Apr 4, 2012 Political
Barack Obama claimed his regime would be the most transparent in history. Why, we would be able to see through it all because he would hide nothing from us.
Then, of course, he set about hiding things. He is not transparent and he does the very things that he scolded George Bush for.
Hell, he even threw in the individual mandate after chiding Hillary Clinton about how it was wrong during the Democrat Primary in 2008.
But I might have to change my mind about Obama’s transparency. Barack Obama is so transparent that anyone can donate to his campaign.
Barack Obama’s donation page is not set up with the usual security that helps to prevent people from illegally donating money to his campaign. He did the same thing in 2008 and it is believed (and documented by some web sites such as Atlas Shrugs) that illegal donations flowed freely into his campaign.
The same thing is happening now.
As reported here, the campaign takes illegal donations and people are demonstrating how easy it is. How much more of a flag does one need than the name Illegal Contributor? How much more of a flag does one need than having an address as the State Penitentiary? If the website used the credit card verification code (like the Republican’s sites do) then this donation would have been flagged as potentially illegal. The code would not have matched the address.
But Obama does not want illegal donations stopped. If they do not flow into his campaign he will not be able to get huge sums of money from illegal donors both here and overseas.
Practically all of us know how the Democrat media would be playing this if a Republican were getting illegal donations and did not have security in place. The cries would be heard around the world.
Obama, who was an alleged Constitutional Law professor, excoriated the Supreme Court during one of his State of the Union Addresses. It involved their decision on campaign contributions and Obama was not happy with it.
Isn’t it amazing that the same Democrats who scream about unlimited donations have no problem with allowing unlimited illegal donations to flow into the Obama campaign?
Let me decipher. What Obama was saying when he railed against that decision was; hey, we don’t like the idea that you allowed everyone to receive as much money as we do. How dare you level the playing field?
The case Obama did not like was Citizens United.
In November the citizens are going to unite to send Mr. Transparency packing.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jan 14, 2008 Political
Chelsea Clinton works for a hedge fund that was established by friends and supporters of her mother. It is not a stretch to say that the job was a gift to the Clinton family. I don’t begrudge the girl work but I have to ask if she is part of the problem that plagues this country right now?
Chelsea Clinton is taking time off from her job with Avenue Capital Group, a New York hedge fund, to promote the campaign of her mother, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), for the Democratic presidential nomination. The Stanford Daily
John Edwards went after hedge funds and their tax structure but he was associated with one. Hedge funds have been blamed for fueling problems in the sub prime housing markets leading to record foreclosures. Is Chelsea, the daughter of the people’s champion, helping to cause the problems for those who cannot afford their houses?
Another question. Is Chelsea receiving her salary during this time off? If the company is paying her to go around and campaign for her mother, isn’t that a campaign contribution? Is it a violation of FEC rules?
Dec 19, 2007 Political
Hillary Clinton has had a bit of trouble with the honesty of her fund raising as indicated by a boy named Hsu as well as other events where she was illegally involved in the process (which was caught on video tape). The Federal Elections Commission has been pretty soft on her by fining one of her cronies for past indiscretions and a federal judge appointed by her husband might be looking the other way on the video tape deal but now it looks like it will not matter.
Harry Reid has decided to violate the Constitution and not allow a vote on four FEC appointments if they include a man named Hans von Spakovsky. Reid has stated that if von Spakovsky’s name is in the mix the Senate will not consider any of the nominees. The job of the President is to nominate people with the advice and consent of the Senate. It is not the Senate’s job to decide on who they will and will not vote on, it is its job to advise and consent. If they do not like the nominee then they are free to vote against the conformation.
This is an issue that will not likely be resolved in the near future and certainly not before the early primary caucuses and elections in January. This means that the candidates will have little or no oversight from the FEC. We have already seen what the Clintons do when there is oversight so it is not hard to imagine what they would be capable of if the oversight is lacking.
The Democrats in Congress have been an abysmal failure and there are only two reasons they just passed spending bills. They do not want to go home without passing the bills because they criticized the Republican majority for doing so last year and they just want to go home and enjoy their month long Christmas vacation. Harry Reid is an absolute failure and he could not lead a group of people out of a burning building.
Our Senators need to remember their place and do their damned jobs. The President runs the country. Senators serve their states so Harry Reid is not in a position to dictate the way the country runs and he is certainly not in a position to violate the Constitution because he does not like a person the President has nominated.