NO QUARTER » Public Finance

Campaign Contribution Limits? No Problem, Just Contribute Online

Matthew Weaver — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:30:34 +0000

Obama reneged on his commitment to use public financing and has gone on to raise over $600 million dollars, including a reported $150 million just last month.

Obama claims that much of the record-breaking donations come from small donors, often via his Web site. The symbolism of both the size and number of those donations has taken on mythical proportions. However, it is very worrisome that Obama doesn’t share the details of how those Web donations are procured.

In fact, if the details are as suspected, Obama has found an “inventive” way to fund his campaign and to subvert campaign finance laws. (This week, regular NoQuarter reader Craig initiated a myth-breaking investigation, and his findings are being published widely, at least around the blogosphere. Links to the blog posts are listed at the end of my story.)

John McCain noted yesterday in an exclusive interview with Joseph Curl of the Washington Times:

Mr. McCain said Mr. Obama’s giant fundraising total — he announced this weekend that he raised more than $150 million in September — is going to produce “a scandal.”

His campaign and the Republican National Committee have released the names of all his donors, including those who have contributed less than $200. That’s not required by federal election rules, and Mr. Obama has declined to release his small-dollar donors, leading to speculation that some donors are trying to circumvent fundraising laws.

Some of Obama’s donors are trying?! It’s more that his donors are indeed circumventing fundraising laws. Consider how this works …

You can contribute to Obama’s campaign via his Web site in amounts from $5 to $2,300, in each instance. There appear to be no sensible checks in the submission form, and there’s only a simple note at the bottom of the page that states that an individual can only contribute up to $2,300 per election and that the contribution made on the Web site page “is designated for the general election.”

But, this reminder is virtually meaningless since no wording on the Web site page that states that donors must use their real names. Nor does the Obama donation page require that you confirm that you are using your real name.

In other words, in Barack Obama’s world, your decision to obey FEC (Federal Election Commission) laws is entirely voluntary.

Most alarming is that there appears to be NO mechanism on Obama’s donation page to ensure that the name of the donor matches the name on the credit card.

Go to the Obama Web site to make a contribution.

Fill in the form, even with bogus information—nothing asks for true or correct information.
Enter a contribution from $5 to $2,300.
Enter a credit card type, number, and expiration.
Check the confirmation that you are legally eligible to make a contribution (i.e., that you are a U.S. citizen or legal resident, at least 16 years old, etc.). Again, nothing is required that you verify that you are using your real name.
Submit the contribution.
You will receive a thank you note. The note is quite simple: “Your donation has been processed. Thank you for your generous gift.”

This is campaign money laundering made easy. There is no validation that the name and address entered match the credit card’s information. Nor was the security code on the card requested.

Ignore the campaign aspect of this for a moment.

The Obama Web site is obviously set up to bypass common security checks: There is no Address Verification Check (the 3-4 digit number on your card). And there is no requirement to match your billing address, no City-State-ZIP code match.

Since none of these is verified by the Web site’s programming system, it is very likely that the site is a dream for anyone whose donation comes from another country. Foreign donors, merely by using their credit cards, can donate just as easily as U.S. donors. These are settings that the Obama campaign had to intentionally set up, and it is at odds with the well-established security precautions implemented by nearly all online merchants and many brick-and-mortar businesses.

If you consider that any time you make a purchase, you are asked for or are tested for these common security precautions and verifications, why are these simple requirements not in place on Obama’s campaign Web site?

As others have noted, McCain’s Web site does perform those security and identity checks. Further, McCain is transparent on all donations. Obama is not. Why? He simply wants the money regardless of source, regardless of amount, and without respect for any applicable laws.

What does this mean?

If the Obama campaign relies on the form information, rather than the credit card billing information, then they are blissfully ignorant of who is contributing, under what name(s), and how much they are contributing through multiple instances.
The Obama campaign does not appear to validate your card entry, leaving the onus to catch fraudulent use to credit card companies or card holders.
The lack of requirements to use one’s real name and offer validation appears to allow contributors to send as much as they want in multiple, small amounts under multiple names.
Further, since you can buy anonymous gift cards, you can truly donate as much as you want without respect to campaign limits.

This is an incredible way to subvert campaign finance laws and to launder unlimited amounts of money into the Obama campaign. It is therefore no wonder that Obama opted to renege on public financing!

Yes, as Senator McCain notes, this is a scandal in the making. Not just $150 million, but over $600 million!

