« 'Tis Pity She's a Whore | Main | "cultural relativism is a fancy phrase for what is, in practice, smug racism" »

A Buck's A Buck

Well, the Obama regime's attack on the Chamber of Commerce (lifted entirely and unquestioningly from an leftist extremist blog) is turning into a remarkable own-goal for them.

But let's take a look at the "foreign money" accusation, and run with that, shall we?

The accusation against the Chamber is that they're taking foreign money to funnel into American political campaigns. The Chamber has quite a few foreign corporations as members (those who have American subsidiaries) who pay their dues, but the Chamber has said that it strictly segregates those monies away from its political activities.

According to the Obama administration, though, that segregation is a scam. Money is fungible; just because "foreign" money is used for say, rent and utilities, it frees up other money for things the foreign money couldn't be spent for.

An interesting theory. Let's run with that for a moment.

One of Obama's biggest supporters are unions. And the biggest unions are international -- they have members and collect dues and contributions from other nations as well. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The SEIU -- the Service Employees International Union. The AFL-CIO lists several International unions among its membership.

Another of Obama's supporters has been Planned Parenthood, which in turn gets hefty amounts of money every year from the federal government. Federal law prohibits public monies from being spent for abortions, so Planned Parenthood tightly segregates its federal funding from the abortions it provides (in excess of 250,000 a year and rising). But according to the Obama administration, the fungibility of money makes such segregation utterly meaningless; the use of federal money for non-abortion expenses just means they can spend more on abortions.

And then there's the 2008 Obama presidential campaign itself. The law here is even tougher; zero foreign money allowed. All contributions must come from American individuals and organizations. Period. No exceptions, no segregating, no loopholes.

Well, the Obama campaign, when it set up its web site and opened up for donations, deliberately turned off several standard features that would have assured compliance with the various laws. And the foreign money just poured in. We have no idea how much it was, as the Obama campaign made damned certain it was untraceable, but it was significant -- Obama's illegal alien Aunt Zeituini boasted of giving money to her nephew, two Palestinian brothers in Gaza shelled out over $30,000, and other foreigners boasted of having helped "bring about hope and change" in the US.

Note that not only were the donations illegal, but so was the deliberate obfuscating of the funding sources by the campaign -- the law requires them to exercise due diligence and take all reasonable precautions to comply with the law, and they actively worked very hard to do just the opposite.

So, let's consider this: let's throw the Chamber of Commerce under the bus. Let's let them get slapped down for participating in domestic politics while accepting foreign money. As long as the rule is applied across the board, and it also takes the unions out of politics, guts Planned Parenthood's federal subsidy, and cripples Obama's re-election campaign, it's more than a fair tradeoff.

But that would involve the left actually playing by the rules they want to impose on others, instead of profiting from the very behavior they denounce in others. They don't recognize their hypocrisy. And they certainly won't demand their own allies and supporters live by the same rules as they demand of their opponents.

So the only real reason to bring this up is for entertainment value. To see just what sort of feeble excuses their shills and whores will spout to rationalize and justify their rank hypocrisy and transparent double standards and faux hysteria.

(Cue the resident detractors to jump to the Obama regime's defense here -- galoob, Bruce Henry, Jerry Chandler, I'm talking to you!)

So, that sound fair to you folks?


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40356.

Comments (31)

But Jay, their motiv... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

But Jay, their motives are pure, the CoC are evil. Why can't you understand this simple(ton) truth?!?

Flat, flattery, flatulence.... (Below threshold)
ron:

Flat, flattery, flatulence. Hm....the president is on the road and people just want to be farted on or is it flattered. Old crazy wife once said to forgive is to forget. I have always said forgive don't forget. That woman is still crazy and getting crazier.

There is a thought that if you control the money you control the people. There are different ways to make flat. One is to sand it smooth e' except when dealing with people sanding them down makes them mad. But if you buff on them(pun intended) they actually might like it. The vision of that is definately not flattering. That is the way Obama is with words. Very lying assed flattering. He shall come peacably into the fattest parts of the province. Oh dear, he just farted on me blush.....
Obama is not the leader of the people of the United States. If he was he would not be so stupid as to hide where he gets the money. I ain't no birther but lie about the money and what else is he hiding.
Let's study the envriromental effects of cow farts more, that makes better sense than the left.

