¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Noted economist Michelle Obama has a better vacation wardobe than you do

Merry Christmas everyone! I hope you’re having a lovely vacation. Because I’m not actually on vacation. Unless you consider drinking coconut coffee from the Keurig while I work in my office a vacation. Because I don’t. At any rate, I saved the US taxpayers nearly $4 million by not being First Lady and flying off for a 17-day vacation in Hawaii on the taxpayers dime. You can thank me later.

Michelle Obama, noted supporter of the 99% and champion of the poor, on the other hand, is reportedly draining taxpayer funds to finance a massive year-end festival of relaxation on the sunny shores of Oahu while the rest of us slave away so that we aren’t unemployed come her husband’s fourth year as President.

And don’t think she’s dressing like a regular tourist while she’s there, either, you peons. As she accompanied Barack and family to church services on the Kaneohe Bay Marine Base on Sunday, Michelle sported a Resort Collection Sophie Theallet sundress (thumbnail), which, at the time it was purchased in late 2009, cost between $1K and $2K. Similar dresses from the Resort 2012 collection sell for that much and more.

But fear not, oh children of the proletariat. Should you like to dress like the First Lady, but fear having to go on food stamps after wasting your entire unemployment check on a sundress, you can rent a Sophie Theallet dress from internet retailer Rent the Runway (you have to give it back), for ....

You might, however, be able to cash in your monthly allotment for her bargain basement skirt.

In this ubiquitous politician-phot0-with-a-baby-on-Christmas (ever more important considering that Barack can magically speak to babies), Michelle Obama is sporting a Comme des Garcons, 3/4 length printed skirt with a bag waist. This skirt is typical for CdG, and can retail anywhere for up to $1K, with similar items for sale at SSense – an internet designer outlet – for $450 (down from a peak of $950). Or, if you’re like me and can occasionally shop in the kids department because you were born without any shape whatsoever, you can snag a similar skirt from Comme des Garcons kids collection for $495 new. Unfortunately, since the skirts are limited edition and only available to busy and important people, you’ll have to pre-order yours for delivery in March.

It will however, look better on someone who isn’t drawing the waist of the skirt up to the bottom of their boobs. And frugal fashionistas can obviously thank Al Gore for saving us from global warming, thus allowing them to wear their extravagant purchase year round.

And, come to think of it, is making this “vacation” sort of like Hawaii.

Sort of.

P.S. HOLY SH*T ON A STICK! We got a Drudge link!!! And here we thought we could spend the whole freaking day in pajamas watching a Tudors marathon on the BBC…but noooooooo. We’re approving comments as they come in!

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


The Video That Barack Obama DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE!







Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Fraud found in Obama’s online donations.

Fraud found in Obama’s  online donations
By Neil Munro - The Daily  Caller  5/8/2012
President  Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign has hundreds of thousands of eager,  low-dollar donors — and a tiny trickle of unwilling, defrauded  donors.

The latest example comes from David Newman, who found a $15  charge, dated May 6, from the “Obama For America” campaign on one of his debit  cards.

Newman had supported Obama in 2008, but “I didn’t sign up to say ‘Do this every three months or every three years when you need money,’” he told  The Daily Caller.

“This is completely 100 percent unauthorized,” said Newman, an  information technology specialist. The money has since been returned by Bank of  America, and the debit card has been cancelled, he said.

Newman’s example follows the publication of two examples of  small-scale fraud by Powerline, a conservative blog. For example, “Bill G” told  Powerline that he had found a $10 charge to “Obama for America” a few weeks  after someone had secretly changed his address in the bank’s  database.

The Obama campaign declined to answer TheDC’s questions for  this story.

These minor examples of fraud, however, follow the discovery  that Obama’s campaigns in 2008 and 2012 adopted shady practices that increased  the potential for fraud.

In 2008, for example, Obama’s 2008 campaign accepted donations  made via untraceable digital gift cards sold over the counter by Mastercard and  Visa. National Journal proved that practice on October 24, 2008, but a recent  test by the DC showed that his campaign is now rejecting donations made via  gift-cards.

