Obama receives illegal funds from 'terrorist hotbed' Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 8/6/2008
Barack Obama According to Federal Election Commission filings, Barack Obama has received illegal donations from Palestinians living in Gaza, a hotbed of Hamas terrorists.
Obama received more than $24,000 in campaign contributions over a period of two months last fall from three Palestinian brothers from the "Edwan" family in Rafah, Gaza, which is a Hamas stronghold along the border with Egypt. The story was uncovered by Pamela Geller of the Atlas Shrugs blog. (see Federal Election Commission report)
Attorney and conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel notes foreign nationals are barred from making contributions in connection with any election -- federal, state, or local -- and an individual is allowed to give only $2,300 per election to a federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.
"The donations are basically through and through illegal -- that's number one. And number two is how the Obama campaign tried to conceal it," Schlussel Terrorist with hostagechides. "They listed the campaign contributions as coming from Rafah, Georgia. They used the 'GA' from Gaza so it makes it look like it's legal; and then for the zip code it says '972,' which is actually the area code to dial over to Gaza," she contends.
The attorney comments that if the Obama campaign is willing to "accept thousands of dollars beyond the legal limit and they're also going to flout [Federal Election Commission] restrictions...that's very indicative of what kind of president [Obama] is going to be."
"They're not going to be worried about the details and they won't mind if they break the law to get to the final result that they want," adds Schlussel. She believes it is a "major news story when a presidential candidate receives money from 'a bastion of Islamic terrorism.' And Schlussel argues that the media is "bending over backwards to help Barack Obama and cover up any negative news about him."
Schlussel says Pamela Geller will likely file a Federal Election Commission complaint against the Obama campaign for violating restrictions and limits on campaign contributions.
I voted for Barack Obama in the primaries and I still think he is the best candidate for the Democratic Party. I didn’t vote for Hillary because she always seems to say what she thinks the audience wants to hear. Has Obama become just another politician? He says one thing today, then tomorrow says that is not what he said. He also seems to be distorting the facts. Last week Mr. Obama criticized John McCain for taking a page out of Vice President Cheney’s playbook on energy. He mentioned that Big Oil has contributed $2 million to the McCain campaign. He failed to mention that Big Oil has contributed $400,000 to his own campaign and that he voted for a Bush-sponsored energy bill that McCain voted against. I am becoming more and more impressed with McCain. He continues to state his platform objectives even when some are not popular. He has modified some of his thinking but has been able to explain why he changed direction based on current events, not political expediency. He may not be an eloquent speaker but he is factual and well prepared to be president. Based on this week’s polls, it seems the American public is also doing their homework. PAUL H. FINNEGAN Delanson
If you listen to what Obama says from speech he is no different than Hillary in saying what he thinks people want to hear. He tries to explain his changes in his platform from day to day by telling us that his ideas are evolving as he learns more about any issue. He needs to spend a lot more time in the Senate b4 he runs for an office like that of the President.
A new left-wing organization that wants to help elect Barack Obama president is sending letters to nearly 10,000 major donors who contribute to Republican causes, threatening them with potential legal problems if they finance conservative groups.
The nonprofit organization, Accountable America, is even offering a $100,000 reward for information that leads to the criminal conviction or fines of at least $10,000 for violations of campaign finance laws or other statutes by a conservative group, according to The New York Times.
Accountable America is led by Tom Matzzie, former Washington director of the liberal activist group MoveOn.org, and its research director is Judd Legum, who served that role in Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Matzzie called the organization’s effort “going for the jugular.” He told The Times, "We want to stop the Swift Boating before it gets off the ground.”
The warning letter being sent to potential donors “is intended as a first step, alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives,” The Times reports.
If a conservative group do run ads attacking Obama, Matzzie says his group plans to run ads countering it exposing the donors behind the anti-Obama message.
Matzzie’s group has so far raised only $200,000, but he said he hopes to raise more than $500,000 by next week and $2 million overall.
Republican strategist Chris LaCivita doubts the group will succeed in scaring off donors, saying “they’re not going to be intimidated by some pipsqueak on the kooky left.”
Matzzie previously headed the Campaign to Defend America, which has run ads against Republican presidential candidate John McCain in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Since I identify with the people who fall into Barrack Obama's elitist description about of people of faith who keep firearms I'm not very happy with Barrack Obama's recent remarks.
He said something to the effect that us rednecks cling to our guns and our religion when we get frustrated and I would like to take umbrage to these remarks. My faith goes much deeper than his superficial explanation and I love my guns even when I'm not frustrated.
And I am not by myself. I was going to church and shooting guns before Mr. Obama was even born and come from a long line of good people who have been doing it for generations.
To me this latest Obama blunder only helps reveal the depth of condescension the far left wing of the Democrat party has for the folks out here in flyover country.
