Obama's Campaign Contributions - FEC Complaints and Tables
Members of a PUMApac team discovered that enormous errors and confusion existed in Barack Obama's campaign reports to the FEC and that the only way to make themselves heard was to file formal complaints. They did. The team kept working, putting in an enormous effort to clarify and categorize the donations pouring into BO's coffers. The public is entitled to know the results of the team's investigations. The Letters of Complaint to the FEC are posted HERE. Go have a look. Click on one of these link and immerse yourself in the data. If we are unable to force a study of Obama's methods, then maybe we will be able to change the campaign finance laws so that we can be sure that abuses do not occur in any future election.It is your government and whether it works legally and on your behalf or not is up to you.
------------
Once in last September, an American Midas went to his friend the Money Man and admitted that he’d made some bad investments. “I need help or I will fail, but I am the force behind this country and it would be bad for this country if I were to fail.” Money Man went to the Duly Selected and his House of Approvers. He demanded more money; he did not need to explain why, but he made up a story anyway for the Approvers to tell the people that paid their way. “There is a big problem with money in our country right now,” the Approvers told the people, “It is your fault and you will have to pay to solve it, but we will do what is necessary on your behalf even though you are unworthy. We will need to borrow lots of money from the Money Making Company and you and your inheritors will have to pay back it back.” Of course, the people not wanting to be bothered to think too hard and filled with love for the Duly Selected gasped and oohed and aahed and then went about their business of trying to survive. The Money Making Company worked night and day hammering out shiny new money which the Approvers gave to the Money Man after the Duly Selected said it was okay. The Money Man gave some money to the American Midas, but he gave a lot more to a Wanna-be Midas and other other Midas-in-the-Making Companies so his plan would work more smoothly. At first, the people did not know that the American Midas was getting money from the Wanna-be-Midas, but some people began to be suspicious; they were mostly ignored. Most of the companies were still in distress but that did not matter because with luck they would eventually be okay. The people were also still in distress but it would take longer than eventually for them to be okay. But the American Midas was saved from embarrassment and poverty and was soon raking in more shiny new money.
And that is the American way.
◊
if you don’t get the parallel yet, read the success story here and read some of the background here
Hurray for the Supreme Court. Just when I’d begun to think no part of our government had the courage to stand up for what is right even against Obama’s wishes, something like this comes along.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge. (here)
Once again, Obama has to try to find another “follower” to submit to Congress as a candidate for the SCOTUS. Maybe he’ll get it right this time – one can always hope.
While skimming the news at Reuters today yesterday, I found the following statement.
Lastly, in oil news, Ericsson (ERIC) Chief Executive Carl-Henric Svanberg has been named chairman of BP (BP) “in a surprise appointment that ends the oil major’s lengthy search for a new chairman,” Reuters writes. here
It caught my attention because when I was writing my article on Deutsche Bank, I chose to focus on its connection with U.S. development, rather than Europe or Asia. But the comment about Ericsson and BP sent me back to my notes because I’d remembered the following early history of Deutsche Bank and BP. Everywhere you turn, there are connections.
◊
First the Persian Empire: In 1888, Deutsche Bank was approached by Sultan Abdul Hamid II and asked to become involved in the building of the Baghdad Railroad. (Remember that DB was heavily involved in RR building in Europe and America.) Deutsche Bank was granted a franchise to build a railroad linking Ankara and Istanbul. The first part of the railroad was build by the firm of Philip Holzmann and went from Haydarpasha to Anakara. In 1896, a line to Konya was completed. During this year, the concession was transferred to the Anatolian Railroad Company in 1896; Deutsche Bank owned a majority of shares in the Anatolian R.R.
In 1903, construction continued to Mosul, Bahgdad and Basra. When the Persian Empire fell, only 200 kilometers has been built. The final segment was completed after the first world war by the Iraqi State (between 1936-40, from Istanbul to Baghdad).
◊
And now, oil:
In 1903, Deutsche Bank acquired Steava Romana – a Romanian oil company which had extensive deposits in the Eastern and Southern Carpathian mountains. Emil Georg von Strauss had joined Steava Romana in 1905. He was General directer by 1914 and in 1915 he became a member of the Board of Directors of Deutsche Bank. DB sold Steava Romana at the end of the first World War without financial loss.