However, Obama is still using many of the same tech experts  that he used in 2008, and is still accepting credit  card donations made under incorrect names, according to numerous reports  from blogs.

Like in 2008, the 2012 campaign is also not asking donors to  provide the three-digit or four-digit CVV number on credit  cards. That decision reduces the campaign’s fundraising costs, but  increases the chance of fraudulent donations by people who know the primary long  number of a credit card, but not the  short CVV number.

The practice may have contributed to a 2008 fraud when a woman  in Missouri, Mary Biskup, discovered that her name had been attached to $174,800  in credit card donations sent to the  Obama campaign. Biskup told the Washington Post that her credit-card was not  charged for the donation.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: Fraud found in Obama’s online donations.

part 2

Obama’s campaign is not legally required to ask for the CVV  number. It is also not required to confirm that the names given by small-dollar  online donors are correct, partly because the campaign automatically collects  the real names and addresses attached to donors’ credit  cards.

Yet a campaign’s decision to accept the false names attached  to small donations can have a broader impact than a few cases of  fraud.

That’s because campaigns are free to assume that multiple  small-scale donations made via one credit  card are from different people, providing that different false names are  provided online with each donation.

They’re free to do that even if donors’ fake names are utterly  implausible, such as “Adolf Hitler,” “Osama bin Laden” or “Mickey  Mouse.”

The loophole is found in rules set by the Federal Election  Commission, which has little legal authority to investigate evidence of  small-scale credit card fraud by political campaigns.

The 2012 Obama campaign’s apparent decision to accept  small-scale donations made under false names could allow for a stream of  donations from illegal donors, such as people who are neither citizens nor  residents of the United States.

The decision would also allow the campaign to accept donations  far above the limit of $2,500 per person, providing each donor supplies a false  name with each donation. The FEC limits personal donations to $2,500 per  campaign.

So far, there’s no evidence that Obama’s 2012 campaign is  accepting illegal online donations that exceed federal limits or that come from  foreigners. He has returned high value checks from at least three people  suspected of links to criminals.

But if any campaign chooses to accept online donations under  false names, and if it chooses not to add up contributions made via the same credit card, it could also receive a  financially significant amount of illegal donations.

That political risk exists because simple software allows  illegal donors to deliver unlimited numbers of small-scale donations via credit cards.

In 2008, National Journal successfully used custom made software to  deliver numerous “robo-donations” to three campaigns via gift cards. The test  was conducted after a check of Obama’s 2008 campaign records which showed  numerous, sequential and identical donations donations by donors with strange  names, such “Doodad Pro.”

“Doodad Pro” submitted at least 791 contributions by October  2008, providing $19,065 to the campaign, while “Good Will” sent in 835 donations  worth $20,225 between March and May 2008. The source of those donations was not  disclosed by the 2008 campaign.

GOP campaigns have so far had better security than Obama’s  campaigns.

In 2008, Sen. John McCain’s online donation system rejected  anonymous gift card donations. Currently, Gov. Mitt Romney’s websites asks  donors for the CVV number.

A pattern of fraud in the Obama campaign’s fundraising system  should damage the campaign’s trustworthiness, said Newman. “The one thing you  have is trust when doing online business… [and] if you have someone collecting  credit-card information, you are totally responsible” for its security, he  said.

At the moment, he added, “this smells like a Nigerian  bank-account scam.”


Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


BREAKING: Democrat-Held Senate Rejects Obama's Horrific Budget, 99-0

By Guy Benson 5/16/2012


For the second consecutive year, the Democrat-controlled United States Senate has unanimously rejected President Obama's 2013 budget.  The final vote was 99-0, making the the running two-year tally 196-0.  This move follows the House of Representatives' 414-0 rebuke of the same fiscal blueprint earlier this year.  Astonishingly, not a single Senate Democrat has voted in favor of any budget for three years, even as they refuse to offer a plan of their own.  Democrats have claimed that three fig leaves mitigate this embarrassing spectacle:

(1) "The Senate has already passed a budget!" False. The Senate has not passed a budget.  It "deemed" itself a budget as part of a separate piece of legislation over the summer.  That law did not address tax policy, entitlement programs, and a slew of other items that a real budget entails.  Harry Reid's hand-picked Senate Parliamentarian has confirmed Republicans' contention that the Senate has not fulfilled its basic budgetary obligations.  This is the 1,113th day in a row that this has been the case.