Mr. Obama's remarks are insulting to a lot of folks. It's kind of like Abraham Lincoln said, "God must love the common people because he made so many of them".
His remarks make me think that Obama doesn't know the people of this country very well. I'm sure he knows the jet set and the Hollywood bunch, the limousine liberals and the save the whales, kill the babies crowd, but does he think that the ordinary people don't count? Does he think that they're so stupid that they don't know who he's talking about when he says these things? Does he think their opinions aren't important? Apparently.
How can a man stand in front of America and tell people what he wants to do for them and have so little respect for a whole segment of the population. In fact, a very large segment. Does that mean that he would only represent the high-minded liberal ideals of the far left and ignore the rest of us?
What kind of Commander and Chief would he make if he doesn't respect the very people who make up the lion's share of the armed forces.
You may say I'm over reacting, but I'm getting sick and tired of him making these elitist statements and saying that he had been taken out of context or some other flimsy excuse.
After his wife's remark about not being proud of this country and his pastor's statements calling America the U.S.K.K.K.A. and his own statement about not wanting his daughter punished with a baby, it makes me wonder what kind of a man Obama really is and what kind of a president he'd make.
Would he be an antigun advocate pushing the effort to take the firearms out of innocent citizen's hands? Would he not respect the religious beliefs of America, not taking them into account in his agenda?
I really don't know much about the man and neither does America. He basically came from out of nowhere and as the facts come out little by little, they don't make a particularly confident picture.
I have a great fear that if our military gets broken by another president, this time we're not going to have time to fix it again and what that spells for America, I don't even want to contemplate.
Oh well, I guess I'll grab my gun and go to church.
Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. Mona Charen
Hillary Clinton’s best anti-Obama ad came to be known as the “3 a.m. phone call.” It stoked voter worries that in the event of an international crisis, the fi rstterm junior senator from Illinois might be out of his depth. On Aug. 8, the White House phone did ring, alerting President Bush that the Soviet Union, um, that is, Russia, had just sent columns of tanks and armored personnel carriers across the internationally recognized border of Georgia (formerly the Soviet Socialist Republic of Georgia), a tiny, democratic, America-friendly, Western-leaning country in the Caucasus mountains. It was a near perfect laboratory test — the sort that real life rarely provides until it’s too late — for how the two nominees for president would respond to an international emergency. (It also tested the current president — more on that in a moment.) Sen. Obama flunked. His first response was to urge restraint upon “both sides” — that is upon the rapist and the rape victim. A couple of days later, Obama strengthened his condemnation of the Russians (and withdrew his admonition to the Georgians), but then betrayed the soft, weak reflexes that characterize the leftist wing of the Democratic Party to which he belongs. The answer to this blatant and brutal violation of Georgian sovereignty was to — anyone? — alert the United Nations. “The United States, Europe and all other concerned countries must stand united in condemning this aggression, and seeking a peaceful resolution to this crisis,” Obama said in a statement. “We should continue to push for a United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate end to the violence. This is a clear violation of the sovereignty and internationally recognized borders of Georgia — the U.N. must stand up for the sovereignty of its members, and peace in the world.” Well, yes, and lions should lie down with lambs, but back in the real world, the United Nations has never been able to stop a conflict the parties did not wish to suspend. And since Russia holds a veto, no resolution from the Security Council would be possible. As Claudia Rosett of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies put it: “U.N. mediators can’t even protect the dissident monks of Burma or the opposition in Zimbabwe, let alone a small country trying to fight off single-handed an invasion by the Russian army.” Sen. McCain’s response was more muscular. He condemned Russia and urged her to “immediately and unconditionally cease . . . military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory . . . The consequences of Euro-Atlantic stability and security are grave.” McCain urged the U.N. Security Council to meet on the matter, but strengthened the point by adding that the “US should immediately work with the E.U. and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course that it has chosen,” and, “We should immediately call a meeting of the North Atlantic Council to assess Georgia’s security and review measures NATO can take to contribute to stabilizing this very dangerous situation.” Later, McCain also urged that the U.S. convene “an emergency meeting of the G-7 foreign ministers” and offered the view that Russia was seeking more than the independence of South Ossetia, but was instead looking to overthrow the democratically elected government of Mikheil Saakashvili. His use of the term G-7 was signifi cant, since it presaged his later call to throw Russia out of the group that has become the G-8. Noting that Georgia is home to the only oil pipeline that feeds Caspian oil to the west outside of Russian territory or control, he warned, “We must remind Russia’s leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world.” President Bush was slow off the mark. The image of him chatting up Vladimir Putin in Beijing while Russian tanks were crashing into Georgia (population 4.5 million) was not helpful. Perhaps President Bush has a slow fuse. It required a day or two for him to get his footing after Sept. 11. But now, finally, he has decided to send Condoleezza Rice to confer with Nicolas Sarkozy and then on to Tbilisi to show the flag. The humanitarian airlift, with its clear echoes of the Berlin airlift of 1948, is a bracing substantive and public relations move. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Russians are permitting their Ossetian allies to burn villages, loot, and rob. The Russian soldiers are helping themselves as well. “The whole city is full of marauders,” said one eyewitness who fled Gori. “Who in the world is going to help us?” wailed one distraught woman, who then answered her own question by sobbing, “Nobody cares.” Americans had already expressed misgivings about Barack Obama’s preparedness for the harsh world we inhabit. This laboratory test can only increase that anxiety.
