The dishonesty of Obama & the Democrats on the Chamber of Commerce

[Soul Crusher]

Did anyone see that marxist Alinskyite screaming yesterday about the Chamber of commerce donations from foreign sources?

Well - does this jerk think we don't remember his own record?  

If you clowns who fall for this Alinsky tactic out of Rules for Radicals - let me remind you of Obama's own record.


 
________________________ ________________________

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations
Contributions Reviewed After Deposits

By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 29, 2008



Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.

In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama's accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.

The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.

"They have opened the floodgates to all this money coming in," said Sean Cairncross, chief counsel to the Republican National Committee. "I think they've made the determination that whatever money they have to refund on the back end doesn't outweigh the benefit of taking all this money upfront."

The Obama campaign has shattered presidential fundraising records, in part by capitalizing on the ease of online giving. Of the $150 million the senator from Illinois raised in September, nearly $100 million came in over the Internet.

Lawyers for the Obama operation said yesterday that their "extensive back-end review" has carefully scrubbed contributions to prevent illegal money from entering the operation's war chest. "I'm pretty sure if I took my error rate and matched it against any other campaign or comparable nonprofit, you'd find we're doing very well," said Robert Bauer, a lawyer for the campaign. "I have not seen the McCain compliance staff ascending to heaven on a cloud."

The Obama team's disclosures came in response to questions from The Washington Post about the case of Mary T. Biskup, a retired insurance manager from Manchester, Mo., who turned up on Obama's FEC reports as having donated $174,800 to the campaign. Contributors are limited to giving $2,300 for the general election.

Biskup, who had scores of Obama contributions attributed to her, said in an interview that she never donated to the candidate. "That's an error," she said. Moreover, she added, her credit card was never billed for the donations, meaning someone appropriated her name and made the contributions with another card.

When asked whether the campaign takes steps to verify whether a donor's name matches the name on the credit card used to make a payment, Obama's campaign replied in an e-mail: "Name-matching is not a standard check conducted or made available in the credit card processing industry. We believe Visa and MasterCard do not even have the ability to do this.

"Instead, the campaign does a rigorous comprehensive analysis of online contributions on the back end of the transaction to determine whether a contribution is legitimate."

Juan Proaño, whose technology firm handled online contributions for John Edwards's presidential primary campaign, and for John F. Kerry's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2004, said it is possible to require donors' names and addresses to match those on their credit card accounts. But, he said, some campaigns are reluctant to impose that extra layer of security.

"Honestly, you want to have the least amount of hurdles in processing contributions quickly," Proaño said.

Sen. John McCain's campaign has also had questionable donations slip through.

Dan Pfeiffer, Obama's communication's director, said that "no organization can fully insulate itself from these problems. The McCain campaign has accepted contributions from fraudulent contributors like 'A for You,' 'Adorable Manabat,' 'The Gun Shop,' and 'Jesus II' and hundreds of anonymous donors."

But R. Rebecca Donatelli, who handles online contributions for the McCain operation and the RNC, said security measures have been standard in the GOP nominee's fundraising efforts throughout the campaign. She said she was "flabbergasted" to learn that the Obama campaign accepts prepaid cards.

"Yes, a gift card would go through the same process as a regular credit card and be subject to our same back-end review," the Obama campaign said in its response to questions about the use of such cards.

Campaign finance lawyers said there is a long history of debate within the FEC about how to ensure that donors use their own credit cards.

Election lawyer Brett Kappel said the FEC has never grappled with the question of cash cards. "The whole system is set up for them to accept the payment, then determine whether it is legal or not. And if it's not, send it back. That's what the statute requires," he said.

[Soul Crusher]

I want blacken, 240, mons, baygmb, straw, hugo garebear, to explain this. 

[dario73]

Rove, Gillespie Slam Obama for Spreading 'Baseless Lie' Over Foreign Contributions

Published October 10, 2010

Two top Republicans lit into President Obama and the Democratic Party Sunday over accusations that the GOP strategists and the Chamber of Commerce were using foreign contributions to influence the election, calling the claim a "baseless lie" and accusing the president of "abuse of power."

