Obama's ILLEGAL Foreign Donors

[BeAChooser]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html


August 14, 2008

Obama's Foreign Donors: The media averts its eyes

I have been researching, documenting and studying thousands upon thousands of Obama's campaign donations for the past month. Egregious abuse was immediately evident and I published the results of my ongoing investigation. Each subsequent post built a more damning case against Obama's illegal contribution activity.

... snip ...

Despite dropping the groundbreaking bombshell story of "Palestinian" brothers from the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza who donated $33,000 to Obama's campaign, no big media picked up the story. Jihadis donating to Obama from Gaza? Could there be a bigger story? Foreign donations are illegal, but this story was all that and so much more. The "Palestinian" brothers were proud and vocal of their "love" for Obama. Their*vocal support on behalf of "Palestinians" *spoke volumes to Obama's campaign.

And yet still no media.

But Obama pricked up his ears. He smelled trouble and while no media asked, he answered anyway. Sen. Obama's campaign immediately scrambled and contended they had returned the $33,500 in illegal contributions from Palestinians in Hamas-controlled Gaza, despite the fact that records do not show that it was returned and the brothers said they have not received any money. Having gone through all of Obama's refunds redesignations etc, no refund was made to Osama, Hossam, or Edwan Monir in the Rafah refugee camp. And still no media.

... snip ...

Obama's overseas (foreign) contributors are making multiple small donations, ostensibly in their own names, over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances, but others are aggregating in excess of the maximums when all added up. The countries and major cities from which contributions have been received France, Virgin Islands, Planegg, Vienna, Hague, Madrid, London, AE, IR, Geneva,Tokyo, Bangkok, Turin, Paris, Munich, Madrid, Roma, Zurich, Netherlands, Moscow, Ireland, Milan, Singapore, Bejing, Switzerland, Toronto, Vancouver, La Creche, Pak Chong, Dublin, Panama, Krabi, Berlin, Geneva, Buenos Aires, Prague, Nagoya, Budapest, Barcelona, Sweden, Taipei, Hong Kong, Rio de Janeiro, Sydney, Zurich, Ragusa, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Uganda, Mumbia, Nagoya, Tunis, Zacatecas, St, Croix, Mississauga, Laval, Nadi, Behchoko, Ragusa, DUBIA, Lima, Copenhagen, Quaama, Jeddah, Kabul, Cairo, Nassau(not the county on Long Island,lol), Luxembourg (Auchi's stomping grounds), etc,etc,etc,

... snip ...


We let the Clintons and DNC get away with stealing two elections using illegal foreign contributions. Are we going to let Obama, too?

Here's more on this illegal activity by Mr *Change*.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=71431

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/obamas-anonymou.html

[Meadmaker]

We let the Clintons and DNC get away with stealing two elections using illegal foreign contributions.

Allow me to be the first to say: :dl:

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Obama's campaign did not return WND phone calls or e-mail queries.

No **** sherlock.

:dl:

ETA: Meadmaker read my mind, million please!

[Brainster]

Pam undercuts herself at times (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/08/obama-shipped-t.html):

We documented almost $800 worth of campaign contributions which simply cannot be documented by anybody as to where they came from, or from whom, or whether the persons were American citizens or perhaps from person with interests violently opposed to American interests.

$800? Is she serious?

On the other hand there are some suspicious bits:

A Rebecca Kurth contributed $3,137.38 to the Obama Campaign in 112 donations, including 34 separate donations recorded on 30-April-2008.

That's interesting and suggestive of someone trying to fly under the radar. Unfortunately she doesn't tell us where we can verify this information. No Rebecca Kurth turned up at Open Secrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/donor_lookup.php?name=Kurth). Which may indicate that she is succeeding in flying under the radar (I think the campaigns only have to report individual donations over $200).

Also note that she admits that some of the donations are legal, so the really tough question becomes determining which are what. She highlights the large number of overseas contributions from unemployed people, but of course there is a large contingent of unemployed people who are US citizens living abroad: retirees.

[BeAChooser]

No Rebecca Kurth turned up

That's Rebecca Hussein Kurth. :D

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/rebeccauk

[Brainster]

That's Rebecca Hussein Kurth. :D

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/rebeccauk

I saw that; wonder if it's real or just one of those "We are all middle-named Hussein" wheezes.

[Meadmaker]

Stealing the election is a bit of hyperbole. Are you denying that Clinton and then Gore got illegal donations from the Chinese?


I'm certain all candidates have received some money from foreign sources. Who gives a rat's behind?

[OnlyTellsTruths]

BeAChooser do you realize you have probably caused more people who read these forums to flip from McCain/Undecided to Obama than the other way around?

[Kestrel]

I'm certain all candidates have received some money from foreign sources. Who gives a rat's behind?

One party has an organization called Republicans Abroad (http://www.republicansabroad.org/), the other has Democrats Abroad (http://www.democratsabroad.org/).

Since voters living overseas can cast ballots, why should we be alarmed when they also send money to help their favorite candidate?

[SezMe]

BAC, when are you going to get out of the 1990s and start a thread about McCain's Canadian fund raising? Or his UK fund raising? Soon, right?

[BeAChooser]

BeAChooser do you realize you have probably caused more people who read these forums to flip from McCain/Undecided to Obama than the other way around?

Yeah, sure. That's why Obama has been pulling ahead in the polls rather than the race narrowing. ;)

[BeAChooser]

Since voters living overseas can cast ballots, why should we be alarmed when they also send money to help their favorite candidate?

It's just that there are legal ways to do it ... and ways that skirt the law.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Rule 11 breach removed.

As for Obama, the material posted in the OP isn't mere "allegation" either and does show that the donations came from illegal foreign contributors. Furthermore, it looks like Obama is up to the same games the Clintons were in that his campaign claims certain identified illegal contributions were refunded when apparently they were not.

Of course the McCain campaign is guilty of taking illegal donations from foreigners (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/07/mccain-campaign-reviewing-questionable-donations/). From the way you arrogantly assert your positions as the unembellished truth you'd think that the Democrats were a raging bunch of savages who sacrifice men to their primitive sun Gods in exchange for illegal campaign contributions and the Republicans were a batch of peaceful-wise old men. :D

[BeAChooser]

Rule 11 breach removed.

Of course the McCain campaign is guilty of taking illegal donations from foreigners (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/07/mccain-campaign-reviewing-questionable-donations/).

No, they are only illegal if the campaign knew they were prohibited donations (like the Clinton's clearly did). Your source (and I thought you folks couldn't stand Fox News ... ;)) actually indicates that McCain's campaign acted responsibly ... immediately returning the contribution once suspicion it came from a non-US citizen surfaced. Also, that article seems to indicate the money didn't actually come from the non-US citizen ... only that it was solicited by one which may be legal according to the law. Even so, the McCain campaign is returning the money. Now prove to us that Clinton or Obama has acted even remotely as responsibly. I don't think you can.

[leftysergeant]

BAC, can you verify this information from a non-wingnut source?

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Unlike Clinton, Bush didn't commit treason nor steal elections using millions in illegal foreign cash from communist countries. So I have no problem with McCain hugging him.