Now, isn't this the same policy that gutted our defenses that Mr. Bill Clinton had when he was in the White House, eventually leading to the attacks on America on September 11, 2001?
What world does Obama live in? Or has he just been in a self induced coma for the last decade? The fact is that we live in a dangerous world. And Ireally don't think Obama is anywhere near capable of handling these dangerous worldly issues.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Constitutional Scholar Obama Questions Legality of Slavery Ban
by Ann Coulter (more by this author) Posted 08/20/2008 ET Updated 08/20/2008 ET
This week, Barack Obama's challenge is to select a running mate who's young, hip, and whose accomplishments in life don't overshadow Obama's. Allow me to suggest Kevin Federline.
The only thing we can be sure of is that Obama will choose someone who is the polar opposite of all his advisers until now. In other words, it will be a very, very white male who was probably proud of his country even before being chosen as Obama's running mate.
Obama's got a lot of ground to make up following that performance last weekend at the Saddleback presidential forum with pastor Rick Warren.
After seeing Obama defend infanticide with the glib excuse that the question of when life begins is above his "pay-grade," Rev. Jeremiah Wright announced that although he's known Obama for 30 years, he only recently became aware of how extreme the senator's viewpoints were. Wright, after all, has his reputation to consider.
Network heads responded by dashing off an urgent memo: During the main presidential debates this fall, ask NO questions about abortion, ethics or evil! Morality isn't the Democrats' forte.
Obama's defenders spin his abominable performance in the Saddleback forum by saying he's just too smart to give a straight answer. As Rick Warren charitably described Obama's debate performance: "He likes to nuance things ... He's a constitutional attorney." The constitutional lawyer "does nuance," as Bill Maher said on "Larry King Live," "and you saw how well that goes over with the Rick Warren people."
If that's Obama's excuse, he ought to know a few basics about the Constitution.
Did the big constitutional lawyer whose "nuance" is too sophisticated for Rick Warren's audience see the letter his wife sent out on his behalf in 2004? Michelle Obama denounced a federal law banning partial-birth abortion, writing that "this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional." Clearly!
The Supreme Court later found the law not "unconstitutional," but "constitutional" -- which I believe may have been the precise moment when Michelle Obama realized just how ashamed she had always been of her country.
But most stunningly, when Warren asked Obama if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not "because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution."
I don't care if you support a marriage amendment or not. That answer is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say. If marriage were already defined in the Constitution, we wouldn't need an amendment, no?
Say, you know what else was "historically" not defined in the Constitution? Slavery. The words "slavery" and "slave" do not appear once in the original Constitution. The framers correctly thought it would sully the freedom-enshrining document to acknowledge the repellent practice. (Much like abortion!)
But in 1865, the 13th Amendment banned slavery throughout the land, in the first constitutional phrase ever to mention "slavery": "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
On Obama's "historical" argument, they shouldn't have passed the 13th Amendment because the Constitution "historically" had not mentioned slavery.
Do we know for a fact Barack Obama has read the Constitution? Obama's Facebook profile: "I'm pro-infanticide, I love sunsets, and I don't get the 13th Amendment!"
This is the guy who thinks he can condescend to Clarence Thomas? Asked at the Saddleback forum which Supreme Court justice Obama would not have nominated, Obama said ... the black one!
In Obama's defense, he said he thought Thomas wasn't experienced enough "at the time." So I guess Obama thinks Thomas should have to "wait his turn."
By contrast, Obama has experience pouring out of those big ears of his. Asked last year by Robin Roberts on ABC's "Good Morning America" about his lack of experience in foreign policy, Obama took umbrage.
Swelling up his puny little chest, Obama said: "Well, actually, my experience in foreign policy is probably more diverse than most others in the field. I'm somebody who has actually lived overseas, somebody who has studied overseas. I majored in international relations."
He actually cited his undergraduate major as a qualification to be president.
But on Saturday night, Obama said he didn't think Clarence Thomas was a "strong enough jurist or legal thinker" to be put on the Supreme Court.
Logged