Von Strauss was also the Managing Director of the European Petroleum Union AND General Director of Deutsche-Petroleum (the oil interests of the bank). In 1929 a merger with DB’s rival (Disconto-Gesellschaft) created the largest bank in Germany.
During the late twenties (1926-1931), Anglo-Persian Oil Company slowly acquired all of Deutsche Banks’ shares and that was the end of DB’s involvement in the oil business.
Anglo Persian Oil Company is the former name of BP (British Petroleum).
◊
And, finally, Von Strauss:
7 However, the example of Deutsche Bank board (since 1933, supervisory board) member Emil Georg von Strauss, who was the vice-president of the Reichstag after 1933, shows that NSDAP involvement could also be found among bankers. [bold emphasis mine] here
Von Strauss was involved with the Nazi government until his death; the image of his funeral oration (here) shows that he was highly regarded by the party. If you read the paragraph to the left of the picture, you might recognize the names of three banks who received billions from the bank that was too big to fail last year. (yes, I mean AIG). I’m not saying that the current banks are all part of a Nazi conspiracy; I just think it’s odd that they survived to become three of the world’s leading banks again.
To be fair, Deutsche bank discusses its involvement with the Nazis on its history page (here), but you’ll have to form your own opinion.
◊
If it’s true that the banks slipped all unknowing into fascism and genocide because the actions were made legal in bits and pieces, then I hope someone is watching the interaction of law and money in this country now.
Okay, I’ve been ill and I haven’t been posting; but The Washington Post had two stories today that I just couldn’t pass up.
The first one (here) raises the possibility that Obama’s spending is going to affect the 2010 elections. (I certainly hope so) Evidently, polls indicate the fewer people approve of the way Obama is handling the national economy. The article, however, points out that the problem the Republican Party has is that Bush left the country with a $1.2 trillion debt.
I know that Obama consistently blames Bush for the economic problems he inherited, but in his first 100 odd days in office, Obama has been introducing spending legislature/plans that will leave us with a $9 trillion debt within 10 years. Can someone explain how this is Bush’s fault? All these new investments in electrical grids, green energy, Internet technology, service corps, tobacco industry regulation, acquisition of failing banks and car companies have not produced a remarkable surge in new jobs nor a slowly improving economy. The ideas are great, but the timing is all wrong. I don’t have a lot of experience in economics, but I know that in the past when I tried spending my way out of debt I failed miserably.
This is another one of those newspeak tricks: Bush $1.3 trillion = bad vs. Obama= $9 trillion good. I hope you aren’t one of those people who are falling for this. If you don’t mind accumulating all that debt in the next few years, that is between you and your wallet or you and your children (unless you happen to be one of those incredibly powerful and wealthy few who accumulate wealth and shrug off debt at my expense, in which case I have issues with you).
♦
The other article (here) suggests that the Republicans can’t win because of demographics. It also raise the question of “whether the GOP has a message or an agenda to combat President Obama’s popularity.” Hold on a moment! What does Obama’s popularity have to do with anything except to prove that he’s an American idol. People, we are voting for those who will approve Obama’s $9 trillion deficit. Don’t be fooled by smooth talking. The only agenda we need to worry about is the one that opposes Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Dodd, and others of their ilk. Show your dissaproval and vote them all out.
♦
Let me be right up front. I don’t approve of Obama’s social agenda and I don’t approve of the quality of life he is laying down for my future grandchildren. I am not a Republican. I did not vote for Obama and I will not vote for his minions when they come up for reelection. I will vote for anyone who opposes what he is doing. The labels means nothing to me; what matters to me is what happens to my country, my way of life, and the future. I hope Obama isn’t the way, because every time he opens his mouth, I hear lies and misspeak and deception. My government is corrupt; it has been for a long time – I was no fan of Bush, either – and the people of these United States have let it slip for far too long.
Read George Orwell if you never have and read him again if you already have. Ignore the title of his book (1984); he was off by several years, but he saw how easily we can lose our way of life and we have ignored his warning for far too long. There is a link in the tab to an on-line free version on my home page. Ask yourself if that is what you want our future to look like.