Of course you missed the point of that statement entirely didn't you?

No, they are only illegal if the campaign knew they were prohibited donations (like the Clinton's clearly did). Your source (and I thought you folks couldn't stand Fox News ... ;)) actually indicates that McCain's campaign acted responsibly ... immediately returning the contribution once suspicion it came from a non-US citizen surfaced. Also, that article seems to indicate the money didn't actually come from the non-US citizen ... only that it was solicited by one which may be legal according to the law. Even so, the McCain campaign is returning the money. Now prove to us that Clinton or Obama has acted even remotely as responsibly. I don't think you can.

Which is exactly what Obama has done. This is the problem of only citing wingnut sources. I wonder why the WND is so p****d regarding the reasons why the Obama Campaign won't return any of their calls? Could it be their connection to blatant racists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldnet_Daily#Anglo-Saxon_identity)? That might be a good reason for why a campaign supporting a Black man for president wouldn't return their calls. Or are you next going to start whining about why Obama won't respond to the Majority Rights website calling him a Jew-lover? ;)

Anywho; Obama has returned the money (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/05/obama-camp-routed-out-illegal-donations-from-palestinians/) and their making a report about it now. The implied conspiracy theory by the WND in this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72145) article is very cute though. I wonder why Obama would refuse to return a few $30,000 dollars in illegal campaign contributions when his campaign gets millions in legal contributions. :D

ETA: The only reason why I cited Fox News is because if I had cited the most liberal commie pinko site I could find you would have cried partisan; you shining embodiment of neutrality you. :D

[BeAChooser]

Which is exactly what Obama has done.

No, it isn't. The Obama campaign has made no real effort to determine the identify of the donors in question. And when the identity of several was established as being non-citizens (like those gentlemen in Gaza), the Obama campaign only claimed to have returned the donation. As noted in the links I provided however, the donors, like Riady in the Clinton case, said they had not, in fact, had their donations returned.

connection to blatant racists

Ah yes, the race card. Sorry, but that card doesn't scare me, KF. Here's the real racism:

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/03/18/16/277-20080318-OBAMA-poll.large.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

Anywho; Obama has returned the money (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/05/obama-camp-routed-out-illegal-donations-from-palestinians/) and their making a report about it now.

From your link:


The donations came in between Sept. 20 and Dec. 6 and virtually all of the money, about $33,500, was returned by December 6. But the refunds weren’t reported to the Federal Election Commission due to a technical error, campaign officials said. The remaining $2,500 was refunded Monday. The refunds will all be reflected shortly in an amended report.


A "technical error"? How convenient. :rolleyes:

There are some problems with this story.

Such an amount clearly violates donation laws which limit the amount one can give to $2300? Obama's site clearly states that all purchases are considered contributions. So in selling any amount over $2300, Obama campaign was violating election laws. In October of 2007, Hosam's election cycle total was over $5300, well over the allowed amount EVEN IF HE WERE AN AMERICAN. Likewise, Monirs election cycle total was over $9500. The total he gave just on 10/30/2007 was $7435.81, according to FEC files. So he was clearly violating the law and Obama's campaign should have caught this long ago. But they were looking the other way, weren't they ... because they don't care where the money comes from ... like Clinton didn't.

Furthermore, the brothers claimed that they bought the T-shirts at $20 each and then resold them at $6 each ... for a profit. That logic obviously doesn't hold up. It's a clear lie. The brothers listed their address with zip code 972 ... the area code for Israel. Here's the form that was filled out: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/obamas-gazan-co.html Note that they input "GA", the abbreviation for the US state of Georgia. Yet you want us to believe that Obama's people shipped the T-shirts to the correct address in Gaza without noticing something was suspicious? :rolleyes:

Here's another problem. The Obama campaign claims the money was returned by December 6th. But the brothers recently said they had not received a refund.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=71597#


Arabs deny Obama camp returned illegal donations

August 06, 2008

... snip ...

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign contends it returned $33,500 in illegal contributions from Palestinians in Hamas-controlled Gaza, but the donors told WND today they have not received any money.

... snip ...

"No, we did not receive any money back from the Obama campaign at any time," said Monir Edwan.

... snip ...

The Edwans continue to maintain – as they told WND earlier this week – that the financial transactions made on Obama's campaign website were not actual donations but purchases of "Obama for President" T-shirts. The transactions, however, were listed as donations in U.S. government election filings.

... snip ...

"My brother Hosam and I knew that Obama will be a big hit even before he became a candidate. We knew the guy would be a celebrity in Gaza so we decided to invest the amount of $29,000 to buy Obama T-shirts from his website and sell them in Gaza," Monir Edwan told WND, speaking by cell phone from Gaza.

Asked how he managed to get shipments of T-shirts into the Gaza Strip during the time Israel imposed a tight closure, Edwan maintained the packages were sent to him by the U.S. Postal Service.


Do you really think the two palestinians had $30,000 to donate? Or was the real source Hamas ... which endorsed Obama? :D

And how exactly has the Obama campaign refined their operations (as claimed in the article you linked) to ensure this doesn't happen again? Does their website now require proof of citizenship, such as a passport or social security number? How does it ensure the donation doesn't come from a corporation, political action committee or lobby group? :D

[leftysergeant]

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/obamas-gazan-co.html Note that they input "GA", the abbreviation for the US state of Georgia.

It's plausible that they did not catch the error right off. And that is the only link you posted that is relevant to Obama that is not from a wingnut rag. As for thier recieving the T-shirts, there is no way to verify this. So it could easily have been a planted story or a set-up by anti-Obama operatives. Rove has pulled off complicated stuff.

Do you really think the two palestinians had $30,000 to donate? Or was the real source Hamas ... which endorsed Obama?

That is racist and ethnocentric.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

No, it isn't. The Obama campaign has made no real effort to determine the identify of the donors in question. And when the identity of several was established as being non-citizens (like those gentlemen in Gaza), the Obama campaign only claimed to have returned the donation. As noted in the links I provided however, the donors, like Riady in the Clinton case, said they had not, in fact, had their donations returned.

Clinton is irrelevent to this discussion. I know you like to view all liberals and Democrats as a hive-mind but maybe cut the B-S this time? Of course there is no way of verifying whether or not the donors have recieved their money; only that they claim they didn't. Which is interesting because I've been looking around to see if the illegal contributions to the McCain campaign have been returned and if the individuals who sent the money have received a refund yet.

Ah yes, the race card. Sorry, but that card doesn't scare me, KF. Here's the real racism:

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/03/18/16/277-20080318-OBAMA-poll.large.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

BAC Translation: Brown people and their opinions frighten me.

So blacks support having a black president, what's your point? And if you call what I said the race card what exactly does that make your comment?

A "technical error"? How convenient. :rolleyes:

There are some problems with this story.