Karl Rove, a Fox News contributor, said on "Fox News Sunday" that the president had gone too far.

"Have these people no shame? Does the president of the United States have such little regard for the office that he holds that he goes out there and makes these kind of baseless charges against his political enemies?" Rove said. "This is just beyond the pale. How dare the president do this."

Rove was referring to a series of charges that have been leveled over the past week. Obama first said at a rally in Maryland Thursday that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which he referred to without mentioning by name, was paying for ads against Democrats while taking money from "foreign corporations."

"So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won't tell you where the money for their ads come from," Obama said.

Then Obama twice mentioned Rove by name at an Illinois rally, saying "two groups funded and advised by Karl Rove have outspent the Democratic Party 2 to1 in an attempt to beat" Democratic Senate nominee Alexi Giannoulias.

Then the Democratic National Committee rolled out an ad accusing Rove, former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie and the Chamber of Commerce of "stealing our democracy."

The ad accuses them of "spending millions from secret donors to elect Republicans to do their bidding in Congress," adding: "It appears they've even taking secret foreign money to influence our elections."

Rove and Gillespie helped found the political group American Crossroads; Rove also helped found Crossroads GPS.

But Rove said those groups raise money legally, that it's "inaccurate" to say he's personally writing out checks to the groups and that American Crossroads reports its donors. In a heated retort, Rove said Sunday that the DNC ad effectively accused them all of a criminal violation of U.S. law -- only without proof.

"They have not one shred of evidence to back up that baseless lie. This is a desperate and I think disturbing trend by the president of the United States to tar his political adversaries with some kind of, you know, enemies list unrestrained by any facts or evidence whatsoever," Rove said.

The Chamber of Commerce accusation apparently stemmed from a report last week by the Center for American Progress-affiliated Think Progress. The report claimed the Chamber was generating hundreds of thousands of dollars in foreign money every year and questioned whether those funds were going toward its multimillion-dollar political operations.

But the Chamber adamantly denies this, saying foreign money is separated from its U.S. political activity. The Chamber said in a statement Sunday that the DNC ad is "ridiculous and false." Rove also said the White House cannot back up its accusation.

Asked about the charge, White House senior adviser David Axelrod put the onus on groups like the Chamber of Commerce to prove foreign money is not influencing the election.

"No one knows where the money's coming from," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "Why not simply disclose where this money is from and then all these questions will be answered?"

But Gillespie said the idea that the White House could lob charges and then leave it up to the accused to refute them is an "unbelievable mentality."

"David Axelrod is either woefully uninformed or willfully deceptive and dishonest," Gillespie said.

He said Obama was basing his original charge off a report from a group, the Center for American Progress, "that does not disclose its donors."

"This is the kind of abuse of power in a lot of ways ... that most Americans are rejecting," Gillespie said.

[dario73]

I hope Obama and the DNC provide proof to support their accusation. Because if they don't, this could potentially turn those close races in favor of Republicans.

[Soul Crusher]

This is right out of alinsky's play book.  I think it was rule 12 or 13 for that matter. 

[BM OUT]

Ha,ha,ha Im sure the American people are riveted to their televisions with this story.Its certainly much more important then a president who hasnt had one month where jobs were created.Talk about being out of touch.See you in Nov. Imam Obama.

[Soul Crusher]

October 11, 2010
Democrats' attack ad sets new low for midterm mud
www.baltimoresun.com


________________________ ________________________ __


Check out this new ad from the Democratic National Committee. I am sure we are nowhere near touching bottom on the level to which these attack ads will sink by Nov.2, but this is a new low so far into the midterm battle.

Here is what's so appalling to me: The ad makes the totally unsubstantiated charge that the Chamber of Commerce is taking money from foreign interests and using it to "steal our democracy." And worse, President Obama is out on the campaign trail, according to the New York Times, creating an echo chamber by making the same reckless claims just as the ad hits the airwaves. And when CBS newsman Bob Schieffer Sunday asks David Axelrod if there is any proof for the claim, the senior Obama aide says they don't need proof -- it's up to the Chamber of Commerce to prove it isn't true.