I have spent the last week pondering the duplicity of the term “pro-life.” It is used today, almost without fail, to mean something not implied in the term itself. It is one of the most egregious forms of “newspeak” or “doublespeak” (see my explanation in the tab on the home page if you are unfamiliar with Orwell).
The belief of Dr. George Tiller, that a woman has a right to make her own choices, came up against those who would deny women that right. The latter group would have you believe it was “God’s” will. “God,” as a word, means whatever the “believer” wants it to mean; and, in all its various translations and transformations worldwide, the God about which people speak is hardly ever the same God. Unless there is a shared definition, discussion is difficult between people who do not share similar beliefs. It usually comes down to “My God” is better than “Your God!”
Dr. George Tiller was a religious man; he went to church where he served as an usher , and he died in a church at a Sunday service. Dr. George Tiller believed in God, but he did not believe in the same God as the man who “allegedly” shot him. Because he chose the wrong God, Dr. George Tiller had to die.
Some will tell you that Dr. Tiller died because he was a murderer. The law that holds this country together said otherwise; but even if the charge were true, the punishment ought to have been determined by the state of Kansas. But many anti-abortionists do not care that abortion is legal in the United States of America or that the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no religion may impose its personal beliefs on anyone else. The man who “allegedly” shot Dr. Tiller took the law into his own hands because he believes that his God wanted him too. I don’t understand that kind of God, nor do I want to.
◊
I do want to understand how anyone who is “pro-life” believes that taking a life supports a pro-life stance and especially how anyone can even defend the person who takes a life in order to support a pro-life stance. How does anyone dare to profess to love his God and say something like this?
“George Tiller was a mass murderer and we cannot stop saying that,” [Randall] Terry said. “He was an evil man — his hands were covered with blood.” (here) [bold emphasis mine]
Or this?
“The man who shot him was responsible,” Terry said. A few minutes later, though, he made it pretty clear what he really thought. “The whole point of this story should be, in part, what did George Tiller do that was so horrifying that it drove this man to that extremity?” (here) [bold emphasis mine]
Dr. George Tiller deserved to die, because the man who shot him did not believe in abortion and because people like Randall Terry stood up and declared that George Tiller was an evil man and a mass murderer. In fact, Dr. Tiller was responsible for his own death!
Randall Terry and others of his ilk stir up the horror that drives a man to murder and than defend it with the same extreme philosophy that made that murder possible. What kind of man is this? What kind of Christian is this? Does his God whisper praise in his ear for murdering a fellow man? Isn’t judgement the provenance of God?
It is Randall Terry and others of his ilk who believe that no woman should be able to have an abortion, who believe that the fetus growing in the womb of that woman is a separate and equal human being and must be saved. It is Randall Terry and others of his ilk who do not honor nor respect that woman’s right to make decisions for herself, who believe that they have a right to impose their religious values on everyone else – believe my way or die.
No abortion, Terry says, let the fetus live – until birth when the newborn child can be abandoned. Does he urge his followers to adopt those children he has saved by driving his followers to killing, to destroying abortion facilities, to threatening and shooting anyone who works in those facilities? Does he feel responsible for the children lost in the web of foster homes, unwanted, unloved, and eventually cast out at 18 to fend for themselves? Where are all Terry’s good Christian followers when God’s suffering children need them?
Hypocrites. Hypocrites, every one of them. They are, as their Bible so rightly puts it, whited sepulchres, filled with sanctimonious pride, certain of their chosen status and thus able to pronounce judgement on others. “Tiller deserved to die,” God told Terry and others of his ilk. The commandment of their God that “Thou shalt not kill” does not apply to the righteous.
◊
The term pro-life is a deception; in truth, it only mean anti-abortion. Terry’s followers do not rally for the lives of rapists and murderers sentenced to death? Does Terry ever speak at anti-war rallies because he is pro-life?
Pro-life means that you are “for life.” When used by people who will kill or applaud the killing of those who provide safe abortions to women, the term becomes twisted and hollow, a misdirection of language and thought – a prime example of newspeak,
Randall Terry and others of his ilk are anti-abortion; that is their primary mission. All women must have babies, wanted or not, conceived by rape or by a single careless moment when a bad choice was made. God wants you to have that baby. He told Randall Terry and others of his ilk that this was so. I think it was one of the lost commandments.
