Friday, January 14, 2011

Looks like the teabaggers have some explaining to do

I had faith that this was going to be the year of bombshell stories against the Republican Right, and this may be the first one - if the media picks it up. Fat chance of that, considering Corporate America pays the media not to.

The Tea Party Express has a political action committee that is legally bound by campaign finance laws. The Center of Responsive Politics has just discovered that this PAC reported a series of donations from a woman in Guam in 2009 totaling thousands of dollars.

The trouble with this? The woman had died back in 2007 - before the Tea Party movement even began.

A dead woman gave money to the Tea Parties? We're supposed to believe that?

Wow. Just wow.

The woman's widower says he has no idea how this happened - because he says he didn't donate to the Tea Party in his wife's name, although he did donate in his own name. I don't think he donated in her name, because the risk of being caught would have been too great.

Can anybody locate the woman's credit card? The only explanation I can think of is that the woman used her credit card on a conservative website before her death, and this website gave her credit card number to the Tea Party movement, which kept charging false donations on her card in the hopes nobody would never notice. In fact, I think it's pretty obvious that's what happened.

I'm SURE of it. How else can something like this possibly occur?

It's called credit card fraud. I truly believe the Tea Parties committed a major crime to fund their movement. I don't think there's even a shadow of a doubt about it.

What's going to happen to the Tea Party Express for apparently committing credit card fraud? Probably nothing, because the media these days isn't worth shit. Still, somebody owes us an explanation. Now.

(Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/14/tea-party-dead-donor-joan-holmes_n_809165.html)

2 comments:

  1. Do you actually do your own stories, or do you just look at the Huffington Post. And if you do trust the Post so much, why won't you believe them when they tell you that Loughner is an independent?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I didn't deny he was an independent (key word being 'was').

    ReplyDelete