So, Senator Obama, I have a few questions for you:

Do you match donor names with names on their credit cards before processing transactions? If so, what percentage of those names match up? If not, why not? When and how are discrepancies caught?
Do you check donor IP addresses for U.S. locations? If not, why not?
Have you received more than $2,300 from any given credit card? How many and how much?
How much have you received from gift credit cards?
Do you match donor and/or credit card names and contact information to state and local voter registration lists? If so, how many match or don’t match? If not, why not?
How many donor email or physical addresses are not valid when you send ot that automated thank you note or a follow-up request?
For the sake of transparency, will you release all donor names, matching credit card names, contact information, IP addresses, and amounts contributed?

Special thanks to reader Craig who pointed out the problems with Obama’s Web site fundraising. Craig shared his findings with other bloggers who have also reported on the disturbing lack of identity verification on Obama’s Web donation page:

“WHO IS JOHN GALT?,” Powerline blog, October 23, 2008
“WHAT DID DELLA WARE?,” Powerline blog, October 24, 2008
“The Obama scammer,” National Review Online (Mark Steyn), October 23, 2008
“We Get Results,”
National Review Online (Mark Steyn), October 23, 2008
“Not a Bombshell: Barack Obama’s Campaign Website Encourages Fraudulent Donations,” Ace of Spades, October 22, 2008

Cross-posted on my blog, The Independent View.

A Little Recap

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:20:29 +0000

OK, so three out of four of my siblings are Obama people. I don’t know about the fourth - I don’t think he has decided yet. My mother, a STAUNCH Hillary supporter, who is furious with the DNC (and has told them so because of the vote theft, etc.) says she doesn’t know where she went wrong with them. Me either. But all of a sudden, they have started sending me articles and emails on why McCain/Palin are evil, and Obama is The One. I’m paraphrasing a little, but not a lot.

My oldest brother sent me the piece Gloria Steinem wrote on Gov. Palin, an elitist, patronizing piece in which she diminishes people who hunt (not understanding, I guess, that many people hunt to put FOOD on the table, especially in these difficult economic times), among other smears. So, I felt compelled to write him back. A lot of this is information those who have been paying attention already know:

I am not an apologist for Sarah Palin, but I find the argument that SHE is inexperienced as Steinem said to be laughable. The DNC selected the least experienced candidate ever, one who refuses to make available ANY paper trail at all - no college or law school transcripts, no medical records, no passports, no birth certificates, and claims he had NOT ONE PAPER or DATE BOOK available from his time in the IL Senate (which is part-time service, btw). One who has no legislative accomplishments of note to his name. Never mind the LONG list of his sordid associates which throw his whole “good judgment” stance out the window.

Add to that his vote for FISA, for the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill, for keeping Terry Schiavo on life support.

Or his lack of chairing ONE meeting of the European Affairs Subcommittee, which oversees Afghanistan, and now claims that we need to do more abt Afghanistan,and who wants to return to the foreign policy of DONALD RUMSFELD…If this was BUSH, the Progressives would be going batshit crazy screaming our fool heads off.

But for some reason, this is all fine and dandy. Never mind all of the university professors who are now shrugging off his constant plagiarizing (and his picking a running mate who is also a plagiarizer), an act that can get students thrown OUT of universities. Why? I really don’t get this infatuation with this man! Without a teleprompter, he can barely even talk!! But he is “eloquent,” and has “good judgm ent.” Um, no. And he is sexist as all hell, to boot.

And for some reason, Obama is constantly comparing himself to the VP pick, not the presidential nominee. Much easier for him to pick on a woman than a man, as he demonstrated time and again during this campaign. Flipping Hillary off, brushing her off his shoulder and his shoe, having “99 Problems BUt a Bitch Ain’t One” playing when he won Iowa. Class act this guy. Oh, and for what it’s worth - he lives 1 1/2 blocks away from Bill Ayers, who lives right down the street from the Farrakhan Compound. What a coincidence.

Oh - is now when I tell you that my brother has a PhD., and developed some major software, whose clients include NASA? Yeah. He’s supposed to be smart (my younger brother and his wife - both PhDs - also are big Obama supporters, at least my brother is. My sis-in-law is a “Vote Democrat” no matter what more than anything.). Just goes to show that there is a difference between being educated and having common sense. I can say that because I have BOTH!!! Ahem.

Here’s what he wrote back:

These are interesting accusations. Do you know these things for a fact? What is your source of information? Is there some doubt about the fact that Obama was elected president of the Harvard Law Review? You don’t get to that place by being a flaky biscuit. Is there any doubt about the fact that McCain was at the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy?

I don’t follow you with the Donald Rumsfield foreign policy thing. What do you mean?

One thing I can say for sure. I have seen Obama in many interviews and town hall type conversations, besides the podium speeches. He has always impressed me with his speaking ability in off the cuff situations. This is a sharp dude.

