Surprise: Obama’s taken more money from major oil company employees than McCain

[darrels joy]

Surprise: Obama’s taken more money from major oil company employees than McCain

posted at 5:32 pm on August 7, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

You’re thinking, “We already knew this, didn’t we?” Not exactly. What we knew is that Obama’s prone to running weaselly, holier-than-thou ads about his opponents being in the tank for big oil even though he himself is rolling in dough from oil company employees. He tried it on Hillary in the primary and got a care package from FactCheck.org and a 30-second rebuttal ad from the Clinton campaign for his trouble. As Ed once said when writing about some of the fundraisers organized for him by oil executives, “Obama lies about this in a particularly bald manner.” Which brings us to McCain, whose running mate this year is the Exxon Corporation if the DNC is to be believed. Maverick does take more oil money than Obama does overall (three times as much, although the two were roughly even last year per CRP’s graph), but the walls of the house from which The One casts his stones are glassier than he’d have you believe:

Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain’s $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500.

McCain leads the money race with nearly every other top giver in the oil and gas industry, though — Koch Industries, Valero, Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, the list goes on. (You can see detail on all these companies in the spreadsheet linked below.) McCain also has a big edge with Hess Corp. — $91,000 to Obama’s $8,000 — which has gotten some attention. And, overall, McCain’s campaign has gotten three times more money from the industry than Obama’s has — $1.3 million compared to about $394,000.

Comparing Obama’s and McCain’s financial ties to the oil industry, there’s no question that McCain has benefited more from the industry’s contributions, just as his Republican Party has for years and years. But Obama’s edge with the oil producers Americans know best — and might be cursing most these days — makes it harder for him to continue to tar McCain as the industry’s darling.

CRP speculates that at least part of the spike in oil contributions to McCain this year derives from him coming around to a position that 69 percent of the public supports. Exit question via McCain himself, speaking at a town hall today in Ohio: If he’s such a tool of the oil industry, why did he vote against the 2005 energy bill that gave billions in handouts to oil companies while Obama voted for it? Surely Maverick’s not suggesting that The One is comfortable with special interests, is he?

Update: Geraghty flags a nifty microcosm of Obama’s hypocrisy on this subject. He wants to run ads attacking oil companies … with help from gas-station owners.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/0...s-than-mccain/

[darrels joy]

The War In Iraq Wasn’t About Oil
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
By Ben Shapiro

The 2008 presidential election cycle has been jam-packed with irony. John McCain has been forced to rely on the 527 groups he so despises; Barack Obama has been denounced by members of the black community but embraced by upper class whites; the Clintons have been rejected by the very media that put them in power.

But perhaps the most ironic fact of the 2008 election cycle is this: John McCain will win the 2008 election because the war in Iraq was not a war for oil.

Since the liberation of Iraq in March 2003, liberals have been screaming that the war to remove Saddam Hussein and his henchmen was a facade. They have been shouting for years on end that the real reason for U.S. presence in Iraq was to secure resources for the Exxon/Mobils of the world. They have been shrieking that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, oilmen both, hijacked American foreign policy to pad their pocketbooks.

There was only one problem with that logic, of course: The price of oil has been skyrocketing since the invasion of Iraq. As of March 2003, the price of oil was well under $40 per barrel. The price of oil is now nearly $120 per barrel, and within the last few weeks it has been above $140 per barrel. If the war in Iraq was a war to open the resource floodgates for Big Oil, it was a massive failure.

The war in Iraq was never about oil, of course. And that simple fact, ironically enough, spells doom for Democrats. With oil prices ridiculously high, Americans are demanding that Congress open domestic territory to oil exploration -- and Democrats are stonewalling. House Republicans are demanding that Congress allow drilling; Democrats are denying an up-or-down vote. And Americans don’t like it at all.

Only 14 percent of Americans now approve of Congress’ no-drilling energy policy. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s anti-drilling, “save the world” strategy is making her dramatically unpopular -- so unpopular that she is secretly telling Congressional Democrats to vote for drilling. And Barack Obama -- who just recently suggested that Americans ought to focus on properly inflating their car tires in order to best conserve gasoline -- is now backtracking on his no-offshore-drilling pledge.

If the war in Iraq had been about oil, Democrats would be sitting in the catbird seat right now. The price of gasoline would be less than half its current price; Americans would be willing to countenance the Luddite idiocy of the no-drilling Dems. Instead, Americans are steaming over high gasoline prices, and they are rightfully blaming the left.

All of which makes Barack Obama’s candidacy look increasingly tenuous. When Obama was nominated, his two major policy selling points were opposition to the war in Iraq and hard-core environmentalism. At the time, those policies looked like a road to success in the general election.

But times have changed. The war in Iraq is going well, thanks to the surge promoted by McCain. Obama has struggled to deal with this on-the-ground reality, thickly suggesting instead that had his immediate withdrawal strategy been pursued, the situation on the ground would be even better in Iraq. Obama’s McGovernite anti-war position and his refusal to acknowledge the great work done by our troops now puts him on the wrong side of history.

