We Have Lost The Divide Between Government And Political Organizations

Breitbart.com reported today that the Obamacare exchange for Washington, D.C. has been using its official Twitter account to tweet out support for Organizing for Action (OFA) materials. OFA is the remnants of the Obama campaign machine.

The article reports:

“Our friends @OFA_DC are looking to hear your experience with #Obamacare. Share your feedback with them,” the official @DCHealthLink Twitter account tweeted earlier this week, with a link to a website survey at my.BarackObama.com—OFA’s website. After filling out the OFA survey, respondents are then prompted with an ask to donate money to the organization.

The official @DCHealthLink Twitter account has also retweeted an OFA tweet praising Obamacare, which as of 4:30 p.m. on Friday has the OFA campaign website’s Twitter account appearing on the homepage of the official Washington, D.C. Obamacare exchange.

The government is coordinating its activities with a political campaign organization. How long will it be before someone in government develops a backbone and puts a stop to this?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Where It Began

Kimberly Strassel posted an article in today’s Wall Street Journal that sheds a lot of light on what has happened at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the past two years. The article reminds us of some of the activities of the Obama campaign and those associated with it during the 2008 primary elections.

The article points out:

On Aug. 21, 2008, the conservative American Issues Project (AIP) ran an ad highlighting ties between candidate Obama and Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. The Obama campaign and supporters were furious, and they pressured TV stations to pull the ad—a common-enough tactic in such ad spats.

What came next was not common. Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP, “its officers and directors,” and its “anonymous donors.” Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501(c)(4), was committing a “knowing and willful violation” of election law, and wanted “action to enforce against criminal violations.”

After the charges, AIP gave the Justice Department a full explanation of its activities, stating that it was operating in a manner similar to the operations of groups like Naral Pro-Choice. AIP also disclosed its donor, Texas businessman Harold Simmons. Mr. Bauer then sent a second letter to the Justice Department asking that Mr. Simmons be prosecuted. On September 8, Mr. Bauer sent a third letter. On that date Mr. Bauer also complained to the Federal Elections Commission about AIP and Mr. Simmons. He than demanded that AIP turn over certain documents to his campaign–some of those documents they were entitled to and some they were not.

Mr. Bauer set an example soon followed by other left-sing groups:

The Bauer onslaught was a big part of a new liberal strategy to thwart the rise of conservative groups. In early August 2008, the New York Times trumpeted the creation of a left-wing group (a 501(c)4) called Accountable America. Founded by Obama supporter and liberal activist Tom Mattzie, the group—as the story explained—would start by sending “warning” letters to 10,000 GOP donors, “hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.” The letters would alert “right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.” As Mr. Mattzie told Mother Jones: “We’re going to put them at risk.”

In 2008, Mr. Bauer also went after supporters of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards:

American Leadership head (and Democrat) Jason Kinney would rail that Mr. Bauer had gone from “credible legal authority” to “political hatchet man”—but the damage was done. As Politico reported in August 2008, Mr. Bauer’s words had “the effect of scaring [Clinton and Edwards] donors and consultants,” even if they hadn’t yet “result[ed] in any prosecution.”

As general counsel to the Obama re-election campaign, Mr. Bauer used the same tactics on pro-Romney groups. The Obama campaign targeted private citizens who had donated to Romney groups. Democratic senators demanded that the IRS investigate these organizations.

So what have we learned? The targeting of any group opposed to Barack Obama was an everyday event during President Obama’s 2008 campaign. The targeting was not related to the Citizens United Supreme Court Decision–it was related to the way the Obama campaign did business. The same tactics were used in 2012 that were used in 2008–the only thing different were the political opponents.

We may never officially know whether President Obama was directly involved in the IRS’s targeting of conservatives and conservative groups. What we do know is that President Obama does not believe in a level playing field when running for election. During the past five years, America has gotten a not-so-free lesson on how Chicago politics works. I just hope we are paying attention.

Enhanced by Zemanta

There Really Are No Controls On Some Campaign Donations

Today’s Daily Caller posted a story today that illustrates the problems with controlling the amount of money that flows into some political campaigns and the sources of these donations.

The article reports:

A Jerusalem journalist writing for a conservative website reported Monday night that he was able to make two small financial contributions to President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign in the name of the late terror mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Aaron Klein, writing for WorldNetDaily, said he successfully made campaign donations of $15 and $5 through a “proxy” service that masked his location and provided the Obama campaign website with a Pakistani Internet Protocol (IP) address instead.

The Obama campaign, Klein wrote, accepted and acknowledged both contributions, made with a disposable credit card, and followed up with additional fundraising emails to a Gmail account set up in the dead terrorist’s name.

This is not good. On October 8, Breitbart.com reported:

Even though the Obama campaign is touted for its technological sophistication and sites run by top Obama technology advisers use the “CVV” feature, the Obama campaign itself does not use the “CVV” feature on its donation pages — even though it does use the feature on the merchandise pages where it sells campaign merchandise. 

This means someone who donates $2,500 to the campaign online has to go through less security than someone who goes online to buy an Obama campaign mug.

There are simple ways to prevent foreign donations being made online. The problem here is that some candidates are not willing to employ these measures. The answer is not more regulation–the answer is honest people running for office.

Enhanced by Zemanta

At Least They Admitted They Lied

Yesterday I posted a story (rightwinggranny.com) about a recent political ad by a Political Action Committee (PAC) supporting President Obama that accused Mitt Romney of being responsible for the death of Joe Soptic’s wife. When confronted with the actual time line of the events, which totally discredited the ad, the Obama Administration denied knowledge of the specifics. Well, not so fast.