You want to have babies, Terry, go have them. Just don’t delude yourself into thinking that you have a right to make others have them too.
◊
Read the New Testament again, Randall Terry. The words of your God speak down through all those 2000 years: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone…”
That God is kinder, more tolerant, and less violent than your God. Yours is the one of the Spanish Inquisition.
“We are not bigots,” prop 8 supporters say. “We just want everyone to believe what we believe.”
from The LA Times
In Fresno, about 3,000 demonstrators — the same number who turned out the day before on the other side — were told not to accept being called bigots because they support traditional marriage.
“We know we’ve been called hate-mongers. That’s not what we are,” said Jim Franklin, pastor of Cornerstone Church, just after the rally.
“We are people who believe in our values.”
The one thing I have always noticed about people who cling to their Bibles, as our president might put it, is that everyone has a different interpretation of the “good book.” If God is on their side (which ever side needs him at the moment, he is always on their side), doesn’t he want them to go after those Mormons who believe in polygamy? Doesn’t he want them to save all those traditional marriages that are falling apart? I don’t recall him telling Adam and Eve that they could divorce. Start an anti-divorce measure for god’s sake.
Where is their crusade against adultery? against coveting (desiring in your heart, ie, not the deed but the thought) another’s goods or wife or husband. Why do they not gather in the thousands to protest the slaying of a man who performed abortions by one of their own. Did their god not say to them “Thou shalt not kill?.”
The God of the New Testament preached Love, Hope and Charity and asked you to follow in his footsteps. He was tolerant, he treated all equally. he wanted to build his kingdom according to his plan, not the “values” of men. Who can look into their heart and say they follow the word of God faithfully, constantly, and honestly?
“It’s the will of God to protect marriage. . . . We will be victorious because God goes before us.”
Our forefathers, those stuffy old pilgrims, believed that the only way to tell if god had “Saved” you was that you became rich. The hung Quackers, drove out those who disagreed with them, killed the natives who lived in that land, and they did it all for “religious” freedom. I guess not much has changed.
If a gay or lesbian couple wants to get married, let them. Whatever God’s plan is I doubt that he has shared it all with you. Let him sort it out.
You should tend to the mote in your own eye.
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign evidently has two entrance tracks one for the general public and one for students who have “clout.” Clout, in this instance, means anyone who knows someone who can pull strings to get you into the University even if you are a substandard student. No doubt we can point fingers at other Universities who have a similar process; otherwise, how did George Walker Bush get into college?
Today’s Tribune story (here) has documentation rather than pure speculation.
In one case, a relative of Antoin “Tony” Rezko, the now-convicted influence peddler for former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, got admitted after U. of I. President B. Joseph White wrote an e-mail stating that the governor “has expressed his support, and would like to see admitted” Rezko’s relative and another applicant.
White’s message to the university chancellor was passed on to admissions officials on the same day they entered a rejection decision for the Rezko relative. “He’s actually pretty low,” replied an admissions officer, referring to the applicant’s ACT score and other credentials. “Let me know when the denial letter can go out.”
Instead, the relative was admitted.
Over 800 students in the past 4 years were granted acceptance despite having substandard grades and test scores, thereby eliminating qualified candidates enrolling in the prestigious university.
Some students do not do well on traditional tests and many do not do well in traditional classrooms, so there must be a way to provide quality education for these students. It must not, however, be at he expense of students who have done well according to the standards they were told to achieve in order to further their education. The end result of the current system hurts students, the University, and the public who is denied the educated and moral leaders we so desperately need.
Patronage has become such an entrenched part of the admissions process that there’s even a name for the applicants with heavy-hitting sponsors: “Category I.”
clip
The system has affected the quality of the student body, records show. In 2006, the Law School’s admissions dean argued that admitting a Category I applicant would require the admission of two additional students to offset the impact it would have on the school’s ranking.
“There is no track record of success and when [the applicant] is faced with the rigor of our program there is absolutely no reason to expect anything other than failure,” wrote Paul Pless, the law admissions dean. [bold emphasis mine]
Kudos to The Tribune for pursuing this story.