Quoteable Comments
  • Obama, like Joe Wil­son said, “You lie!”
  • Friends don’t let friends read Wikipedia.”-DonS, com­menter on WattsUp​With​That​.com
  • If you have some­thing that you don’t want any­one to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s view on pri­vacy, or lack thereof, because of Google.
  • If you have to argue your sci­ence by using fraud, your sci­ence is not valid.” – Professor Ian Plimer.
  • Poor Al Gore. Global warm­ing com­pletely debunked via the very Inter­net you invented. OH. OH the irony.” — Jon Stewart.
  • A church has to stand for its faith or it stands for nothing.” — Karl Rove regard­ing Catholic church deny­ing Holy Com­mu­nion to Patrick Kennedy.
  • You can’t vote against health­care and call your­self a black man.” — Jesse Jackson
  • You guys make a pretty good photo op.” — Barack Obama com­ment­ing on the military.
Photo Gallery
eagle_200107_0204c
Links of the Moment
The news and dis­cus­sion sur­round­ing global warm­ing, decline, cli­mate change, and sci­en­tific fraud per­pe­trated by Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, James Hansen, and com­pany is still unfold­ing. Here are sev­eral Web sites offer­ing more detailed non-​fanatical infor­ma­tion and dis­cus­sion than you’ll find in the MSM:
Buy It Now!

Highly Recommended!

Campaign contribution Limits? No Problem, Just Contribute Online

Obama reneged on his com­mit­ment to use pub­lic financ­ing and has gone on to raise over $600 mil­lion dol­lars, includ­ing a reported $150 mil­lion just last month.

Obama claims that much of the record-​breaking dona­tions come from small donors, often via his Web site. The sym­bol­ism of both the size and num­ber of those dona­tions has taken on myth­i­cal pro­por­tions. How­ever, it is very wor­ri­some that Obama doesn’t share the details of how those Web dona­tions are procured.

In fact, if the details are as sus­pected, Obama has found an “inven­tive” way to fund his cam­paign and to sub­vert cam­paign finance laws. (This week, reg­u­lar NoQuar­ter reader Craig ini­ti­ated a myth-​breaking inves­ti­ga­tion, and his find­ings are being pub­lished widely, at least around the blo­gos­phere. Links to the blog posts are listed at the end of my story.)

John McCain noted yes­ter­day in an exclu­sive inter­view with Joseph Curl of the Wash­ing­ton Times:

Mr. McCain said Mr. Obama’s giant fundrais­ing total — he announced this week­end that he raised more than $150 mil­lion in Sep­tem­ber — is going to pro­duce “a scandal.”

His cam­paign and the Repub­li­can National Com­mit­tee have released the names of all his donors, includ­ing those who have con­tributed less than $200. That’s not required by fed­eral elec­tion rules, and Mr. Obama has declined to release his small-​dollar donors, lead­ing to spec­u­la­tion that some donors are try­ing to cir­cum­vent fundrais­ing laws.

Some of Obama’s donors are try­ing?! It’s more that his donors are indeed cir­cum­vent­ing fundrais­ing laws. Con­sider how this works … 

You can con­tribute to Obama’s cam­paign via his Web site in amounts from $5 to $2,300, in each instance. There appear to be no sen­si­ble checks in the sub­mis­sion form, and there’s only a sim­ple note at the bot­tom of the page that states that an indi­vid­ual can only con­tribute up to $2,300 per elec­tion and that the con­tri­bu­tion made on the Web site page “is des­ig­nated for the gen­eral election.”

But, this reminder is vir­tu­ally mean­ing­less since no word­ing on the Web site page that states that donors must use their real names. Nor does the Obama dona­tion page require that you con­firm that you are using your real name.

In other words, in Barack Obama’s world, your deci­sion to obey FEC (Fed­eral Elec­tion Com­mis­sion) laws is entirely voluntary.

