The Republican Thread

[Cknolls]

Yesterday we noted the Obama's campaign's acceptance of credit card contributions made via the Internet under false names and addresses in "Who is John Galt?" Many readers wrote to confirm the experiment conducted by our reader under the names John Galt, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers at obviously phony addresses.

 

At the same time, the contributions of "John Galt" and all the rest were rejected without fail by the McCain campaign. How could this be?

 

Mark Steyn and many readers (thanks to all) wrote to explain that the Obama campaign has chosen to reject, and the McCain campaign has chosen to adopt, the Address Verification System, or AVS. It is a simple tool that prevents credit card fraud.

 

As Steyn observed, "the AVS security checks most merchant processors use to screen out fraudulent transactions (and, incidentally, overseas customers) were intentionally disabled by the Obama campaign -- and thus their web donation page enables fraudulent (and/or foreign) donations."

 

Steyn also reported the contribution of NRO reader "Della Ware" of "12345 No Way." Steyn later reported that "Ms. Ware's" contribution was actually withdrawn from her account yesterday.

 

Campaign contributions under false names are illegal, as are contributions by noncitizens. Federal campaign law also limits the amount any one citizen can contribute to the presidential campaign to $2,300. The acceptance of campaign contributions via credit card without AVS protection facilitates illegal contributions. This is what the Obama campaign has chosen to do, and what the McCain campaign has chosen to avoid.

 

Steyn elaborated on this point at the end of the day:

 

n order to accept donations from "Della Ware" and "Saddam Hussein" et al, the Obama website had, intentionally, to disable all the default security settings on their credit-card processing. I took a look at the inner sanctum of my (alas, far more modest) online retail operation this afternoon and, in order to permit fraud as easy as that which the Obama campaign is facilitating, you have to uncheck every single box on the AVS system, each one of which makes it very explicit just what you're doing - ie, accepting transactions with no "billing address", no "street address" match, no "zip code" match, with a bank "of non-US origin" (I've got nothing against those, but a US campaign fundraiser surely should be wary), etc. When you've disabled the whole lot one step at a time, then you've got a system tailor-made for fake names and bogus addresses.

 

By this time "Della Ware" had contacted the New York Times to report her experiment. Here, one might think, is a story. At the least, it provides an important sidebar to the heralded Obama online fundraising operation. Yet when Times reporter Michael Luo wrote it up for the Times's campaign blog, he somehow missed the point. "To be fair to the Obama campaign," Luo wrote, "officials there have said much of their checking for fraud occurs after the transactions have already occurred. When they find something wrong, they then refund the amount."

 

But, to repeat, the Obama campaign has chosen to establish an online contribution system that faciliates illegal anonymous or falsely sourced contributions, illegal foreign contributions and the evasion of contribution limits. Why has it chosen to do so? Why has it not availed itself of the AVS protection that would expose or prevent such illegal contributions? Luo does not grasp the heart of the story.

 

It is a story, however, and an important one. At least Luo reported it. The rest of the Times and its mainstream media colleagues have averted their eyes or turned their attention elsewhere

 

 

[clyons]

Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?

 

Proof of Obama's membership in the New Party was discovered by the Politically Drunk On Power blog [4]:

 

I read this post several times, and although it spoke of this party's endorsement of Obama, and Obama's attendance at a party function as Alice Palmer's chief of staff, I didn't see any evidence of Obama's actual membership in this party. What "proof" did I miss?

[Steve9347]

Yesterday we noted the Obama's campaign's acceptance of credit card contributions made via the Internet under false names and addresses in "Who is John Galt?" Many readers wrote to confirm the experiment conducted by our reader under the names John Galt, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers at obviously phony addresses.

This is quite interesting...

[clyons]

This is quite interesting...

 

Again, I must be missing something here, because I don't see why this is such a big deal. To me, the fact that a website or business "accepts" a credit card transaction with erroneous information doesn't necessarily mean they'll ever see a penny of that cash. That transaction is going to be thwarted by the credit card company once it gets that far. I know I've logged off of Ticketmaster thinking that I had purchased tickets to games, only to be denied tickets later because Mastercard didn't process my "accepted" order due to some mistake on my part.