Such an amount clearly violates donation laws which limit the amount one can give to $2300? Obama's site clearly states that all purchases are considered contributions. So in selling any amount over $2300, Obama campaign was violating election laws. In October of 2007, Hosam's election cycle total was over $5300, well over the allowed amount EVEN IF HE WERE AN AMERICAN. Likewise, Monirs election cycle total was over $9500. The total he gave just on 10/30/2007 was $7435.81, according to FEC files. So he was clearly violating the law and Obama's campaign should have caught this long ago. But they were looking the other way, weren't they ... because they don't care where the money comes from ... like Clinton didn't.

If that's true then there does need to be something done about it. However, I reject your implied conspiracy and doubt that anything nefarious is going on. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, the brothers claimed that they bought the T-shirts at $20 each and then resold them at $6 each ... for a profit. That logic obviously doesn't hold up. It's a clear lie. The brothers listed their address with zip code 972 ... the area code for Israel. Here's the form that was filled out: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/obamas-gazan-co.html Note that they input "GA", the abbreviation for the US state of Georgia. Yet you want us to believe that Obama's people shipped the T-shirts to the correct address in Gaza without noticing something was suspicious?

Writing GA as an abbreviation for Gaza doesn't seem so nefarious either. And apparently (http://www.crescentpeace.org/files/doa.pdf) this really isn't so uncommon. "...didn't have an abbreviation for Gaza to write on Emad's paperwork..so she just put GA." It even goes on from there into making a joke about how they wouldn't believe that Emad was from the state of Georgia. :D

Here's another problem. The Obama campaign claims the money was returned by December 6th. But the brothers recently said they had not received a refund.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=71597#

Do you really think the two palestinians had $30,000 to donate? Or was the real source Hamas ... which endorsed Obama?

Again; I reject your ridiculous cospiracy theory. In fact, if any mod reads this would they please move it to the CT forums? I have no reason to believe Obama's campaign wouldn't return the money; $33,500 is a drop in the bucket. Not only that; how about providing some evidence showing a link between the brothers, the Obama campaign, and Hamas? :D

And how exactly has the Obama campaign refined their operations (as claimed in the article you linked) to ensure this doesn't happen again? Does their website now require proof of citizenship, such as a passport or social security number? How does it ensure the donation doesn't come from a corporation, political action committee or lobby group?

Not sure. Maybe you should ask the Obama campaign?

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...-gazan-co.html Note that they input "GA", the abbreviation for the US state of Georgia.

It's plausible that they did not catch the error right off.

Plausible? How long did they delay shipping of the T-shirts to Gaza? You know it's a violation of law to not ship goods that are paid for within a set amount of time. And surely receiving over $7000 from one individual on one day would have raised a red flag, given that the LEGAL donation limit was $2300. :D

And that is the only link you posted that is relevant to Obama that is not from a wingnut rag.

You're entitled to your OPINION ... Lefty.

So it could easily have been a planted story or a set-up by anti-Obama operatives. Rove has pulled off complicated stuff.

ROTFLOL!

Quote:
Do you really think the two palestinians had $30,000 to donate? Or was the real source Hamas ... which endorsed Obama?

That is racist and ethnocentric.

ROTFLOL! I'm not afraid of your race card, lefty. :D

Do you know there's a third brother who donated to Obama?

http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?28930539441

His name is Osama Edwan and lives at the same address.

I suppose the Obama camp is now going to claim they refunded his money too ... and just forgot to report it due to the same "technical glitch"? :rolleyes:

And guess what? It turns out that Obama's "technical glitch" kept his campaign from reporting the returned money not once but twice ... even after the FEC asked specifically about these folks donations.

http://obamareport.blogspot.com/2008/08/monir-edwan-and-obama-campaign-saga.html


on Sunday the Atlas Shrugs' blog revealed that the FEC had sent two letters to the the Obama campaign seeking additional information regarding contributions it received that appeared to exceed the $2300 legal limit.

Among those questionable contributions, were donations from Monir and Hosam Edwan. The Obama campaign responded to the first letter in May 2008, but apparently the FEC was not satisfied with its response and sent out a second letter to the Obama campaign on July 30 2008 requesting additional information for sixteen pages of questionable contributions, including several of Monir Edwan's contributions.

So apparently, the Obama campaign failed to tell the FEC about the refunded money both in its original FEC report and in its response to the FEC's letter in May of 2008 (5 months after they allegedly returned the money).


:D

[BeAChooser]

Clinton is irrelevent to this discussion.

I disagree

... when Obama has named a Clinton as a possible running mate,

... when two Clintons are going to give speeches at the Democrat Convention,

... and when half the votes Obama will get are STILL Clinton supporters.

Of course there is no way of verifying whether or not the donors have recieved their money; only that they claim they didn't.

But what possible reason would they have to lie? They admire Obama and want him to be President. :D

Which is interesting because I've been looking around to see if the illegal contributions to the McCain campaign have been returned and if the individuals who sent the money have received a refund yet.

And which contributions would those be? And do you have any reporter saying they talked to those individuals and they are saying they didn't get their money back? :D

BAC Translation: Brown people and their opinions frighten me.

KF Translation: I see absolutely nothing wrong with one ethnic group voting almostly exclusively along racial lines.

So blacks support having a black president, what's your point?

Would it then be ok if whites then supported only the white candidate? Or would you then cry "RACISM!"? :D

If that's true

Well it is. The FEC documents (which they have links to) clearly show that more than the allowed amount was being donated by those individuals.

However, I reject your implied conspiracy and doubt that anything nefarious is going on.

Doubt? Like Democrats doubted the proven misdeeds of the Clintons? :rolleyes:

Writing GA as an abbreviation for Gaza doesn't seem so nefarious either.

But the zip code doesn't correspond to Georgia. Having only 3 digits made it questionable from the start. ANYONE should know that. And that still doesn't explain how they managed to get their T-shirts delivered to Gaza if T-shirts were indeed sent as they claimed. Tell us, has the Obama campaign stated definitively whether T-shirts were ordered or not ... sent or not? They do know, don't they?

Not only that; how about providing some evidence showing a link between the brothers, the Obama campaign, and Hamas?

Well we already have established a link between the brothers and Obama campaign.

Here's a link showing that Hamas endorsed Obama:

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Hamas_Endorses_Obama/2008/04/17/88754.html


Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:21 AM

... snip ...

Ahmed Yousuf, Hamas’ top political adviser in the Gaza Strip, delivered his endorsement in an interview with WorldNetDaily and WABC Radio in New York.

“We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections,” Yousuf said.


Oh that's right ... you folks don't believe anything newsmax reports ... so:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/18/obama-to-hamas-no-thanks/

Hamas' top political adviser, Ahmed Yousef, embraced the Obama campaign Sunday in an interview on WABC radio, saying, "We like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election."


And here's the connection between the three brothers and Hamas:

The Rafah refugee camp is in the Hamas controlled Gaza.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71431 "The Edwans are a large clan that include top Hamas supporters."

And you'll LOVE this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21YF7ggCG6g "Gaza's Obama campaign"


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And how exactly has the Obama campaign refined their operations (as claimed in the article you linked) to ensure this doesn't happen again? Does their website now require proof of citizenship, such as a passport or social security number? How does it ensure the donation doesn't come from a corporation, political action committee or lobby group?

Not sure. Maybe you should ask the Obama campaign?