I think Barry has already c... (Below threshold)
914:

I think Barry has already crippled his re-selection campaign. Aunt petunia or not..

"two Palestinian brothers in Gaza shelled out over $30,000,"


Yes, was lovingly endowed to them by human rights activist Saddam Insein.

"They don't recognize their... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"They don't recognize their hypocrisy."

Barry and company are well aware of it. To date, it hasn't bothered them at all.

JT, I think the "detractors... (Below threshold)
epador:

JT, I think the "detractors" are still Googling for talking points here. Expect shiny objects and ad hominem in 3 2 1 well, meybe a few more hours. Saturday Morning Cartoons are still on.

Silly JT, the rules are for... (Below threshold)
yetanotherjohn:

Silly JT, the rules are for the little people, not the self appointed elites.

I'm not defending it, I'm n... (Below threshold)
galoob:

I'm not defending it, I'm not attacking it. It's a sideshow. When you're in hock to the Chinese and other foreign financiers, there's no doubt who owns your ass. A little campaign money does not make much difference, the financiers will still rule.

You either pay as you go, or you become a debt slave. Especially when you borrow to finance futile foreign wars, as Jay Tea "War is good for the economy" thinks is a good idea.

Shiny Object #1... (Below threshold)
epador:

Shiny Object #1

Hey, galoob, my side wasn't... (Below threshold)

Hey, galoob, my side wasn't the side that decided to make an issue out of it. And as I noted, it's not just epic stupid, it's pyrrhically stupid.

Glad you agree with me.

J.

When you're in hoc... (Below threshold)
Anon Y. Mous:
When you're in hock to the Chinese and other foreign financiers, there's no doubt who owns your ass.

This is a common fallacy. No matter how much we now owe China or anyone else, it gives them no power over us. What are they going to do, send their army to repossess? The only power they have is to stop lending us money. It's not the past debt, no matter how large it may be; it's our insistence on prostrating ourselves for some more future debt that gives them power.

Hey, galoob, my side was... (Below threshold)
galoob:

Hey, galoob, my side wasn't the side that decided to make an issue out of it. And as I noted, it's not just epic stupid, it's pyrrhically stupid.

Glad you agree with me.

I agree that it's not an issue compared to the general enslavement of both parties to the interests of financiers and foreign capital.

The fact that you're blogging about it is proof that it's a triviality. As I said before, this blog tends to focus on relatively minor cultural and political issues while the wholesale looting of the country and usurpation of popular sovereignty by the oligarchy proceeds.

This is a common fallacy. No matter how much we now owe China or anyone else, it gives them no power over us. What are they going to do, send their army to repossess? The only power they have is to stop lending us money. It's not the past debt, no matter how large it may be; it's our insistence on prostrating ourselves for some more future debt that gives them power.

Keep believing that. You're right on the addiction part. But China has power over the status of the dollar as the reserve currency now. If they decide to sell U.S. debt, they will take a hit, but could also destroy the USA. They have us by the balls, and it is their decisions based on their calculation of their interests which will prevail.

JT,YOu used the word... (Below threshold)
codekeyguy:

JT,
YOu used the word "whore". That is an illegal usage. It is the sole domain of the Democrats to use (especially in California!)

So, galoob... you're actual... (Below threshold)

So, galoob... you're actually MORE troubled by my remarks than on Obama and the national Democratic leadership bringing it up in the first place? It's "no big deal," but my pointing out how incredibly stupid and self-destructive it is strikes you as more of a concern?

Well, that's Galoob logic for ya...

J.

Keep believing that. You... (Below threshold)
Rick Caird:

Keep believing that. You're right on the addiction part. But China has power over the status of the dollar as the reserve currency now. If they decide to sell U.S. debt, they will take a hit, but could also destroy the USA. They have us by the balls, and it is their decisions based on their calculation of their interests which will prevail.

You need to remember that China has a huge interest in exporting to the US. Not only do those exports keeps their economy going but also if they lost the momentum of their economy, they will have a revolution on their hands. They cannot keep them down on the farm after moving them to the cities.

