Monday, September 22, 2008


Uncle Vlad strikes again!

The fact that Maureen Dowd and the New York Times are questioning the sources of Obama's funding is surprising in and of itself.

The fact that they are pointing to sources in the Arabic world is frightening.
Is America for sale to the Arabs? To the Taliban supporters?

Maureen Dowd, winner of the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary, became a columnist on The New York Times Op-Ed page in 1995 after having served as a correspondent in the paper's Washington bureau since 1986. She has covered four presidential campaigns and served as White House correspondent. She also wrote a column, "On Washington," for The New York Times Magazine.

Ms. Dowd joined The New York Times as a metropolitan reporter in 1983. She began her career in 1974 as an editorial assistant for The Washington Star, where she later became a sports columnist, metropolitan reporter and feature writer. When the Star closed in 1981, she went to Time magazine.

Born in Washington D.C., Ms. Dowd received a B.A. degree in English literature from Catholic University (Washington, D.C.) in201973.

Subject: New York Times Editorial
Published: June 29, 2008

Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating.


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.


The fact that the NY Times allowed this to be printed is amazing in itself.


Shy Wolf said...

Actually, I don't think the gov'mint is going to sell, per-se, the country, nor will it have to: the people will just give it to them in exchange for oil and continued easy living. Of course, this is just my opinion.
Gentlemen like Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity have been ringing the claxon more than a year about Hussein Obama's campaign finances- so it's damn well time the MSM got on the cart and began asking some of the same questions.
Thank you for bringing this attempt of Ms Dowd's to our attention. It's refreshing.
Bless God, Shy

Patricia said...

Let's see. Do US Presidents have no effect at all on foreign countries? Right. He has a huge impact on other countries.

Obviously, who becomes the next US President, if of GREAT concern to foreign governments and countries. I'm sure most of those countries and the richer citizens thereof give money to all candidates to the office of the president.

Maureen Dowd is raising a question that should be raised for ALL candidates. Remember Clinton and China? I'm sure Arabic countries give money to both Obama and McCain.