Maybe I just did. ;)

[SezMe]

...when Obama has named a Clinton as a possible running mate,
Bill for Veep? Ya think? It'd be the first time two black men were at the top of the ticket.

I know why you start these inane threads about birth certificates, t-shirts, 3rd grade essay, and on and on and on and on. It's because it's all you've got. Your candidate is a grumpy old man and your party's reputation is lower than a call girl's knickers. This fall is going to very ugly, all the ugliness will be emanating from Repug nether regions and you'll be right in there with the worst of them. Sad, really.

[BeAChooser]

I know why you start these inane threads

So you think talking about illegal contributions is inane? :rolleyes:

Your candidate is a grumpy old man

He doesn't seem very grumpy to me. In fact, I bet he and those who will vote for him are a lot happier on average than Obama and his followers. In fact, I believe there have even been surveys showing that is true. :D

your party's reputation is lower than a call girl's knickers.

Yes, I know you don't want to talk about Clinton and what he did to this country. Or about Kerry and what he did. Or what the rest of the DNC has done. Nor, it appears, do you want to talk about Obama's past. But I guess it's hard to have a reputation when you have no past. Speaking of a past ... didn't you just love that slip of Obama's during the debate? When he almost said that Clarence Thomas didn't have enough "exp"erience? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfblJvKXiP0 :D

This fall is going to very ugly

Yes, you may be right.

all the ugliness will be emanating from Repug nether regions and you'll be right in there with the worst of them..

You're the only one who has gotten vulgar on this thread, sir. :D

[Meadmaker]

So you think talking about illegal contributions is inane? :rolleyes:


I do. Let me summarize the charges in this thread. Barak Obama is letting people send him money, but he isn't working very hard to find out who it is that is sending him the money.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I disagree

... when Obama has named a Clinton as a possible running mate,

... when two Clintons are going to give speeches at the Democrat Convention,

... and when half the votes Obama will get are STILL Clinton supporters.

According to that logic it's perfectly find to bring up any Republican candidate because they may be possible running mates, gave a speech with McCain, and will be have supporters giving their votes. In that case I'd like to start criticizing Fred Thompson for his lack of support in the seperation of church and state. It has absolutely nothing to do with McCain, but then again your statements have been nothing but a bunch of red herrings as it were. :D

But what possible reason would they have to lie? They admire Obama and want him to be President.

I don't pretend to know people's motivations. Pretending to know people's motivations is your job. :D

And which contributions would those be? And do you have any reporter saying they talked to those individuals and they are saying they didn't get their money back?

The contributions from the Abdullahs. Nope; but you don't have any reporter saying that Hamas is funneling money to the Obama campaign either. :D

KF Translation: I see absolutely nothing wrong with one ethnic group voting almostly exclusively along racial lines.

Mostly because there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Like I said; pretending to know everyone's motivations is your job. :D

Would it then be ok if whites then supported only the white candidate? Or would you then cry "RACISM!"?

Nope I certainly wouldn't. I don't pretend to know people's motivations, you do. Of course these two comments are just red herring arguments. I gave a perfectly reasonable argument for why the Obama campaign would be uninterested in contacting the WND and you started trying to accuse racism in regards to the support of Obama. I've heard alot more white supremacists denouncing Obama and speaking against him than I've heard black supremacists trash-talking McCain. Note: This isn't a challenge to provide a quote of a black supremacist trash-talking McCain because I don't support black supremacists and really don't give a flying fornication what white or black supremacists think in regards to this election or anything for that matter.

Doubt? Like Democrats doubted the proven misdeeds of the Clintons?

Oh red herrings how I do miss thee. Is there anything you can't attempt to red herring off to Clinton? :D

But the zip code doesn't correspond to Georgia. Having only 3 digits made it questionable from the start. ANYONE should know that. And that still doesn't explain how they managed to get their T-shirts delivered to Gaza if T-shirts were indeed sent as they claimed. Tell us, has the Obama campaign stated definitively whether T-shirts were ordered or not ... sent or not? They do know, don't they?

Of course it may be an error that wasn't picked up by the Obama campaign but managed to go delivered as is to Gaza. It wouldn't take a shipping service much thought to see there is no place with a three-digit zip code and that Rafah, Georgia doesn't exist. Of course it's much easier to assume that Hamas is funneling money to Obama and rather than lie for the candidate they support so much by saying that the money has returned so the Obama campaign won't have to return the drop in the bucket known as $33,500 yet they claim the money hasn't been received yet. :D

Considering they stated they've refunded their money I'm going to go out of my and say yes they have.

Well we already have established a link between the brothers and Obama campaign.

If everyone who contributed can be considering linked then that certainly is true.

Here's a link showing that Hamas endorsed Obama:

...snip...



*yawn* I said I wanted a connection between the Obama campaign and Hamas...something nefarious. Supporting Obama isn't the same as a connection...especially not the monetary connection you're implying. Nice try. Nor does being in a refugee camp controlled by Hamas prove you're Hamas operatives :D

Maybe I just did. ;)

So now you're implying that I'm a part of the Obama campaign or that I'm a Hamas operative? :confused:

[BeAChooser]

In that case I'd like to start criticizing Fred Thompson for his lack of support in the seperation of church and state.

Can you prove that Thompson committed a crime in that regard? Unless you can, I see nothing wrong with associating with him. :D

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And which contributions would those be? And do you have any reporter saying they talked to those individuals and they are saying they didn't get their money back?

The contributions from the Abdullahs. Nope; but you don't have any reporter saying that Hamas is funneling money to the Obama campaign either.

As pointed out previously, unlike the Gaza Strip brothers, the Abdullahs ... who live in California ... are Americans. And unlike the boys in gaza, these folks have a business with enough income to make their donations at least "plausible". The problem is that a Jordanian (Mustafa Abu Naba) acted as a go between for the contributions. As soon as suspicions were raised that a foreign national was involved, McCain's campaign chose to return the money even though it may not be illegal for a foreign national to act a conduit for contributions from others. I will admit that there is something squirrelly about the contributions that came from Abu Naba. He should be investigated just to be sure. And it is interesting to note all the mainstream media interest in this case but the total lack of interest by the mainstream media in the case of the Gaza brothers. Double standard? Bias? :D

As to your nonsequitor claim that no reporter says Hamas is funneling money to the Obama campaign:

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=6203178D-C782-42E2-8D56-765A3D7EDCD7


Terrorist Fundraisers for Obama

By Patrick Poole

FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Two years ago, Hatem El-Hady was the chairman of the Toledo, Ohio-based Islamic charity, Kindhearts, which was closed by the US government in February 2006 for terrorist fundraising and all its assets frozen. Today, El-Hady has redirected his fundraising efforts for his newest cause - Barack Obama for President.

El-Hady has his own dedicated page on Barack Obama's official website, chronicling his fundraising on behalf of the Democratic Party presidential candidate (his Obama profile established on February 19, 2008 - two years to the day after Kindhearts was raided by the feds). Not only that, but he has none other than Barack Obama's wife, Michelle Obama, listed as one of his friends (one of her 224 listed friends).

... snip ...