I also like Joe Biden very much. He is a solid, decent, knowledgeable person.

At the end of the day, this is about policies, not personalities. Who do you think is going to best implement the objectives of Hillary Clinton? If you say McCain-Palin, then I don’t see how you get there.

Oh, boy. Evidently, he does not have the same desire for sources when others are “accused,” but whatever. And yes, he DID go there about the personalities. Here’s my response:

Yes, I know these things for a fact. This is what I do every day, all day long.

True, Obama was head of the Law Review, and the ONLY Editor to never publish a single piece while editor. His tenure is the least quoted year of ANY for the Harvard Law Review. The changes he implemented were changed immediately after he left. He has only one piece that was finally uncovered just recently from his time at Harvard (it’s on abortion, by the way), and is not well written at all. He never published anything as a law instructor, either. Nothing. And he wasn’t a full professor, either.

Have you watched Obama in the debates? Interviews? His constant stammering has become fodder for late-night comedians, counting up how many times he says, “uh, uh, uh” in a few minutes time. Sure, give him a prepared speech, and he’s great. Of course, he doesn’t WRITE them - he leaves that up to three young white guys (not kidding - NY Times had an article on them).

Obama said if he was elected president, he would want to return to the Foreign Policy of George Bush the first. Those policies were courtesy of Donald Dumsfeld. He said this shortly after he lauded Reagan as a transformational president, and tore Bill Clinton down. Here’s a LINK. It was at Huffington Post, too.

I agree that this is not abt personalities, yet that seems to be the ONLY reason people are voting for Obama. Many of the people I know who support him seem to know NOTHING abt him except he gives a good speech, and he claims he had good judgment for giving an anti-war (not all wars, mind you) speech in front of an anti-war crowd in Hyde Park. He wasn’t even the main speaker - Jesse Jackson was! In fact, his speech wasn’t even recorded. They went back and did it in a studio. He got everyone thrown off the ballot right before the election when he ran for IL senate, thus running unopposed. Oh, including his mentor, Alice Palmer. His manager, David Axelrod, exposed the Republican opponent for US Senate’s sealed divorce records, revealing he had an affair, so he had to drop out at the last minute. So they brought in Alan Keyes, who is NUTS. That’s how he got into the Senate. He has missed almost 50% of votes in the Senate. And like I said, he has not held ONE subcommittee meeting on European Affairs, the committee that oversees Afghanistan, NATO, and Europe. He said he was too busy campaigning, after only being in the US Senate ONE YEAR. If anyone else had tried this, with such a flimsy record of legislation both in the IL Senate and US Senate, they would have been laughed off the stage. He claims to be on committees he isn’t, claims he assisted in legislation he didn’t (even in the Saddleback Forum - he claimed he worked with McCain on campaign finance reform - McCain has a letter he sent to him apologizing for taking him at his word that he really DID want to work on it - it’s powerful stuff, and reveals early on how duplicitous Obama is). How is it you don’t know ANY of this? His relationship with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant domestic terrorist? The one with whom he worked at the Annenberg Challenge at which $110 million kinda disappeared? And from which he gave people like Jeremiah Wright big chunks of change (the fund was supposed to be for education)?

Look at his associates: IL State Senator James Meeks, close personal friend and spiritual mentor. Not only is he actively anti-gay, but he works with Focus on the Family and other groups to try to end separation of church and state (which is what made Steinem’s smear on Palin abt James Dobson ironic). Tony Rezko - convicted. Kwame Kilpatrick - convicted. Gov of IL - under investigation. Oh, and his church is associated with Hamas and Louis Farrakhan. New politics? Nope - Chicago-style politics.

Personally, I don’t like BIden at all. He’s also a plagiarizer, and stood with Bush a great deal after 9/11, always appearing with him in the Rose Garden. Doesn’t bother you he said Obama is too inexperienced to be president?

I would have thought after 8 yrs of Bush, someone else everyone claimed was too inexperienced (he was actually MORE experienced than Obama), people would not want to take such a risk again, and with someone who is more secretive than Bush EVER was. His birth certificate is important, since apparently, he was adopted by his mother’s second husband - if he had dual citizenship EVER, it excludes him from being president (and all of this “I grew up with a poor single mother” is just CRAP. She was remarried to a wealthy Indonesian business man when he was quite small. He went to the most prestigious school in Hawaii - his grandmother, the “typical white person,” was a bank vice president at the largest bank in Hawaii. They were not poor people. His father was a polygamist who was abusive to his wives, and who had a number of DUIs,and died in a drunk driving accident.).

