Barack Obama Is The Same Lying Cheating Fraud He Was Back In ’08 With His Illegal Overseas Campaign Donations

Same old lying song, same old lying dance.  Obama is accepting campaign donations from foreigners.  Again.

CNBC earlier proved that “foreign-connected money” goes to Democrats by a wide margin.  So this isn’t really anything new:

Obama campaign accepted foreign Web donation — and may be hiding more
By ISABEL VINCENT and MELISSA KLEIN
Last Updated: 10:11 AM, October 21, 2012
Posted: 12:34 AM, October 21, 2012

The Obama re-election campaign has accepted at least one foreign donation in violation of the law — and does nothing to check on the provenance of millions of dollars in other contributions, a watchdog group alleges.

Chris Walker, a British citizen who lives outside London, told The Post he was able to make two $5 donations to President Obama’s campaign this month through its Web site while a similar attempt to give Mitt Romney cash was rejected. It is illegal to knowingly solicit or accept money from foreign citizens.

Walker said he used his actual street address in England but entered Arkansas as his state with the Schenectady, NY, ZIP code of 12345.

“When I did Romney’s, the payment got rejected on the grounds that the address on the card did not match the address that I entered,” he said. “Romney’s Web site wanted the code from the back of card. Barack Obama’s didn’t.”

In September, Obama’s campaign took in more than $2 million from donors who provided no ZIP code or incomplete ZIP codes, according to data posted on the Federal Election Commission Web site.

The Obama campaign said the FEC data was the result of “a minor technical error.”

“All the ZIP codes and numbers are real and can be verified,” spokesman Michael Czin said.

The Obama campaign’s apparent lack of safeguards makes it possible to violate the law, says a report released by the Government Accountability Institute, a Florida-based watchdog group.

The report found that one Obama site — Obama.com — gets almost half of its traffic from foreign computer addresses. The site directs users to an Obama donation page.

“We are not suggesting that just foreign traffic by itself is a problem,” said Peter Schweizer, president of the GAI. “But for a campaign that is very sophisticated in its fund-raising capabilities, they do not make one effort to try to even see or ask somebody to check a box that says they are a US citizen.”

Obama’s re-election campaign took in $130,867 from donors who provided no ZIP codes and $2 million from those with incomplete ZIPs in September.

That same month, Romney’s campaign recorded $2,450 from donors without ZIP codes and $2,500 from those with incomplete ZIPs.

Walker said it should have been clear to the Obama campaign’s computers that his donations came from a computer with a foreign IP address.

The Obama campaign says it “screens all credit-card contributions that originate from a foreign IP address” and requests proof of citizenship if questions arise.

But not only did Walker’s Obama donations go through, but he said he began receiving two to three e-mail solicitations a day to give more. The e-mails asked for $188 or more.

If Walker gave $188, his total contribution to Obama would be $198 — less than the $200 threshold at which campaigns have to identify the donor to the FEC.

“I have not had any e-mails asking for proof of identity,” Walker said.

The GAI report found the Obama campaign Web sites do not ask donors to provide their three-digit card-verification value, or CVV, numbers to ensure they are the legitimate holders of the card. Romney’s campaign asks for such information, which is considered a standard security measure.

One conduit for Obama donations is Obama.com, which was registered in 2008 to Robert Roche, an American who lives and works in China, where he owns an infomercial company.

Roche is also a bundler for the Obama campaign and was given a seat at the head table for a 2011 state dinner with the Chinese president

The GAI report said that the site registration was changed in 2010 to make it anonymous and that it was unclear whether Roche still owns it.

Roche’s mother in Chicago referred calls to the Obama campaign. The campaign declined to comment.

Oh, well.  You remember Obama’s hot mike moment where he promised the Russians that if they laid off him and helped him get reelected, he’d be “more flexible” to rat-sodomize America.  You know that Russia wants Obama to give them the American farm.  And if we are stupid enough to elect the fool, we’re stupid enough to give Russia the (last) farm, too.

Will The World End May 21? Why No Man Knows The Day Or The Hour

The Lord Jesus Christ told us He would return like a thief in the night, and to watch and wait for Him.  So I would never presume that that return could NOT occur on May 21.

But I also know that the same Lord Jesus said regarding that same return, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Matthew 24:36).

Harold Camping (who has already proven himself to be a false prophet over his false prediction of this very day back in 1994) has apparently said that “no one knows” only refers to the unbelieving world.  What makes that claim asinine is that according to that view Jesus Christ Himself is an unbeliever in Jesus Christ.  Because He told us that He the Son would also not know the time of His return.

So, let us just say that while I truly wish to be ready when my Lord returns for me, I have my doubts about Camping and his bogus timetable.

