Friday, July 18, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
GOVERNMENT???
GOVERNMENT
“There’s a weird irony at work when Sen. Barack Obama, the black presidential candidate who will allegedly scrub the stain of racism from the nation, vows to run afoul of the constitutional amendment that abolished slavery. For those who don’t remember, the 13th Amendment says: ‘Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime... shall exist within the United States.’ In Obama’s mind it must be a crime to be born or to attend college. In his speech on national service... at the University of Colorado, Obama promised that as president he would ‘set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year.’ He would see that these goals are met by, among other things, attaching strings to federal education dollars. If you don’t make kids report for duty, he’s essentially telling schools and college kids, you’ll lose money you can’t afford to lose. In short, he’ll make service compulsory by merely compelling schools to make it compulsory. ... This is the problem with national service mania: It seeks to fix what ain’t broke. No, national service isn’t slavery. But it contributes to a slave mentality, at odds with American tradition. It assumes that work not done for the government isn’t really for the ‘common good’.” —Jonah Goldberg
“There’s a weird irony at work when Sen. Barack Obama, the black presidential candidate who will allegedly scrub the stain of racism from the nation, vows to run afoul of the constitutional amendment that abolished slavery. For those who don’t remember, the 13th Amendment says: ‘Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime... shall exist within the United States.’ In Obama’s mind it must be a crime to be born or to attend college. In his speech on national service... at the University of Colorado, Obama promised that as president he would ‘set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year.’ He would see that these goals are met by, among other things, attaching strings to federal education dollars. If you don’t make kids report for duty, he’s essentially telling schools and college kids, you’ll lose money you can’t afford to lose. In short, he’ll make service compulsory by merely compelling schools to make it compulsory. ... This is the problem with national service mania: It seeks to fix what ain’t broke. No, national service isn’t slavery. But it contributes to a slave mentality, at odds with American tradition. It assumes that work not done for the government isn’t really for the ‘common good’.” —Jonah Goldberg
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Hussein Obama's Finances
The New York Times is certainly not a right wing group. Even their own investigation supports
the theory that enemies may have planted
one of their own in position
to be president.
Clearly, some of his money is coming from overseas -- Obama is being financed by enemies of America...
Obama's Troubling Financing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
by Maureen Dowd
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obama's campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obama's internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history – and this was all from the internet campaign. What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldn't be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that can't be broken and no ethics that prevail. Obama's internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites. Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results. Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were 'programmed' by a very sophisticated user. While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers.
The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia. Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges. It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws. It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway. This is a shocking revelation. We have been concerned about the legality of 'bundling' contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem. I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so. If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen? I believe the Obama campaign's internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising need investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws, but the spirit as well.
June 29, 2008
© 2008 -- The New York Times
the theory that enemies may have planted
one of their own in position
to be president.
Clearly, some of his money is coming from overseas -- Obama is being financed by enemies of America...
Obama's Troubling Financing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
by Maureen Dowd
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obama's campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obama's internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history – and this was all from the internet campaign. What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldn't be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that can't be broken and no ethics that prevail. Obama's internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites. Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results. Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were 'programmed' by a very sophisticated user. While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers.
The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia. Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges. It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws. It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway. This is a shocking revelation. We have been concerned about the legality of 'bundling' contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem. I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so. If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen? I believe the Obama campaign's internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising need investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws, but the spirit as well.
June 29, 2008
© 2008 -- The New York Times
Finally...........A Night Out At The Comfort Zone and....
...........NO RAIN, but there wasn't anyone there??? WTF???
Monday, July 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)