 

Furthermore, anyone that's ever been involved with fundraising knows that you never collect all the money that's been pledged. When Jerry Lewis says that he's "raised" $X million at his telethon, its understood that MDA will not see all of that, because people forget to follow through, renege, bounce checks, etc. Does that make Uncle Jerry a fraud?

 

Now if these posts mean the Obama camp is essentially making bogus contributions to itself in order to grossly inflate its money raising totals, I can see how that might be something; However you need to make some major leaps to conclude that this is going on here. The only folks I read about here who are purposedly making defective contributions are the Woodward and Bernstein wannabes looking to create a story by submitting erroneous data themselves.

Edited October 24, 2008 by PlaySumFnJurny

[EvilMonkey]

Again, I must be missing something here, because I don't see why this is such a big deal. To me, the fact that a website or business "accepts" a credit card transaction with erroneous information doesn't necessarily mean they'll ever see a penny of that cash. That transaction is going to be thwarted by the credit card company once it gets that far. I know I've logged off of Ticketmaster thinking that I had purchased tickets to games, only to be denied tickets later because Mastercard didn't process my "accepted" order due to some mistake on my part.

 

Furthermore, anyone that's ever been involved with fundraising knows that you never collect all the money that's been pledged. When Jerry Lewis says that he's "raised" $X million at his telethon, its understood that MDA will not see all of that, because people forget to follow through, renege, bounce checks, etc. Does that make Uncle Jerry a fraud?

 

Now if these posts mean the Obama camp is essentially making bogus contributions to itself in order to grossly inflate its money raising totals, I can see how that might be something; However you need to make some major leaps to conclude that this is going on here. The only folks I read about here who are purposedly making defective contributions are the Woodward and Bernstein wannabes looking to create a story by submitting erroneous data themselves.

I told myself that i would stay away from here until the election was over because I get too wokred up, but i can't believe that you can't see the HUGE problem here, and that nobody has enlightened you yet. First, these are donations, NOT pledges. if you went to the page online, entered your credit card information and it was accepted, you just made a donation, not a pledge to send money later. So now then, what is the problem?

 

It is that due to the way Obama (his campaign) has set up their system, anyone can enter credit card info that does not match the info on file. They turned off the address verification. You don't have reports of jane Doe saying that someone charges $2000 to Obama on her card (although there ARE 2 or 3 reports of that very thing happening), but you have the possibility of one person, donating the maximum amount to Obama, as many times as they can enter names. With no name verification, Joe Doe can enter his cc info and name on a max donation and send it away. Then, log back in, use his cc info again, but change the name to Henry Doe. With no verification, the only check is to see if the number is valid, which it is. And since Joe wanted to donate twice, he isn't going to complain that a second donation showed up on his credit card statement. he could do this for as long as he had room on his card and names to make up. The kicker is that for the small internet donations, Obama is either not keeping track of them, or not releasing the info if he is, so there is no way to track it. This would allow people who shouldn't be donating to donate. With no address verification, who knows how much foreign donations there are. At one point Obama had released a list that contained just amounts. Most people donate in even dollars, like $25 or $100. The pages were littered with amounts like $43.87 and such, which would be the amount in dollars after being transferred from foreign currancy thru a credit card transaction. This simple ommission by the Obama campaign opens the possibility of fraud on such a massive scale that it is almost unimaginable. Is it happening for sure? We don't have a clue, because as usual, Obama is not sharing any information. And to use an over-used phrase, just imagin if the McCain site was set up to accept potentially fraudulant donations, and not keeping track of who was making them? How many times has george Soros donated to Obama in $100 incriments, which aren't reported? How many people in Europe have donated to The One? We don't know, what a suprise.

[Balta1701]

This would allow people who shouldn't be donating to donate. With no address verification, who knows how much foreign donations there are. At one point Obama had released a list that contained just amounts. Most people donate in even dollars, like $25 or $100. The pages were littered with amounts like $43.87 and such, which would be the amount in dollars after being transferred from foreign currancy thru a credit card transaction.