China will take more than a financial hit. They will take a "stabilization of government" hit.

I have no figure to back th... (Below threshold)
MunDane68:

I have no figure to back this up, I will search for them, but I would hazard a guess that the total cost of the War in Iraq was within 10% of the Cost of the Stimulus Pork Bill.

Yep...see here http://www.costofwar.com/

Iraq War $738 Billion (over 8 years)

Stimulus (over 12 months) $787 Billion

So galoob, take big cup of STFU already about the 'foreign war' costs. You and you tax-and-spend buddies have done much, much worse.

LOL, the topic WAS somethin... (Below threshold)
epador:

LOL, the topic WAS something about the hypocrisy of the one and the Democratic Party, and the looney responses we expected from the trolls, UNTIL, that is, the first looney troll responded.

PLEASE STOP fighting over the shiny objects, folks!

Iraq War $738 Billion (o... (Below threshold)
galoob:

Iraq War $738 Billion (over 8 years)

Stimulus (over 12 months) $787 Billion

So galoob, take big cup of STFU already about the 'foreign war' costs. You and you tax-and-spend buddies have done much, much worse.

Hey, I'm not a big fan of the Stimulus, most of it seems to be paving roads which don't need it. But at least the money's being spent in America though rather than going to Gulf Arab contractors for transportation, fuel and food.

And it's not like 4400+ fine young Americans were killed by the Stimulus, with maybe 40,000+ maimed.

But if money is your only measure, in the end, with the VA medical care and disability, Iraq will end up costing a lot more than the Stimulus did. For what?

galoof-"Hey, I'm n... (Below threshold)
914:

galoof-

"Hey, I'm not a big fan of the Stimulus, most of it seems to be paving roads which don't need it"


Wrong. Buying votes is more accurate.

Well, galoob, it's certainl... (Below threshold)

Well, galoob, it's certainly provided you with a way to avoid discussing the subject at hand -- which, as I recall, was the incredibly stupid, short-sighted, and self-defeating attack by the Obama regime and the DNC on the Chamber of Commerce.

Which, as the author of the piece and one of the editors who wields The Hammer, I would appreciate you'd keep in mind while commenting here -- and not your own pet shinies.

J.

Just one corporation gave m... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

Just one corporation gave more to the (P)resident than any other politician, $71,000, in 2008.

An international corporation.

One that he later extorted $20 Billion dollars from...

One that caused him to sit on his hands for 60+ days as the worst ecological disaster to hit the US took place so he could protect his good friends that had made such generous donations...

An INTERNATIONAL Corporation...

British Petroleum

Gmac, That claim i... (Below threshold)
Jerry Chandler:

Gmac,

That claim is false. Obama did not receive $71,000 from BP. Obama received $71,051 in in BP-linked contributions The contributions came from BP employees, not from BP's PAC or from the company itself.

There is a difference. It's not unlike how sometimes you see union members as individuals donate large amounts of money to a candidate while the Union itself donates to that candidate's opponent. There have been cases in some state's elections where the Teacher's Union backed the local Democrat and donated to their election funds while the majority of the teachers as individuals donated to the Republican in the race. Would you misrepresent that as well by saying that the Union supported the Republican or that the teachers supported the Democrat?

"(Cue the resident detractors to jump to the Obama regime's defense here -- galoob, Bruce Henry, Jerry Chandler, I'm talking to you!)"

Why would I defend Obama on this matter? I complained back then about the lack of transparency in some of his fund raising. I dislike large amounts of money going into public elections from behind the mask of anonymity.

It's not a good thing to have in a system supposedly designed for "free and fair" and elections. That was true then and it's doubly true today with the Supreme Court's ruling allowing essentially a handful of donations to flood elections all over the country and to outspend locally raised donations.

It was wrong for the Obama campaign to play games back then and it's wrong for these groups to do it now. Sorry if that response disappoints you, but I can't bring myself to be the "My side is right, their side is wrong even when they're doing the same thing!" kind of hypocrite that you like to be.

Gmac, I left a couple of li... (Below threshold)
Jerry Chandler:

Gmac, I left a couple of lines out up there. The BP employees who donated were American employees so also doesn't count in the "international money" column. That would be like claiming that donations from a guy who living in Arkansas is "foreign money" because he happens to own the local Honda dealership.

