They aren’t stealing it, they’re laundering it


Yeah, I know, it’s another one of those dreadful wingnut websites. Unfortunately it’s hard to find any liberal websites that are willing to tell the truth about Obama.

PJ Tatler:

Video: Obama Campaign Disables Credit Card Verification, Accepts Donation from ‘Nidal Hasan’

This video is a follow-up to Adrian Murray’s facebook post over the weekend, in which he says that he donated to the Obama campaign as “Adolph Hitler,” occupation “Dictator” living at a German address. As you can see in the clip, citizen journalist George Scaggs of Austin tries the same thing at three different campaign sites, that of Obama, Romney and Santorum. Only the Obama site accepted the donation without the verification number.

[…]

Only the Obama campaign’s web site lacks the security code field. The others require it, and will not accept donations unless the security code and payment information match up.

Obama’s campaign implemented the same lack of verification in 2008, but the mainstream media never called them on it. It appears as though that episode has prompted a repeat in 2012.

This means three things are likely true. One, the Obama campaign disabled the verification system. The verification system is turned on on web sites that accept credit cards, by default. I used to manage the website for the Texas Republican Party, so I know this from personal experience. Someone had to take the action of turning it off on the Obama site. Two, the Obama campaign can accept donations without the identity of the donor being positively verified. Three, not only can people in foreign countries donate to the Obama campaign in violation of federal campaign law, so apparently can identity thieves who have access to stolen credit card numbers. People who do not know that their credit cards have been compromised may not notice small amounts in the $3 dollar donation range that the Obama campaign has been targeting, when such donations show up on their statements.


Talk about missing the obvious!

The security features for online credit card transactions and other forms of online banking are intended to prevent two things:

A. Someone stealing your money

B. Someone stealing the bank’s money

Who is the favorite candidate of the financial and banking industries? Barack Obama.

So lets say you are a banker and you want to give Obama a million dollars. That would be illegal.

But what if you set up a bunch of phony credit card accounts and used them to make lots of small donations to his campaign? It would still be illegal, but who would know?

Nobody is gonna report the money missing. No one will complain about unauthorized charges. Since you’re doing it from inside the bank no alarm bells will sound. If you create the right program you could automate the process so there were no witnesses.

Easy peasy.

The best part – for a small fee you can launder donations from other members of the 1% too!



This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Corruption and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to They aren’t stealing it, they’re laundering it

  1. DandyTiger says:

    Same as he ever was. Corrupt cheating scum.

  2. votermom says:

    Audit! Audit! Audit!

  3. DeniseVB says:

    Didn’t a group look up the names and addresses of some “donors” in BO’s 2008 war chest and found a lot of condemned homes or no such person ? That got snuffed out by the media pretty quickly 😦

    One of Edwards’ bundlers got caught making his employees donate to JRE, then paid them all back. Genius, I tell ya!

    Hot Air and PJmedia are my two favorite “wing nut” sites. They source properly 😀

    You won’t find this video on a lefty site either:

  4. WMCB says:

    Myiq, I think you are exactly right, and the R’s are missing it. We said in 2008 that he got waaaaay more money than could be accounted for by Junior’s lunch money,

    He has always had BIG money backers, even back in Chicago. He had a massive stockpile of money BEFORE the primary, BEFORE the whole “Hopenchange” hysteria ever got underway – before most of those little Jane and John donors had ever even heard of the man.

    He was bought and paid for and put in place long before the 2008 election even got underway. And this is a very convenient way of laundering big donations to pass FEC muster.

    It all goes back to Chicago, and the republican/democrat/mobbed up Combine. This was planned. I will believe that til my dying day.

    • DandyTiger says:

      Turns out, you’re right, it was planned that way. My Repub party king maker contacts told me that in ’07. They worked hard to get their man in the white house and McCain/Palin almost ruined it for them.

      • myiq2xu says:

        Obama became a Senator in November 2004. Barely two years later he announced he was running for POTUS and in the first quarter of 2007 he raked in $25 million – second only to Hillary.

      • threewickets says:

        Sounds right. Still can’t believe Black Monday George Soros was able to convince Progressives he had their best interests in mind. He’s like the Kaiser Soze of American politics.