According to the DOJ, Kindhearts assumed the role of lead terrorist fundraising in the US after the government had closed other such Islamic "charities":

"KindHearts is the progeny of Holy Land Foundation and Global Relief Foundation, which attempted to mask their support for terrorism behind the façade of charitable giving," said Stuart Levey, Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

Not only was Kindhearts engaged in providing funds for HAMAS in Lebanon and the West Bank, it had hired as a fundraising specialist the man identified as the designated HAMAS bag man in the US, Mohammed El-Mezain.


:D

http://thinkingamerican.blogtownhall.com/2008/04/25/michelle_obamas_relationship_to_hamas.thtml


On a snapshot of the Obama web site, taken by Little Green Footbals, it is shown that Hatem Elhady, former Chairman of Kindhearts, is a friend of the Obama campaign, and specially, of Michelle Obama. Why is this important? Because Mr. Elhady’s charity is none other than Hamas


http://209.62.84.132/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62653


Obama's website quietly ditches Hamas supporter

... snip ...

The Obama campaign quietly removed from its official website a page managed by a fundraiser tied to the Islamic terrorist group Hamas.

The page for Hatem El-Hady – former chairman of an Islamic charity closed by the U.S. government for terrorist fundraising – listed Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, as one of three "friends" as recently as yesterday, according to blogger Charles Johnson.

But by yesterday morning, days after Johnson's "Little Green Football's" site drew attention to the El-Hady page, Michelle Obama's name had been removed. Then, later in the day, the entire page disappeared.

Johnson observed: "There's a lot of talk about William Ayers and his connections to Obama, but please note that in El-Hady we have someone who is apparently connected with Hamas – not decades ago, but as recently as 2006."

El-Hady was head of the Toledo, Ohio-based Kindhearts for Charitable Human Development, a spinoff of the Holy Land Foundation, the Dallas-area group indicted by the Justice Department for terrorist financing.


Ah yes ... another past relationship that the Obama's want to hide. :D


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Would it then be ok if whites then supported only the white candidate? Or would you then cry "RACISM!"?

Nope I certainly wouldn't.

At least you're consistent in this case. But somehow I doubt the rest of Obama's supporters would be so even handed. :)

Of course it may be an error that wasn't picked up by the Obama campaign but managed to go delivered as is to Gaza. It wouldn't take a shipping service much thought to see there is no place with a three-digit zip code and that Rafah, Georgia doesn't exist.

Except the brothers stated the T-shirts arrived by REGULAR MAIL. And I would suspect that a box of T-shirts with just enough postage to make it to Georgia in the US wouldn't arrive in Gaza. But you keep on spinning. It's fun to watch.

*yawn* I said I wanted a connection between the Obama campaign and Hamas...something nefarious.

See the above links. :D

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Can you prove that Thompson committed a crime in that regard? Unless you can, I see nothing wrong with associating with him.

I understand red herring arguments mean nothing to you, in fact without them we wouldn't be having this conversation. Anyways on Thompson, having his opinion is not a crime but what he supports is a crime.

As pointed out previously, unlike the Gaza Strip brothers, the Abdullahs ... who live in California ... are Americans. And unlike the boys in gaza, these folks have a business with enough income to make their donations at least "plausible".

Every report I've heard from liberal or conservative sources have stated that the Abdullahs did not have that kind of money.

The problem is that a Jordanian (Mustafa Abu Naba) acted as a go between for the contributions. As soon as suspicions were raised that a foreign national was involved, McCain's campaign chose to return the money even though it may not be illegal for a foreign national to act a conduit for contributions from others. I will admit that there is something squirrelly about the contributions that came from Abu Naba. He should be investigated just to be sure. And it is interesting to note all the mainstream media interest in this case but the total lack of interest by the mainstream media in the case of the Gaza brothers. Double standard? Bias? :D

I agree, there needs to be an invesitgation and furthermore I agree there is a bias at least in this regard. In fact I've been highly critical of the media and it's reactions to Obama.

As to your nonsequitor claim that no reporter says Hamas is funneling money to the Obama campaign:

...snip...


Ah yes ... another past relationship that the Obama's want to hide. :D

Well I do have to say that is particularly disturbing however Obama did ditch the supporter. Initially you criticised Obama for his alleged connections to Hamas and then he severs them, whether knowingly or not, and you criticise him for that.

At least you're consistent in this case. But somehow I doubt the rest of Obama's supporters would be so even handed. :)

No worries; I doubt many of McCain's supporters are as even handed as well.

Except the brothers stated the T-shirts arrived by REGULAR MAIL. And I would suspect that a box of T-shirts with just enough postage to make it to Georgia in the US wouldn't arrive in Gaza. But you keep on spinning. It's fun to watch.

Well all I can say in response is that an amended report is being filed. We'll see in a few days whether or not this story is a hoax, the money has been refunded, etc.

See the above links. :D

Hardly nefarious...

[BeAChooser]

Can you prove that Thompson committed a crime in that regard? Unless you can, I see nothing wrong with associating with him.

I understand red herring arguments mean nothing to you,


So I guess you can't prove it. :rolleyes:

Anyways on Thompson, having his opinion is not a crime but what he supports is a crime.

Prove that what he supports is a crime. Let's see some links for this bold claim. :D

Every report I've heard from liberal or conservative sources have stated that the Abdullahs did not have that kind of money.

Again, let's see a link. You seem to like making unsupported claims. And btw, here is a source (the highly liberal NY Times) that says you are wrong ... again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/us/politics/07mccain.html?partner=rssnyt


Several of the donors were emphatic in interviews that they had made the contributions on their own and had not been reimbursed. Indeed, while the donors do not fit the typical profile of people who often make large political donations, it appears many have made relatively successful livings, toiling away at small businesses they own: an auto repair shop, a discount stereo warehouse, a realty company. ... snip ... Faisal Abdullah, a Palestinian immigrant who works as a director of operations of a window treatment company, identified himself in an interview as the driver behind the McCain donations from his relatives and friends.


So these people were owners of businesses and likely had the assets to contribute donations of that sort if they wished ... unlike the three brothers in Gaza who were living in a refugee camp. And by the way, that link was the VERY FIRST hit in a Google search with the search string "abdullah california business mccain" so I rather doubt your claim that every report you heard "from liberal or conservative sources have stated that the Abdullahs did not have that kind of money." Why don't you link us to some of those sources so we know you weren't just lying. :D

And a further irony in all this, is that Democrats seem to have had no problems back in 1997 when 11 Buddhist monks and nuns in California, who were sworn to poverty, each gave a $5,000 personal check made out to the "D.N.C." at an event attended by Al Gore. All told, the temple laundered about $150,000, if I recall. Remember that, KF? And do you remember Al Gore insisting he was unaware it was a fund raising event? I bet you do. Yet Gore is still considered a hero by the Democrats ... and even a potential running mate for Obama. In fact, I believe he's also going to get to speak at the Democrat Convention. :D

Initially you criticised Obama for his alleged connections to Hamas and then he severs them, whether knowingly or not, and you criticise him for that.

