Bombshell: Obama.com Owned by Bundler in Shanghai with Business Ties to Chinese Government

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Now I'm all for any dirt on Obama, I think he's crooked, a liar, and a poor president.

But I don't think he's being influenced by the chinese.

Didn't he just halt the sales of a windmill farm in the northwest US?

I guess I need more proof before I verbally condemn him.


*Like it matters!
Obama, "Dang! Beezzer dis'd me!"




posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

I am no Obama fan.....



Uh-Huh! Sure you're not.

[/s]



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Again.
Is it silly when the third party is an Obama bundler?



It still is silly. Did Obama buy the site and hand it over to him. Was the site a .gov site which is restricted to government agencies? A person anyplace in the world can buy a com url if it's not already owned.

Perhaps the so called bundler is hoping to gain influence, but the fact remains Obama has nothing to do with the Obama.com ownership nor what the site contains or redirects to.

Edit to add:

A example would be me buying a web site called www.greatestpreachers.com and having it redirect to a normal church website. Perhaps a church of which I know and have met the preachers. Now does that make the preachers responsible for the web url www.greatestpreachers.com? No, it doesn't.
edit on 8-10-2012 by Kaploink because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
townhall.com...


Is the non-use of CVV code verification simply an oversight or mistake made by Obama for America? Most likely, no. The Obama campaign is willing to pay millions in fees in order to accept unsecured contributions on their donation page without the CVV code.


You don't need to be a genius to see what is happening here.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaploink

Originally posted by butcherguy
Again.
Is it silly when the third party is an Obama bundler?



It still is silly. Did Obama buy the site and hand it over to him. Was the site a .gov site which is restricted to government agencies? A person anyplace in the world can buy a com url if it's not already owned.

Perhaps the so called bundler is hoping to gain influence, but the fact remains Obama has nothing to do with the Obama.com ownership nor what the site contains or redirects to.

I wish I were in the real estate business.

I see a potential bridge customer in you.

So called bundler.... ATS post
edit on 8-10-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DCPatriot

Originally posted by detachedindividual

I am no Obama fan.....



Uh-Huh! Sure you're not.

[/s]


Why is it that just because some people employ some rationale and reject the BS 'news' stories that come from places such as breitbart.com... that we support Obama and/or Democrats?



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

I wish I were in the real estate business.

I see a potential bridge customer in you.
edit on 8-10-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


Actually, those that believe the Bretbart accusations would be buying the bridge. Those who believe that due to the naming of the site and the redirection, Obama is somehow responsible.

It's just seems hard to get people to realize that Obama does not have the admin functions for the Obama.com url. That there is no evidence that he is controlling the person who perhaps is trying to gain favor through the redirection of the Obama.com url.

Do people not realize how trivial it is to buy any com url not currently in use? Not unlike it was back when people rushed out to buy Obama urls years ago.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaploink
 



A example would be me buying a web site called www.greatestpreachers.com and having it redirect to a normal church website. Perhaps a church of which I know and have met the preachers. Now does that make the preachers responsible for the web url www.greatestpreachers.com? No, it doesn't.

If you are filling the collection plates at the church, do you think anyone might make a connection?

If the preacher gave you a seat on a church committee, would that raise any eyebrows? There are a lot of factors that add in, but not to the gullible. that's how con men make their money, and all of our politicians are con men.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Now we see !!

from another story Oct 6..... Windfall: Obama Raises $181 Million, Only Around 2% of Donations Reportable


For contributions under $50, however, the campaign doesn't even have to keep track of the donor's name. It is effectively considered a "petty cash" donation. A person could theoretically make 10 $49 donations and never be reported, even though their total contributions are above the FEC's reporting threshold.

With an average donation of $53 from small donors, Obama has A LOT of donors who will never be disclosed and whose names aren't even known to the campaign. Tens of millions of dollars worth.



And now we see the trick.....
very clever and sneaky indeed !!

No wonder they push those "small" donations !!


edit on Oct-08-2012 by xuenchen because:




posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I can see where Obama may be skirting contributing laws, but I don't see a "payolla" issue where there is any indication he is being bought. I see where he is glomming more cash, but to isolate a single pol for doing that is myopic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending "Emperor Obama".

I just can't see accusing him has much value at present.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 

BINGO!
I wonder if the Obama Phone comes with an Obama.com app.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

Originally posted by DCPatriot

Originally posted by detachedindividual

I am no Obama fan.....



Uh-Huh! Sure you're not.

[/s]


Why is it that just because some people employ some rationale and reject the BS 'news' stories that come from places such as breitbart.com... that we support Obama and/or Democrats?


Hmmm.....maybe you you check his posting history?

BTW....journalists have a constitutional responsibility to question power.

A journalist as chased across the elipse behind the White House. His 'offense'?

He dared to ask a question following a Rose Garden speech/statement by President Obama.


.....guess they have never seen Sam Donaldson in action during his many years as White House Correspondent for ABC news.


.....you know, that news organization that has a Clinton spokesperson hosting the old David Brinkley Sunday morning show by the name of George Stephanopoulis.....who also started this phony "war on women".



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Whether this guy was a bundler or not is totally irrelevant.
I own a few websites and I could redirect any of them to any place I want.
If I was able to purchase Obama.com I could direct it to Romney's donation website if I wanted and no one could do anything about it.

The bottom line is that Obama is not liable for what the domain owner of Obama.com does.

Sorry but this story isn't a bombshell, it's a dud.
edit on 8-10-2012 by xEphon because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
This thread is about Obama and his campaign funding.

The post that I made was referring to the fact that the guy that has the obama.com site that redirects to barackobama.com IS a bundler for Obama.


Indeed it is, there is no denying that. But the problem I have with this whole thing is that some on this thread (not you) are jumping up and down practically foaming at the mouth over a practice that is not only allegedly being done by the Obama campaign but by both parties. The focus here is on Obama and this Roche guy with the questionable re-direct and supposed ties to the Chinese govt. The majority of this GAI 'report' centers around this issue... yet I find it passing strange that more attention is not being given to this little gem in the report concerning Romney and his lobbyist bundlers who themselves have some iffy ties to foreign governments that we should perhaps be taking a deeper look at also:


The Romney campaign has also been criticized for using bundlers, men and women who collect donations and “bundle” them together for the campaign, who are registered foreign agents. Ignacio E. Sanchez, one of Romney’s bundlers, is a registered foreign agent for the United Arab Emirates and a presidential candidate for the Dominican Republic. Another registered foreign agent bundling for Romney is Tom Loeffler of Akin Gump, a former congressman turned lobbyist who has represented the government of Saudi Arabia and Hong Kong. The full extent of Governor’s Romney’s use of bundlers is not known as the Romney campaign has never disclosed his bundlers despite the bipartisan call for his campaign to do so.

Top of page 48, GAI report

My position still holds, that if the right wing media and right leaning focus groups (same with the left) want to gain credibility on reporting issues like this they have to report both sides and give equal time to the wrong doing. All this jumping up and down, foaming at the mouth and finger pointing at the other side hoping folks will buy into the "Gotcha" mentality (and alot do) just makes all of us look like fools and idiots.


Posters are saying that there is no connection between Obama and the obama.com site. Just a huge coincidence I suppose?


No more of a conincidence than it happening to Romney I suppose.



For some time, the Mitt Rommey campaign was the beneficiary of a very odd domain redirect. Instead of the domain SomeECards.co sending visitors to SomeECards.com, a real website and service, those unlucky mistypers were sent to the official Mitt Romney campaign ‘About’ page
MItt Romney's Campaign appears to be using redirects to inflate it's website traffic



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMTAT
reply to post by xuenchen
 

BINGO!
I wonder if the Obama Phone comes with an Obama.com app.



And there's lots more....................

Obama is getting exposed bigtime.
 


More serious and arrogant than we thought !

President Barack Obama’s campaign officials may have violated the Federal Election Campaign Act, which makes it illegal to knowingly solicit donations from foreigners by aggressively sending fundraising e-mails to foreign nationals. The solicitations direct to the campaign’s official donation page that does not implement proper security measures to prevent foreigners from making campaign contributions.