The Democratic National Commitee is using the same sort of tactic and logic that Sen. Joe McCarthy used in the 1950s: Level a headline-grabbing and unsubstantiated charge, like the State Department is filled with communists, and then say it is up to the State Department and the employees so charged to prove it is not true.

So much for hope and change; this is the politics of fear, slander and divisiveness on the eve of an election that looks as if it could deliver a damning verdict on the first two years of the Obama administration.

And check out the woman being mugged in the parking garage. By the visual logic of this ad, Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie are the muggers.

What do you think of the mugging in the parking garage? is this not a direct appeal to fear?

Please, don't take my word for what was said on the campaign trail and Sunday morning shows. Click on the link in this piece to the New York Times and read today's story recounting Obama's words and the assertation by Axelrod and a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee that they have no obligation to produce evidence for the claim that the Chamber of Commerce is taking money from foreign interests and using it to "steal our democracy" and "influence elections."

And this admninistration, with this attitude toward unsubstantiated charges and standards of proof, wants to control the press and determine whether a news organization should or should not be considered legitimate.

[Soul Crusher]

Skip to comments.

Obama's Chamber Smear Is Business As Usual
davidlimbaugh.com ^ | 10/11/10 | david limbaugh




The most noteworthy aspect of President Barack Obama's slander of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for allegedly "stealing our democracy" by laundering foreign corporate donations is that such disgraceful behavior is par for the course for this self-described post-partisan president.

It is a mistake to believe that he was making a mistake. The baseless charge was calculated and part of the Alinskyite strategy he and his thuggish team have used in virtually every political battle. That's all they know.

They pick, isolate and demonize targets instead of debating the merits of their policy agenda items. We saw this approach on cap and trade, the stimulus bill, Obamacare and the financial reform bill, and now they're using it for the upcoming elections.

They throw out damaging allegations knowing they're untrue and doggedly pursue them even when their hand is called. In the case of the chamber smear, CBS' Bob Schieffer challenged Obama's senior adviser David Axelrod to substantiate the administration's claim. He said, "Mr. Axelrod ... do you have any evidence that it's anything other than peanuts?"

Axelrod, displaying the signature arrogance of the administration, didn't even bother to offer anything concrete. He said, "Well, do you have any evidence that it's not, Bob?"


(Excerpt) Read more at davidlimbaugh.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Question - why attack the Chamber of Commerce at a time when we need more jobs and business? 


Is this not the most insane thing you have ever seen? 

[MCWAY]

I want blacken, 240, mons, baygmb, straw, hugo garebear, to explain this. 

Team Kneepadder (except for Hugo)? Good luck with that one

[Soul Crusher]

Team Kneepadder (except for Hugo)? Good luck with that one

How on earth can anyone think its ok to attack the Chamber of commerce based on lies at a time like this? 

[Kazan]

Question - why attack the Chamber of Commerce at a time when we need more jobs and business? 


Is this not the most insane thing you have ever seen? 

Because its text book lib bullshit, attack and try to marginalize anyone or anything that is a threat to your "agenda"

[Soul Crusher]

Because its text book lib bullshit, attack and try to marginalize anyone or anything that is a threat to your "agenda"

[GigantorX]

They have no proof. Period. But the accusation is what counts in this case.

[Soul Crusher]

They have no proof. Period. But the accusation is what counts in this case.

Chamber came out and said its complete nosense.  WTF is wrong with this Admn?  Attacking business for something he did himself in order to get elected?

WTF?   

[Kazan]

Chamber came out and said its complete nosense.  WTF is wrong with this Admn?  Attacking business for something he did himself in order to get elected?

WTF?   

More lib crap, you don't need proof all you have to do is make sure the accusation gets out there. Shit will be all over the front page, then in a week the retraction will be on the bottom of page 26. Its all about the headline, and the libs will be all over it as the gospel truth, like flies on shit.