So, I agree - it shouldn’t BE about personalities, but that’s exactly what it has been. And I am not voting for him just because of all of the above. I am not voting for him because I will not, cannot, condone the Democratic Party engaging in voter fraud, theft, and disenfranchisement. When the DNC starts taking votes cast for one person and giving them to another, they have lost their moral compass. It is immoral at best, and likely illegal. That was the ONLY way Obama got the nomination. That and the DNC treating FL and MI more harshly than any other state because they knew they were going for Clinton. So they took away 100% of their votes. Their RULE is 50%, same as the RNC. But they did not use that, and they SHOULD have for SC, IA, and NH, too. ALL of those states violated the rule. The purpose was to thwart Clinton’s momentum, same reason Obama took his name off the ballot in MI. He encouraged others to do so, too, as a way to try and embarass Clinton when she won, and as an ass-kiss to IA. To then give him votes not cast for him, when “Uncommitted” is a recognized presidential candidate in MI party rules, as well as to take away delegates Clinton won from votes cast for her by American citizens is reprehensible. I will not support the DNC with my money or time or VOTE anymore until they clean house and regain some semblance of integrity.

So - it’s not that it isn’t Clinton. If Obama had won fair and square, I’d vote for him like I did for Kerry, whom I also did not like. But he didn’t. His campaign engaged in a tremendous amount of dirty politics, especially in caucus states- TX alone had over 2,000 documented cases of fraud to which the DNC turned a blind eye. Clinton supporters were being locked out of the caucuses, numbers were changed when they were called in, peopel were bused in from out of state, they stole packages in TX and had people sign in when they voted rather than having them come back at night…It made NO sense that Clinton would WIN TX by as much as she did, then lose the caucus by as much as she did. There are already a number of reports and documentaries out about this, but the MSM is not covering them.

And that’s another thing - Clinton was outspent up to 4 -1, was trashed regularly NOT for her policies (which were similar to Obama’s because he would take them WHOLE CLOTH from her, like the 5 million green jobs initiative), while praising Obama up one side and down the other WITHOUT EVER VETTING HIM.

I do not think for a second Obama will work for the same policies Clinton did. I think he will go whichever way the wind blows. He has already demonstrated that time and time again. Why he isn’t being held to any of his votes is beyond me - and which just reinforces my point that people are not paying attention to WHAT he says, just how he says it (by the way - he didn’t have that folksy Southern-churchy accent when he was running for IL Senate). Look at his flip on FISA. Offshore drilling. Public campaign funding. Just to name a few.

I don’t know if I will even vote this year, so don’t assume I am voting for McCain/Palin. I can say that McCain is an honorable man, and has given his entire life i n service to this country. That means something. He is also moderate, and a reformer, something Obama will NEVER be (oh - today’s BIG report is about Obama raging on Palin, particularly about the Bridge to Nowhere, which she did get rid of afterall - and which HE VOTED FOR TWICE!!! He claimed, “Palin Can’t Just Make Stuff Up!” No, that purview belongs to Obama alone.). But Obama will never get my vote. He should never have assumed he would.

So that’s how my morning started - not at ALL about what I was going to write today. But you never know what is going to come up, I reckon. And I know there is evern more about Obama, but I figured I was pushing my luck with him actually reading it this far.

Ah, families…

THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY–CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!

Divine Democrat — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:40:31 +0000

THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY–CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!
Posted by: The Divine Democrat (Mary Ellen)

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”–Barrack Obama/June 2008

Yup, the Democratic National Committee has outdone themselves with their preparations for their upcoming National Convention in a few weeks. They thought of everything… balloons, barbed wire cages, confetti, stun guns, and those funny hats we all love to see! The Convention will also have lot of speeches extolling the lofty visions of civil rights and personal liberties the Democratic party is so fond of protecting, you know, liberties like free speech, the right to protest, that kind warm and fuzzy democracy stuff. My heart just swells with pride when I read this stuff on their blog:
& lt;h3>The Democratic Vision
The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.

Civil Rights

On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.

The Party Platform

The Democratic Party has a long and proud history of representing and protecting the interests of working Americans and guaranteeing personal liberties for all. One of the places we articulate our beliefs is in the Party’s National Platform, adopted every four years by the Delegates at the National Convention.

Wait…did someone say something about stun guns and cages? No, that can’t be…not the party of freedom and liberty!

The problem is, old Howie didn’t think this through…he didn’t think that rounding up hundreds or thousands of protesters and throwing them in a barbed wire cage in a warehouse on the outskirts of town might not be the message they want to send to those wanting to donate to their party . Not to mention, it goes against all those so-called principals and “visions” of theirs. He also didn’t think his dirty little secret about these cages would be made public.

Damned reporters! Damned free speech!

