PDA

View Full Version : Will Barack Hussein Obama Junior resign?



LWW
07-02-2011, 04:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A video of President Barack Obama filmed in the White House and included in a fundraising e-mail sent to supporters is not legal, two election law experts told CNSNews.com.

The video was included in an e-mail sent to supporters of President Obama promoting a fundraising drive that offered participants a chance to win an invitation to dinner with Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.
The video was filmed in the White House and, because it is intended to raise funds, constitutes a violation of federal law, according to two election law experts contacted by CNSNews.com.

“I think this is a violation [of the law],” Cleta Mitchell, a member of the American Bar Association’s election law committee, told CNSNews.com.

“It is a specific prohibition on solicitation [of money] by the president, the vice president, or any member of Congress on any federal property,” she said.

President Barack Obama preparing for a radio address in the Map Room of the White House. (White House photo.)
According to federal law (Title 18, subsection 607 U.S.C.), <span style='font-size: 11pt'>“It shall be unlawful for an individual who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, including the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress, to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election, while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties.”</span>

The White House contends that the video is legal, noting that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a memo in 1979 explaining that the president can solicit funds in the White House, so long as he does so in the residential portion of the mansion, not in a room used for official business.

However, Hans von Spakovsky – former member of the Federal Election Commission and a Heritage Foundation legal analyst – told CNSNews.com that that exemption may not apply in this case because it appears that the video was not filmed in an area where the president actually lives.

“What they [OLC] said the grey area was, was other rooms that are used not just for official duties but perhaps were also used for entertaining,” he explained. “The Map Room, as I understand it, is only used for official duties – it’s not an entertainment room like other rooms in the White House [that] could be characterized other than the personal residence.”
The controversy revolves around where in the White House the video was filmed. From other White House photographs and videos, including a taping of the weekly presidential address, the room appears to be the Map Room, located in the mansion area of the White House.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>However, the Map Room is located on the ground floor of the mansion while the first family resides on the second floor. According to the White House, the Map Room is used for meetings by the president and first lady.
Also, President Obama has used the Map Room to conduct interviews with journalists, meet with the Dalai Lama, and launch his recent initiative aimed at cutting wasteful spending in government. Most notably, Obama used the Map Room to take the oath of office from Chief Justice John Roberts in 2009.</span>

If the video was filmed in the Map Room, as it appears to be,<span style='font-size: 11pt'> then there is no question it violates the law, von Spakovsky explained, because it is clearly part of a fundraising pitch, precisely the type of activity prohibited under the law.
“The video is clearly designed to get people to participate in this raffle and the video takes you directly to a web site – directs you to a web site – where there’s an immediate solicitation for funds,” he said.</span>

Von Spakovsky further said that, at best, Obama was “bending, if not breaking the law” in making the video in the White House.

Cleta Mitchell was more blunt, saying, “it’s a criminal offense.” </div></div>

LET THE EXCUSES BEGIN! (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-raffle-video-not-legal-election-la)

Qtec
07-02-2011, 04:31 AM
OMG...call the cops.

Does Beohner have to go as well???????????

we have to stop this..? (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d3a_1284581246)

Q

LWW
07-02-2011, 04:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://rlv.zcache.com/its_all_bushs_fault_bumper_sticker-p128039498183090210trl0_400.jpg

Q </div></div>

As we all already knew, criminal activity by the thugocracy will get your approval every time.

Qtec
07-02-2011, 04:50 AM
Denial. We all see it.

Q

Qtec
07-02-2011, 05:10 AM
Bush took a sound economy and a surplus and doubled/tripled the nat Debt, with the help of the GOP.

He handed Obama a country on the brink of financial disaster, with the help of the GOP.

These are facts.

Bush BORROWED the money to fund the two wars and BORROWED the money to fund his gift to Pharma, and BORROWED the money to fund his tax cuts for the rich.

Obama has now got to find the money to pay for it ..and you blame him!!!

Obama thought the GOP would work with him to get the country back on its feet, he was wrong.

top priority to get rid of Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gM-1HbK4qU)

Q

LWW
07-02-2011, 05:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Denial. We all see it.

Q </div></div>

Yes we do ... but we tolerate you anyway.

Perhaps this:

http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/45499-top_hat_wears_best.jpg

is more your style?