Interestingly, all the hype surrounding false prophet Harold Camping actually DOES reveal the truth about another prophecy of Jesus.  Jesus said (in the same chapter that He said no one knows the day or the hour of His return):

“And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one misleads you.  For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many” (Matthew 24:4-5).

And in light of all the media hype regarding Harold Camping pseudo-second coming, do you not see how it will be as false Messiah’s start popping up and people just like Camping will say, “Here He is! (Matthew 24:23-25)”???

Having said that I will go ahead and set my alarm for Sunday morning in spite of Camping’s assurances that doing so is completely unnecessary, let me move on to explaining just WHY no one can know the day or the hour of Christ’s return.

What if there was a code in the Bible placed by God that actually said that Jesus would return on May 21, 2011, or some other day?

What that would mean is that there truly is no human freedom.  What that would mean is that human beings are ultimately not responsible for anything; because no matter what human beings do or do not do, the end is inexorable.  Be good or be wicked; it matters not.

And that is simply not true.

God – through His prophets and through His Son – told us about the events surrounding the last days culminating in the ultimate return of Jesus Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16).  Here is an interesting site that provides a great many of these biblical prophetic signs which I plan to read as soon as I get through writing this piece.

Think of some of those prophecies, and how uncanny they are.  The birth of the nation Israel (see prophecies #29 and 30 on the list above).  The very Russian-and-Iran-led Arab confederation predicted by the prophets 2,600 years ago as attacking that reborn Israel exists today (see prophecies #54, 56-58).  As does an army of 200 million from the East – prophesied at a time when there weren’t 200 million human beings on the whole planet (prophecy #61).  Along with the capacity to dry up the mighty Euprhates River for that army to cross (see prophecy #60).  Then there is the technology for the mark of the beast without which no man may buy or sell (prophecy #23).  All of these and so many other events are coming together right now.  And they are amazing; YOU try to make accurate specific predictions of what will happen in 2,000 years, and then have them all begin to come together at the same time!

But were all these things “determined” to happen on a given date and time, or did God – who knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10) – rather understand that a wicked human species would one day rise against Him in a way that would result in the end of the present world?

There’s a line from a movie I remember enjoying: “Infinite goodness is creating a being you know in advance is going to complain.” – Captain Cutshaw, in The Ninth Configuration.  And the fact of the matter is that God DID know that humanity would choose evil, and that God the Son would have to come to die in our place, to take the blame for our sins, if we were going to have a relationship with God on earth or in heaven.  Read the first fourteen verses of Ephesians chapter 1, especially verses 4-5.  God knew that Adam and Even would sin.  He knew that He would have to assume a human nature and die in our place so we could live in Him and with Him.

Through His prophets, and those to whom He revealed Himself, God progressively unfolded His plan for the human race in history.  He gave the law as a tutor, knowing we would not be able to keep it, to lead us toward Christ (Galatians 3:24).  He provided the substitutionary blood of animal sacrifices knowing that ultimately He would have to become the ultimate once-for-all-time (extending backward and forward in time) sacrifice (Hebrews 10:4).

But God didn’t just dictate.  Human beings aren’t just puppets acting out the roles and speaking according to the script that He programmed us with.  Rather, the God who created us knew what we would do; He knew the choices we would make and the situations that we would make them in.

God knew all possible worlds.  And He chose which of those worlds to create.  There are worlds in which I would not be born.  There are worlds in which I would not have been saved.  God sovereignly chose which world to create.  And He knew everything that would happen, including all the counterfactuals (what would have happened; what would have happened had I zigged instead of zagged?) for every single human being in this world that He alone chose and He alone created.

Which is to say that God knew what no human being could possibly know.

And God did not share that knowledge with humanity.  He didn’t even share it with Harold Camping.

Unlike Harold Camping, I lack the ability to make definitive, catagorical statements about what will happen tommorow.  But I’m guessing Sunday morning will find Camping waking up with egg all over his face.

LA Times Proves It’s Blatant Bias For Democrats

Had a very interesting story come out Friday, July 25th.

There’s little “apparently” about it: The National Enquirer has run stories that John Edwards had a “love child” with a woman named Rielle Hunter. The story begins:

Vice Presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards was caught visiting his mistress and secret love child at 2:40 this morning in a Los Angeles hotel by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.

The married ex-senator from North Carolina – whose wife Elizabeth continues to battle cancer — met with his mistress, blonde divorcée Rielle Hunter, at the Beverly Hilton on Monday night, July 21 – and the NATIONAL ENQUIRER was there! He didn’t leave until early the next morning.

Rielle had driven to Los Angeles from Santa Barbara with a male friend for the rendezvous with Edwards. The former senator attended a press event Monday afternoon with L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on the topic of how to combat homelessness.

But a months-long NATIONAL ENQUIRER investigation had yielded information that Rielle and Edwards, 54, had arranged to secretly meet afterward and for the ex-senator to spend some time with both his mistress and the love child who he refuses to publicly acknowledge as his own.