Not to worry, Howard Dean has this all figured out, he’ll let the Denver Police handle this. They will be passing out flyer’s to all the protesters so they can be told of their rights. So, there ya go! The pretty little piece of paper says we DO have rights to protest! Ain’t America great?

YOUR RIGHTS TO DEMONSTRATE AND PROTEST

Can my free speech rights be restricted
because of what I want to say – even if it’s
controversial ?

No. The First Amendment prohibits
restrictions based on the content of speech.
Police and government officials are allowed
to place non-discriminatory and narrowly
drawn “time, place and manner” restrictions
on the exercise of First Amendment rights.

Where can I engage in free speech activity?

Generally, all types of expression are
constitutionally protected in traditional
“public forums” such as public sidewalks
and parks. Public streets can be used for
marches subject to compliance with the
City’s permitting process.

Where can you engage in free speech activity? Anywhere you want as long as you freely state that you are going to vote for Obama, otherwise…get in the cage until you’re ready to act like an American, dammit!

Let’s see what other rights the demonstrators will have….

What other types of free speech activity are
constitutionally protected?

The First Amendment can, under certain
circumstances, protect communication such
as theater, music, film and dance. Symbolic
acts and civil disobedience that involve
illegal conduct may be outside the realm of
constitutional protection and may lead to
0Acitation and/or arrest. This may include, but
is not limited to, blocking streets, sidewalks
or parades or disrupting public assemblies.

Hmmm…so it sounds like a large group of people protesting could not be on the streets or the sidewalks or they can given a citation/and or arrest. So, they have two choices. They can either levitate so they’re not on the streets or sidewalks, or come wearing costumes and tell the cops they’re doing street theater.

Can I be cited or arrested during a

demonstration?

Yes, if you engage in unlawful behavior
including, but not limited to, such as
blocking streets, sidewalks or parades,
disrupting public assemblies or ignoring
lawful orders to disperse.

Okey-Dokey, so unlawful behavior is defined as blocking streets…check, sidewalks or parades…check, disrupting public assemblies…check, or ignoring lawful order to disperse…check. I’ve got it now. Let’s not forget the vague text that arrest is not limited to just that, they can also arrest you if you look like you aren’t “unified” with the DNC. In other words, you have no civil liberties in the eyes of the Denver Police or in the eyes of Howard Dean, Barrack Obama, Donna Brazille, or Nancy Pelosi. Check and double check.

The American Civil Liberties Union seemed to be a bit dismayed. They want to know where the bathrooms are, will the “prisoners” have something to eat or drink (they were not told how long they will hold the protesters in these barbed wire cages), will they have access to their lawyers, and will they have telephones? Details….details, who needs details when you have flyer’s, police in riot gear, and barbed wire cages?

“They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That’s* the *Chicago* way!”-The Untouchables/1987

NOTES ABOUT THE DNC: It seems that after Obama took over the DNC and got his hands on their mailing list, he sent out an e-mail telling Democrats to give to his campaign and not the DNC. Well, since he decided that he didn’t want their public funding, they are now virtually broke. The money they have will barely cover the payroll and a few field advisor’s. There will not be enough cash to be able to fund thousands of field offices, like they have in the past. Ooops! Larry Johnson has a post that tells you all about it.

More bad news for the DNC….

Sen. John McCain has so much spare cash on hand — he collected a record $27 million in July — that the Republican candidate plans to run campaign ads during the networks’ coverage of the Democratic National Convention later this month.

Because Mr. McCain has agreed to accept $84 million in public financing for the general election, the presumptive presidential nominee has only until Sept. 4, when he accepts his party’s nomination, to spend the more than $21 million he has on hand.

“We continue to have record months of fundraising. This is now the fifth month in a row that we have exceeded the month before,” said McCain campaign manager Rick Davis. The candidate’s advertising budget for August is expected to exceed $20 million, he said, and, by the Republican convention, Mr. McCain is on track to spend some $60 million on TV advertising during the whole primary campaign.

Hat tip to Pat Racimora of No Quarter for the info on the Denver Police flyer.

Another hat tip to Uppity Woman who also wrote about Gitmo on the Platte, her blog is always chock full of up to the moment news about this election.

(NOTE: I’m sorry, but due to a family emergency, I will not be here to respond to your comments, please forgive my absence and thank you for reading my post!)

Seriously, Is Obama Just a Puppet?

American Girl in Italy — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:00:04 +0000

We first learned who was behind Obama and his inspiring speeches months ago. Those very speeches that excited the crowds, and drew people in. Those very speeches that many people voted for. Despite the fact that he ever really said anything more than just *hope* and *change*, people saw JFK, MLK and RFK all rolled into one. All because of his moving oratory, early on in the primary. But as I said, we learned who was responsible for those speeches.

