And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to ... antipathy to people who aren't like them ... as a way to explain their frustrations.Now Obama is one of the bitter clingers, playing on xenophobia because things are not going his way.
Obama, his staff, and the Democratic National Committee, all have launched a campaign program designed to play on fears that foreigners are helping Republicans.
Obama in Philadelphia, October 2010, as reported by The Washington Post:
The White House intensified its attacks Sunday on the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its alleged ties to foreign donors, part of an escalating Democratic effort to link Republican allies with corporate and overseas interests ahead of the November midterm elections.Michelle Malkin has more on Obama's own foreign money troubles, Newly nativist Democrats and their own foreign funny money. Take a look also at my prior post, Challenge to Obama - Request Special Counsel As To Foreign Contributions.
The chamber adamantly denies that foreign funds are used in its U.S. election efforts, accusing Democrats of orchestrating a speculative smear campaign during a desperate political year.
President Obama, speaking at a rally in Philadelphia, said "the American people deserve to know who is trying to sway their elections" and raised the possibility that foreigners could be funding his opponents.
"You don't know," Obama said at the rally for Senate candidate Joe Sestak and other Democrats. "It could be the oil industry. It could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don't know because they don't have to disclose."
Now to Creedence Clearwater Revival, Before You Accuse Me, Take A Look At Yourself:
--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
"Obama in Philadelphia, October 2008, as reported by The Washington Post:"
ReplyDeleteIs that right? When I followed the link, I get the impression that the quote is from the other day. I hope this wasn't an "issue" that's been lurking for two years now.
@alan - typo. should be 2010. corrected now.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it wise for Democrats to raise the specter of international support given the left's long history of, at the very least, seeking inspiration from foreign sources.
ReplyDeleteMore troubling, this might single a strong turn towards nativism on the part of the American left. Historically, all leftists states have progressively turned nativist. It is inherent in the idea of state control. States can't control foreigners so a highly controlling state progressively seeks to limit those foreign influences it can't control.
Although in this case, I think it's just that the Democrats have figured out that most Americans aren't buying the evil capitalist rhetoric the Democrats have been using so now they are focusing on casting the capitalist as evil foreigners.
Call me paranoid, but its interesting that Obama started this nonsense in defense of Joe Sestak who is being hit hard by pro-Israel forces. Could there be a hint of anti-semitism in there somewhere...don't let those Jews tell you who to vote for?
ReplyDeleteWell of course they want to set-up a straw man. They would never [snark] stoop to accept foreign donations. Yeah, right. Just go back to the 2008 0 campaign and count the complaints.
ReplyDeleteHuh. I guess you must have somehow missed this part from the article you cite:
ReplyDelete"Mr. Obama himself faced accusations by conservative opponents in his 2008 campaign that his large online fund-raising efforts may have generated contributions from foreign nationals barred from contributing. No allegations were substantiated."
The only reason "no allegations were substantiated" is that nobody has yet looked into it. I hate to break it to you, but newspaper reporters aren't above shading the truth, and this is often down with implication. The Washington Post is trying to imply that the allegations were untrue, and you fell for it. But if the allegations were in fact untrue, the reporter would be able to make a much stronger statement (such as "those allegations were shown to be untrue" -- which is not the case).
ReplyDeleteSarah, the Federal Elections Commission, half of whom are Republicans, gave a big fat yawn to all this. FEC spokesman Robert Biersack said, "The committees are responsible for providing accurate information about the identifying characteristics of their donors.... The precise mechanisms of that are not necessarily written into the regulations."
ReplyDeleteThe Obama campaign obtained the information that was needed. When the information showed that the donations were illegal, they turned the donations back. That is all verified and factual. If you have something factual to counter this, then please provide it.
Leave Timothy alone, he's just sticking up for his friends Good Will and Doodad Pro.
ReplyDeleteTimothy,
ReplyDeleteI would like to see the facts surrounding the investigation into the Obama campaign contributions, and what money was turned back. Can you provide a link?
