In what he called “my last election,” President Barack Obama scored a hard-fought but comfortable victory over Mitt Romney last month, but that doesn’t mean his email list will no longer be hit up for campaign cash. To wit, Mr. Obama’s electoral operation, Obama for America, is asking their supporters to contribute after filling out a form backing his plan to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
“Thanks for sharing your story. The next chapter begins today. Stand with President Obama for the next four years,” a subsequent contribution form declares. Suggested donation amounts range from $15 to $1,000 and a picture of Mr. Obama is presented with the text, “Stand with me, work with me, let’s finish what we’ve started.”
What the president’s short- or long-term objective might be is a less pressing question than the one pertaining to the legality of his fund-raising appeal. The article quotes former (current?) campaign manager, Jim Messina, as publicly signaling that the Obama for America website will continue to exist. There is no problem there. Campaign finance laws, however, are pretty specific and straightforward about the duration of campaign fund-raising. To wit, it ends with the election.
Messina seems to acknowledge this:
“What’s true is just from FEC [Federal Election Commission] law, the campaign needs to shut down. We cannot expend funds for non-presidential activities. So we have got to figure out what we do next. That’s a conversation we’re having with our supporters now.”
It is presumably with a wink that he added, “I think anything’s possible.”
MSNBC Somehow Finds a Way to Criticize Romney For Collecting Food and Supplies For Hurricane Victims
Only the leftist hacks at MSNBC could somehow find fault in a person trying to donate time and effort to support the victims of a disastrous hurricane.
In this afternoon’s broadcast of Andrea Mitchell Reports, Mitchell accused Romney of surreptitious campaigning, and asked what are the true intentions of Governor Romney collecting storm supplies after a hurricane. With Chris Cillizza, who writes Washington Post’s The Fix blog, Andrea Mitchell nonsensically noted how donations are the most effective forms of assistance in situations like this because there is no packaging involved. Mitchell revealed herself, yet again, as a liberal hack, and someone who is absent minded when it comes to common sense. There are 7.5 million people without power, and how dare Mitt Romney try to help those in need.
Additionally, Mitchell’s colleague, Martin Bashir, added to this anti-charity narrative on his show this afternoon with “Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and Lehigh professor James Peterson [saying], Mayor Reed, so the Red Cross knows what it’s doing. Did he, did you detect perhaps a subtle dig there on Mr. Romney who spent today going against the guidelines established by the Red Cross and holding a campaign rally in Ohio that was dressed up like a charity drive collecting food and other supplies when the Red Cross expressly asked people not to do that?”
NewsBusters colleague Noel Sheppard aptly said, “Imagine that. A presidential candidate who gives millions of dollars a year to charity does a storm relief event in Ohio, and an MSNBC anchor is disgusted by it because the Red Cross would prefer people donating cash.”
Of course, had Romney simply cut a check to the Red Cross you know these same hacks would be piling on him for being too rich, out of touch, and lacking in compassion.
Oddly enough, they weren’t nearly as critical of the President who instead of actually holding a relief effort, was busy trying to convince supporters in hurricane ravaged areas to phone bank for his re-election campaign.
I remember a liberal friend of mine once saying to me that they couldn’t understand how I could be a Republican, ‘because they just seem so mean’.
And listening to Democrats rail about how Republicans are greedy, that they want to cut Grandma’s Medicare benefits, how they have to force the rich to pay more in taxes because it’s the patriotic thing to do so, and so on, you just might believe it.
But make no mistake, Democrats aren’t a kinder bunch. They don’t want to spread their wealth around, they want to spread yours.
A new study from the Chronicle of Philanthropy shows that the most charitable states in the US are all red, while the least charitable are all blue.
Red states give more money to charity than blue states, according to a new study on Monday.
The eight states with residents who gave the highest share of their income to charity supported Sen. John McCain in 2008, while the seven states with the least generous residents went for President Barack Obama, the Chronicle of Philanthropy found in its new survey of tax data from the IRS for 2008.
The eight states whose residents gave the highest share of their income — Utah, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Idaho, Arkansas and Georgia — all backed McCain in 2008. Utah leads charitable giving, with 10.6 percent of income given.