Obama’s Speechwriter: A Baby Faced, 26-Year-Old White Guy

So, Obama is really, really successful at reading a teleprompter, and delivering someone else’s words. A puppet, you might say.

Then we learned that Obama was regurgitating words originally given by his friend Patrick Deval. Not once, but many times.

And we not only learned about *borrowed* speeches but also borrowed phrases.

“Sí Se Puede” or “yes we can” is from the United Farm Workers.

“Together we can” was the campaign slogan of Deval Patrick in 2006

“Fired Up! Ready to Go!” is from the NAACP in South Carolina, used by Jondelle Harris Johnson in the Civil Rights marches.

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” is a Hopi Indian saying, used by Alice Walker as the title of her book.

But now we learn that not only is Obama a puppet when it comes to giving speeches, but his foreign policy isn’t his either. I knew he had very little foreign policy experience, if any, but doesn’t he have to do anything?? A cast of 300 prepare him daily? Who are these people that are affecting our foreign policy? Shouldn’t they be running for office, or at least vetted, since they are doing all the work?

A Cast of 300 Advises Obama on Foreign PolicyEvery day around 8 a.m., foreign policy aides at Senator Barack Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters send him two e-mails: a briefing on major world developments over the previous 24 hours and a set of questions, accompanied by suggested answers, that the candidate is likely to be asked about international relations during the day.One recent Q. & A. asked, for example, whether Mr. Obama supported the decision by Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to include a timetable for American troop withdrawal in any new security agreements with the United States. The answer, provided to Mr. Obama with bullet points, was yes — or “a genuine opportunity,” as he put it in a speech on Iraq this week. Behind the e-mail messages is a tight-knit group of aides supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department, to assist a candidate whose limited national security experience remains a concern to many voters.

I do take some comfort in knowing that many are from the Clinton White House and from Hillary’s staff. (funny how Obama always wanted to distance himself from the politics of the past, and from the Clinton’s, but he always surrounds himself with people from the Clintons years.)

I know all candidates, and all Presidents have advisors. I know they all have speech writers. But, if you take away Obama’s great speeches, and you take away his foreign policy advisors, what is left? Seriously. He has not accomplished anything. Nada. Zilch. And the LITTLE that he does do, now, (give speeches or comment on foreign policy) is totally scripted and provided by someone else. And when he speaks to groups like African Americans about taking responsibility, he is threatened with castration. And when he has taken a firm stance on an issue, he completely FLIPS and FLOPS on them - FISA, NAFTA, the surge in Iraq, campaign finance, guns, abortion…

Well, I think we have a pretty good idea of what happens when Obama is left to his own devices. Here are some new ones:

“Great” Moments in Presidential Speeches: Obama

Another Barack Obama Gaffe: A Civilian Army? (what is that all about??)

The Real Barack Obama, The Flip Flop Kid

The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand

Barack Obama “Uh” Count

And of course, the classics:

Obama VS. Robert Gibbs on the surge

Obama on Iran

The Game of Expedience

Obama Just words - just speeches - just think

Obama on Lobbiest bill

Obama on the Race Card

Obama Claims He’s Visited 57 States

Obama on his dad and the flag?

Barack Obama Sees Dead People

Obama’s Memorial Day Gaffe

Obama in Sunrise

Obama rally in Sioux Falls

Obama on Rezko

Obama Gets Afghanistan Language Wrong

So, again I ask, is he just a puppet? A flip flopping, do nothing, know nothing, present voting, change jobs every two years, never having accomplished anything, hangs out with bigots, racists, and terrorists, gaffe machine, judgment lacking, slumlord buddy, vain, pandering puppet.

What does he stand for, really? We thought he was very left. But now he is moving further and further to the right. We can’t look at his voting history, because it is very un-telling (130 present votes on tough issues- intentional, me thinks) We can’t look at his resume because it is very, very short - he has spent more time campaigning then serving in the Senate (146 days). And his state senate job was part time, meeting 55 days a year.

Hell, we can’t even look at his birth certificate to know if he is who he says he is! We can’t even look to his books for information, because they are full of mistruths, and fictitious characters and situations.

I can’t figure out if he is super calculating and dangerous, or a puppet.

But, who is controlling his strings?

Published at American PUMA in Italy.

Oh, My Aching Head…

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:55:57 +0000

So, I was thinking this morning - How many policy changes has Obama made since he proclaimed himself Master of the Universe on June 3, 2008? Some are better known than others, because even some of the big ones had to be covered by the MSM. But let’s see what we can find:

June 4, 2008: Obama goes to the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC and talks about his (new found) support for Israel. In fact, he contravenes US Policy in his desire to pander to the Israeli lobby. From the CNSNews article, “Obama Departs From U.S. Policy,” he says:

“Let me be clear,” Obama told America’s largest pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, on Wednesday. “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive and that allows them to prosper. But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” he said in comments widely viewed as intended to win the hearts of Jewish voters.