The real killer for Obama, however, is his deep green environmentalism. Obama opposes drilling -- or at least he did until this week. And Americans don’t trust that Obama has completely overcome his knee-jerk anti-drilling attitudes.

For Obama, his biggest strength -- opposition to the war in Iraq on both security grounds and on grounds that it was a war for oil -- now constitutes his biggest weakness. His biggest problem is that the war in Iraq wasn’t about oil. If it had been, perhaps he’d still be leading in the polls.

[Nightwing01]

Except that every economics major in the world has said that drilling wont help at all and would take 8 years to see any benefits. And MCNUTT even said it would not help but was more a psychological fight for Americans. What gives him the right to Psycho analyse any one he finished 5Th from last in the Naval Academy. 894/899 WOW.

[SuperScout]

Excuse me, but economic majors don't know squat about 'the oil patch.' That may be one reason why most of them have jobs such as burger flippers. If drilling was allowed in lands currently off-limits, oil would flow ashore within 2 years, minimum on leases within 25 miles of shore.

You might want to consider a remedial writing course, along with a remedial reading course.

[Nightwing01]

Look you can say what you want, and act better or smarter then A NOBEL PRIZE winner that backed Obama's Economic policies. But we all know your not that smart.

And good job attacking my writing when you cant spell!

[darrels joy]

Obama's Foreign Donors: The media averts its eyes

By Pamela Geller


I have been researching, documenting and studying thousands upon thousands of Obama's campaign donations for the past month. Egregious abuse was immediately evident and I published the results of my ongoing investigation. Each subsequent post built a more damning case against Obama's illegal contribution activity.

The media took little notice of what I was substantiating. I went so far as to upload the documents so that anyone could do their own research. I asked readers to download the documents and a number of folks pitched in.


Despite dropping the groundbreaking bombshell story of "Palestinian" brothers from the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza who donated $33,000 to Obama's campaign, no big media picked up the story. Jihadis donating to Obama from Gaza? Could there be a bigger story? Foreign donations are illegal, but this story was all that and so much more. The "Palestinian" brothers were proud and vocal of their "love" for Obama. Their vocal support on behalf of "Palestinians" spoke volumes to Obama's campaign.

And yet still no media.


But Obama pricked up his ears. He smelled trouble and while no media asked, he answered anyway. Sen. Obama's campaign immediately scrambled and contended they had returned the $33,500 in illegal contributions from Palestinians in Hamas-controlled Gaza, despite the fact that records do not show that it was returned and the brothers said they have not received any money. Having gone through all of Obama's refunds redesignations etc, no refund was made to Osama, Hossam, or Edwan Monir in the Rafah refugee camp. And still no media.


One of the Gazan brothers, Monir Edwan (identified here), claimed he bought "Obama for President" T-shirts off Obama's website and then sold the T-shirts in Gaza for a profit. All purchases on the Barack Obama website are considered contributions.


The Palestinians allegedly claimed "they were American citizens", so said Obama's people. They listed their address -- zip code 972 (ironically the area code for Israel) and they input "GA"the state abbreviation for Georgia (screen shot here) They actually lived in a Hamas controlled refugee camp. So if Obama's people thought it was "Georgia" why did they ship the tee shirts to the correct address in Gaza? Shipping overseas to a Gaza refugee camp is vastly different than the state next door.

Still no media.


"Some young men even bought the T-shirts for 60 shekel ($17.29), which is a lot to spend in Gaza on a T-shirt, but that is how much Gazans like Obama," Edwan claimed in a follow up article in the conservative websiet WorldNetDaily. And Hamas has publicly endorsed Obama.

And still no media.


Obama's campaign said the Palestinian brothers in the Middle East made $33,000 in illegal donations to the campaign via the internet.


The donations came in between Sept. 20 and Dec. 6 and virtually all of the money, about $33,500, was returned by December 6. But the refunds weren't reported to the Federal Election Commission due to a technical error, campaign officials said.


If McCain had been involved with something so dark and nefarious, taking money from Islamic jihad, his candidacy would never withstand the media blowback.


But it was the son of hope, the agent of change, the one we have been waiting for , so the media yawned.


The jihad donations were hardly the only bloody red flags. The first in my series of posts ran July 19th. The documents were so unwieldy, readers like John, Doc, and Cathy (who discovered Rafah) were working furiously to cross check our findings at the FEC site and then mine the data.