[Soul Crusher]

Democrats have raised $1 million from foreign-affiliated PACs
The Hill ^ | Oct. 17, 2010 | Michael O'Brien and Hayleigh Colombo

________________________ ____


Democratic leaders in the House and Senate criticizing GOP groups for allegedly funneling foreign money into campaign ads have seen their party raise more than $1 million from political action committees affiliated with foreign companies.

House and Senate Democrats have received approximately $1.02 million this cycle from such PACs, according to an analysis compiled for The Hill by the Center for Responsive Politics. House and Senate GOP leaders have taken almost $510,000 from PACs on the same list.

The PACS are funded entirely by contributions from U.S. employees of subsidiaries of foreign companies. All of the contributions are made public under Federal Elections Commission rules, and the PACs affiliated with the subsidiaries of foreign corporations are governed by the same rules that American firms' PACs or other PACs would face.

"This is not foreign money per-se, but these PACs are certainly populated by people who work for foreign companies," said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics.

“Foreign companies and foreign governments can lobby Congress, and that is probably one area where they have a measurable effect on politics,” Levinthal explained. “Foreign-subsidiary political action committees is about as close as you can get.”


(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate criticizing GOP groups for allegedly funneling foreign money into campaign ads have seen their party raise more than $1 million from political action committees affiliated with foreign companies.

______________________

Do you guys understand why most people just are revolted by everything coming from Obama and the dems lately?

[Soul Crusher]

October 15, 2010
The Democratic 'D' Now Stands for Demagoguery
By Michael Barone
www.realclearpolitics.co m

________________________ ____________________


I've been in campaign meetings. Sometimes the atmosphere is grim. Your side is down, and you're looking to turn things around.

The pollster goes down the list of issues tested. Health care? Nope. They hate your stand on that. The economy? Thumbs down. Foreign policy? Nobody cares anymore.

 Receive news alerts

Sign Up   
Michael Barone RealClearPolitics
Barack Obama Arthur Brooks

USD President 
assistant the New York Times
The Washington Post Supreme Court

• More

 
Then, finally, something that works. An assistant at the polling shop throws in a question about campaign contributions by foreigners. Turns out most voters don't like them. They don't think it's an important issue, but, hey, nothing else works. So let's go with it.

This or something like it seems to have taken place at Team Obama Central sometime in the past few weeks.

Back in January, the president attacked the Supreme Court for ruling that corporations and unions have First Amendment speech rights and pointed to the possibility that foreigners might try to influence American election outcomes. Now he and his spokesmen on the campaign trail and on Sunday interview programs are charging that outfits like the Chamber of Commerce are smuggling foreign money into the campaign.

Their evidence? Well, there isn't much, as even The New York Times, The Washington Post and factcheck.org agree.

The smoking gun? The Chamber of Commerce collects $100,000 in membership dues from foreigners out of a $200,000,000 operating budget and spends some of that budget on campaign ads. But Obama uberadviser David Axelrod says it's up to the chamber to prove it's innocent.

There are a couple of odd things here. One is that the 2008 Obama campaign, by deliberately not using the address verification software most enterprises use to determine it's really your credit card, took in a lot more illegal foreign money than its rivals. The Obama folks may be projecting their own sins on their opponents.

The other is that this charge of foreign money doesn't fit into any familiar political narrative. At least when the Obamaites attack evil rich people, some voters think of 19th-century caricatures of fat cats (and ignore the fact that Obama carried voters with incomes over $200,000 in 2008).

But who are these evil foreigners who are trying to inject their dirty money into American campaigns? The guys who got the jobs that were supposedly outsourced from Youngstown, Ohio? Americans who gave up their citizenship to avoid taxes? James Bond villains like Auric Goldfinger?

I seem to remember that it was candidate Barack Obama (not John McCain or Hillary Clinton) who gave a big election year speech in the Tiergarten in Berlin. It was Obama cheerleaders who told us that foreigners would love us once again if we sent George W. Bush back to Texas and installed their multicultural champion in the White House.