Well, that’s just jake - he has just ceded Jerusalem to Israel. I wonder how the Palestinians feel about that??

“This statement is totally rejected,” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was quoted as saying.

“The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state,” Abbas said.

I see. They aren’t happy! What a big surprise - Obama continues winning hearts and minds abroad. Ahem.

Oh, here’s a good one - Campaign Finance Reform.

On June 20th, Obama decided to do a 180, and has decided public campaign financing reform might not be the way to go after all!! Oh, and in making this decision, he violated previous statements that should he be the Democratic presidential candidate, he would meet with Senator John McCain to push for public campaign financing. Uh, no. Didn’t bother to have that conversation. What a guy.

This one is big - FISA. You know, the bill that would grant retroactive immunity to the big telecoms, and expand spying powers for the president. Now that Obama thinks he is going to BE president, he wants all the bells and whistles he can get! This is what he said, from the Washington Post:

“It is a close call for me,” Obama told reporters. But he said the addition of the “exclusivity” provision giving power to the secret court, along with a new inspector general role and other oversight additions, “met my basic concerns.” He said the bill’s target should not be the phone companies’ culpability, but “can we get to the bottom of what’s taking place, and do we have safeguards?”

And for some bonus coverage, and this will be a big, huge shock to everyone (not), look who else switched positions?!?!

The Illinois senator’s reversal on the issue has angered liberal groups, but Obama told reporters at a news conference this afternoon that he was satisfied with changes made to the original bill, including a provision that gives a secret court, rather than the White House, the final say on spying procedures. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer also switched sides on the legislation, for the same reasons as Obama.

Uh, ya THINK?? Yes, it pissed off liberal groups - most of us who consider ourselves liberal have been opposed to these changes for quite some time! And we were all pretty vocal about our disgust with President Bush for wanting them. So, Obama said what he had to say to whichever group it was he had to say it on FISA, then he does this little end-run, “Oh, but they have assuaged my concerns, and it isn’t the big phone companies’ problem anyway that they broke the law.” Again, the self-proclaimed Constitutional scholar at work. (Hmmm - I wonder what he means by “Constitutional”? I’m starting to think as in daily constitutional in which changing his policy positions is considered par for the daily course.) Clearly, LOGIC is not his strong suit…

Just a few short days later, Obama is jumping on the Gun Bandwagon, applauding the decision of the Supreme Court on June 26 to support gun ownership. Do I even need to say that he opposed it before he was for it (Political Radar: Obama Camp Disavows “Inartful” Statement? Oh, wait - check that, he was opposed to it when he was in IL, but when he was debating Hillary, he didn’t know WHAT he thought about the DC gun ban because he just didn’t know that much about it, he said, hadn’t seen all of the information on it or anything. Gee - wonder when he got the time to read everything that now allows him to AGREE with the decision?! Yeah, right (for more on this, check out the video from Fox News currently at NoQuarterUSA.net).

Good grief, I am getting DIZZY with all of this spinning around by Obama!!

Whew. Okay, just one more - not because there aren’t more, but really - isn’t all of this making you have vertigo?? Well, this one I think is just perfect - really. It just encapsulates the moral fiber (LOL) of Obama. And as a previous member of this organization, it could not happen to more deserving people who chose to endorse this guy with a very limited number of actual members, and allowed people who were NOT members to vote on this decision…Are you with me? Yep, Move-On.Org! That’s right - they endorsed Obama pretty early on amidst numerous reports of ballot stuffing (oh, now there’s a surprise, too, right?? Uh huh.), and based on approximately 10% of their entire membership - meaning in numbers, not actual members. Anywho, he swatted MoveOn for their ad regarding General Petraeus
recently. (When the vote came up about the ad, he was nowhere to be found, of course, though he had voted on another matter that very day. Whatever. Typical.) Obama slammed 527s in general, even though they have been helping HIM out. No doubt, he is trying to set it up so he won’t be Swiftboated, but it is only Swiftboating when it isn’t true!! Anyway, I wonder how all of those MoveOn members feel now that they have been thrown under the bus? Couldn’t happen to a more deserving organization, if you ask me.

I should add, there is the whole Faith Initiatives thing, though I am not sure he has actually changed his mind on that. Given that TUCC has apparently been the beneficiary of that program, you see, it makes some sense that he is all about it. BUT - for Constitution-loving Americans who believe in the separation of Church and State, the whole program has been a HUGE issue. That Obama wants to continue it, and INCREASE its depth and breadth, is pretty darn surprising (this whole issue has been dealt with a lot here at No Quarter, including one of my posts, so I’ll spare you any more from me on this).

