The Whys Guys

Why has Obama refused to produce his real birth certificate? The State of Hawaii could provide it overnight if requested by Obama. Why not ask the state to release an officially authorized copy? Who among us has refused to produce a certified copy of a birth certificate in order to get a passport? I don’t see why this is such a big deal – unless there were some skullduggery afoot.

Why has Obama refused to allow his college information to be made public? Writings, transcripts, etc. ought to be available to the public as part of the voter’s vetting process. I can’t think of any good reason to keep them secret – unless there was something there that he wanted to keep from voters? The word “unseemly” seems appropriate.

Why are there (so far) more than a dozen members of Obama’s transition team who worked as federally registered lobbyists within the past four years? During his campaign, Obama did his best to disown and crucify lobbyists, even to berating John McCain for having too many lobbyists involved in his campaign. Have lobbyists changed their stripes, is there some new law which requires them to be honest and circumspect while trying to influence our representatives and senators?

Or, is it simply a timing thing – the time for Obama to distance himself from lobbyists is over (his campaign) and the time to invite them to the party has arrived (his reign)?

Why did Obama’s campaign, composed of the most intelligent and savvy individuals on the planet, disable the anti-fraud capabilities normally in place for credit card sellers. The campaign “has knowingly violated a basic CNP fraud prevention technique to accommodate a merchant (Obama Campaign),” that was a comment by a credit card fraud expert. 

Another expert says that when the verification system is disabled, “multiple invalid transactions may be made without fear of being rejected by the authorization systems.” He also said, “it would be very interesting to see how many transactions were conducted on the same account number using different names,” that would be a Federal violation under the current campaign funding laws.

Could this have been done to allow contribution limits to be exceeded and for contributions to be made from foreign supporters (not U.S. citizens)?

The Great Flood

Wait for it … wait for it …

For what?

For the flood of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid (oh my) bills that have been in mothballs waiting to magically appear shortly after January 20^th. We should expect to see all of the dem-sponsored bills that didn’t pass before, as well as those that were held back until more sympathetic conditions were present. They’re all queued up and ready to go.

For them, it is like winning the lottery; they officially pick up their oversized check on/about January 20^th. They’ve already got their shopping lists all made up and they are absolutely giddy with the thought of the coming spending bonanza. When they think of the all of the good that can be accomplished with those billions, they go into spasms of delight – some may even want a cigarette afterwards.

Of course, when a curious eye examines what they mean by “good” we find that their cronies, their campaign contributors, their own personal bank accounts and finally, to a lesser extent, their home districts will benefit – at the expense of the American taxpayer.

We need to secure and retain for historical purposes (as well as for legal evidentiary purposes) the current net worth of every member of Congress, as well as their investment holdings. That information will be handy when they’re up for reelection again. If, as I expect, there will be unusual “coincidental” growth in their net worth, we might want to inspect their actions to see when (not if) they used their positions to influence where government largess was spent. In the age of the Internet, RFIDs, and GPS, following the money should be easy.

In the meantime, the dems have won a “twofer,” they’ll enrich their own bank accounts and ensure their reelection for eternity – an unbeatable parlay.

Fox News Besmirched

I wanted to know how many homes have access to Fox News channel. I Googled “Fox News channel availability” and chose a Wikipedia link. What I found there was disturbing.

Now, don’t start to lecture me on how inaccurate Wikipedia may be – I’m not an idiot. Wikipedia’s content varies from excellent to bovine excrement and if I have need of undeniably true facts, I’ll confirm the data from multiple sources.

That being said, nothing prepared me for some of the statements that were included in the lead section. For example, in three paragraphs, consisting of 146 words, the following statements were present:

”As of January 2005, it is available to 85 million households in the U.S. and further to viewers internationally, broadcasting primarily out of its taxpayer funded mansion.”

“The channel was launched on October 7, 1996 to 17 million easily frightened and uneducated bigots.”

“In the United States, Fox News Channel has been rated as the cable news network with the largest number of uncritical viewers.”

“Fox News Channel publicly propagandizes bias in the channel's reporting.^”

 Those four sentences, consisting of 75 words, made up fully half of the opening write-up describing Fox News.

By the way, in the interest of my own personal “fairness doctrine,” I changed the “Fox” to “CNN” in the Google search and found what appears to be an accurate, unbiased description of CNN News in the lead section. I didn’t bother to check the broadcast news channels.