Back in 2008, we were supposed to vote for the candidate foreigners loved. Now, in 2010, we are supposed to vote against the party foreigners support.

You can be pretty sure that this is not where the Obama Democrats wanted or expected to be three weeks before the 2010 election. They operated on the assumption that history is a story of progress from no government to big government and that American voters would be grateful for little bits of economic redistribution, like the $400 tax rebate in the 2009 stimulus package.

But as Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute (where I'm a resident fellow), points out in his book "The Battle," happiness does not increase in proportion to dollars taken in. Lottery winners are happier for a few months, then go back to feeling the way they did before.

What makes us happy, Brooks argues, is earned success, often in the form of money we think we've fairly earned, but also satisfaction from fulfilling family and personal responsibilities or performing community service.

Obamanomics hasn't resulted in much earned success, and Obamacare doesn't seem likely to, either. The chief talking point on the latter seems to be that you can stay on your mommy and daddy's health insurance until you're 26.

Last month, Barack Obama took to saying that D (Democratic) stood for Drive and R (Republican) stood for Reverse: shorthand for his notion that history inevitably and correctly moves left. Focus groups and polls showed that didn't work.

So now we have the issue of supposed foreign contributors to Republican campaigns. It looks like D stands for demagoguery and desperation.

[Soul Crusher]

So now he wants to suck up after the elections? 

WTF?

________________________ ________________________ __


Main Content
President Obama plans truce with Chamber of Commerce
President Obama's talk marks a dramatic rapprochement between the Chamber and the White House. | AP Photo
CloseBy MIKE ALLEN | 11/20/10 5:16 PM EST


Moving to repair a deep rift with leading CEOs, President Barack Obama plans to speak at a U.S. Chamber of Commerce event next month and the two sides are trying to work out details, White House and Chamber officials said Saturday.

The talks mark a dramatic rapprochement between the Chamber, which spent tens of millions of dollars in the midterm election to defeat Democrats, and the president, who openly criticized the “world’s largest business federation” for accepting contributions from undisclosed donors.


White House Deputy Communications Director Jen Psaki said: “Economic recovery is the most important goal for the president and working with all of the stakeholders — including the Chamber of Commerce — on export promotion, free and fair trade to grow the economy and create jobs is an important part of achieving that goal."

The overture is the White House’s clearest move to the center since the Nov. 2 elections, when independents sides decisively with Republicans. Democratic officials said the White House is looking for a variety of ways to lower the temperature with CEOs, some of whom have complained about Obama’s agenda and the White House’s treatment of business.

CNN’s Ed Henry originally reported the possibility of a presidential speech to the Chamber, writing in a blog post that Obama was considering speaking to “a December 2 jobs summit hosted by [Chamber President and CEO Thomas J.] Donohue.”

A White House official told POLITICO: “The president was invited to speak at the Chamber on December 2nd. We considered the invitation, but event was then cancelled. The Chamber has also invited the president to speak in January, and we are considering the invitation to see if it will work in the schedule.”
Thomas J. Collamore, the Chamber’s senior vice president, communications and strategy, said in a statement to POLITICO: "The Chamber doesn't have anything currently planned, but we’d always be happy to host the president to talk about jobs and the economy."

A Chamber official added: The Dec. 2 date "didn't work logistically and was never finalized on either end. We are continuing to look for a date in January that is mutually acceptable to the Chamber and the White House.”

Obama attacked the Chamber directly during an Oct. 7 rally in Bowie, Md., calling outside groups buying ads in the election, with donors undisclosed, “a threat to our democracy.”

“Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations,” Obama said.

The Chamber heatedly denied the charge.

Donohue last week signaled his desire to a cease-fire, telling his board of directors in a speech Wednesday: “This is not personal with us. It’s about representing our members and advancing ideas that we think are essential to expand our economy, compete in the world, and create American jobs. We’re prepared to join with President Obama, his administration, and both parties in Congress whenever we can to achieve these goals.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45445.html#ixzz161Qd5WJL