In one of the most bizarre stories in a bizarre world of bizarre conspiracy theorists, I may have now “seen it all.” WorldNetDaily is making contributions to the Obama campaign in honor of deceased terrorist Osama Bin Laden. WorldNetDaily says:
The “Bin Laden” donations, actually made by WND staff
Weird.
They have managed to uncover the truth about contributions to Obama made on-line.
They are processed by machine, just like contributions for every other candidate for public office.
now There’s a good way to get yourself on a no-fly list… maybe they were the ones caught in a very clever trap…..
The geniuses used a US state and zipcode as part of a silly phony address. Heh. And the website accepted it. Shocking. Sooooo, which party in this transaction is committing fraud?
“Inputted”???? I guess that the kind of conjugations you get from part-time work from home “journalists” and “editors”. 😉
I guess that WND knows that there aren’t any Americans in Pakistan. If Romney’s site prevents people outside of the country from donating, they must believe that they have zero support from Americans abroad.
Wake me up when they convince the Obama 2012 site to deliver a birth certificate mug to Lahore.
Quick question, now do any of these super pacs require such information for donations from donors. I mean if we are going to have fair elections then shouldn’t all money involved in our elections have safeguards. I mean if the Chinese companies that benefited from Romney or even Obama be disallowed from donating money for use in our political process. Seems these super rich can do it anonymously but give them hell if they give $15.
Yes I know this is not the case here with WND, but I have a feeling that they aren’t worried about fair elections when it comes to anonymous money in the election. Fair elections as long as the rich can buy it.
This is EXACTLY the kind of insane desperation moves I was expecting them to do, in the days leading up to the election.
But how will that make even one potential Obama voter change his mind? Apart from the fact that sane Obama-leaning voters probably don’t read WND anyway.
Just trying to make the “I’m not voting for any of the two” people reconsider and vote Romney instead?
Conjugate that verb: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8
Reminds me of this:
Man registers dog to vote to test system
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-01/news/31114969_1_voter-registration-registration-system-voting-process
An Albuquerque, N.M., resident has successfully registered his dog to vote in Bernalillo County, he told KOB-TV.
The dog’s owner said he used fake information to sign Buddy up at a voter registration booth at the University of New Mexico.
“I made up a birthdate and I made up a Social Security number, and I had a voter registration card in my hand for Buddy two weeks later,” he told the TV station after receiving the card in the mail on Wednesday.
When Germany did the huge census in 1987 (which was highly contested in courts and on the streets), a guy registered his cat.
Couple weeks later, his cat received all kinds of commercial mail. This proved the data were, at least in part, sold to companies. The fallout was considerable.
I was talking to Mormon missionaries. I pointed to Angel and said, “Can she join me in heaven?”
“No, dogs can’t go to heaven.”
“Sorry, not interested if she can’t join me.”
Reminds me of a joke I heard on CB radio a few decades ago…
A fellow went to a Baptist preacher and asked him if he would preside over the funeral for his dog. The preacher explained some theological thing about it being inappropriate because dogs don’t have souls.
The grieving dog owner said that he was a disappointment and that he had planned to pay $200 to the one who performed the funeral, to which the preacher replied: “Oh, you didn’t tell me that he was a Baptist dog.”
Oh darn. I got my Twitter account permanently banned from WND for speculating that Romney’s Mexican relatives might *somehow* be donating to his campaign.
Here’s an update you won’t see on WND. The Obama campaign does have a system in place to reject such donations and it has worked.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/30/sorry-drudge-the-obama-campaign-is-not-acceptin/191002
The best I heard when driving long-haul:
What’s the difference between a fairy tale and a truck driver’s story?
A fairy tale begins, “Once upon a time.” A truck driver’s story begins, “This is no bullshit.”
So, just t o clarify…….a Muppet from WND, who is allowed to contribute to Obama actually contributed to him and this is a story….?
Just got a notice from Disqus – I am not allowed to post anywhere on WND, permanently.
All I wrote was that Romney has unicorn DNA, and Corsi is closet gay. What’s the problem?
IF anyone were to stoop to the same level of inane childishness as Whirled Nut Daily, it would be easy to create a “Romney accepts donations from both Hitler and Stalin” story.
So if we put the same slant on reporting that WND does, we could get some great headlines…
“WorldNetDaily making contributions to the Obama campaign!”