The bolded part is 100% incorrect and I can tell you exactly why. In the original bloggy days, there was a standard operating procedure for how to designate when contributing to a campaign which blog you came through...and that was to add a specific amount of cents to the contribution, where each # of cents was correlated with the blog you went through. A number of people still do that. Here's one of the old keys:

Calpundit readers add $.15

Daily Kos readers add $.01

EdCone.com readers add $.13

Eschaton readers add $.18

The Hamster readers add $.04

Instapundit readers add $.03

pandagon.net readers add $.07

Political Wire readers add $.09

Seeing the Forest readers add $.02

Talk Left readers add $.11

Talking Points Memo readers add $.22

Yellow Dog Blog readers add $.36

[EvilMonkey]

The bolded part is 100% incorrect and I can tell you exactly why. In the original bloggy days, there was a standard operating procedure for how to designate when contributing to a campaign which blog you came through...and that was to add a specific amount of cents to the contribution, where each # of cents was correlated with the blog you went through. A number of people still do that. Here's one of the old keys:

Balta, you can say not entirely corerect, but unless you have access to some logs that onbody else does, you can't say what i typed is 100% incorrect. You reference the good ole original bloggy days, but how many people going to blogs now went there 3 years ago? Or more, whenever this wonderfull program was designed? However, even if every single donation ending in odd cents is what you claim it to be, that still leaves his site with the ability to accept multiple donations from the same person as long as they change the name, sine there is no address verification. That is like putting up a big neon sign saying 'fraud here!'.

[clyons]

So now then, what is the problem?

 

There isn't one. Not really.

 

The difference is not between pledges and donations. If that's the only distinction I raised that you caught, I'm afraid you missed my overall point.

 

My problem is with the illogical, hyperbolic conclusion that the Obama campaign is committing/encouraging/aiding campaign fraud because, essentially, they use a different system for "accepting" credit card donations that screens a little further downstream. That's like a Norton user saying a McAfee subscriber intentionally infects his own computer with viruses by using different software. So the McCain campaign does it differently; maybe even "better." So what? That makes the Obama campaign guilty of fraud? I don't think so, and that kind of reach just sounds like sour grapes from a camp that's getting absolutely dusted in fundraising.

 

It makes sense to me that a campaign (or a charity) that doesn't send product out the door in exchange for credit card numbers does not have to be as strict or stringent about "accepting" a number upfront, because, unlike a retail business like Amazon, it won't suffer any loss by sending out a shipment or providing services before the cardholders' money actually hits its account. Maybe the FEC needs to change this (that seems like a good idea given your concerns), but the accusations leveled here against the Obama camp just seem baseless to me.

 

As I said in my earlier post, regardless of whether the campaign website was set up to "accept" the fradulent donations submitted by these oh-so-clever conservatives, the Obama campaign will not, in the end, see a penny of that cash. Either the campaign will catch it down stream (a point mentioned by the Times reporter, but brusquely disregarded in the other posts), the credit card company will refuse it, or the card holder himself will challenge as a final fail safe. That's why I don't see a problem, other than in the possible inflation of fundraising totals for public relations purposes, which I conceded eariler.

Edited October 25, 2008 by PlaySumFnJurny

[NorthSideSox72]

I tend to side with my GOP friends here, that IF the Obama campaign chose to turn off address verification, and these B.S. donations are coming through, then that is borderline fraudulent. I don't know the campaign finance laws with enough exactness to know if its truly illegal in some way - probably not. But its awfully sketchy.

 

I don't think its the difference maker in the election, but, I think we need to make major changes to campaign finance, and this yet another good example as to why.

 

[EvilMonkey]

There isn't one. Not really.

 

The difference is not between pledges and donations. If that's the only distinction I raised that you caught, I'm afraid you missed my overall point.

 

My problem is with the illogical, hyperbolic conclusion that the Obama campaign is committing/encouraging/aiding campaign fraud because, essentially, they use a different system for "accepting" credit card donations that screens a little further downstream. That's like a Norton user saying a McAfee subscriber intentionally infects his own computer with viruses by using different software. So the McCain campaign does it differently; maybe even "better." So what? That makes the Obama campaign guilty of fraud? I don't think so, and that kind of reach just sounds like sour grapes from a camp that's getting absolutely dusted in fundraising.

