The Glade 4.0

You don't weigh the onconbeniemve of enforcing the law

I'm sorry...I know you're likely typing on your phone, you're a very smart man who knows perfectly well how to spell, and I don't like nitpicking or pointing out stupid crap like misspelled words...but given your vehement feelings against autocorrect on your phone, I couldn't help but laugh at "onconbeniemve."

I just like saying "onconbeniemve." It feels like I'm cursing in French.

You cannot imagine the depths of rage this stupid gadget is provoking in me. The stupid posting app was supposed to help avoid that ****.

It’s been reported that Barack Obama’s re-election campaign is knowingly accepting donations from non-U.S. citizens, and PJ Media can confirm that it’s not only possible, but very easy, for foreign citizens to make contributions. I’ve been able to donate $25 to the Obama campaign in three separate transactions, despite being a lifelong British citizen resident in the UK. What’s more, two of my donations were processed despite the Obama campaign noting that I had provided a non-U.S. address, and despite my failure to provide proof of American citizenship when asked to do so.

I first tried to donate on October 6, via the donation page at BarackObama.com, the president’s official re-election campaign website. I entered my name, and my UK street address and city, as I figured that at a minimum I would need to supply these in order for my bank to process the transaction. I also supplied my email address.

However, in order to progress to the next screen I had to provide a U.S. state, postcode, and phone number. I have relatives in Massachusetts, so I chose MA from the list and entered my relatives’ postcode and a variation on their phone number, with the last four numbers changed so the state and area codes would be correct.


I then entered my debit card number (this is a card that draws on my checking account, as distinct from a credit card) and expiration date, but I was not asked to enter the three-digit CVV (card-verification value) number on the back of the card; I had seen reports that the Obama campaign had disabled the requirement to supply this number.

I clicked “donate,” and despite my intention to test the system, I was a little surprised to see that my donation was, initially at least, accepted – I figured it was still possible that the discrepancies in the address would show up. I received an acknowledgement of my donation from the Obama campaign via email, although the email did add that the donation was “subject to review.” I then made a second donation, for $5, so that I could take a screen grab of the page you see below.


As a control, I then tried to make a donation to the Romney campaign, entering the same information. This time, I was asked for the three-digit CVV number, and when I clicked “donate” I was immediately informed that the address I had entered did not match the address on file for the card.


I wasn’t entirely surprised when, on October 9, I received an email from the “compliance” department at the Obama campaign. The email said that, because I’d supplied a foreign address, I would need to supply a copy of the photo page from my U.S. passport in order to comply with Federal Election Commission regulations. I don’t have a U.S. passport of course, so I didn’t respond to the email. (Oddly, the email also said I needed to supply the passport page “even though you provided a passport number when donating online”; I hadn’t supplied a passport number when I donated, or been asked to supply one.)




I got the same email regarding the $5 donation, and I assumed that was the end of the line for my attempted donations. However, because the email didn’t say anything about my details not matching the card, and only asked me to provide proof of U.S. citizenship, I thought I’d have another go at donating. This time I provided an entirely false Massachusetts address, listing the main street of the town where my relatives live in case this was checked against the zip code, and a random house number. Again, the donation was accepted by the website, and I received the same thank-you email stating that the donation was “subject to review.”

I waited a few days, but this time I heard nothing from the Obama campaign’s “compliance” people. I thought that perhaps, as I hadn’t responded to their request for proof of identity for the first two donations, another donation from the same card would automatically be rejected. I then went on a trip for a few days. I checked my email, and while I received general fundraising emails from the Obama campaign, there was no further news on my donations.

However, when I checked my bank account online last week, I found that all three donations had been processed by my bank…


I was surprised that the third donation had been accepted, given that I’d supplied an address entirely unrelated to my bank details. But I was even more surprised to discover that the first two donations had been processed; after all, the campaign had detected that I’d supplied an overseas address, and I’d failed to supply proof of U.S. citizenship when requested to do so.

The flaw in the system appears to be the fact that the Obama website does not require you to enter the CVV number for your card. I don’t know about the U.S., but in the UK this would be highly unusual. In fact, I don’t recall ever being able to make a purchase with a debit or credit card, on the internet or over the phone, without supplying the CVV number.

At best, the Obama campaign is neglecting to implement the necessary procedures to ensure that donations from non-U.S. citizens are not accepted. At worst – and given that I was unable to donate to the Romney campaign, this seems the more likely scenario – the Obama campaign is deliberately failing to implement basic security measures in order to collect donations from foreign citizens.

PJ Media will be contacting the Obama campaign to ask for an explanation, and the Federal Election Commission to inform them of our findings. We’ll report back when we get responses from them.

Yes, this is a great idea. Also, I think we also need to implement a Bear Patrol in major cities. It'll only cost $10 per person per year, that's a negligible burden. What? There's no evidence of bear attacks? Are you saying that bear maulings are OK as long as there's not too many of them?