(2) "Republican obstructionism!" False.  Budgets explicitly cannot be filibustered.  If Democrats introduced a budget, whipped their members, and called a vote, it would pass.  Simple as that.  Republicans couldn't do a thing to stop it.  But that would require Democrats to put their long-term plans on paper, which they've been avoiding like the plague for entirely political reasons.

(3) "This vote is a gimmick!" If Democrats want to label an up-or-down vote on a Democratic president's budget a "gimmick," they're welcome to do so.  In some ways, it's an appropriate description, given the pitiful gimmicks upon which Obama's budget relies -- even to achieve the fraudulent "savings" it claims.  Had it not been defeated by Congress 513-0, Obama's budget would have added $11 Trillion to the gross national debt.  It would literally never balance.

The Senate will now move on to vote on four separate Republican-proposed budgets, including the House-passed version.  They will all receive more votes than President Obama's brainchild, but none is expected to pass.  Stay tuned for updates...

UPDATE - The Senate has defeated the House-passed Ryan budget, 41-58.  I counted five Republicans joining Democrats in voting it down, at least one of whom voted no because it doesn't go far enough.  Democrats voted in lockstep against this budget, as they have on every proposed budget for the last three years.  Head-to-head tally: Paul Ryan 41 - Barack Obama 0

UPDATE II - The Senate has defeated Senator Pat Toomey's (R-PA) budget resolution, 42-57.  This is the seventh consecutive proposed Senate budget that has failed to attract even one Democrat vote.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

BLS Confirms Wisconsin Positive Jobs Numbers...

BLS Confirms Wisconsin Positive Jobs Numbers, Major Blow To Left Meme

Townhall.com ^ | June 1, 2012 | Tony Katz


The Bureau of Labor Statistics agrees that reforms put in place by Gov. Scott Walker (R) and the Wisconsin legislature have resulted in a net gain of 23,000 jobs. This comes after Democratic candidate Mayor Tom Barrett and others accused Walker of "cooking the books" on the number of jobs created in the state.

According to the Post Crescent, the BLS confirmed the numbers put out by Walker over two weeks ago. This has been a major focus of the unions and Progressives who are looking to recall Walker since he instituted Act 10, which curtailed the ability of public employee unions to engage in collective bargaining. In addition to the jobs increase, Wisconsin has eliminated its $3.6 billion deficit without raising taxes, and is currently enjoying a $150 million surplus.

Luke Hilgeman, Wisconsin state director of Americans For Prosperity, said that the confirmation of the numbers coincides with the feelings of Wisconsinites:


We saw it in the Marquette poll yesterday, where the numbers (on faith in the economy) went from 20% just 10 days ago, to 38%. People know the truth. They know the reforms are working. There is more prosperity on the horizon, thanks to the budget reforms.

It is another failed message from the left. One of the messages they tried to drive from the beginning; (Walker's reforms) would drive down private sector growth, (people would) lose their homes and their cars. None of that happened. They still have great jobs and still have their pensions.

At rallies across Wisconsin, people brought signs showing the amount of money they have saved because of the budget reforms. Progressives say they (suddenly!) are not worried. Even former North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan referred to it as a "food fight," stating:


This exists in Wisconsin. This is not a message for anybody anywhere. It's not a harbinger of what might happen between Obama and Romney at all...this is a food fight in Wisconsin.....I know a bit about what the Governor did, I know a bit about the Koch brothers who are sending a lot of money up in that direction...

Move along. Nothing to see here. Blame the evil Koch Brothers. The people of Wisconsin see it all, and see it much differently.