 

It makes sense to me that a campaign (or a charity) that doesn't send product out the door in exchange for credit card numbers does not have to be as strict or stringent about "accepting" a number upfront, because, unlike a retail business like Amazon, it won't suffer any loss by sending out a shipment or providing services before the cardholders' money actually hits its account. Maybe the FEC needs to change this (that seems like a good idea given your concerns), but the accusations leveled here against the Obama camp just seem baseless to me.

 

As I said in my earlier post, regardless of whether the campaign website was set up to "accept" the fradulent donations submitted by these oh-so-clever conservatives, the Obama campaign will not, in the end, see a penny of that cash. Either the campaign will catch it down stream (a point mentioned by the Times reporter, but brusquely disregarded in the other posts), the credit card company will refuse it, or the card holder himself will challenge as a final fail safe. That's why I don't see a problem, other than in the possible inflation of fundraising totals for public relations purposes, which I conceded eariler.

You miss the whole point. The verification feature is something you manually have to turn off. And the cc comapnies do not like that, and charge you higher fees when you do because it leaves them open to more chargebacks. So the campaign knowingly turned it off, even though it costs them more money, because why?

 

And no, the campaign can't 'catch it down stream'. How are they going to do that? Sure, they can spot the obvious ones with Mickey Mouose for the name, but if someone puts in a gerneric name, and a valid cc number, there is no way for them to catch it with the verification turned off. And if Joe WANTS the charges to go thru, and charges them under John, Jack and Jim, the card holder willnot refuse them. So your 'fail safes' do NOTHING to stop someone from voluntarily giving more than the max under different names.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Palin's getting restless:

Politico's Ben Smith reports on the internal tensions that are roiling the McCain campaign, with many Palin allies voicing their unhappiness at how the campaign has been run. According to Smith, there are now "stirrings of a Palin insurgency." Some of the highlights:

 

Four Republicans close to Palin said she has decided increasingly to disregard the advice of the former Bush aides tasked to handle her, creating occasionally tense situations as she travels the country with them. Those Palin supporters, inside the campaign and out, said Palin blames her handlers for a botched rollout and a tarnished public image

 

"She's lost confidence in most of the people on the plane," said a senior Republican who speaks to Palin, referring to her campaign jet. He said Palin had begun to "go rogue" in some of her public pronouncements and decisions.[...]

 

Anger among Republicans who see Palin as a star and as a potential future leader has boiled over because, they say, they see other senior McCain aides preparing to blame her in the event he is defeated.

 

"These people are going to try and shred her after the campaign to divert blame from themselves," said a McCain insider, referring to McCain's chief strategist, Steve Schmidt, and to Nicolle Wallace, a former Bush aide who has taken a lead role in Palin's campaign.

[...]

 

"A number of Governor Palin's staff have not had her best interests at heart and they have not had the campaign's best interests at heart," fumed the McCain insider, noting that Wallace left an executive job at CBS to join the campaign."

[clyons]

You miss the whole point. The verification feature is something you manually have to turn off. And the cc comapnies do not like that, and charge you higher fees when you do because it leaves them open to more chargebacks. So the campaign knowingly turned it off, even though it costs them more money, because why?

 

And no, the campaign can't 'catch it down stream'. How are they going to do that? Sure, they can spot the obvious ones with Mickey Mouose for the name, but if someone puts in a gerneric name, and a valid cc number, there is no way for them to catch it with the verification turned off. And if Joe WANTS the charges to go thru, and charges them under John, Jack and Jim, the card holder willnot refuse them. So your 'fail safes' do NOTHING to stop someone from voluntarily giving more than the max under different names.

I assure you the point was not missed. They turned something off; I get it. You equate that to some form of wrongdoing; its not. If it was illegal or the credit card companies did not allow for it; it wouldn't be an available option.