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

O'Keefe has already been discredited as a liar and a hack with a very large political axe to grind.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

O'Keefe has already been discredited as a liar and a hack with a very large political axe to grind.

O'Keefe has already been discredited as a liar and a hack with a very large political axe to grind.

"a few shaky things..."

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Jesus I can't wait for election season to be over...

http://www.examiner.com/article/report-obama-camp-soliciting-donations-from-china-vietnam-other-countries

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/08/fraud-found-in-obamas-online-donations/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/21/Obama-Bagged-Over-2-Million-In-Invalid-Donations-For-September

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/09/fox-hypes-unsubstantiated-claim-that-obama-may/190469

The Government Accountability Institute has raised concerns, Aizle. They can't prove anything, but it's not hard to put better safeguards in place.

Yes, this is a great idea. Also, I think we also need to implement a Bear Patrol in major cities. It'll only cost $10 per person per year, that's a negligible burden. What? There's no evidence of bear attacks? Are you saying that bear maulings are OK as long as there's not too many of them?

Yes, this is a great idea. Also, I think we also need to implement a Bear Patrol in major cities. It'll only cost $10 per person per year, that's a negligible burden. What? There's no evidence of bear attacks? Are you saying that bear maulings are OK as long as there's not too many of them?

O'Keefe has already been discredited as a liar and a hack with a very large political axe to grind.

The far left has begrudgingly admitted O’Keefe struck gold in nailing Moran, including the Maddow Blog and Slate. Salon says the Moran hit was “detailed, extensive, and clear… no misleading edits.”

Because clearly ID cards are an utterly novel concept and have no purpose outside of voter identification.

Your suggestion is asinine. If the police did see a bear in the city attacking someone, they should shoot it. Your argument is the equivalent of arguing that they should not, because it is too expensive to have police for the sole purpose of stopping bear attacks.

Disappointing that it's apparently true. Glad he's resigned and hopefully campaigns will learn something from it.

While President Obama's record-breaking pace to raising a total of $1 billion earlier this month received significant media attention, there was little if any curiosity among the traditional press about how he was on track to achieve such an unprecedented milestone in presidential fundraising. The broadcast networks in particular have not bothered to mention the growing scandal that is being scrupulously pieced together by alternative media outlets.

An independently-owned website Obama.com (redirects to official site here) has been suspected of accepting millions of dollars worth of illegal foreign donations for months now. Despite all the speculation and accusations coming from a nonprofit organization known as the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), no action had been taken until recently.

In accordance with American laws, the Chinese government reportedly made the decision to block access to the site recently. After filing an investigative report titled America The Vulnerable last month, GAI founder and co-chairman Steve Bannon offered his reaction. “It’s a shocking revelation that the Chinese government wants to do something that the Obama campaign wouldn't do," he said. "They’re more sensitive to American sovereignty and campaign-finance law than the Obama campaign.”

US Code - Section 441E clearly states:

It shall be unlawful for - (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make - (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election; (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.

To be fair, the GAI's thorough analysis found that campaigns at any level and from both major parties have lacked the sufficient security required to fully comply with federal law. Obama.com's online fundraising seems to be more vulnerable than most, however. For example, the website in question does not require users to input their credit card validation (CCV) code, which is meant to reduce fraud and identify location.

What's more, the GAI counted over $2 million in campaign donations to have been collected from non-existent ZIP codes this year alone. Additionally, an estimated 68 percent of the web traffic have foreign IP addresses, according to an industry leading web analytics group called MarkosWeb.

A more in-depth investigation into the matter has yielded interesting results.

The New York Post put the website to the test, finding out that a British citizen like Chris Walker could make donations with relative ease. Inputting his actual street address, Walker chose Arkansas as his home state but used a New York ZIP code. The same experiment did not work on Republican candidate Mitt Romney's fundraising web page.

Multiple sources like The Daily Caller and The Washington Examiner have reported that Obama.com was registered in September of 2008 to an influential campaign bundler named Robert Roche. The former Chicago resident now resides in Shanghai, China, where he is an executive for an infomercial company that specializes in fitness equipment, cell phones and, I kid you not, breast enhancement products.

Breitbart.com obtained seating arrangements from the State Dinner for Chinese President Hu Jintao in 2011, where Roche could be found at the VIP table. The extent of the connection between Roche and Obama is still unknown.

A similar scandal was reported by none other than The Washington Post back in 2008, when the Obama-Biden campaign effort allowed donors to use "largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask the contributor's identity." No official charges were filed, and the Post has failed to follow up this time around.

A wealth of information has been provided thus far, but the major broadcast networks continue to ignore the story. One would have to assume that is for fear that would hurt their candidate of choice's re-election chances.

Your suggestion is asinine. If the police did see a bear in the city attacking someone, they should shoot it. Your argument is the equivalent of arguing that they should not, because it is too expensive to have police for the sole purpose of stopping bear attacks.