Our Advertisers Represent Some Of The Most Unique Products & Services On Earth!


Confusion Over Supreme Court Ruling
On Campaign Finance

By Devvy
I've received quite a few emails since Obama/Soetoro gave his State of the Union address regarding the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The headlines splashed 'Alito mouths not true' and he was right.
Obama/Soetoro lied. Every time he opens his mouth he lies. I expect nothing else because I knew what that hustler was all about long before the pretend election.
Judge Andrew Napolitano has provided a superb legal analysis of that decision which can be read here:
Updated January 28, 2010
Justice Alito Was Right
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
"Despite claims made by the president, last week's Supreme Court opinion on campaign finance specifically excludes foreign nationals and foreign-owned corporations from its ruling."
You can read the court's full ruling here:
I have to wonder how the 'conservatives' on the court felt while the Great One stood at the podium with the world watching and slammed them. In particular, Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. Let us not forget that Roberts met in private with Obama/Soetoro on January 14, 2009, when Roberts knew Obama/Soetoro was the subject of litigation that would come before the court:
"To say I was floored when I read the news item is an understatement. A 'ceremonial' meeting between a president elect and justices of the Supreme Court is somewhat traditional. HOWEVER, in this instance, it's flat out wrong. Chief Justice Roberts has cases on the docket where Obama is the defendant or is the subject of the litigation. Roberts and the other eight justices have already held two 'Distribution for Conferences' on the Donofrio and Wrotnoski cases on Obama's citizenship ineligibility. They just turned away one of Phil Berg's cases a few days ago; that one is still in the Third Circuit. Tomorrow is the fourth case; another from Phil Berg.
"On Wednesday, Roberts meets with the man at the heart of that case in private. Two days later, he sits down to discuss the case with the other justices after having a closed door meeting with the defendant! There is still the Lightfoot v Bowen case to be heard in conference, January 23, 2009. Again, Chief Justice Roberts will sit in that private meeting to discuss whether the case should go to oral arguments.
"Does anyone see major conflict of interest here? How can Chief Justice Roberts meet with Obama behind closed doors under such circumstances? Even if they just chatted up the weather, it is highly inappropriate in my humble opinion. Roberts should have notified Obama that under the circumstances, he would not be able to meet with him, private or with photogs in attendance. There must be zero appearance of any bias or preference when it comes to judges and justices of the Supreme Court."
And, speaking of campaign finance, in 2008, I wrote several letters to U.S. Attorneys. I want Obama aka Soetoro aka Dunham and so forth, to be indicted and put on trial for wire fraud. He solicited campaign funds when he knew all along he was ineligible to run as president. Some $700 MILLION bux came in and a ton of it from foreign sources.
"In the late 70s and early 80s, federal prosecutors often sought to indict and convict corrupt state officials by contending that such officials engaged in a "scheme to defraud the citizens of a particular state of those public servants' honest services. But in 1987, the Supreme Court held in McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), that the mail and wire fraud statutes could not be stretched to encompass such a legal theory.
"In response, Congress adopted 18 U.S.C. §1346 to cure this defect in statutory language. Lots of corrupt local officials have been indicted and convicted for using the mails and wires to carry out a "scheme to defraud" the public via their "dishonest services." See, as an example, United States v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999).
"The wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §1343, provides as follows:
"Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. 
There are groups petitioning the FEC (Federal Election Commission) to investigate Obama/Soetoro's campaign donations, but so far, the answer has been a flat no. Gee, why am I not surprised? Well, we shall see.
You might also wish to read this article; millions more came in after it was published:
Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign
"In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as "Will, Good from Austin, Texas.
"Mr. Good Will listed his employer as "Loving and his profession as "You.
"A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.
"In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.
"Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 " still well over the $4,600 limit.
"There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama,s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will,s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.
"In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there,s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.
"Similarly, a donor identified as "Pro, Doodad, from "Nando, NY, gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as "Loving and his profession as "You, just as Good Will had done.
"But in some of them, he didn,t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by "VCX and that his profession was "VCVC.
The rot and corruption in Washington, DC at ALL levels is like rancid meat baking in the sun.
Donate to Rense.com
Support Free And Honest
Journalism At Rense.com
Subscribe To RenseRadio!
Enormous Online Archives,
MP3s, Streaming Audio Files, 
Highest Quality Live Programs


This Site Served by TheHostPros