Qtec
07-02-2011, 05:21 AM
If I was standing outside a polling station handing out $100 bills to anyone who would change their vote to my guy, is that bribery?

Of course it is.


Beohner was handing out $40,000 cheques to people if they would change their vote and side with the tobacco Companies...that's not the same??????????

Q......I know.....Obama.................

LWW
07-02-2011, 05:35 AM
1 - That's not what your video shows.

2 - The topic is Obama and not Boehner.

3 - You are a hyper-partisan nit.

4 - You are vainly attempting to deflect from the thugocracy.

5 - Everybody sees it.

6 - It isn't working.

Qtec
07-02-2011, 05:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 - That's not what your video shows. </div></div>


What video dumba$$? Are we all psychic?


What does 'it' show then?

Q..

LWW
07-02-2011, 06:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 - That's not what your video shows. </div></div>


What video dumba$$? Are we all psychic?


What does 'it' show then?

Q.. </div></div>

The video you linked to HERE (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=357395#Post357395) my challenged friend.

http://passionweiss.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/idiot2.jpg

llotter
07-02-2011, 08:31 AM
It is not necessary for The Moron to either follow the law or to enforce the law according to the Supreme Court. It is not for one branch of government to resolve problems between the other two, so they say. There is no saving the country from either a very strong executive or a very stupid one and we happen to be under to rule now of a very stupid one.

Soflasnapper
07-02-2011, 02:20 PM
Not legal, as in a civil violation, with fines and like that, or not legal, as in a criminal violation, with potential jail time, etc.?

These hair-splitting laws are ridiculous, generally. It would be totally legal if it were a different ROOM? In the White House, but a separate ROOM?

This is a legal distinction of almost no real significance. Just as when Senators and Reps cannot use their office phones for fundraising, and therefore go across the street to rooms specially rented for that purpose.

Isn't the unseemly side of money raising equally corruptive, whether or not it's actually in your office, or across the street, or in the room next to the room you used?

But one is wholly legal, and the other not? Bizarre, really.

Soflasnapper
07-02-2011, 02:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is not necessary for The Moron to either follow the law or to enforce the law according to the Supreme Court. It is not for one branch of government to resolve problems between the other two, so they say. There is no saving the country from either a very strong executive or a very stupid one and we happen to be under to rule now of a very stupid one.

</div></div>

So, not EVIL AND CUNNING, just stupid, and accidentally evil? Interesting take.

llotter
07-02-2011, 03:39 PM
for a moment I was going to say that you have hit the nail on the head with your summation but then I realized that the phrasing wasn't quite right. Stupid doesn't necessarily mean only accidentally evil but can just as easily mean intentionally evil and I think that is closer to the situation with The Moron.

Soflasnapper
07-02-2011, 05:16 PM
The way I see it, the people who put BHO in place are not stupid at all-- evil, likely, but not stupid.

That said, they may still blunder into overplaying their hand, and among other problems, kill the host they are parasitically draining.

I refer, of course, to the big money Wall Street boys, who have gotten their wet dream fulfilled in this president. Hilariously, they have also succeeded in blaming his actions on his alleged left-wing radicalism, when carrying water for the biggest money in the world cannot be fairly characterized that way at all. Pretty brilliant, if evil, as I say.

The remaining question would be if BHO is in on the con, or is a marginal naif, Chauncy Gardiner style. I guess you'd say the latter; I say the former.

LWW
07-02-2011, 05:45 PM
What do you think "LEFT WING RADICALISM" actually means?

If you wish to use the phrase, surely you can assign a definition.

Soflasnapper
07-03-2011, 08:41 PM
It's easier to say what left wing radicalism isn't than what it is.

It isn't being well to the right of the Democratic Party caucus in Congress, as even those people aren't left wing radicals (with less than a handful of possible exceptions).

It isn't doing whatever the biggest money in the world dictates be done, as in kow-towing to the large investment banks and brokerage companies.

It isn't continuing wars that the left will always say are imperialistic wars of territorial or economic conquest.

It isn't refusing to propose single payer as the national health care plan, or Medicare for all, as the liberal and leftward of that catechism holds is best.

It wouldn't be pre-emptively conceding half the middle ground of the differences between the parties, only to lose the rest after STARTING the negotiation because the OPENING position was already a considerable compromise.

