Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations, ACORN Staffer Corroborates

Ever wonder how Barack Obama is making his campaign millions? Earlier this year, it was from foreign donors. When that was discovered, his campaign allegedly gave the money back. But now, new evidence is surfacing that Obama is skirting the law and getting his campaign cash in a way that would make corrupt Chicago politicians proud.

Untraceable pre-paid credit cards. That’s right. This isn’t a joke. Matthew Mosk of the Washington Post has this story:

Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed. Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged.

And how do they know this?

The Obama team’s disclosures came in response to questions from The Washington Post about the case of Mary T. Biskup, a retired insurance manager from Manchester, Mo., who turned up on Obama’s FEC reports as having donated $174,800 to the campaign. Contributors are limited to giving $2,300 for the general election. Biskup, who had scores of Obama contributions attributed to her, said in an interview that she never donated to the candidate. “That’s an error,” she said. Moreover, she added, her credit card was never billed for the donations, meaning someone appropriated her name and made the contributions with another card.

Sounds just like what a Chicago-style politician would resort to in order to circumvent the law.

But it isn’t just the Obama campaign that is under scrutiny for this. A former ACORN staffer named Anita Moncrief is suggesting one method of how these donations are solicited. From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

A former staffer for an affiliate of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now testified today that the organization was provided a “donor list” from the presidential campaign of Barack Obama in late 2007 for fundraising efforts. Anita Moncrief, a former Washington, D.C. staffer for Project Vote, which she described as a sister organization of ACORN, said her supervisor told her the list of campaign contributors came from the Obama campaign. Moncrief said she has a copy of a “development plan” that outlines how Obama contributors who had “maxed out” under federal contribution limits would be targeted to give to Project Vote, and that it was her job to identify such contributors.

Why identify them if they are “maxed out?” To get them to contribute elsewhere, or through different channels. That’s why.

You can access the Washington Post article on-line here:

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations
Matthew Mosk
The Washington Post
October 29, 2008

And the Pittburgh Tribune-Review article on-line here:

Former ACORN Staffer Testifies
Brad Bumsted
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
October 29, 2008

Barack Obama’s Plan To Force Socialism On The United States, Even Though We Don’t Want It

84%. That’s how many Americans think that the Marxist philosophy of “redistributing the wealth” is wrong. Thus, even if Barack Obama wins next week, he will run into a wall of opposition from the American people. So, what will he do about it?

Simple. He will stack the courts.

Steven G. Calabresi over at the Wall Street Journal has penned a great column and shows us exactly how Obama plans to do it. With a possible four Supreme Court appointments, Obama would certainly appoint socialists and other extreme leftists to the High Court. That will be majorly bad news for America since it would mean a permanent socialist government from which we may never escape and any attempts to remove such a government could be struck down by Obama’s socialist judges. (I can say this with a straight face because Europe, despite the troubles they have faced, have never been able to get rid of the socialism that they are shackled under for the same reason.)

From Mr. Calabresi’s column:

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: “[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

And here we are, back to redistribution of the wealth, an idea that only brought disaster to the economies of any nation that has ever tried it.

And it wasn’t just his comment to Joe the Plumber. Obama had designs on socialist intervention long before that:

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society,” and “to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.” He also noted that the Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.” That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government — and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

The prospect of a socialist presidency should scare everybody. In his misguided attempts to bring about “social economics” to the poor, Obama is going to hurt them even more. By taking money away from those who pay the wages, those who work for the wages will be hurt. He may be giving away $1000 checks to those wage earners in exchange for their vote, but that won’t make up for the jobs that wage earners will lose under a cruching tax increase.

And for those of you who don’t believe that history can repeat itself:

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations. If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

It happened under Carter, and will be even worse under Obama.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obama’s ‘Redistribution’ Constitution
Steven G. Calabresi
The Wall Street Journal
October 28, 2008