Obama's overseas (foreign) contributors are making multiple small donations, ostensibly in their own names, over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances, but others are aggregating in excess of the maximums when all added up. The countries and major cities from which contributions have been received France, Virgin Islands, Planegg, Vienna, Hague, Madrid, London, AE, IR, Geneva,Tokyo, Bangkok, Turin, Paris, Munich, Madrid, Roma, Zurich, Netherlands, Moscow, Ireland, Milan, Singapore, Bejing, Switzerland, Toronto, Vancouver, La Creche, Pak Chong, Dublin, Panama, Krabi, Berlin, Geneva, Buenos Aires, Prague, Nagoya, Budapest, Barcelona, Sweden, Taipei, Hong Kong, Rio de Janeiro, Sydney, Zurich, Ragusa, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Uganda, Mumbia, Nagoya, Tunis, Zacatecas, St, Croix, Mississauga, Laval, Nadi, Behchoko, Ragusa, DUBIA, Lima, Copenhagen, Quaama, Jeddah, Kabul, Cairo, Nassau(not the county on Long Island,lol), Luxembourg (Auchi's stomping grounds), etc,etc,etc,


Half a million dollars had been donated from overseas by unidentified people "not employed".


Digging deeper, all sorts of very bizarre activity jumped at us. Dr and JJ continued to break it down and pull data from various sources. We found Rebecca Kurth contributed $3,137.38 to the Obama Campaign in 112 donations, including 34 separate donations recorded in one day,


How about this gibberish donor on the 30th of April in 2008.


A donor named Hbkjb, jkbkj


City: Jkbjnj Works for: Kuman Bank (doesn't exist)


Occupation: Balanon Jalalan Amount: $1,077.23


or thedonor Doodad, The # of transactions = 1,044


The $ contributed = $10,780.00


This Doodad character works for FDGFDGF and occupation is DFGFDG


The more questions we answered the more questions we discovered.


Thousands of Obama's foreign donations ended in cents. The "cents" did not make sense. And we compared McCain donation documentss to Obama's. McCain's records are nothing like Obama's. McCain's are so clean. No cents, all even dollar amounts. But Obama's contained thousands of strange, odd amounts -- evidence of foreign contributors, since Americans living overseas would almost uniformly be able to contribute dollars. Still no media.


Julia Gorin told me a funny story two months ago. Her husband's co-worker wanted to see what would happen if he tried giving a contribution to the Obama campaign via a credit card. He used his Macy's card. The system accepted it. He tried the same with McCain's campaign, and the transaction wouldn't go through. Now, obviously, down the line, the Obama transaction would fail as well, but it goes to the point that there is no safety system in place -- it'll just accept any and all money, which helps explain how his campaign raised so much more money than everyone else's.


Despite the evidence of dirty campaign donations, crickets chirped in newsrooms across the country. The moment my Gaza story started to get some chatter on talk radio, the left and their supplicant handmaidens in the media sprang into action and created a McCain illegal campaign contribution "scandal". The Washington Post published an inaccurate allegation and then retracted not a day later, at the risk of looking stupid. They are jeopardizing the little credibility that they have left.

....a Washington Post story detailing some suspicious looking contributions to the McCain campaign bundled by Harry Sargeant III. Shortly after posting, a correction appeared in the original report, as follows:

An earlier version of this story about campaign donations that Florida businessman Harry Sargeant III raised for Sen. John McCain, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton incorrectly identified three individuals as being among the donors Sargeant solicited on behalf of McCain. Those donors -- Rite Aid manager Ibrahim Marabeh, and lounge owners Nadia and Shawn Abdalla -- wrote checks to Giuliani and Clinton, not McCain. Also, the first name of Faisal Abdullah, a McCain donor, was misspelled in some versions of the story (noted by Amanda Carpenter).

So here an intrepid blogger finds a keg of dynamite of dirty dollar donations to Obama and what does the media do? They ignore it. And when forced to confront it by the sheer newsworthiness of the story, what happens? They go after McCain. They punish McCain.

And that is meant to be a lesson to all of us, Whatever you find, whatever you discover about the Candidate of Mystery, they will blow it back in your face. And they did. Almost immediately.


The irony and the upshot of all this. John McCain is reviewing contributions. Ain't that a kick in the head. I can tell him he needn't bother. Been there, done that. Nothing to see, keep moving.


Obama's out there raising millions, some in illegal donations and the Washington Post jumps on McCain for a $50k, which hasn't been shown to be illegal, but merely "inappropriate." The left and their handmaidens, the mani stream media, were so quick to deflect this hit, it seems we have hit a raw nerve. I intend to keep digging. Stay tuned.,


Pamela Geller is Editor and Publisher of the blog Atlas Shrugs.

[Nightwing01]

This is all from a Blogger hum I think we are reaching a bit ya. look McCain and Obama have gotten lots of money off of the web they should look at it closer, but I see know facts in this point less argument.

[Nightwing01]

WOW I did not know this was the CONSERVITVE that just means your only getting info from people that hate dems. This is something that should be un biased.
Enemy of jihadis the world over. John Bolton fan, as well. She defended Ann Coulter against the PC conservatives' hissy fit over Ann's apt comments at CPAC. She also is the former publisher of the NY Observer. Anyhow, just stumbled upon her recently and see she is quite worthy of Conservative Babe of the week. This is the lady you quoted hahahahahaha