Cleanup on Aisle 20 - some.... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Cleanup on Aisle 20 - some....

Ah, hell. He's not even worth making a quip about.

"That claim is false. Ob... (Below threshold)
914:

"That claim is false. Obama did not receive $71,000 from BP. Obama received $71,051 in in BP-linked contributions The contributions came from BP employees, not from BP's PAC or from the company itself.

Why would I defend Obama on this matter? I complained back then about the lack of transparency in some of his fund raising"


More transparency please. Send in the clowns.

Don't bother, they're... in... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Don't bother, they're... in Washington.

Send in the Auditors, instead.

But China has p... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

But China has power over the status of the dollar as the reserve currency now. If they decide to sell U.S. debt, they will take a hit, but could also destroy the USA. They have us by the balls, and it is their decisions based on their calculation of their interests which will prevail.

True. So how do you justify the Messiah's borrowing another $787 billion? Hair of the dog?

That claim is false. Obama did not receive $71,000 from BP. Obama received $71,051 in in BP-linked contributions The contributions came from BP employees, not from BP's PAC or from the company itself.

Behold, the liberal mind. This is a distinction without a difference. As a senior member of management at a Fortune 250 company, I was "asked" to donate to our company's PAC re healthcare reform by the CEO, who helpfully offered his office staff to collect the "donations." Not even liberals are stupid enough (not every day you get to use that phrase) not to take the point.

"Behold, the liberal min... (Below threshold)
Jerry Chandler:

"Behold, the liberal mind. This is a distinction without a difference."

No, it's not. Several employers I've had in the last 20 years have donated cash to causes in the name of the organization that I disagreed with just as I've donated time and money to causes that my employers weren't supportive of.

I know rational thinking seems to be a low priority here at Wizbang, but try it for a moment. By the logic, and I use the term loosely, that you're presenting, the labor unions have been donating to the Republicans all this time because a fair chunk of the politically active members have donated their time and money to the Republicans. Now, we know that the Unions have been supporting the Democrats so obviously your logic doesn't hold up.

"I was "asked" to donate to our company's PAC re healthcare reform by the CEO"

And this wasn't PAC money. If you check your facts you'll actually find that BP spent more money in Republican donations overall in 2008 through its PAC than what was donated to Obama by individuals who worked at BP. McCain and Palin took in nearly three times the amount of money from the oil industry's political action committees and employees as did Obama and Biden from industry employees. Now McCain and Palin didn't get PAC money from BP either, but they still got donations of about $36,649 from employees of BP.

And what they got was from American employees as well. So your now faced with a fun proposition. If you choose to insist that Obama and Biden took foreign money via contributions from American employees of BP and thus broke the law then you are also stating that McCain and Palin broke the law as well. So, are you going to make that accusation or just give Palin and McCain a pass?

Plus whatever may or may not have happened to you is irrelevant. Both campaigns took money from employees of BP, but if that truly represented BP's will as a corporate entity and they did what you claim your boss did then McCain would have gotten more money since BP's PAC donated much more heavily to Republicans that year. Since Obama got more off the individual donations it's far more likely that, as with individual teachers donating money to Republican candidates when the Union donates to the Democrats, it was more of an individual thing.

"24. Posted by 914 | October 16, 2010 10:44 PM"

914, you seem to be saying that my pointing out an error in the facts on one specific matter invalidates my claim. Well, it doesn't do anything of the kind. You can criticize someone on the facts and still point out when certain criticisms are a little bit on the fact-lite side of things. This may come as a surprise to you, but, despite my having criticized, say, Palin in the past on fact based matters I have also pointed out when she's being attacked on falsehoods and rumors. I've criticized both Democrats and Republicans and defended both as well. I just like to stick to facts when doing so.

I can see where that seems to confuse some around here. From some of this this blog's writers to many of its readers the attitude seems to be that fact free criticisms of Democrats is great and pointing to the hypocrisy of Democrats while ignoring both the Republicans' and your own is just fine and dandy. Sorry, I'm just not wired that way.