Politico reported today that the Obama Administration has stopped denying that they were familiar with Joe Soptic’s story.

The article reports:

Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki acknowledged Thursday that the campaign was no longer pleading ignorance about the story of a man who has appeared in both a super PAC ad and a campaign ad.

“No one is denying he was in one of our campaign ads. He was on a conference call telling his story,” Psaki told reporters on Air Force One.

Admittedly, the campaign is not supposed to coordinate with the PAC’s, so the ad cannot be traced directly to the President, but it would have been nice if he had denounced the ad when it was released.

I stand by my original statement that I am appalled by a husband that would choose to use the death of his wife for political purposes. This ad was totally beyond the pale. Unfortunately, I suspect we will see more of this behavior from the Obama Campaign and their supporters. I have heard very few Democrats denounce the ad. That is the action that is required.

Enhanced by Zemanta

More Chicago Thuggery

On Sunday I posted an article about the Obama Administration’s attack on Frank VanderSloot, a major donor to Governor Romney’s presidential campaign (rightwinggranny.com). Now the Obama campaign has turned its focus to Jack Gilchrist of Gilchrist Metal Fabricating of Hudson, New Hampshire.

Yesterday’s Union Leader reported:

The New Hampshire businessman (Jack Gilchrist) who appears in a Mitt Romney television ad accusing President Barack Obama of “demonizing” small business owners has gone to his local police after receiving two “harassing” telephone calls and, he says, hundreds of nasty emails.

The Obama campaign is getting out of hand.

The article reports the details:

But two profanity-laced telephone calls prompted Gilchrist to call the Hudson police.

One call came directly to his voice mail, while another went to the voice mail at the home of what Gilchrist called “a professional associate.”

Gilchrist emailed what he said were the voice mails to UnionLeader.com on Thursday.

One called him a “vile piece of (expletive),” among other things, and demanded he call Obama to apologize.

The caller was identified by Gilchrist through his caller ID. The man called from area code 630, which is the Chicago area. He has posted anti-Republican and anti-conservative messages on Twitter in the past, including a 2009 posts that said, “GOP needs to be eliminated,” and, “I am prepared to kill people. Let the tea bagers fire the first shot and I will pile up the bodies of the traitors.”

The other caller, to Gilchrist’s associate, names Gilchrist and calls him “a (expletive) liar,” a “(expletive) Republican piece of (expletive),” and told him to “burn in hell.”

Gilchrist said that between the emails and the calls, “I have to believe that this is an orchestrated effort. There are quite a few coincidences.”

This sort of activity has no place in a presidential campaign.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Beware Of Misleading Campaign Tweets

The economy is struggling right now, and many people are looking for a place to put their anger and frustration at being unemployed or underemployed. The Obama presidential campaign is fully prepared to direct this anger anyplace other than the man who has been in charge of the country’s economy for the past three and a half years. It has gotten so bad that even the Washington Post (not a bastion of conservatism) is fact-checking what the Obama campaign says and awarding the appropriate number of Pinocchios.

Mitt Romney is rich. He has earned his money. (The advantage of having a rich president is that he and his family spend less taxpayer money on vacations.) The Obama campaign put out the following tweet:

“FACT: In 2010 and 2011, Romney paid less than 15% in taxes on $42.5 million in income—much less than what many middle-class families pay.” (awarded Three Pinocchios by the Washington Post)

This was specifically designed to stir up envy and class warfare among voters. The problem with the tweet is that it is not true. The Washington Post awarded it three Pinocchios.

The Washington Post reports the actual facts:

Romney released his 2010 tax return and an estimate of his 2011 return earlier this year. He earned a little more than $20 million each year, a good chunk of it in capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a preferential rate as low as 15 percent.

But that’s not the only reason why Romney’s tax rate is at that level. He also donates about 14 percent of his income to charity, which gives him a pretty big tax deduction. (As we have noted, President Obama in 2010 also gave about 14 percent of his income to charity.)

Indeed, Romney gives about as much to charity — $3 million — as he pays in taxes. Those itemized deductions are counted against income that would ordinarily be taxed at a 35-percent rate. We figure that without those donations to charity, his effective tax rate would be at least 19 percent.

Just in case you are buying into the lie that the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes, the Washington Post also posted the following information:

Effective Tax Rates (taxes paid on tax return)

Bottom 20 percent (0-$17,000):         -5.8 percent

Second 20 Percent ($17,000-$33,500):  1.3 percent

Middle 20 percent ($33,500-59,500):  9.2 percent

Fourth 20 Percent ($59,000-$103,500): 12.9 percent

Top 20 Percent ($103,500+):  20.6 percent

 

Effective Tax Rates (also including payroll tax paid by employer)

Bottom 20 percent (0-$17,000):         1 percent

Second 20 Percent ($17,000-$33,500): 7.8 percent

Middle 20 percent ($33,500-59,500): 15.5 percent

Fourth 20 Percent ($59,000-$103,500): 18.7 percent

Top 20 Percent ($103,500+):  24.3 percent

We live in a country where almost 50% of the people do not pay taxes. Until this changes and all voters pay taxes, our tax system will probably not get fixed. Right now, the tax code is a tribute to special interests who have successfully lobbied Congress for tax breaks. The answer to the tax code is simplicity and transparency. It’s time to elect people who will make the necessary changes–not people who lie about what the tax code actually is.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta