.
The sum of all unrounded contributions in the itemized FEC filings for the Obama campaigns comes to $6,437,066.07. That is the actual amount of money that appears to have been charged to foreign credit cards that the Obama campaign has disclosed.
If the same ratio applies to the unitemized contributions, which are again as large, then the Obama campaign may have taken as much as $13 million from foreign donors.
However, the donors who made those unrounded contributions gave a total of $31,484,584.27, meaning that as much as $63 million may have come from questionable sources.
Both presidential campaigns are required to submit detailed fundraising reports for September on Monday.

Red Herring or Don't Look Here, Nothing to See

In the old days, the term "red herring" referred to a technique used by criminals and escapees to avoid tracking dogs. They woud take dried animal blood, mix it with powdered cocaine and sprinkle it along the trail the dogs were on. If they wanted to really screw up the dogs, cayenne pepper was added. The dried blood would make the dogs would go nuts, the cocaine would screw up their olfactory senses, and the cayenne pepper, well, you can imagine what sniffing cayenne pepper would do to you.

Nowadays, the term red herring is used to describe a diversion or distraction. Give the dogs something to sniff around that really doesn't amount to much, while the real crimes continue.

That describes the Ayers/Wright situation we have with Obama perfectly. This is a diversion to keep some dogs from looking too deeply into the online campaign contribution criminal activity that is currently being perpetrated.

It is criminal folks. Obviously fake donors giving tens of thousands of dollars to the Obama campaign in 25 dollar increments. Donors named Doodad Pro, Good Will, both of whom work for "Loving" and both of whom apparently have the same job "You". In some cases, there isn't even a name, it's just a series of random letters.

The real issue is where the money is coming from. No one in the Obama campaign is saying where. FEC investigations are like watching paint dry. The amount of evidence currently available indicates enough questionable donations from questionable sources to immediately call for a suspension of all online credit card donations to political campaigns until better tracking methods are put in place.

We'll never get this sorted out until someone says "STOP, we need to look at these contributions NOW, and then you can continue."

It's being stolen Friends.

Our freedom, our country, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our way of life, is being stolen right out from under us by radical elements of society, including radical islamists.

Where Is the Money Coming From?

Mr Doodad Pro, white courtesy telephone. Paging Mr. Doodad Pro.
Mr. Will Good, please pick up your check from the Obama campaign at the betting window.

In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.
Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”
A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.
In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.

Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.
But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by “VCX” and that his profession was “VCVC.”
Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600.

More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.
And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.
Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.

Read the rest here.

A Little Hotter

Record amounts of money from abroad are flowing into Barack Obama’s presidential campaign — and there is no easy way to determine if foreigners are making illegal donations.
Through June, Democrat Obama received $2.8 million in donations from foreign sources, according to federal election records obtained by The Hill newspaper.
That dwarfs the $381,809 that Republican rival John McCain received from abroad. It is also more than President Bush and John Kerry combined received in the 2004 presidential campaign. Bush took in $747,857 from foreign sources; Kerry got $550,834.
According to federal laws, contributors to federal, state and local elections must be U.S. citizens or permanent residents with green cards.
But with many Americans living overseas and contributing to campaigns, making sure the donations are legal can be difficult.
Foreigners often can get away with contributing to a campaign if they are willing to make false statements about their status.
“If a contributor lies to campaigns, that’s outside the control of the campaign,” Jan Baran, an elections and ethics lawyer with the firm Wiley Rein, told The Hill.

And Larry Noble, a former Federal Election Commission general counsel, said the ability to donate money via the Internet “has raised the ease with which someone could make a foreign national contribution.”

Is Obama Getting Donations From Outside the US?

There was an email circulating that proported to show a link to online political campaign contributions to Obama from foreign sources. Tha email has obstensibly been discredited as fraudulent, and was a conglomeration of columns from the red-headed beast Maureen Dowd, no friend of conservative causes.

But it brings up an interesting theory. How has this newcomer, this no-name third rate Senator from Illinois managed to amass such a large war-chest from online donations?

Pam Geller, at Atlas Shrugs, the genuis who had Obama's birth certificate verified as a complete forgery, has done some more good work towards exposing the threat of foreign money in US elections.

She has some good information here, here, and here.

This link will take you to a full page of other links with enough information about questionable activities by the Obama campaign to make you wonder how he got so far so fast. The answer of course, is a complicit media whose agenda is decidely socialist in nature.

This is serious business, folks. Not since envelopes full of cash and cashier's checks were passed out in the White House during the klintoon comedy festival, has the threat to this country's most sacred institution and the right of Americans to decide our own fate, been more serious. The internet has provided us a way to share information and disseminate news on an unprecedented scale. However, it has also provided the means to accumulate large chunks of cash virtually untraceable.

NO ONE who is NOT an American citizen has the right to contribute to an election campiagn, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or other. All contrbutions must and should be accounted for and documented.

Unlimited donations with full and immediate disclosure.