Now if the Chamber of Comme... (Below threshold)
Stan:

Now if the Chamber of Commerce had donated all of their budget to the Demoncrats, there would be no massive rallies to tar and feather the Chamber. Instead, Obama and Co would be having them at every White House function and have them as guests at the state dinners. Being that the Chamber gave a tidy sum to the Republicans this time out, they get pilloried by the useful idiots that are led around by Georges Soros' nose ring. Look at what Client #9 (Eliot Spitzer) did to Hank Greenburg and AIG.

<a href="http://www.reuters... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64420A20100505

"During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records."

Kinda shoots big holes in your argument now doesn't it?

"Kinda shoots big holes ... (Below threshold)
Jerry Chandler:

"Kinda shoots big holes in your argument now doesn't it?"

No it doesn't for two reasons.

The first is because they're putting two things together and reporting it as one item. Obama received $6,000 from the BP PAC and from individual donors linked to BP for his Senatorial run. During the Presidential election neither he nor McCain took money from the BP PAC. So the point stands as correct that the money received during the election was not a direct contribution from BP and it did not constitute foreign money.

The second reason should be obvious to even a blind man. You can point to these numbers and source them because the donors and the amounts donated were disclosed. The biggest issue with the CoC that I have is that they, and others for that matter, are not disclosing the sources for their donations.

Their PR issues are compounded further by the fact that they sent out issue/fundraising alerts to international companies not long before dumping this cash into various state election. Their problem is also made greater by the facts that they lobbied heavily against recent measures seen as pro-American Worker such as the "Made in America" provisions, fighting against the investigations of Chinese labor violations after the last several problems (such as toxic products) we had with imports from there, the attempt to stop giving tax credits to companies to outsource jobs to other countries and the attempt to give tax incentives to companies that stopped outsourcing.

It's not helped the Chamber's head guy, Tom Donohue, is on record stating that American workers should "stop whining" about jobs lost to outsourcing and stating that outsourcing jobs is a good thing when one of the major issues in the country right now is the jobless rate. What you have is a situation where the circumstantial evidence looks like the CoC is more pro-foreign business than pro-American worker. So much so even that many of the state Chamber of Commerce organizations have broken away from the US Chamber in the last few years. You then have the issuing of fundraising alerts right before dumping huge loads of cash into the current elections.

Are they guilty of using illegal foreign contributions in the US elections to favor candidates who will vote in line with the business views they hold? Don't know. We can't really say because there is zero transparency in their funding. We know general amounts, but that's really all we know. And even if they're not using foreign money, I would still like to be able to see who is pumping money into elections to help candidates of either party; especially when you have, as we seeing now with some elections, a handful of out of state donors outstripping the locally raised donations. Certainly the easiest way for them to make the controversy meaningless is to open their books. And they certainly have nothing to fear in that if, as so many here say, they're promoting the side and the ideas that the American people want.

As I said above: "Why would I defend Obama on this matter? I complained back then about the lack of transparency in some of his fund raising. I dislike large amounts of money going into public elections from behind the mask of anonymity.

It's not a good thing to have in a system supposedly designed for "free and fair" and elections. That was true then and it's doubly true today with the Supreme Court's ruling allowing essentially a handful of donations to flood elections all over the country and to outspend locally raised donations."

So, seeing as how I said in my prior post that my main problem was the anonymous buying of our elections by anyone; you pointing to donations given where the specific donors and amounts can be identified makes your post saying that your quote "shoots big holes in [my] argument" something other than meaningless... how?

I dislike anonymous cash flowing into elections no matter which side is getting the benefits of it. I don't like large groups taking cash from everywhere in the world and then saying they're playing by the rules and, when asked to show that hey are, they say that the proof is because they say so. If this group were supporting Obama and Obama offered up proof of his or their compliance with the law as "Because I said so!" you lot would be howling about the corruption going on by Team Obama and demanding more transparency or at least better proof. So would I. I'm also saying that there should be more transparency here as well because, unlike most of you lot, I'm not a partisan hypocrite.

Oh, I get it. A post goes ... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Oh, I get it. A post goes up about the hypocrisy of the Obama administration and we get called a bunch of hypocrits.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy