Saturday, May 1, 2010

Humility, He Knows Ye Not

According to the New York Times today, Barack Hussein Obama is suddenly worried about sourcing for election campaign contributions, and is calling on Congress to move (quickly, no doubt) on reversing the recent Supreme Court ruling in that regard. Saying that, "We’ve all seen groups with benign-seeming names sponsoring television commercials that make accusations and assertions designed to influence the public debate and sway voters’ minds", Obama brings new meaning to the word "hypocrisy".

On its face, that statement is ludicrous because swaying voters' minds is what the sale is all about. Is he trying to vilify the word "persuasive" now, in the same way allegedly pro-choice people have done with the word "discrimination"? But alas, I digress...

The Times article begins with:

President Obama, warning of a “potential corporate takeover of our elections,” called on Congress Saturday to undo the effects of a recent Supreme Court ruling by imposing strict disclosure requirements on campaign spending by companies, labor unions, trade associations and advocacy groups.
"Strict disclosure requirements" were certainly not of his concern in his own campaign, however. Nor was the prospect of corporate influence, having received $1,007,370.85 (inflation adjusted) from Goldman-affiliated executives and employees. And his own campaign received illegal donations from foreign interests, despite the fact that the "mainstream" media refuses to report on it. Unfortunately, many believe that if the New York Times doesn't report it, it didn't happen.

How ironic it is, then, that American Thinker has an article reiterating their past investigative findings of contributions to Obama from a Hamas refugee camp in Gaza. According to the article, Osama, Hossam and Edwan Monir donated $33,000 to Obama from the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza; much more per person than the guideline of $2,300 per person in one election to one candidate. From the article:
But Obama pricked up his ears. He smelled trouble and while no media asked, he answered anyway. Sen. Obama's campaign immediately scrambled and contended they had returned the $33,500 in illegal contributions from Palestinians in Hamas-controlled Gaza, despite the fact that records do not show that it was returned and the brothers said they have not received any money. Having gone through all of Obama's refunds redesignations etc, no refund was made to Osama, Hossam, or Edwan Monir in the Rafah refugee camp. And still no media.
So let's recap; In the 2008 campaign, Obama received over one million dollars from a corporation - one that he ironically attacks now - received contributions from jihadis in a foreign country, and was more than a little vague in his disclosures to the FEC. Now he wants to make the rules more stringent. Something smells.

Sphere: Related Content

1 comment:

Joshua said...

I have to say, I'm a bit confused. I see and acknowledge your written concern about Obama attempting to control just how voters can be influenced. However, this is where I start getting confused: your lack of apparent concern over the global concept. Is it only wrong for someone on the opposite side of the poliitcal fence to be swayed by special-interest contributions? Or is it wrong for any politician to be influenced by special-interest contributions? I'd like some clarification on this.