REPLACE-DEMS-IN-CONGRESS!12:02AMJul 15th 2008

The writers can spin all that they want to, but whatever the real skinny is, the truth is the American people in overwhelming fashion think Congress is useless.

It took GW Bush almost eight years to get down to 29% approval.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid surpassed him on the lower end in less than a year and one half.

Goodness, GW Bush is magnificent compared to these two bozos and the Democrat controlled Congress.

You guys, whoever you are, get off your pontificating butt, and do a little management by walking around, and, maybe, just maybe, your egghead brain will get to visit the real world!!!

We need to replace all democratic members of Congress.

McCain in 2008.

DO-NOTHING-CONGRESS!12:02AMJul 15th 2008

Bottom line is Democrats have never been a party to get much done. They rely instead on made up "political lynchings" to defame and slandering the other side, in this case the GOP, and their corrupt "enablers" have always been intolerant liberal snobs in our mostly liberal MSM wolfpack press.

Has anyone noticed that this “Do Nothing Democrat Congress” always seems to be on vacation? Does anyone remember how our economy was adding 1-2 million jobs a year before this “Do Nothing Democrat Congress” took control almost two years ago?

Does everyone remember how gas was $2.65 when this “Do Nothing Democrat Congress” took power?

Why aren't the Democrats that run our Congress "fixing or addressing" any of our countries problems?

What are they waiting for? --- Very sad indeed.

FOREIGN MONEY?3:20PMJul 15th 2008

Here's an article you might find INTERESTING if you have an open mind and are not just a hard-headed Obama supporter:

OBAMA'S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING

Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obama's campaign internet geeks.

These are the staffers who devised Obama's internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history - and this was all from the internet campaign.

What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldn't be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that can't be broken and no ethics that prevail.

Obama's internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking, lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.

Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.

Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied.

Where was it coming from?

One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were "programmed" by a very sophisticated user.

While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers.

The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia.
Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.

It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws.

It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a
cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.

This is a shocking revelation.

We have been concerned about the legality of "bundling" contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.

I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet
contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.

If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would
also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?

I believe the Obama campaign's internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.

===================================================
You notice that the author of this article said that the Obama campaign just decided that they didn't need to try to figure out where all those overseas funds were coming from.

Well, excuse me, but it is illegal to accept donations from anybody except United States citizens!

Why isn't this being investigated?

Sounds like it is time for more emails to Dean and Obama --- Demanding that Obama release his donor lists with names, and how much each one contributed and when! NOW! BEFORE DENVER!!!

FOREIGN MONEY?3:21PMJul 15th 2008

Here's an article you might find INTERESTING if you have an open mind and are not just a hard-headed Obama supporter:

OBAMA'S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING

Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obama's campaign internet geeks.

These are the staffers who devised Obama's internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history - and this was all from the internet campaign.

What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldn't be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that can't be broken and no ethics that prevail.

Obama's internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking, lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.

Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.

Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied.

Where was it coming from?

One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were "programmed" by a very sophisticated user.

While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers.

The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia.
Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.

It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws.

It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a
cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.

This is a shocking revelation.

We have been concerned about the legality of "bundling" contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.

I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet
contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.

If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would
also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?

I believe the Obama campaign's internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.

===================================================
You notice that the author of this article said that the Obama campaign just decided that they didn't need to try to figure out where all those overseas funds were coming from.

Well, excuse me, but it is illegal to accept donations from anybody except United States citizens!

Why isn't this being investigated?

Sounds like it is time for more emails to Dean and Obama --- Demanding that Obama release his donor lists with names, and how much each one contributed and when! NOW! BEFORE DENVER!!!

TOWN-HALL-MEETINGS?5:41PMJul 15th 2008

Taxpayers voting for Obama is like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.

TOWN HALL MEETINGS vs PREPARED SPEECHES

The reason "coward" BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA REFUSES TOWN HALL MEETINGS is because Obama does better dancing around the crowds with “PREPARED” speeches, where he doesn’t have to answer American people’s concerns or “unprepared” questions. OBAMA IS ONLY A PREACHER (OR DICTATOR).

JOHN McCAIN prefers TOWN HALL MEETINGS because the PEOPLE OF AMERICA will have a chance to ask questions that concern them and they need to get some answers.

In Town Hall Meetings, candidates get closer to hear the people’s needs. UNPREPARED QUESTIONS --- UNPREPARED ANSWERS.

It’s a no-brainer: McCAIN IS THE RIGHT MAN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE USA.