And the details are pretty well confirmed by FoxNews.

John Edwards was in Los Angeles to do one of his poverty events, and the Enquirer discovered that Rielle Hunter had a room at the Beverly Hilton. Believing that John Edwards – whom their sources claimed was the father of Hunter’s child in December 2007 story – would show up, an Enquirer team obtained a room and laid in wait for the former Senator.

Sure enough he showed up. And when the Enquirer reporters began to photograph him and ask him questions at 2:40 A.M., Edwards – who did not have a room at the hotel he was in at nearly 3 A.M. – ran into a bathroom and called security.

So let’s just come out and acknowledge the plain fact: John Edwards is a philandering lech who had a long-time sexual affair even as his wife is possibly dying of cancer.

Okay. For many who have long-since come to believe that John Edwards was a scumbag par excellance, this isn’t so much news as it is confirmation of what they already thought.

Here’s where the story really gets interesting. The Los Angeles Times is caught red-handed trying to suppress the story:

LAT Gags Blogs: In a move that has apparently stirred up some internal discontent, the Los Angeles Times has banned its bloggers, including political bloggers, from mentioning the Edwards/Rielle Hunter story. Even bloggers who want to mention the story in order to make a skeptical we-don’t-trust-the-Enquirer point are forbidden from doing so. Kausfiles has obtained a copy of the email Times bloggers received from editor Tony Pierce. [I’ve excised the recipient list and omitted Pierce’s email address]:

From: “Pierce, Tony”

Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT

To: [XXX]

Subject: john edwards

Hey bloggers,

There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.

If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don’t hesitate to ask

Keep rockin,

Tony

That will certainly calm paranoia about the Mainstream Media (MSM) suppressing the Edwards scandal. …

P.S.: Is the Times’ edict a) part of a double-standard that favors Democrats (and disfavors Republicans like Rep. Vito Fossella and John McCain)? Or does it b) simply reflect an outmoded Gatekeeper Model of journalism in which not informing readers of certain sensitive allegations is as important as informing them–as if readers are too simple-minded to weigh charges that are not proven, as if they aren’t going to find out about such controversies anyway? I’d say it’s a mixture of both (a) and (b). This was a sensational scandal the LAT and other MSM papers passionately did not want to uncover when Edwards was a formal candidate, and now that the Enquirer seems to have done the job for them it looks like they want everyone to shut up while they fail to uncover it again. …

P.P.S.: The Times apparently failed to get word of the ban to one of its bloggers in time to prevent her from shocking readers by saying she hoped the allegations against Edwards weren’t true. … 2:55 A.M. link

Another link to the cover-up story.

There are so many reasons to know that the media is WAY, WAY, WAAAAAYYY in the tank for Democrats.

You can add that to the massive media entourage – including all three elite network anchors – that accompanied Barack Obama on his foreign trip.

You remember the “wide-stance” airport bathroom arrest of Republican Senator Larry Craig? The media were all over that story after it surfaced, and had been trying to get dirt on him for months. Though he ultimately refused to resign, the constant media attention destroyed his career, and he is not running for re-election.

You remember the media frenzy over the Repulbican Representative Mark Foley scandal in Florida? It may have been the straw-that-broke-the-camel’s-back moment for Republicans in the 2006 elections. The media couldn’t get enough of that one. And as much as they covered the scandal, they misrepresented it to make it sound worse than it actually was. One had to work to learn the truth that the media didn’t reveal: that Foley was not molesting boys, but rather forming friendships with congressional pages, and then contacting them with sexual advances AFTER they were of legal age. He did not solicit sex with any active page.  He has never been arrested for his conduct since his resignation.

Neither of these men had anywhere NEAR the public profile of two-time Democratic candidate for president and 2004 vice-presidential candidate Edwards.  But it didn’t matter to a media that was out to destroy Republicans and influence elections.  The media ignored the Edwards “love-child” story for months and months when they went after Republicans with zeal.

Now, I don’t mind one bit that the media exposed guys like Craig and Foley. What they did – legal or not – was wrong, and they should have been exposed.

What bothers me is the constant double-standard of a media that represents itself as being objective while it is clearly in the tank for liberals and Democrats.

On story after story, issue after issue, the media reveals its bias. It reveals it in the stories it covers, the stories that it refuses to cover, the people it interviews or refuses to interview for a given story, and the angle or topic of a story that is covered versus other possible angles. They do it all the time, unrelentingly.

Many liberals believe as they do because they have been made stupid by a media that routinely distorts the truth and misrepresents the facts. They cannot understand reality because they are constantly presented with a lie.

As much of a story as two-time Democrat candidate for president John Edward’s infidelity is, the real story is the bias of the media in refusing to fairly and objectively cover a story that would negatively effect Democrats.