A Government Accountability Institute (GAI) investigation found the website Obama.com, which is not owned by the Obama campaign and has ties to a Shanghai bundler linked to the Obama campaign, redirects to the Obama campaign’s official donation page. And according to a legal analysis obtained by Breitbart News, the “campaign’s failure” to employ security measures coupled with the “considerable foreign traffic reaching its websites” warrants an investigation as to whether Obama campaign officials violated campaign finance laws.

[color=cyan]If found guilty, Obama campaign officials could face up to five years in prison and $25,000 in fines. ....

Obama Camp. Potentially Violated Fed. Laws by Solicitating Foreign Campaign Donations
^^^ Sounds like a Felony to me !!
 


AND ...

.........The most revealing finding in the report is that the Obama campaign has chosen not to use industry-standard verification methods for its on-line contributions. In fact, the campaign has to pay higher fees to credit card companies because they don't use these methods. So, the campaign is paying millions of dollars for the privilege of not utilizing basic security procedures. Why would they do this?.....

Obama Campaign Has No Security to Bar Illegal Foreign Donations


Hmmmm




posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMTAT
reply to post by xuenchen
 

BINGO!
I wonder if the Obama Phone comes with an Obama.com app.



OMG!...Just found this:


A wireless company profiting from the so-called “Obama phone” giveaway program is run by a prominent Democratic donor whose wife has raised more than $1.5 million for the president since 2007.



One of the major providers of the free cell phones—3.8 million subscribers as of late 2011—is Miami-based TracFone Wireless, a company whose president and CEO, Frederick “F.J.” Pollak, has donated at least $156,500 to Democratic candidates and committees this cycle, including at least $50,000 to the Obama campaign. Pollak’s wife, Abigail, is a campaign bundler for Obama who has raised more than $632,000 for the president this cycle, and more than $1.5 million since 2007. She has personally contributed more than $200,000 to Democratic candidates and committees since 2008. The Pollaks hosted Obama at their Miami Beach home in June for a $40,000-per-plate fundraising dinner, and hosted a similar event with Michelle Obama in July 2008. The couple personally donated a combined $66,200 to Obama’s reelection effort that year. Visitor logs indicate that Frederick and Abigail Pollak have visited the White House seven times. In 2009, the president appointed Abigail to serve on the “Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino.”



Source:
freebeacon.com...

This guy is BIGTIME Chicago politics!
edit on 8-10-2012 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



The 108-page GAI report found nearly half of Congress, both political parties and presidential candidates, and third-party fundraising groups that funnel money to political parties and candidates were vulnerable to fraudulent and foreign donations. This is a bipartisan problem potentially impacting all levels of government, as those whose organizations were found to have been vulnerable include President Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Republican National Committee (RNC), and third-party groups like ActBlue, which funnels money to progressive politicians.

Source Bold mine

Wow, will ya look at that...looks as though Mitt's campaign could be found to be using the same practices. Watch out in opening huge cans of worms, the outcome may just backfire.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MyMindIsMyOwn
 

Difference:
The Romney site INCLUDES the CVV Security code for credit card donations.
The Obama site hes INTENTIONALLY OMITTED the CVV code.

But, i'm sure you really already knew this.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
You guys want to hang obama out to dry please get a real story. Even if this is an iffy situation it dosent change the fact that a us citizen ownes the domain name he can do as he pleases. If obama dosent own it he is notresponsible for its use. Ive seen many breit bart stories on here i hate to inform you hes a paid shill plane and simple. Even bill orily will tell you there is a lot of money to be made publishing this kind of non story. Just in line with the muslim, terrorist, devil, antichrist, etc etc bs that gets spewed on these kind of websites. Give me straight foward facts or it didnt happen



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
This thread has got me to thinking that 450 million given to Egypt then read this article Obama using taxpayer money to fund his own campaign?




The Obama campaign even went the extra mile to raise campaign funds by failing to adopt standard protections against fraudulent and illegal giving. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions and requires the disclosure of identifying information for contributions in excess of $200. Campaigns must accordingly keep running totals for each donor and report them once they exceed $200


gulagbound.com...

China,Saudi''s muslim brotherhood, American's whoever there is and has been fraud involved on Obama donations.

A no name Senator raised 750 million dollars, raised 181 in 1 month?


Why would they turn off that Avs?

To let people donate who should not be.
The think about Corzine and the loss of a billion dollars
edit on 8-10-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join