“WorldNetDaily admits to ID fraud!”
“Farrah supports radical Islam and Bin Laden!”
“WND reporter Corsi still obsessed by powerful black men”
What I get from this is that the IP address is irrelevant; it’s the credit card billing address they work from. Which makes sense, since it’s the place of the donor’s residence, not the network path, that matters. So it matters not at all that WND ran this through a Pakistani net proxy; as bovril said, WND‘s completely valid contribution by a US citizen was accepted. I hope OFA puts the money to good use!
And of course, it also means that WND is wrong when they say
And even then I wonder: I am no expert on campaign law but let’s say I am a U.S. citizen living outside the U.S. (Pakistan, Moscow, London…wherever) and my mailing address is in one of those countries can’t I still legally donate to a candidate in the U.S.?
Wouldn’t the address just raise a flag that I could then resolve by proving my citizenship?
Bottom line is that once again we have a “ready, fire, aim” story from WorldNetDaily.
But WND is the bastion of support for free speech. It’s all right here:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/how-to-disarm-the-mainstream-media/
(ht to Patrick at Bad Fiction).
That is my understanding.
Yep — according to the MM article, the campaign said:
In other words…………they just wasted everyone’s time with a pointless story. Nice work Mr. Farrah!
The point of sites like Whirled News Daily isn’t to get you to “do” anything aside from tune in tomorrow for your daily dose of outrage. Your two minutes of hate, as it were.
If they manage it, they get page views, their advertisers pay, and they win. Truth doesn’t matter.
They’re on their own side, which is not always on the side of the Republicans, and may sometimes manage to be so ridiculously off-putting as to be on the side of the Democrats.
Quoting:
“Those whose speech and actions impinge upon the God-given rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution are, by definition, excepted from protection under the First Amendment (as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment).”
So basically he’s saying “Constitutional rights don’t apply to everyone”. And he doesn’t even realize that by his own definition, he just stripped himself of these rights (since his speech “impinges upon the … rights … codified in the Constitution”). Oh the irony!
As much as I dislike being the conjurer of Poe’s law, but this is exactly how the Nazis justified making Jews second class people (“Staatsbürger” as opposed to “Reichsbürger”) and disenfranchising them of their civil rights (long before the actual deportations to the concentration camps began).
As I wrote before, conservatives walk right into it. You show me a Democrat who EVER said this: http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/how-to-disarm-the-mainstream-media/
“Those whose speech and actions impinge upon the God-given rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution are, by definition, excepted from protection under the First Amendment (as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment). This is a very important concept to consider, because it is based on these presumptions of protected speech and equal protection for all that progressives and socialists have engaged in their predation upon our liberties.
If these truths can be acknowledged and widely accepted as such (as opposed to progressives’ Orwellian interpretations), then the political disenfranchisement of liberals, progressives, socialists and Marxists can begin in earnest, and in the open.”
Conservatives do not believe in the 1st Amendment.
Nice crowd you associate with.
Really? Corsi is on Magic Pants Mittens press plane. Why?
I will apologize when Mittens kicks Corsi off the plane. Don’t hold your breath waiting.
That’s true. WND refuses to investigate where Mitt Romney buried the girl he strangled in 1987.
I read on the ‘net he did it, to prevent her from revealing herself as a sister wife. It’s really not a crime. She got to go to the planet Kolob, and join all the other sister wives as they cook and clean for God-Man.
Here’s the story of God-Man: http://wp.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/files/2009/07/god-man-the-movie.png
I love how WND has doubled-down on this nonsense. Media Matters is the problem, not them!
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/media-matters-snagged-in-osama-for-obama-cover-up/
It’s a cover-up!
LOL
*Godwin’s
Thx for the correction, I just read about both yesterday and mixed them up…
You know who else used to mix up Internet memes?
Here’s WND getting pranked:
“GLOBAL WARMING DID NOT CAUSE SANDY
Exclusive: Christopher Monckton of Brenchley explains facts to ‘bed-wetters’ ”
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/global-warming-did-not-cause-sandy/
Those schmucks still don’t know Monckton is Sasha Baron Cohen!
Liberals are now “bed-wetters.” Big deal. Conservatives torture animals for sport.
Notice that he’s stopped calling himself “Lord” Monckton. Me thinks someone finally called him on it.
You’re really a sad individual. I’m not sure why you’ve decided to ramp up the personal attacks, since I have never said anything to you, but you’re apparently gonna do what you’re gonna do, so…
The # 3 Democrat in Congress is on record as saying that there need to be limits on First Amendment speech.
Here’s Charles Schumer talking about how we need to limit free speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeFBGaKJk7o&feature=youtu.be
Nice crowd you associate with.
And an article from Reason about the same.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/18/chuck-schumers-limits-to-first-amendment
While we’re at it, I took Women’s Studies in college, and am intimately familiar with the liberal arguments that all erotica is damaging and needs to be outlawed. Those would be liberals., not conservatives who want to limit the Constitution in the name of equality.
Nice crowd you associate with.
I’m also quite familiar with the guy you ran for president a few years ago… what was his name? Al Gore? He and his wife Tipper lobbied and went before Congress and demanded that Congress label records for the sake of the children. Remember the Congress shall make no law part of the First Amendment? The Gores do not. The only good part of that is that it got Jello Biafra, Frank Zappa and John Denver on the same side of the argument.
Finally, Nancy Pelosi has promised that if the Democrats take control next week, one of the first things they plan to do is to AMEND the Constitution and First Amendment to “save our Democracy”. The Founders clear words and and subsequent court decisions aren’t enough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POFgUSEtWJM
The Democrats are gonna kill the First Amendment in order to save it, amiright? What part of Congress shall make no law don’t you get?
Nice crowd you associate with.
The House of Lords has been after him for years. Sued him over the use of their arms on his stationery LOL
Can we tone down the anti-conservative/anti-democrat rhetoric a bit here please folks?
Conservatives and Democrats aren’t the problem. Teabaggers and Pumas etc are. Lets not forget that ordinary folks come from all political bents, and even if the GOP seems to be going through a bit of a stupid swing right now, that pendulum happens equally in both parties.
If we give in to the “conservatives are”/”democrats are” empty rhetorical mudslinging, we are no better than the birthers, chem trailers, and holocaust deniers.
Weeeeellll ok, we’re still better than birthers… but you get the point, right?
Yeah. The House of Lords called him on it. They posted an official denial of his right to a seat in the House of Lords.
I don’t know for sure, but I think they threatened him with contempt of Parliament or something if he didn’t cease and desist his false claims to a seat. He may or may not be entitled to use the style ‘Lord’, but he is not and never has been entitled to a seat in the House of Lords.
And, as he noted, there are limits on free speech: No yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater, etc.
But setting that aside the truncated excerpt from a floor speech was in the context of campaign finance reform (you can see that on the lower third super right there on the screen) and whether unlimited spending is really good for the process.
And conservatives don’t have any problem with pornography? Who knew!
From this we assume you, apparently a conservative, are opposed to the movie rating system and restricting access by children to pornography?
First thing? Next week? Not gonna wait for the new members to be sworn in? Interesting.
Did she also explain how they were going to amend the Constitution all by themselves?
I am opposed to the video game rating system. There should not be any rating.
Conservatives want to criminalize reproductive freedom.
If it feels good it should be against the law!
I saw a story about this. Seems Monckton changed his arms – straight for squiggly lines or vice versa – and that was his response to the Lords.
But Congress never passed a law about record labeling. The Senate did hold hearings (people remember that Al Gore testified in favor of labeling, but they forget that Republican Senator Paula Hawkins from Florida also testified in favor), but took no action. The labeling resulted from a voluntary agreement by the RIAA.
Somehow I doubt that the Founders were thinking about corporations when they passed the First Amendment. If corporations are people, why are they exempt from jury duty? And of course the entire point of amending the Constitution (a very difficult thing to accomplish) is to overturn court decisions.
I’m really surprised that they did not make donations in the name of that infamous terrorist William Ayers! I guess the wackos forgot about him this election cycle.
No joke: I just made a donation to Romney, in the name of Heinrich Himmler. No rejection yet.
Making a contribution in “the name of” or “in honor of” does not make the honored the donor. The donor would remain the person or organization the personally contributed the funds. In the charity world, the donor is the person who receives the tax receipt and may take a deduction. The honored may not receive a tax receipt for a contribution in his name, but only an acknowledgement that a contribution was made in their name.
In short, the donors from WND remain the donors but a letter could be sent informing Bin Laden or his family that WND honored him with a contribution.