Obama doesn't do these things because he misunderstands how to negotiate for his allegedly desired (supposed radical left wing policy) outcomes. It is because those ARE HIS DESIRED OUTCOMES.

Basically, like Clinton, Obama appears to be a Republican, as that term used to be understood. And I cannot think that being in the mainstream of what not long ago used to be the Republican Party represents anything properly characterized as left wing radicalism.

Obama, like Clinton, FEINTS rhetorically toward the left, for political gain. Over and over again, he has more than disappointed his base on any number of issues-- he has embittered them, and shattered their belief in him.

Qtec
07-04-2011, 02:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Obama doesn't do these things because he misunderstands how to negotiate for his allegedly desired (supposed radical left wing policy) outcomes. It is because those ARE HIS DESIRED OUTCOMES.
</div></div>

I read an article about a month ago that said the same thing. At the time I didn't believe it, now, after thinking about it, I'm not so sure.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Over and over again, he has more than disappointed his base on any number of issues-- he has embittered them, and shattered their belief in him. </div></div>

Too true my friend. Too true. First on HC Single Payer and then on the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy. Now he wants to cut the security net for the unemployed and the poor ! The GOP get to de-fund just about everything [ ACORN, Planned Parenthood ], but religious based programs <u>that don't work</u> like Abstinence, Cure the Gay Programs, etc still get funded.

Obama MAY have been naive when he first came to DC, but there is no way he can mistake the intentions of the GOP now. From day 1 they have been clear, ie do what we want or we will bring Govt to a halt and the country to economic ruin- if that's what it takes to get you out of the WH.

LWW doesn't get it. He complains about what Obama has done but progressives blame Obama for what he has not done.

Both partys campaigned on change but all I see from Obama is more of the same and the GOP have got actually got worse.

Q

LWW
07-04-2011, 04:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama doesn't do these things because he misunderstands how to negotiate for his allegedly desired (supposed radical left wing policy) outcomes. It is because those ARE HIS DESIRED OUTCOMES.</div></div>

Thank you.

Obama's desire is simply to expand the power of the state.

Soflasnapper
07-04-2011, 04:52 PM
Obama's desire is simply to expand the power of the state.

Perhaps, but it is important to note, not at the expense of corporate profits, which I think is more the motivation than expanding the power of the state.

He's taking care of his donors/owners. He had the easy opportunity to keep mark to market rules in place, declare the major banks bankrupt (which they were and still are, btw), and take them over. Did he do that? He would have, if he wanted maximum state control.

In health care, single payer or Medicare for all would have been a greater state empowerment, and instead he put together a plan that was approved ahead of time and the fix was put in for, maintaining and expanding the profits of the pharmaceutical companies and the health insurance companies. Does this actually empower the state to the max, or more enrich private sector companies?

LWW
07-05-2011, 04:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama's desire is simply to expand the power of the state.

Perhaps, but it is important to note, not at the expense of corporate profits, which I think is more the motivation than expanding the power of the state.

He's taking care of his donors/owners. He had the easy opportunity to keep mark to market rules in place, declare the major banks bankrupt (which they were and still are, btw), and take them over. Did he do that? He would have, if he wanted maximum state control.

In health care, single payer or Medicare for all would have been a greater state empowerment, and instead he put together a plan that was approved ahead of time and the fix was put in for, maintaining and expanding the profits of the pharmaceutical companies and the health insurance companies. Does this actually empower the state to the max, or more enrich private sector companies? </div></div>

What you have done is describe a fascist economy ... after much wailing and gnashing of teeth that it doesn't exist.

You are close to an epiphany my friend ... all political cult leaders pimp their followers with the same imagery and mythology.

The mob is merely the tool needed to attain power. The wealthy are the tool needed to maintain power.

All the HOPEY-CHANGEY nonsense that the far left bought into was pure bovine scatology ... and millions of people across this land saw that it was.

Soflasnapper
07-07-2011, 06:48 PM
All the HOPEY-CHANGEY nonsense that the far left bought into [...]

Show me where Noam Chomsky was an Obama-ite, and maybe you'd have a point. What you're describing is the not-so-far left, also called liberals. Who are NOT the 'far left' in the slightest, although I guess they play that part in our national Overton Window setup.