Goldman Sachs Donates $995,000 to Obama: Obama Keeps Million from Goldman Sachs: SEC

I'm trying to understand the almost $1 million dollars donated by Goldman Sachs employees, partners and executives. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the Obama campaign took no PAC monies from anyone, and accordingly they will not return anything. Was the money PAC money, or simply a donation from a employee?

Obama's Money Tree 

Obama's latest charade is in full throttle. Make Republicans vote "for," "or" against Wall Street, when he presents his financial reform, and when they refuse to vote for his ever-tightening control over America's money, it will be clear Republicans side with the meanies on Wall Street, even though, from CNN, Barack Obama's second-highest PAC contributor, and company employees is Goldman Sachs. But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied that Obama took PAC money from anyone or anything.

Did you read about the keywords the White House bought to drive campaign donors to Obama's website? If not, read this because it has to do with Goldman Sachs.

Can you guess the largest PAC donor? It was the University of California PAC and employees - which donated more than $1.5 million, topping Goldman Sachs. Who knew any university had that kind of money to elect Liberals? Take your college age student and run as fast as you can to a conservative college. Oh my gosh! $1.5 million!

Goldman Sachs contributions to the Obama campaign were more than four times larger than the $230,09t in donations to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign....

According to figures dating to 1990, Goldman Sachs' PAC and employees have consistently contributed more money to Democratic rather than Republican candidates for federal office. 

From Timothy P. Carney at The Washington Examiner:

...$995,000 -- that's the most any politician has raised from any one company in a single election since the age of "soft money" ended.

It is common knowledge that Wall Street is "conservative." Right? On the right side of the aisle? After all, Wall Street is "big business?" Well, it's not that simple. Wall Street often hedges their bets, and they do donate tokens to Republicans, but the big money goes to Liberals.

Obama is touting his proposed bank tax and fnancial regulations as a test of "whose side" politicians are on -- the bankers' or the people's. But check the numbers at OpenSecrets.org, and you get an interesting clue as to whose side Wall Street.

The Wall Street flood of cash to Democrats is not simply about buttering up those in power -- a close look at the cash looks like Wall Street wants Democrats to win. The top recipient of Wall Street PAC money is Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), distinguished mostly by his being a very vulnerable incumbent. 

OpenSecrets.org says Goldman Sachs have increased their lobbying considerably this past quarter, a 70% increase from its spending during the first three months of 2009, apparently to try to waterdown the Obama financial regulations coming their.

Courtesy of Rush Limbaugh, this quote from Gibbs today:

The president doesn't take -- and didn't in the campaign take -- PAC money. Doesn't take money from registered federal lobbyists. Uhhhh, and I think anybody that contributed to the campaign at any point knew where the president sttod on regulating Wall Street and regulaing the financial industry. From, agains: That first speech on Wall Street in 2007, the second speech in March of 2008 -- the same venue we're going to go to -- and then anybody that watched the campaign from sot of mid-September on, obviously, uh, the focus was on, uh, what to do on Wall Street. See the Gibbs video here.

That is total and complete "Gibberish."

Rush unwinds the garble:

Well, wait, wait, wait, wait a minute. What about Jack Abramoff? Where's the outrage here? Isn't Goldman's money as dirty as Abramoff's is? So Gibbs' point is, "hell, no we're not giving the money back! They knew what they were in for. They knew what we were going to do. They had every idea what we were going to do to them. We make it clear we were out to destroy 'em, even from our speech in 2007 from Wall Street on. No, we're not giving the money back."

For background on what Goldman Sachs did or perhaps did not do, you'll find this interesting.

Justice John Roberts on Obama Complaint from SOTU Presidential Podium

In an unprecedented move from the Presidential podium, Obama took the Supreme Court to task over a recent decision handed down involving campaign financing during his January State of the Union (SOTU) address. It was a disgraceful move on such an important night, in front of the Nation. The dam broke this week, when Chief Justice of the U.S. John Roberts answered a question from a student at University of Alabama Law School about the President's dress-down of his Court. Our pouty, thin-skinned, irritable White House felt compelled to put the Chief Justice in his place, which is obviously deemed below the Executive Branch - making astonishing news to our Founders, were they here to hear it. See videos below.

Justice John Roberts

Here is the answer from Roberts. You can hear the student's question in the first video below:

Responding to a University of Alabama law student’s question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

“So I have no problems with that,” he said. “On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.

“The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

Our President knows no economy of words. The White House lashed right back today. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said this:

"What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections - drowning out the voices of average Americans," Gibbs said. "The President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response."

The following remarks from the President are what started these exchanges: (see the second video below and note the reaction of Justice Samuel Alito)

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

Justice Clarence Thomas refuses to attend the State of the Union. Judge Samuel has stayed away at times. Perhaps they won't be so foolish to do so in the future. Perhaps they will stay home and watch the address from the comfort of their own living room. After all, they are not compelled to present themselves to the President at this event. Here is a snippet of Justice Thomas' comment after Obama's very public SOTU assault:

"I don't go because it has become so partisan," he said, "and it's very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there. There's a lot that you don't hear on TV: The catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments. One of the consequences is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches. It's just an example of why I don't go."

This administration has no respect for Rule of Law. Obama didn't even respect his own grandmother. His egomaniacal-self, along with his Brat Pack advisers, trip over themselves to show deference to select foreign dignitaries, some Democrats, ACORN and all Unions, but believes our Constitution is a toy to be tinkered with...simply because he wants to. I hope the Justices stay home next time.



Chief Justice Roberts on Obama Admonishment of Supreme Court (video)




President Obama and Justice Samuel Alito at State of the Union (video)

Thanks to The Lonely Conservative for the video

Mark Levine on Obama's Criticism of the Supreme Court (Video)

Thanks to Infidels are Cool for this video of Mark Levin explaining exactly what the recent Supreme Court ruling did, and did not do. You can count on Levin, a Constitutional attorney, to state the fallacy of Obama's position in the State of the Union address, and the fallacy of the media's criticisms, and he does it from his knowledge of Constitution. It is a matter of law.

Thanks to news junkie, reader, patriot and businesswoman, carolyne.

Mark Levin on Obama's Criticism of the Supreme Court

For more fact checking on the President's admonishment of the Supreme Court, read here.

Chuck Schumer Supreme Court Investigation on SCOTUS UnAmerican Decision on McCain-Feingold

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says he will investigate today's decision by the Supreme Court striking down portions of McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance laws.

So what will Senator Chuck Schumer do to the Supreme Court if his little investigation finds that McCain-Feingold is unAmerican? Today, the most "American" we can get, outside of our military, is the Supreme Court, although American justice through the Court is in peril with continuing Obama SCOTUS appointments:

I think it's an un-American decision," Schumer said at a press conference Thursday. "I think when the American people understand what this radical decision has meant they will be even more furious and concerned about special interest influence in politics than they are today.

Honestly, will any other Senators show up at this embarrassing call to punish the Supremes. Who would want to sit on that?

The Democrat machine churns on the oppression of voices that dissent their machinations. Schumer said "we will regret the day this decision has been issued," and he's probably correct about that. Democrats have no fondness for free speech when that speech gets in the way of their goals for power and manipulation. I can't wait to see how this investigation of SCOTUS goes. It must be history-making.