 

The credit card companies charge higher fees to offset the added logistical burden it causes for them to catch and bounce any resulting charge discrepencies, which, again, are less risky to "accept" upstream for service or non-retail businesses like charities or campaigns. Again, haven't you ever been bounced by Ticketmaster after trying hurriedly but honestly to buy Sox or concert tickets? I have. How do you think that happens? The orders get thrown out by the system because the data doesn't match up. I think its really that simple.

 

Again, I see no big deal here because I am absolutely certain that the Obama campaign will not see a penny of this cash. If I am wrong because the credit card companies' vast computer resources are really as unsophisticated as you seem to imply, then we really don't have much of a diasagreement; this is a loophole that should definitely be closed. Nevertheless, I still see the cries of "fraud" as so much sour grapes.

Edited October 25, 2008 by PlaySumFnJurny

[EvilMonkey]

I assure you the point was not missed. They turned something off; I get it. You equate that to some form of wrongdoing; its not. If it was illegal or the credit card companies did not allow for it; it wouldn't be an available option.

 

The credit card companies charge higher fees to offset the added logistical burden it causes for them to catch and bounce any resulting charge discrepencies, which, again, are less risky to "accept" upstream for service or non-retail businesses like charities or campaigns. Again, haven't you ever been bounced by Ticketmaster after trying hurriedly but honestly to buy Sox or concert tickets? I have. How do you think that happens? The orders get thrown out by the system because the data doesn't match up. I think its really that simple.

 

Again, I see no big deal here because I am absolutely certain that the Obama campaign will not see a penny of this cash. If I am wrong because the credit card companies' vast computer resources are really as unsophisticated as you seem to imply, then we really don't have much of a diasagreement; this is a loophole that should definitely be closed. Nevertheless, I still see the cries of "fraud" as so much sour grapes.

There is no data for the credit card companies to 'match up'. Obama will get every one of them, as long as the card holder wants them to go thru. Just keep wearing your blinders if you see no big deal. The fact that they willing incur extra fees by turning the verification off is enough to give pause. But if you have drunk so much koolaid that you can't even see the potential there for massive fraud, keep on being an ostridge. At least NSS realizes the huge potential for wrongdoing that exists there, and that is is questionable as to WHY they would turn it off in the first place.

[Kyyle23]

I work at Chase in Credit Card fraud. fraudulent charges in the name of BOTH parties exist. We get them quite frequently

[Disco72]

I work at Chase in Credit Card fraud. fraudulent charges in the name of BOTH parties exist. We get them quite frequently

 

Without giving away anything proprietary, can you clear up the "process" debate that is going on here? If these verification features are turned off by the merchant/campaign, are these "caught" by the merchant/campaign at some future time? If not, are they then caught by the credit card company at some future time? Or can these charges/contributions go through without "verification" if the cardholder wants them to?

[clyons]

There is no data for the credit card companies to 'match up'. Obama will get every one of them, as long as the card holder wants them to go thru. Just keep wearing your blinders if you see no big deal. The fact that they willing incur extra fees by turning the verification off is enough to give pause. But if you have drunk so much koolaid that you can't even see the potential there for massive fraud, keep on being an ostridge. At least NSS realizes the huge potential for wrongdoing that exists there, and that is is questionable as to WHY they would turn it off in the first place.

Easy, dog. If you've read any of my posts in this forum, you know that I'm hardly drunk on Obama kool-aid, and if you re-read mine on this particular subject, you'll see that my objection to all these cries of fraud are more technical than partsian. Furthermore, I've haven't resorted to name-calling in a single post I've made.

 

"There is no data for the credit card companies to match up" ???? What do think names and addresses are? Again, I've made mere typos when trying to buy tickets from TM, had those defective orders "accepted" and received order "confirmation numbers," and yet those orders have been rejected by my credit card company later on, because the data I gave TM didn't match up with that on file with Mastercard. I guarantee you that if I try to buy Sox tickets online as "Alpha Dog," I'm not getting the tickets, and the White Sox aren't getting my money. Why would it be different for any other type of charge, including donations to political campaigns? The fact that these transactions aren't screened at intake doesn't mean they don't get screened at all.