  5. WMCB says:

    Hmm. It appears that if the Executive branch wants to pick a fight with the Judiciary, the Judiciary says “bring it on”. Okay, Mr. Executive Branch – quit gassing and tell us where you stand on the court’s power.

    YOU ARE ORDERED. Answer, you fucker. Deadline Thursday. Were you just bloviating for the cameras, or are you serious? Put up or shut up.

    CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

    The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday…

    The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

    Either way they answer this, they are screwed. If they double down, we come close to having a constitutional crisis of sorts. If they back down, then it becomes very public that he was bloviating for the media, and is a wuss.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

  6. myiq2xu says:

    Ruh roh!

    Arizona House Bill 2549, which is now on Gov. Jan Brewer’s desk for signature, was created to counter bullying and stalking. The law would make it a crime to use any electronic or digital device to communicate using “obscene, lewd or profane language” or to suggest a lewd or lascivious act, if done with the intent to “terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend.”

    …H.B. 2549 “would apply to the Internet as a whole, thus criminalizing all manner of writing, cartoons, and other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying,” Media Coalition says on its website — at least for now, until what it says is found to be offensive or annoying by those in Arizona.

    So much for the blogosphere.

    • WMCB says:

      Oh, TPTB are damned determined to get control of the internet. The internet, and people of either party freely sharing information and organizing, is the biggest threat to them that exists. TPTB are scared shitless of it.

      Good old uncle Fucker Joe Lieberman has also introduced a national bill that would hold blog owners legally liable for anything said in the comments.

      They do not want average citizens talking to each other. It threatens their power, and their control of the narrative and monopoly on information.

      • crawdad says:

        They also want us to have to pay to be here – pay a lot more than we do now.

      • insanelysane says:

        The exact point Al Gore made in his most excellent book “Assault on Reason”..
        Big money has a big voice and media is run by big money…the great equalizer is the Internet where any small voice can become big…that’s why TPTB need to squash it anyway possible.

        • WMCB says:

          Yes. And this is ONE thing that both the right and the left need to be UNITED on.

          TPTB will try to sneak it in by telling the left they are “only” going after those hateful conservatives, and telling the right that it’s only those dangerous lefty radicals who will be affected. Nope. The Little People of this country need to be UNITED on this, I don’t give a shit if you are a beet red communist or a stone cold winger.

        • myiq2xu says:

          They tried to use pornography as an excuse.

          “WE MUST PROTECT THE CHILDRENS!!!”

  7. crawdad says:

    This reminds me of the fable about the little boy who was stealing from the prince.

    Every week the little boy would come visit the prince. Every week when he left the guard would search him and the wagon he was pulling behind him. Every week the guard found nothing. The guard was certain the boy was stealing something but he couldn’t figure out what it was.

    Then one day he realized the boy was stealing wagons.

  8. DandyTiger says:

    You people are going to make the POUTUS cry. 🙂

  9. westcoaster says:

    Just say no to the O pushers, like Ernie did:

  10. WMCB says:

    Oooo, yeah, he has definitely pissed off the Judiciary. More from the article I posted above. There is a second, separate case:

    The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

    The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

    Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to “many of us” whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick–both Republican appointees–remained silent, the source said.

    Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don’t have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama’s comments yesterday about judges being an “unelected group of people.”

    Shorter judge to DOJ attorney: Oh, reeaally? That’s not what your boss just said.”

  11. Erica says:

    I don’t know why 0 is all wee-weed up about the Supremes judging his law. After all, he was selected himself. Seems like he’s got at least that in commom with the court.

  12. Glenn McGahee says:

    While talking about the internets and your ability to say anything you want – better be carefuler now.
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/obamas-nsa-close-to-knowing-all-about-us/
    Yea, its a wingnut site. But this is not –
    http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/mar/25/ornls-classified-side-moves-into-the-spotlight/
    This is Department of Energy funds.

  13. amac78 says:

    Re: The Obama campaign disabling verification of credit-cards used to make campaign contributions

    This issue came up in the 2008 campaign and election. The Obama campaign was set up in a way that facilitated illegal contributions. To what extent they were actually made, I can’t say.

    I was curious enough to try a $60 donation with my genuine credit card number, and a phony name and address. It went through just fine. Link.

    The implications were (and are) fairly obvious, though this wasn’t an avenue that the prestige press cared to explore.

Comments are closed.