And the least generous states — Wisconsin, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire — were Obama supporters in the last presidential race. New Hampshire residents gave the least share of their income, the Chronicle stated, with 2.5 percent.
“The reasons for the discrepancies among states, cities, neighborhoods are rooted in part in each area’s political philosophy about the role of government versus charity,” the study’s authors noted.
Democrats however will continue to portray the Republican party as the party of rich, greedy, old men who make their money off the backs of the 99%.
The difference though is clear – Republicans want the choice to give their money to charity, while Democrats want to legislate charity by forcing others to hand over their hard-earned money. Isn’t that a fundamental difference of both parties – choice vs. government?
A newly released video from a citizen journalist shows that making contributions to the Obama campaign website is significantly easier than say, for other Presidential candidates – because it doesn’t require the standard credit card verification code.
The video can be seen here – Obama Donations – Anyone, Anywhere
The description reads:
The Obama campaign does not have the universal 3-digit security code feature for credit card transactions on their website. It appears that anyone, anywhere can donate to President Obama’s re-election campaign, all you need is a credit card number. Watch me put Obama’s donation system, as well as his opponents, to the test.
Why is this such an issue?
Well for one, the Obama campaign website accepted donations from people named Nidal Hasan, Adolph Hitler, and Aunt Zeituni.
The PJ Tatler explains how this can happen:
Let’s take a look at the three campaign websites mentioned in the video. Here’s Obama’s donation page.
The Obama campaign’s donation page for Americans living outside the US also lacks the security verification code field.
Here’s Mitt Romney’s donation page. I’ve circled the verification number field on it. I would have done the same on Obama’s page, but it wasn’t there.
Here’s Rick Santorum’s donation page. The security code field is circled in red.
Only the Obama campaign’s web site lacks the security code field. The others require it, and will not accept donations unless the security code and payment information match up.
In 2008, the Obama campaign did the same exact thing.
There’s three main points that the Tatler smartly points out with this method of accepting donations…
One, the Obama campaign disabled the verification system. The verification system is turned on on web sites that accept credit cards, by default. I used to manage the website for the Texas Republican Party, so I know this from personal experience. Someone had to take the action of turning it off on the Obama site. Two, the Obama campaign can accept donations without the identity of the donor being positively verified. Three, not only can people in foreign countries donate to the Obama campaign in violation of federal campaign law, so apparently can identity thieves who have access to stolen credit card numbers. People who do not know that their credit cards have been compromised may not notice small amounts in the $3 dollar donation range that the Obama campaign has been targeting, when such donations show up on their statements.
It’s one thing for Nanny Bloomberg to limit the food choices of restaurant patrons, it’s completely unintelligible to understand why a man would limit what kinds of food can be donated to the homeless.
From the New York Post:
So much for serving the homeless.
The Bloomberg administration is now taking the term “food police” to new depths, blocking food donations to all government-run facilities that serve the city’s homeless.
In conjunction with a mayoral task force and the Health Department, the Department of Homeless Services recently started enforcing new nutritional rules for food served at city shelters. Since DHS can’t assess the nutritional content of donated food, shelters have to turn away good Samaritans.
For over a decade, Glenn Richter and his wife, Lenore, have led a team of food-delivery volunteers from Ohab Zedek, the Upper West Side Orthodox congregation.
Forbidden: Shelters must turn away synagogue goodies like gefilte fish and pastries, thanks to Bloomberg.
They’ve brought freshly cooked, nutrient-rich surplus foods from synagogue events to homeless facilities in the neighborhood. (Disclosure: I know the food is so tasty because I’ve eaten it — I’m an OZ member.) The practice of donating such surplus food to homeless shelters is common among houses of worship in the city.
DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond says the ban on food donations is consistent with Mayor Bloomberg’s emphasis on improving nutrition for all New Yorkers. A new interagency document controls what can be served at facilities — dictating serving sizes as well as salt, fat and calorie contents, plus fiber minimums and condiment recommendations.
The city also cites food-safety issues with donations, but it’s clear that the real driver behind the ban is the Bloomberg dietary diktats.