 

Again, I think the reason MANY non-retail businesses like charities and campaigns are willing to incur "extra" fees to have the credit companies screen their charges downstream is because they don't need to also pay for their own screening systems. Unlike businesses like Amazon, they suffer no loss of inventory if they send out goods that ultimately don't get paid for, they just don't get their money. Therefore, they are willing to pay the credit card companies to use their own, extremely elaborate filters to do the screening for them, rather than build and maintain their own. In the long run, its ultimately less expensive to pay these "extra" fees.

 

I do understand that it is less than desirable for a campaign to essentially delegate this important task to MasterCard, and I appreciate (at least in theory) the potential for wrongdoing. Yet any claim that it is somehow underhanded in and of itself is, I'm sorry, a stretch. Furthermore, I can't get past the irony that the only undisputable fraud being perpetrated here is by the would-be contributors who submitted donations to the Obama campaign under bogus names and email addresses just so that they could hollar "Gotcha."

 

Maybe, just maybe, this "outrage" hasn't been picked up on by the MSM because there's no story here. But if its easier for you to accept that its part of a liberal media conspiracy fueled by the ignorance of drunk, blinder-wearing ostriches like myself, knock yourself out.

 

Over and out.

 

[Kyyle23]

Without giving away anything proprietary, can you clear up the "process" debate that is going on here? If these verification features are turned off by the merchant/campaign, are these "caught" by the merchant/campaign at some future time? If not, are they then caught by the credit card company at some future time? Or can these charges/contributions go through without "verification" if the cardholder wants them to?

 

Honestly its hard for me to discuss much, all I can really say is that verification isnt as "bigtime" as you think it is.

[Rex Kickass]

Honestly its hard for me to discuss much, all I can really say is that verification isnt as "bigtime" as you think it is.

It really isn't. In most retailer's cases, you don't need the proper name, address, or zip code to make charges - even the ones that ask for all that information before allowing charges to go through.

 

I don't mean to but into the conversation here, not being a Republican but I think I know why this isn't a big story. As a percentage, and in a total dollar total, McCain has raised more incomplete or undocumented donations in this cycle.

 

From opensecrets.org http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/scoffall.php?cycle=2008

 

Barack Obama

Full Disclosure $242,302,382

Incomplete $5,693,245

No Disclosure $14,136,800

 

John McCain

Full Disclosure $151,166,654

Incomplete $5,400,554

No Disclosure $16,262,617

[Kyyle23]

It really isn't. In most retailer's cases, you don't need the proper name, address, or zip code to make charges - even the ones that ask for all that information before allowing charges to go through.

 

I don't mean to but into the conversation here, not being a Republican but I think I know why this isn't a big story. As a percentage, and in a total dollar total, McCain has raised more incomplete or undocumented donations in this cycle.

 

From opensecrets.org http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/scoffall.php?cycle=2008

 

Its a common misconception that people are able to verify everything coming through on any specific charge. It just doesnt happen like you think. It isnt a free for all for anyone, but it isnt a lockdown per verification of [name, address, vocation, etc] items either.

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

Its a common misconception that people are able to verify everything coming through on any specific charge. It just doesnt happen like you think. It isnt a free for all for anyone, but it isnt a lockdown per verification of [name, address, vocation, etc] items either.

Generally if the CC number and expiration date matches, the charge will go through.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Yesterday we noted the Obama's campaign's acceptance of credit card contributions made via the Internet under false names and addresses in "Who is John Galt?" Many readers wrote to confirm the experiment conducted by our reader under the names John Galt, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers at obviously phony addresses.

I demand an investigation

John McCain received nearly $7 million in 6,652 donations that exceeded contribution limits while seeking the Republican presidential nomination, the Democratic National Committee said on Saturday.

 

The DNC listed the figure in a complaint it said it will file on Monday with the Federal Election Commission.

 

In a copy of the DNC posted on the Internet, the DNC said on Saturday it compiled its information by examining donations recorded on McCain's campaign Web site.

 

"Analysis of the information ... shows that the McCain Campaign has received 6,653 contributions each of which was at least $1,000 in excess of the applicable $2,300 limit to the primary campaign," the DNC complaint said.