Cute. But I don't think you or Obama are fooling anyone who doesn't want to be fooled. But then the Democrat party is filled with people who seem to like being fooled. :D

Well all I can say in response is that an amended report is being filed. We'll see in a few days whether or not this story is a hoax, the money has been refunded, etc.

I guess we will. Keep in mind, however, that an amended report was ALREADY filed and didn't resolve the problem to the FEC's satisfaction. :D

Hardly nefarious...

Providing links to the leader of a terrorist organization on the Obama website is not nefarious? Keep in mind that when Michelle Obama was listed as a "friend" on El-Hady's page, it was because Michelle chose to be listed that way. :D

[Piggy]

I invite you to prove that any of the candidates that Clinton ran against took MILLIONS of dollars in illegal contributions ... and not just from "foreign sources" but from the military intelligence communities of unfriendly nations.

And I invite you to prove that Obama did.

Seriously, do you believe every chain email that lands in your inbox, and every unsubstantiated rant that any blogger foists upon the Internet?

You're really an Obama shill, aren't you?

You're trying to make McCain supporters look like idiots.

[Meadmaker]

You're really an Obama shill, aren't you?

You're trying to make McCain supporters look like idiots.:D

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I invite you to prove that any of the candidates that Clinton ran against took MILLIONS of dollars in illegal contributions ... and not just from "foreign sources" but from the military intelligence communities of unfriendly nations.

And I invite you to prove that Obama did.

I haven't claimed he did, Piggy. But I am claiming that it's says something that Obama ... knowing that all this is true ... has Hillary speaking at his Convention and on his list of possible running mates.

You're trying to make McCain supporters look like idiots.

No Piggy, I'm trying to make Obama and the Democrat supporters of Obama look like the hypocrites they are. :D

[Piggy]

I haven't claimed he did, Piggy. But I am claiming that it's says something that Obama ... knowing that all this is true ... has Hillary speaking at his Convention and on his list of possible running mates.

She's not his list of possible running mates.

And btw, Bill is speaking at the convention. Did you know that?

Hillary is actually up for nomination. She didn't want to go thru that circus, but BHO insisted so that her supporters wouldn't claim they'd been shut out.

Of course he's going to court the Clintonistas. He'd be stupid not to. And you can say a lot about him, but he ain't stupid.

Anyway, you certainly did pass on all the bogus accusations about thousands of illegal foreign campaign contributions to BHO, like a good little shill.

You didn't bother to check your facts against legit sources.

And you didn't even bother to get your facts straight about the convention or look into the background.

You're a real piece of work.

[BeAChooser]

She's not his list of possible running mates.

Maybe ... maybe not. She certainly was named by him as a possible candidate a while back. Has she been formally taken off the list? :)

And btw, Bill is speaking at the convention. Did you know that?

Yes Piggy, I do know that. In fact I think I've pointed that out several times already. Don't you read what I post? :D

Hillary is actually up for nomination.

Isn't that going to be fun. :D

She didn't want to go thru that circus, but BHO insisted so that her supporters wouldn't claim they'd been shut out.

Do you REALLY believe that? :rolleyes:

Of course he's going to court the Clintonistas. He'd be stupid not to.

Even though he MUST know they are criminals? Hmmmmm...

You're a real piece of work.

So are you Piggy. :D

[Darat]

I've made some attempt to prune and edit this thread to get it back to an appropriate topic for this section of the Forum. I've tried to move the discussion regarding Bill Clinton and his presidency and fund raising to the "History..." section (click here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121437)). Of course some historic discussion is entirely appropriate in this section but it must be directly related to this section. To start a thread nominally about Obama's fund raising and then to spend most of your time discussing the fund raising of a president who's been out of office for almost 8 years is rather akin to a story Quentin Crisp used to tell:

"...If you're taking an essay exam on geography, and the exam could be on any of the countries in the world, study only one country and know it well.

"Let's say you choose China. When it comes time for the exam and the question is, 'Write 1,000 words on Nigeria,' you begin your essay, 'Nigeria is nothing like China' ... and proceed to write everything you know about China...."

[chipmunk stew]

I haven't claimed he did, Piggy. But I am claiming that it's says something that Obama ... knowing that all this is true ... has Hillary speaking at his Convention and on his list of possible running mates.

No Piggy, I'm trying to make Obama and the Democrat supporters of Obama look like the hypocrites they are. :D
:dl:

[Piggy]

Do you REALLY believe that?

Well, let's see....

People from both the Obama and Clinton campaigns say it's true.

It makes perfect sense.

No one with any inside knowledge is saying it's not true.

BAC posts an unfounded speculation with a roll-eyes icon.

Yeah, I really believe that.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

So I guess you can't prove it. :rolleyes:

Prove that what he supports is a crime. Let's see some links for this bold claim. :D

Removing the barrier seperating church and state, which is mentioned in the first ammendment, is not a crime? Perhaps if you amended the constitution it wouldn't be a crime but as it is currently this is a crime. Actually I should correct myself. Thompson doesn't want to remove the barrier but believes the barrier only goes one way. Religion in politics and determining our policies is fine according to him but the amendment according to Thompson should only protect the church from the state (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDA3ODFkNTA4NDM3YWYzMzc0NWQ1NjY4ZjhkZjkwNDI).

Again, let's see a link. You seem to like making unsupported claims. And btw, here is a source (the highly liberal NY Times) that says you are wrong ... again.

I have no problem being wrong; I'm simply unwilling to jump to the worst possible conclusion about Obama.

And a further irony in all this, is that Democrats seem to have had no problems back in 1997 when 11 Buddhist monks and nuns in California, who were sworn to poverty, each gave a $5,000 personal check made out to the "D.N.C." at an event attended by Al Gore. All told, the temple laundered about $150,000, if I recall. Remember that, KF? And do you remember Al Gore insisting he was unaware it was a fund raising event? I bet you do. Yet Gore is still considered a hero by the Democrats ... and even a potential running mate for Obama. In fact, I believe he's also going to get to speak at the Democrat Convention. :D

And once again you can't stay on topic. We've already had this thread split once I'm not discussing this. Save for one part:

...problems back in 1997 when 11 Buddhist monks and nuns in California...Remember that, KF?

No I don't. I was nine. And I don't care what group considers who a hero.

Cute. But I don't think you or Obama are fooling anyone who doesn't want to be fooled. But then the Democrat party is filled with people who seem to like being fooled. :D

Fooled? You mean like when you accused me of being a part of the Obama campaign? :rolleyes:

I guess we will. Keep in mind, however, that an amended report was ALREADY filed and didn't resolve the problem to the FEC's satisfaction. :D

Well then a full investigation needs to go underway to determine the source and those involved should receive the justice necessary in this case. However, I'm highly skeptical of any rash conclusions you've reached involving Obama being found out to knowingly take money from terrorist organizations.

Providing links to the leader of a terrorist organization on the Obama website is not nefarious? Keep in mind that when Michelle Obama was listed as a "friend" on El-Hady's page, it was because Michelle chose to be listed that way. :D

Of course the Obama campaign removed the link. Yet you still criticize. :rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

Removing the barrier seperating church and state, which is mentioned in the first ammendment, is not a crime?

