The LA Times seems to have a hot topic on their hands about Barack Obama's Campaign Donations. I have seen several articles, even in the mainstream media magazines such as Time and Newsweek that reveal Donors could use fake names and addresses when making a donation to Barack Obama, as long as the credit card was real, the donation would go through.
If you look at the reader responses to the LA Times Article, Barack Obama donors immediately pounce and attack anyone who mentions the fraudulent fundraising that went on. They call those who bring up the 200 million dollars in undocumented donations, sore losers. Check it out, Barack Obama's Small Donors Lash Out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Best Quality VHS to Digital Transfers
Serious Customers Welcome.
10,000 Dollar Grant! Another Great Find from FABULOUSLY40.com
Would this be a good way to win funds for Louisa's Law ?
9 comments:
Alessandro, I saw your comment at the LAT story and posted the story link to my PumaResponders email list. Shall I add you to the membership so you can post directly to the list when you have a story worth commenting at?
tdo@turndownobama.com
I can't wade into the Bobotworld again. The B0bots are pathologically self-centered - the world begins and ends with them. What they don't like doesn't exist.
I told a B0bot this spring: "But your state went to Hillary" and she serenely replied: "But none of my friends voted for her"
To me the more significant fact of the article is the much vaunted small donors contribution was the exact same percentage as W had. From his fundies.
I wanted to let you know that I have a blog called Puma for Life:
http://helpmejoseph.typepad.com/puma_for_life/
New article posted; original piece explains why I chose Puma for Life as my blog name.
Thanks for this great site. I visit it ....well, daily.
I emailed you about the PUMA Responders, thanks for the heads up. I added PUMA for Life to DailyPUMA, I thought I saw it on here already but if not it is now.
lol, Obot's has become Bobots.
How can new rules be laid for 2012 if the extent of fraud isn't known this time around. Maybe we will discover that the amount of fraud was less. Maybe the figure isn't 200 million, maybe its only 20 million, or 50 million, or 100 million. I just don't like the concept that we don't get to know the truth. By the way, the figure really should be much much less than any of those amounts mentioned above.
For those who missed it, there are estimates that as much as 200 million dollars of Barack Obama's donations come from unknown sources because of the way Barack Obama's camp kept records.
It is the height of hypocrisy to be the most internet savvy at PR and advertising, yet be the most backwards at keeping accurate records.
What we do know is that there were many overseas donations. This is known because the foreign currency exchange rate makes the final donation amount an odd number, like 51.72 cents. The Donator doesn't know the exact amount of their donation because of the foreign exchange rate.
Most (not all, but most) people donate relatively even amounts, such as 10, 20, 25, even 32 or 33 dollars, or 33 dollars and 50 cents could be considered an even amount.
So most of the oddball amounts appear to have come from overseas and are detectable as donations that come in at 19.73 cents, etc..
Perhaps these donations were from american citizens abroad, but perhaps even more were just people donating who weren't american citizens.
One way or another, I would like to know how much of the donations were not legal. Time and Newsweek ran articles about this.
PUMACpac is doing the research of Obama's campaign donations and will have verifiable numbers at completion. (If there is such a thing with the Obama Campaign)
I suspect the only way it will be made public knowledge IS through the media. The FEC has already announced they have waived the traditional auditing process for verifying Obama's campaign donations are in compliance with FEC Rules and procedure.
At least PUMApac will have it all down on paper for a reauditing by anyone interested. I dare say, it will take a lawsuit to have the results submitted on condition of FRAUDULENT donations.
The FEC is about as corrupt as the DNC and the Democratic Congress.
So, who ya gonna call when a citizen or the Electors can't even call into question Obama's citizenship, something that can't be explained away, when the SCOTUS is derelict in it's duties set down by the Founding Fathers of defending the Constitution to ALL comers who would challenge it's bedrock principles?
So what you are saying is, if somebody could prove rampant fraud among the donation amounts that Barack Obama received, it would not matter unless someone filed a lawsuit??? lol, then that does render the FEC suspect in its authority.
What I find ironic is that while I think the Republican win in 2000 was questionable (although in 2000 there were some other states that were really close as well that might have had ACORN involved benefitting the democrats), and while I also think the 2004 four win was questionable simply because of the HUGE INCREASE in voting totals for George Bush compared to 2000, I actually think this year a better case can be made for donation fraud unfairly influencing the outcome of an election.
But to give the Republicans a third questionable win in a row would probably result in civil disobedience on a level unheard of before.
"So what you are saying is, if somebody could prove rampant fraud among the donation amounts that Barack Obama received, it would not matter unless someone filed a lawsuit??? lol, then that does render the FEC suspect in its authority."
YEP. Send it to every media outlet on the planet and see what happens.
"What I find ironic is that while I think the Republican win in 2000 was questionable (although in 2000 there were some other states that were really close as well that might have had ACORN involved benefiting the democrats), and while I also think the 2004 four win was questionable simply because of the HUGE INCREASE in voting totals for George Bush compared to 2000, I actually think this year a better case can be made for donation fraud unfairly influencing the outcome of an election."
You can look at it this way. This was the final curtain for elections. The Republicans stole the 2000 and 2004 elections. In the interim, they joined hands with the Democrats and became one party because they knew a Republican could never be elected in 08' due to the damage done to this country by their Party.
And why Obama faced absolutely NO media scrutiny for the duration of his campaign over the last two years.
No one asked for his school records. No media anchors asked if he was a Natural Born Citizen.
All the lawsuits filed in court about his eligibility to the US presidency haven't even been mentioned on any cable news shows except for Fox News.
Fox did the most casting a light on Obama's anomalies during the campaign...What did it all amount to with the overall media?
Nothing more than a Dead End..
Anything negative about Obama becomes invisible to the media and the press...coincidence? If only!
Only in America, if you have enough money behind you and you've agreed to be a puppet in the interests of Global Bankers...
you won't be touched and you Will WIN!
Third World anyone?
Barack Obama supporters believe he was "vetted" regarding Pastor Wright and Rezko. I considered those straw man vettings because at the end of the day, people won't go against somebody simply because they know somebody else.
I feel the Barack Obama of the 90's was not vetted at all. Instead the media played it about who Barack Obama knew rather what Barack Obama actually did in the 90's. I think people were entitled to know about Barack Obama of the 90's simply because there wasn't a lot of info about Barack Obama out there to begin with.
Instead, all we heard about was Pastor Wright and the alleged Michell Obama tape.
Post a Comment