Most alarm­ing is that there appears to be NO mech­a­nism on Obama’s dona­tion page to ensure that the name of the donor matches the name on the credit card.

  1. Go to the Obama Web site to make a contribution.
  2. obamasubmissionpage.png

  3. Fill in the form, even with bogus infor­ma­tion — noth­ing asks for true or cor­rect information.
  4. Enter a con­tri­bu­tion from $5 to $2,300.
  5. Enter a credit card type, num­ber, and expiration.
  6. Check the con­fir­ma­tion that you are legally eli­gi­ble to make a con­tri­bu­tion (i.e., that you are a U.S. cit­i­zen or legal res­i­dent, at least 16 years old, etc.). Again, noth­ing is required that you ver­ify that you are using your real name.
  7. Sub­mit the contribution.
  8. You will receive a thank you note. The note is quite sim­ple: “Your dona­tion has been processed. Thank you for your gen­er­ous gift.”

obamasubmissionpage2.png

This is cam­paign money laun­der­ing made easy. There is no val­i­da­tion that the name and address entered match the credit card’s infor­ma­tion. Nor was the secu­rity code on the card requested.

Ignore the cam­paign aspect of this for a moment.

The Obama Web site is obvi­ously set up to bypass com­mon secu­rity checks: There is no Address Ver­i­fi­ca­tion Check (the 3 – 4 digit num­ber on your card). And there is no require­ment to match your billing address, no City-​State-​ZIP code match.

Since none of these is ver­i­fied by the Web site’s pro­gram­ming sys­tem, it is very likely that the site is a dream for any­one whose dona­tion comes from another coun­try. For­eign donors, merely by using their credit cards, can donate just as eas­ily as U.S. donors. These are set­tings that the Obama cam­paign had to inten­tion­ally set up, and it is at odds with the well-​established secu­rity pre­cau­tions imple­mented by nearly all online mer­chants and many brick-​and-​mortar businesses.

If you con­sider that any time you make a pur­chase, you are asked for or are tested for these com­mon secu­rity pre­cau­tions and ver­i­fi­ca­tions, why are these sim­ple require­ments not in place on Obama’s cam­paign Web site?

As oth­ers have noted, McCain’s Web site does per­form those secu­rity and iden­tity checks. Fur­ther, McCain is trans­par­ent on all dona­tions. Obama is not. Why? He sim­ply wants the money regard­less of source, regard­less of amount, and with­out respect for any applic­a­ble laws.

What does this mean?

  • If the Obama cam­paign relies on the form infor­ma­tion, rather than the credit card billing infor­ma­tion, then they are bliss­fully igno­rant of who is con­tribut­ing, under what name(s), and how much they are con­tribut­ing through mul­ti­ple instances.
  • The Obama cam­paign does not appear to val­i­date your card entry, leav­ing the onus to catch fraud­u­lent use to credit card com­pa­nies or card holders.
  • The lack of require­ments to use one’s real name and offer val­i­da­tion appears to allow con­trib­u­tors to send as much as they want in mul­ti­ple, small amounts under mul­ti­ple names.
  • Fur­ther, since you can buy anony­mous gift cards, you can truly donate as much as you want with­out respect to cam­paign limits.

This is an incred­i­ble way to sub­vert cam­paign finance laws and to laun­der unlim­ited amounts of money into the Obama cam­paign. It is there­fore no won­der that Obama opted to renege on pub­lic financing!

Yes, as Sen­a­tor McCain notes, this is a scan­dal in the mak­ing. Not just $150 mil­lion, but over $600 million!

So, Sen­a­tor Obama, I have a few ques­tions for you:

  • Do you match donor names with names on their credit cards before pro­cess­ing trans­ac­tions? If so, what per­cent­age of those names match up? If not, why not? When and how are dis­crep­an­cies caught?
  • Do you check donor IP addresses for U.S. loca­tions? If not, why not?
  • Have you received more than $2,300 from any given credit card? How many and how much?
  • How much have you received from gift credit cards?
  • Do you match donor and/​or credit card names and con­tact infor­ma­tion to state and local voter reg­is­tra­tion lists? If so, how many match or don’t match? If not, why not?
  • How many donor email or phys­i­cal addresses are not valid when you send ot that auto­mated thank you note or a follow-​up request?
  • For the sake of trans­parency, will you release all donor names, match­ing credit card names, con­tact infor­ma­tion, IP addresses, and amounts contributed?