The First Amendment doesn't mention what you claim. It says nothing about "separation of church and state". It only says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." And that language is subject to INTERPRETATION.

Furthermore, since when is calling for removal of that barrier a crime? That's all you alleged Thompson did. I seem to remember a right called Free Speech, which is also protected by the Constitutions First Amendment. :D

I have no problem being wrong;

Well you'd better not since you've been wrong again and again. :D


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And a further irony in all this, is that Democrats seem to have had no problems back in 1997 when 11 Buddhist monks and nuns in California, who were sworn to poverty, each gave a $5,000 personal check made out to the "D.N.C." at an event attended by Al Gore. All told, the temple laundered about $150,000, if I recall. Remember that, KF? And do you remember Al Gore insisting he was unaware it was a fund raising event? I bet you do. Yet Gore is still considered a hero by the Democrats ... and even a potential running mate for Obama. In fact, I believe he's also going to get to speak at the Democrat Convention.

And once again you can't stay on topic. We've already had this thread split once I'm not discussing this.

No, I am on topic. And the ruling of that moderator is being challenged as we speak. The OP specially mentions the
Clintons and DNC using illegal foreign contributions ... so how can any comment about those activities be OFF TOPIC? Hmmmm? And I know why you don't want to discuss that. :D


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
...problems back in 1997 when 11 Buddhist monks and nuns in California...Remember that, KF?

No I don't. I was nine. And I don't care what group considers who a hero.

You don't care that a person who the Democrats hold in highest regard and who Obama asked to speak at the Democrat Convention was implicated in a major campaign finance illegality? Ever hear the phrase "no controlling authority", KF? And do you not care about anything that happened before your age of majority? Is that the sort of informed voter Obama attracts? :rolleyes:

[Alferd_Packer]

Beachooser, do you think that McCain has never violated campaign finance laws?

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

The First Amendment doesn't mention what you claim. It says nothing about "separation of church and state". It only says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." And that language is subject to INTERPRETATION.

Furthermore, since when is calling for removal of that barrier a crime? That's all you alleged Thompson did. I seem to remember a right called Free Speech, which is also protected by the Constitutions First Amendment. :D

It's indeed open to interpretation. And you'll notice that never said he commited a crime. Only that what he was suggesting is a crime.

Well you'd better not since you've been wrong again and again. :D

You'll forgive me if I don't find that particularly stinging. :rolleyes:

No, I am on topic. And the ruling of that moderator is being challenged as we speak. The OP specially mentions the
Clintons and DNC using illegal foreign contributions ... so how can any comment about those activities be OFF TOPIC? Hmmmm? And I know why you don't want to discuss that. :D

The title of the thread clearly states "Obama's ILLEGAL Foreign Donors".

You don't care that a person who the Democrats hold in highest regard and who Obama asked to speak at the Democrat Convention was implicated in a major campaign finance illegality? Ever hear the phrase "no controlling authority", KF? And do you not care about anything that happened before your age of majority? Is that the sort of informed voter Obama attracts? :rolleyes:

Of course I care. The problem is I don't care about the Democrats. They're either too liberal or not liberal enough in regards to my political philosophies. So unfortunatly I'm clumped in with that group until America wises up and gets a proper left (and a proper right for that matter). And despite having defended Obama on several occasions I don't recall ever saying he was getting my vote.

[Piggy]

The problem is I don't care about the Democrats. <snip> And despite having defended Obama on several occasions I don't recall ever saying he was getting my vote.

That's the problem with BAC.

(Well, one of many.)

Anyone who disagrees with him, he believes must be a rabid Democrat. Even if we're disagreeing with his methods.

I think BAC is a walking example of the kind of indelible wrongness that arises from the partisan effect (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56008).

[BeAChooser]

And you'll notice that never said he commited a crime. Only that what he was suggesting is a crime.

Well you are wrong about that, too. What he was suggesting in that link you provided (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDA3ODFkNTA4NDM3YWYzMzc0NWQ1NjY4ZjhkZjkwNDI ) is NOT a crime. Because he's talking about legally re-interpreting the Constitution ... i.e., redefining what is considered a crime.


The title of the thread clearly states "Obama's ILLEGAL Foreign Donors".

Since when does the title of the thread constitute the bounds of permissible discussion in a thread? If that's the case, then most of what is posted on this forum is off topic. I believe OP stands for OPENING POST ... not OPENING TITLE.

The problem is I don't care about the Democrats. They're either too liberal or not liberal enough in regards to my political philosophies. So unfortunatly I'm clumped in with that group until America wises up and gets a proper left (and a proper right for that matter).

A lesson in what one can say while saying nothing? :D

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Well you are wrong about that, too. What he was suggesting in that link you provided (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDA3ODFkNTA4NDM3YWYzMzc0NWQ1NjY4ZjhkZjkwNDI ) is NOT a crime. Because he's talking about legally re-interpreting the Constitution ... i.e., redefining what is considered a crime.

And at this point in time would it not be a crime? How about this BAC. Do you think we should remove the barrier between church and state?

Since when does the title of the thread constitute the bounds of permissible discussion in a thread? If that's the case, then most of what is posted on this forum is off topic. I believe OP stands for OPENING POST ... not OPENING TITLE.

The original post only mentions Clinton once, and was clearly off-topic and a red herring argument.

A lesson in what one can say while saying nothing? :D

Ahh; so even when you make a mistake it's others fault?

[Meadmaker]

Well Piggy, I've just asked the moderator to rule on that. :D
Good luck with that.:boggled:

However, let me give a post that is clearly on topic and clearly not a personal attack.

Obama has a web site where people can authorize a charge to a credit card and thereby make a contribution to his campaign. On it, you can fill in personal information, or not. There's also a drop down list of countries you might be from. There's a notice that there is a maximum allowed contribution.

Now, it turns out that some people don't want to get spam or junk mail, so they give false info on the personal information. They might also pull down some other country than the one they live in from the drop down list. Obama and his crew don't really care, as long as the credit card goes through.


Contributors might also go to the site more than once, thus skirting the rules on maximum contributions. I, personally, can't imagine why someone would want to do that, but if it makes them happy, why shouldn't they?

What do you think the Obama campaign's obligation is to prevent those sorts of violations of US campaign law? Are they required to search their campagin contributions to detect multiple charges on the credit cards? Are they required to cross check home addresses? Are they required to ask for proof of citizenship?

They aren't required to do any of those things. The OP is preposterous. How much time and money should a campaign spend vetting their internet contributors? Do you really think there is criminal activity involved by not cross checking credit card approvals to find out if it is likely that someone is using their card extra times?

And what about those Gaza dudes who were among the contributors? The OP asks, "Jihadis donating to Obama from Gaza? Could there be a bigger story?" Yes, there could be, because it's a non-story. Who cares? Even if they really are jihadis, it means some wackos have credit cards, and they like Obama. And? Research by economists (I read it in "Freakonomics") suggests that the influence of money on election results is greatly exaggerated. If indeed those boys were jihadists, I'm glad they gave their money to Obama, instead of doing something "useful" with it.