 

"Nineteen individuals contributed more then $10,000 each to the McCain Campaign -- more than four times the limit," said the document. It said the donations included one person who gave $56,047 and overall totaled "nearly $7 million."

 

The complaint asked the election commission to investigate the matter. It also accuses the McCain campaign of accepting donations without getting the donors' names and addresses.

[Controlled Chaos]

[NorthSideSox72]

I watched that entire video, and still don't see anything like "race baiting". Can someone point it out for me?

 

[mr_genius]

 

I like how he complains that white people in the suburbs don't want to pay for city schools. uh, buddy, why the hell would they want to throw money into some failed system with jackasses like Bill Ayers making educational direction decisions.

[Controlled Chaos]

I watched that entire video, and still don't see anything like "race baiting". Can someone point it out for me?

Well I rarely ever site Rush Limbaugh, but since this was sent to me in an email I'll use his text.

 

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

 

RUSH: The Obama recently discovered video (we have the audio of it) from 1995, what it does is it juxtaposes 1995 audio from Obama with a clip from a Democrat primary debate this year, and it is stunning. Now, it's 13 years ago. Barry was 34 years old, something like that. Here is just... We have one, two, three, four... We've got four bites here, and I just want you to hear one, to give you an example of what's coming at the top of the next hour. Barack Obama, in his own words, 1995.

 

OBAMA: And I really want to emphasize the word "responsibility." I think that, uh, whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs who doesn't want to pay taxes to inner city children, uh, to -- for them to go to school.

 

MODERATOR: Senator Obama, your position on reparations?

 

OBAMA: I -- I -- I think the reparations we need right here in South Carolina is investment, for example, in our schools.

 

RUSH: The juxtaposition here is to illustrate that Obama has not changed. Now, next week I'm also going to play for you an interview we did for the next issue of the Limbaugh Letter with Stanley Kurtz, who has researched Obama the way the Drive-By Media used to have researched everybody who sought major power in this country, and one of the things that he uncovered that startled me... I've been among the group of people thought Obama showed up as sort of a naive little waif in Chicago and somehow the word spread and Ayers found him and some of these other guys, Jeremiah Wright. It's the other way around. He showed up in Chicago as a radical. He showed up fascinated with sixties radicalism and he found out who in Chicago the sixties radicals people were and formed alliances with them. Here he is in 1995 talking about needing to tax white people, executives in the suburbs, because they don't like paying for schools where black kids go.

 

 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

 

RUSH: The only question in my mind is who taught who? We've all been believing that Jeremiah Wright poisoned Obama's mind. I'm beginning to wonder after hearing this audio coming up if it wasn't Obama that poisoned Wright's mind. Wright was a Marine once. Let's go back to this audio. Here's Obama describing in 1995 how redistribution of wealth will ensure all of our salvation. Listen here as Obama explains his redistribution of wealth is to save the African-American community so he can ensure his own salvation.

 

OBAMA: I worked as a community organizer in Chicago. I was very active in low income neighborhoods, uh, working on issues of crime and education and employment, uh, and seeing that in some ways certain portions of the African-American community, uh, are doing as bad, if not worse, and recognizing that my fate remained tied up with their fates, that, uh, that my individual salvation, uh, is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country. Um, Unfortunately, I think that recognition, uh, requires that we make sacrifices, and this country has not always been willing to make the sacrifices necessary to bring about a new day and the new age. [snip] I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

 

RUSH: Juxtaposing these '95 comments with recent comments that he has made. So redistribution of wealth is to save the African-American community so the country can have salvation and his salvation can be assured as well. This is Barack Obama 1995. Now, this section starts and ends with Obama clips from this year's campaign with a 1995 clip in the middle. And he believes here that we have to use the government and your money to fix the racial wrongs in this country. Again, now, the start and end here are Obama clips from this campaign. The middle is Obama from 1995.