Spe­cial thanks to reader Craig who pointed out the prob­lems with Obama’s Web site fundrais­ing. Craig shared his find­ings with other blog­gers who have also reported on the dis­turb­ing lack of iden­tity ver­i­fi­ca­tion on Obama’s Web dona­tion page:


Cross-​posted at NoQuar​terUSA​.net.

  • Share/Bookmark

Comments are closed.

Exit Obama
    Unless Barack Hussein Obama, II is constitutionally disqualified, resigns, or is impeached beforehand, he can be replaced at noon on January 20, 2013, in 2 years, 11 months, 11 days, 18 hours, 13 minutes
Recommended Reading

My News Clippings
  • Copenhagen's political science (Washington Post)
    Governor Palin again calls for Barack Obama to skip Copenhagen in this Washington Post commentary.  She points to the need for real science, balancing real-world costs and benefits, and the inequitable proposals and expections among nations.

  • New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill (New York Times)
    Another attempt, this time by a state legislature, to legalize homosexual marriage is decisively defeated.  Traditional marriage stands in New York.

  • Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic (Der Spiegel)
    Starting out with "Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan," this editorial admit "nausea" upon hearing Obama's speech.  They even note the instructions to West Point cadets to respond "enthusiastically" that was obviously ignored.

  • The Climate Science Isn't Settled, Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted (Wall Street Journal)
    A rather detailed discussion on global warming that looks at that the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA).  It is definitely worth a read but I'm not sure what point Lindzen is trying to make in the final paragraph.

  • When scientists behave like bullies (San Francisco Chronicle)
    Debra Saunders writes about the damning corruption of science by global warming scientists.

  • Leaked emails won't harm UN climate body, says chairman (Guardian)
    Chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says global warming is not debunk because of a few scientists.  For Rajendra Pachauri--check out the picture accompanying the article as this guy is a definite look-alike of the Unibomber and his the religion of  Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)  is just as dangerous to civilization.  Anyway, he claims that despite everything, AGW is alive and well.  He even defended Phil Jones and said he should not resign.

  • Diplomacy 101 (New York Times)
    New York Times editorial the president an F for diplomacy in the Middle East.  Obama "demanded that Israel freeze settlements, Palestinians crack down on anti-Israel violence and Arab leaders demonstrate their readiness to reach out to Israel."  Nine months later, Israel still says no, Palestinians refuse talks until they do, and Arab states refuse to do anything.  Obama achieved nothing, except a dismal 4% approval rating in Israel.

  • Sarah Palin, version 2009: Going rogue, getting even (San Francisco Chronicle)
    Debra Saunders writes a review of Sarah Palin's Going Rogue, "She's folksy and quotable. She has delivered a book that will thrill a base that loves to shout, "They done her wrong."

  • We will release the data...
    Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row (Telegraph)
    We threw away the data...
    Climate change data dumped (Times)
    The Climate Research Unit says, according to the Telegraph, that they will release the raw data that global warming is based upon.  At the same time the Times reports that the same folks now admit that the raw data was thrown away.  All they kept was the manipulated data they created to support global warming.  As Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, is quoted in the Times, “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’."

  • Afghans Detail a Secret Prison Still Operating on a U.S. Base (New York Times)
    According to this article, Obama continues to run at least two secret prisons--one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan--with reports of abuse and prisoners held without rights normally afforded prisons of war.  Surprising to hear that this continued after Bush left office.  This is a terrible stain on America's reputation and puts Americans at risk of similar mistreatment if captured.