There just isn't a story here, much as you would like to think there's something worthwhile to it.

[BeAChooser]

Good luck with that.:boggled:

However, let me give a post that is clearly on topic and clearly not a personal attack.

Meadmaker, you were the first to laugh at the statement "We let the Clintons and DNC get away with stealing two elections using illegal foreign contributions." You chose to challenge that instead of sticking to the facts surrounding Obama's campaign contributions. But apparently you changed your mind about wanting to challenge that once you saw I could back up my assertion with sourced facts. Or would you like to join me in asking the moderator to reverse his decision? :D

Obama has a web site where people can authorize a charge to a credit card and thereby make a contribution to his campaign.

Can't one determine the country of origin from the use of a credit card? I know that I'm often asked when I use mine what my billing zip code is. That would tell the Obama's campaign the money was coming from Gaza ... not Georgia.

There's a notice that there is a maximum allowed contribution.

Yes, which makes it curious that the Obama campaign accepted "donations" above the maximum. Wouldn't you say?

Now, it turns out that some people don't want to get spam or junk mail, so they give false info on the personal information.

So maybe donations shouldn't be allowed over the internet unless they are truly verified. Otherwise someone might take advantage of this loophole ... like someone apparently has. Is that what Obama means by *change*?

Obama and his crew don't really care, as long as the credit card goes through.

Well they are supposed to, aren't they? That's why the FEC has been asking about these donations.

Contributors might also go to the site more than once, thus skirting the rules on maximum contributions.

No. As the forms filed with the FEC show, Obama's organization was keeping track of multiple donations from the same people totalling more than the allowed amount. And these Gaza brothers claimed they had Obama ship all their orders to the same address. Did the Obama campaign just have eyes wide shut?

I, personally, can't imagine why someone would want to do that, but if it makes them happy, why shouldn't they?

You see nothing wrong with contributors willfully skirting the rules on maximum contributions? Contributors who aren't even US citizens. See how little Democrats care about the law, folks? Meadmaker, why don't you let them vote too ... multiple times? If it makes them happy ...

What do you think the Obama campaign's obligation is to prevent those sorts of violations of US campaign law?

Yes. They are obligated to do their best to prevent these sorts of violations. If they look the other way knowing these things are going on, they are violating the law. And that applies to either party. But I'll bet you that Democrats have been and are far more serious violators of campaign finance laws.

Are they required to search their campagin contributions to detect multiple charges on the credit cards? Are they required to cross check home addresses? Are they required to ask for proof of citizenship?

If not, they should be.

They aren't required to do any of those things.

Then why is the FEC asking them questions about these donations?

The OP is preposterous.

You are entitled to your OPINION.

How much time and money should a campaign spend vetting their internet contributors?

Well if we don't want 200,000 German citizens and the Hamas organization contributing to Obama's campaign, maybe at least a little effort should be expended doing that. Don't you think?

Do you really think there is criminal activity involved by not cross checking credit card approvals to find out if it is likely that someone is using their card extra times?

They know the rules. Some of these contributions are OBVIOUSLY from bogus sources. You are not allowed to contribute to campaigns in the amounts indicated anonymously. http://www.campaignfinanceguide.org/f-fedcontrib.html states "A candidate or committee receiving an anonymous cash contribution in excess of $50 shall promptly dispose of the amount over $50. The amount over $50 may be used for any lawful purpose UNRELATED to any Federal election, campaign, or candidate." http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml "Anonymous cash contributions may not exceed $50." "more than $200 to a committee, the committee is required to use its best efforts to collect and publicly disclose on a financial report your name, address, occupation and employer". The Obama campaign knew that many of these contributions were anonymous and had not supplied the required information. They didn't come close to using "best efforts". Looks to me like they willfully broke the law because they wanted the money. Just like the Clintons willfully broke the law to get their campaign cash.

Research by economists (I read it in "Freakonomics") suggests that the influence of money on election results is greatly exaggerated.

Well then I don't see why Obama is so eager to get that money. But in any case, I'd call that a red herring, Meadmaker. :D

[ProbeX]

No Piggy, I'm trying to make Obama and the Democrat supporters of Obama look like the hypocrites they are. :D

Too bad you're failing miserably.

[KoihimeNakamura]

You mean "projecting."

[Meadmaker]

"Anonymous cash contributions may not exceed $50."

And this relates to credit card contributions made on a web site...how?


I really don't care if German citizens, or Hamas operatives, or Colombian drug runners are contributing to his campaign.

All a credit card can tell you is a billing address, and that's only if you ask for it. It can't tell you citizenship. It can't even tell you residency. You could find out from the credit card company the address to which the bill is sent.

I am quite confident that both McCain and Obama are receiving donations from foreign citizens via their web sites. It would appear that Obama is receiving more. Who cares? I don't expect candidates to waste time and money investigating those sources and working hard to give it back. They should comply with FEC regulations, which apparently they are, but that's all. I just don't care that foreigners with credit cards seem to think that Obama would be a better President of the United States than McCain. If Obama wins, and someone declares that he "stole" the election with this foreign money, I will respond approrpriately, which is :dl:

The only thing that amazes me is that yesterday you managed to find a thread topic with even less substance than this one.

[BeAChooser]

I really don't care if German citizens, or Hamas operatives, or Colombian drug runners are contributing to his campaign.

:rolleyes: There you have it folks. Out of the mouth of an Obama supporter.

Tell us Obama supporter ...

Do you care if Obama's campaign organization lies to you?

http://www.crossactionnews.com/articles/view/obama-never-returned-gaza-contributions


Obama Never Returned Gaza Contributions

Posted on August 26, 2008

By Pamela Geller

[Redtail]

:rolleyes: There you have it folks. Out of the mouth of an Obama supporter.

Tell us Obama supporter ...

Do you care if Obama's campaign organization lies to you?

http://www.crossactionnews.com/articles/view/obama-never-returned-gaza-contributions

Well since politicians tend to lie (or stretch, bend, pummel the truth) I say no. Having said that I should take Pam's word for it, why?

[Meadmaker]

:rolleyes: There you have it folks. Out of the mouth of an Obama supporter.

Tell us Obama supporter ...

Do you care if Obama's campaign organization lies to you?

http://www.crossactionnews.com/articles/view/obama-never-returned-gaza-contributions

:dl:

For those smart enough to not read the link above, let me summarize.

Some time back, a few guys from Gaza went to Obama's web site, and, 32 separate times, clicked on a link and provided a credit card number to buy a fundraising T-Shirt. They actually tried to do it 97 times, but after 32, some sort of software and/or human intervention figured out that their multiple contributions were skirting US campaign finance law.

The Obama campaign says it gave the money back, but someone named Pam quoted on some site called crossactionnews couldn't find any record of it.

What really got me laughing about the article though, was the indignation at the mainstream media for not looking into it, and the person they cited who refused to look into this scandal was from the Wall Street Journal.

Here's a tip, BAC. The WSJ doesn't like Obama. They know that Obama will raise taxes on much of their readership and all of their advertisers. If there was a story in this that made Obama look bad, they would be all over it.