Bear in mind, this is just JUNE. I know there are more, and feel free to add them in the comments. I just can’t take it anymore. My head is already about to explode. I can just imagine - and I know you can - what the MSM and bloggers would be saying if Clinton had made all of these flip flops in just ONE month!! In some ways, it gives me hope - if he keeps this up for the next 7 weeks or so, who KNOWS what might happen at the Convention? You just never know!

Obama’s Two Faces and Forked Tongue

medusa — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:00:19 +0000

by Medusa and Bud White

Two-faced? Hypocritical? Or showing his true colors? Last week Barack Obama made 180 degree turns on three previous positions he had taken in order to seduce liberal Democrats. In an article entitled “For Obama, winning is everything“, Michael Tomasky writes of these changes, claiming that:

It’s acceptable - and necessary - for Barack Obama to compromise his liberal principles in order to get elected

Taking Fat-Cat Money

In November 2007, the Midwest Democracy Network, a non-partisan alliance of 20 civic and public interests groups, released the unedited responses to a questionnaire on federal political and government reform issues. The questionnaire was sent to both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Question 1-B asks:

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

Barack Obama answered the question in detail: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D- WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system.

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election.My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.

My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election.The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r- AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

However, on June 19, in an about-face so abrupt as to cause whiplash in his beholden followers, Obama said he would forego public finances in his presidential race against John McCain.Previously decrying special interests money, which made him the darling to liberal Democrats, Obama has rejected the 84 million dollars in public funds available to him. This allows him to accept money from special interest groups, making clear that against all his claims, he is a Washington insider. Anthony Corrado writes:

Obama “is likely to outspend McCain and the Republican national committee combined by perhaps two to one. Between now and election day, we very well may see Senator Obama spend $400m or more

Obama is clearly two-faced, as we are seeing more and more. But he’s not simply repeating old and familiar patterns, according to Richard Briffault, a campaign finance expert at Columbia University:

Obama is the first candidate since the public financing system was established by congress in 1974 to opt out of the system.

Denying Civil Liberties

The second liberal principal Obama sacrificed in the space of one week is his decision to support a bill that gives the telecoms retroactive immunity. Only last year Obama promised to filibuster the bill but instead, in a stomach-lurching turn to the right, he gave his support to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and climbed in bed with George Bush and company. No doubt Obama is attempting to show some strength regarding national security to those of us who know he has none, but he’s sacrificing the very liberals who fell for his dippy promises of hope and change:

Asked specifically why he’s supporting the current FISA bill when he’d promised months ago to support a filibuster of an earlier version of the bill, Obama suggested flat out that “national security” overrides the question of telecom immunity.

The Death Penalty

As Michael Tomasky writes, most liberals are opposed to the death penalty, so when Obama joined in with the most conservative minority of the supreme court justices to support the death penalty in the case of the rape of a child, he turned more right than many from the right wing, causing many of his supporters to doubt their support. David Sirota suggests that “When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don’t pay a lot of attention look at one thing: ‘Does the guy believe in something?’ They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow.” The Huffington Post has noticed Obama’s lurch to the right:

Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists and charges of “flip-flopping” from conservatives.

Hillary supporters have long known that Obama wears whatever mask will gain him political advantage in the moment. The big blogs are now beginning to catch on to Obama’s tricks. Anglachel notices this trend:

Overall, the trend I am seeing is that, with Hillary out of contention, the Blogger Boyz have abruptly noticed The Precious is not what they have claimed him to be or, rather, they are finally having to acknowledge that we HRC supporters were right about the mendacious little bastard all along.

Indeed, there is an emerging narrative — not just in the blogosphere — that Obama is two-faced. Unlike the charge that Kerry was a flip-flopper, this narrative is born out of Obama’s own actions; no windsurfing imagery is necessary, even the big blogs are beginning to see that Obama has no core values and that he suddenly shifts positions and rhetoric to suit his needs. Politico reports:

“[A] lot of people tried to convince themselves that he was a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed,” Hamsher said. “You can feel a real shift in the zeitgeist online.”

Obama recently told women that they need to “get over” that Hillary lost. But what Obama doesn’t understand or have the maturity to see is that in this extended job interview, in which women are the majority of voters, his tactics, reversals, arrogance, and bullying do not easily fade from memory. Even at this date, Obama is largely unknown to the public, but what we do know is that he will say one thing and do another. Where we come from that’s called lying, and it’s something we’d expect from a con.