Monday, 27 August 2012


Related Info:

Foreign Cash Disqualifies Romney from Presidential Bid

No other American presidential candidate has ever left the US to garner campaign contributions from foreign citizens.

There is a reason for this, one Romney and his staff seem oblivious to and the mainstream media has ignored.

Using foreign contributions in any American election is a felony.

If you go outside the US, if you stay inside the US, if your contributor is living in the US but not a citizen, any money you get can mean years in jail.

For Romney, he went the whole way, outside the US, foreign citizens, and while traveling humiliated himself and his country with his ignorance and his attempts to trade illegal cash for promises of illegal war. One could hardly break more laws if one wanted.

Romney raised millions in foreign cash at fundraisers across Israel. One table alone gave him a million in cash. None was from American citizens. Fewer than 10% of Romney’s contributors in Israel are estimated to be “dual citizens.”

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, August 27th, 2012.]


steven andresen said...


Didn't the Republicans, or someone, try to accuse and pursue a similar charge against Clinton when they said he accepted foreign money out of China?

I wonder whether there is no general follow up on this issue by the mainstream because it has not been made an issue by the Obama campaign?

Shouldn't someone in the Justice Department, or Federal campaign regulators say something about this?

It seems that this issue is only of a concern to the Paul campaign and other "sore loser" types.

Has there been any other reporting on this issue than the Paul campaign?

Is it a crime that anyone in any jusrisdiction could bring up? That is, if Romney runs in Oregon, could this issue be brought up and disqualify him in Oregon as a violation of campaign laws?

I think so long as it isn't brought up by the campaigns, it won't be an issue in the press or in the courts.

As the Supreme Court has ruled, there are political issues that supercede criminal prosecution, such as the wars.

steven andresen said...


I just read a curious short article, not much ballyhooed on Alternet, about Ron Paul. It goes like this,

Ron Paul Takes Insane, Grotesque Leap of Self-Faith: "If I Had Been in Charge, 3000 People Killed in 9/11 Would Be Alive"

We're all about self-confidence but Ron Paul continues taking his personal esteem to absurd levels that are not only bizarre and far reaching, but gross. Over the weekend, at a high-profile, pre-RNC convention held at the University of South Florida, Ron Paul suggested that had he been president a decade ago, 9/11 would have never happened. While his assertion is kind of understandable from a strategic standpoint—he's trying to point out that he's not "soft" on "terrorism," and presumably he thinks he would have had the foresight to murk out Osama bin Laden back then—the concept is completely disrespectful to those who lost loved ones in the tragedy, and plays a dangerous game of crystal ball that no serious presidential candidate should attempt. Of course, Ron Paul is not that, and won't be president, but still. The assertion is the act of a true solipsist...."

I say this is curious, partly because it seems the writer wants to make an attack on Paul so much, he doesn't see that he would get some of the easy responses he did get in the comment section.

That is, the attack on the world trade center towers was, arguably, about blowback and so if we had had a different kind of foreign policy, different than what we were getting, there would have no such blowback.

The other point made was that Bush seemed to not be engaged both before Sept 11th, and on that day. Hence, anyone else could have been better able to mitigate the damage.

There was also the point that Bush had undone many of the efforts Clinton had made to undermine foreign terrorism, hence, there should have been questions of whether those changes were unwise, or damaging.

So, why was such an article found on Alternet?


steven andresen said...


And why is Alternet making this kind of weak argument against Paul when they could be pointing out the much stronger argument against Romney involving foreign campaign contributions?

Possibly, Alternet is doing this because the perception is that progressives are likely to want to support Paul and not Obama because Obama is a liar and Paul is not.

So, it's about supporting Obama instead of knocking Romney.


SpookyOne said...


I think you answered your own question here.

I would have to say that if Obama sinks Romney he'd have a hell of a fight against Paul. Plus both Paul and Romney are establishment, and at the end of the day their backers would both be against allowing a non-establishment candidate to have a chance.

As for the campaign financing, it looks like almost everyone who is aware of it wants to keep a lid on things. A lot of the finance issue deals with Israel, which makes it a third rail for US journalists. I think the rule is that talk about 'criminal' activity, as opposed to 'questionable actions', is banned when it comes to criticising protected establishment figures, Israel and big bankers.

Hopefully some type of Justice Department takes up the challenge re: campaign finance. We can but only try repeatedly, plus organise, to see that justice will prevail eventually - if only in a limited way, for starters.

Spook !