→ Obama: I believe in the free market and vital, limited government
ReplyDelete02/24/10 - USA Today
========
President Obama told business leaders today he is a big booster of the free market, but added that a strong government is necessary to help it thrive.
"Contrary to the claims of some of my critics -- and some of the editorial pages -- I am an ardent believer in the free market," Obama told the Business Roundtable, a group of CEOs. "You create jobs."
Later, the somewhat defensive president said he also believes that "government has a vital, if limited, role to play in fostering sustained economic growth and creating the foundations for you to succeed."
========
AMG: Quip: The good and productive members of the free market are vital to our country. I believe in them. (They should just keep their biased, evil opinions out of elections.)
→ Easy Opinions
If you can find it (I can't on the Youtubes), you need to watch the anti-Toomey commercial currently running courtesy Joe Sestak, accusing Toomey of being in the pocket of China. It's got the Fu-Manchu music, the gong, everything.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, go to http://www.fec.gov/disclosure.shtml and look up the Obama campaign reports.
ReplyDeleteAnd Jesus II loves you, too, Mr. Treacher.
Obama and his abettors in Congress were and are in deep with George Soros, owner of several multi-national companies and who litters the Democrats' landscape with oodles of cash coming from who-knows-where.
ReplyDeletePlaywright Tennessee Williams wrote:
The only thing worse than a liar is a liar who is also a hyprocrite."
REAGAN VS. OBAMA IS LIBERTY VS. TYRANNY
"WE" @ http://heir2freedom.blogspot.com/
All of which prompted an enterprising citizen to test the controls put in place to enforce compliance with federal campaign law by the Obama and McCain campaigns. Last Thursday, he decided to conduct an experiment.
ReplyDeleteHe went to the Obama campaign Web site and made a donation under the name "John Galt" (the hero of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged"). He provided the equally fictitious address "1957 Ayn Rand Lane, Galts Gulch, CO 99999."
He checked the box next to $15 and entered his actual credit-card number and expiration date. He was then taken to the next page and notified that his donation had been processed.
He then tried the same experiment on the McCain site, which rejected the transaction. He returned to the Obama site and made three more donations using the names Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses but the same credit card. The transactions all went through. By Saturday, he'd reported that the transactions had all posted to his credit-card account.
Others repeated "John Galt's" experiment last week, giving to Obama under such fictitious names as Della Ware, Joe Plumber, Idiot Savant, Ima BadDonation (with a Canadian bank card) and Fake Donor.
What accounts for the Obama campaign's acceptance of these fraudulent donations? Most merchants selling goods and services use the basic Address Verification System that screens credit-card charges for matching names and addresses. (It can also screen cards issued by foreign banks.) The McCain campaign uses AVS and provides a searchable database of all donors, including those who fall below the $200 threshold. The Obama campaign apparently has chosen not to use the AVS system to screen donations.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_KkfGjfrru8G04iZCnsBr7K#ixzz126Jo8xmM
So, Obama is accusing the US Chamber of Commerce of being under the influence of "foreign interests".
ReplyDeleteBut, I thought Obama likes those foreign interests, and wants the US to be more like them. What foreign interests could he be talking about?
Obama and the Dems haven't been able to prove that no foriegn money was sent to their campaign. The Obama campaign raised $600 MILLION with out proving that there was no foriegn investment into his coffers. The Whitehouse has admitted that there is NO PROOF that their accusations are true. Obama and friends run on the premise that if they tell a lie long enough and big enough people will believe it. Appearently its working amoungst the liberals. It worked for the NDSAP and that game plan is being played 70 years later by the game planners at the DNC.
ReplyDelete"Workers of the World, Unite"
ReplyDeleteWhere are the disclosures of Obama's contributing labor unions?
Also, didn't Wade Rathke go offshore with his re-branded ACORN? Is money flowing back to the DEM party? mmmm...
Timothy,
ReplyDeleteYou gave me the link www.fec.gov/disclosure.shtml
That site is pretty big, and there are many possible search criteria. Could you give me the specific criteria to find the data you are relying on?
Specifically, the illegal donations and the report of returned donations.