 

OBAMA: In the last year, African-Americans have lost their jobs at a faster rate than at any time in a quarter century. That's a wrong that needs to be made right. [snip] There's a certain race weariness that confronts the country precisely because the questions are so deeply embedded and the solutions are gonna require so much investment of time, energy, and money. [snip] Unfortunately, we've got caught up in ideological battle where one party says, the only way to create job opportunities is through the marketplace and governments should not be involved at all, whereas my argument would be we also have to make sure that people are trained for jobs, that they've got child care, uh, so that they can go to a job, that there's affordable housing in those areas where jobs are being created, that entrepreneurs in minority communities are getting financing to create their own businesses and to create jobs in those communities, and all of those involve not just individual responsibility, but also societal responsibility.

 

 

RUSH: So all of this is about redistribution; it's all about taxes; it's all about readdressing wrongs; it's all about getting even with people who screwed people in advance. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I guess you could say this is what Obama thinks about America. He compares what happens here in the United States to genocide in other parts of the world. All of this is from 1995.

 

OBAMA: Because I think of the problems that African-Americans face in this country, we tend to have a sanitized view in the African-American community about what is going on in Africa. And the truth of the matter is is that many of the problems that Africa faces, whether it's poverty, uh, or political suppression, uh, or ethnic conflict, uh, is just as prominent there and can't all be blamed on, uh, the effects of colonialism. What it can be blamed on is some of the common factors that affect Bosnia or, uh, Los Angeles or, uh, all kinds of places on this earth, and that is the tendency for one group to try to suppress another group in the interests of power or greed or, uh, resources or what have you.

 

RUSH: Don't forget, Jeremiah Wright, white man's greed is what Western civilization and culture are. Los Angeles is Bosnia. Ethnic cleansing. Hm-hm. Hm-hm. (interruption) No, he's not talking about Democrats, Mr. Snerdley. You may think he's talking about Democrats, but he's talking about the inherent injustice that is America. Of course he's not talking about Democrats here. Although he is. "I think of the problems African-Americans face in this country, we tend to have a sanitized view in the African-American community about what's going on in Africa. And the truth of the matter is that many of the problems that Africa faces, whether it's poverty, political suppression, ethnic conflict, just as prominent there and can't all be blamed on the effects of colonialism. What it can be blamed on is some of the common factors that affect Bosnia or Los Angeles or all kinds of places on this earth, the tendency for one group to suppress another group in the interests of power or greed." Now, he's talking about whites versus blacks here. This is whites suppressing blacks, the Bosnians suppressing the Serbs and wherever there is genocide. Of course he left out, uhhh, Rwanda. And he leaves out Darfur. He leaves out where there is genuine genocide going on, where it's black-on-black.

 

This is why I say who taught who what? He says he never heard what Jeremiah Wright said. My question, did he have to? Did he ever have to hear what Jeremiah Wright said? This is 1995. Did he ever have to hear what Jeremiah Wright said in order to believe what he believes? There's a graphic at the end of this video that says, "Which group are you part of? Did you suppress anyone for power or greed or resources?" If Obama thinks that you're part of the bad group, you'll be getting his goodies or will you be paying for them? They give a website here where you can get the entire interview. Let's play cut seven again. He was asked on Good Morning America today if he has any regrets about what he said to Joe the Plumber about spreading the wealth.

 

OBAMA: Not at all. Look, if John McCain's best argument is that he wants to continue the same Bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans that in 2000 he himself opposed and, in the meantime, fails to give tax cuts to a hundred million people in America that I would give tax cuts to, John McCain's going to have some problems because the American people understand that the way we grow this economy is from the bottom up.

 

RUSH: Is that really right? We grow the economy bottom up? The only way we grow the economy bottom up is if the bottom is given things, 'cause they obviously don't have anything if they're poor. If economies were built bottom up, wouldn't Mexico be the number one economy in the world? If economies were built bottom up, wouldn't Cuba be an international superpower? If economies were built bottom up, folks, we wouldn't have a prayer against sub-Saharan Africa. If economies were built bottom up, Soviet Union would now have walls all over the damn place. This guy is a pure, unadulterated socialist, he is unapologetic, and no matter how far back you go in his adult life, you find consistency, and he does not regret it, doesn't apologize for it, and note, almost all of his beliefs are grounded in a rage and anger over racial division, and yet if we bring that up, we're called the racists.

 

 

END TRANSCRIPT

Edited October 26, 2008 by Controlled Chaos