Birther, birther, birther, birther, birther. I’m growing tired of hearing about the dispute over Obama’s lacking birth certificate. Not because I think the argument has no merit, but because the left is using coverage of all things “birther” to distract Americans from the real, serious issues that we are facing today. It’s today’s version of “I can see Russia from my house” (a statement that Sarah Palin never said, but is believe to have been said by millions of clueless voters).
My take: Obama’s mother was a flake. She had a thing for foreigners, she married and divorved twice, and moved around quite a bit including going overseas. My money is on the fact that she probably lost his original birth certificate, making it impossible for the president to prove anything about his birth via original documentation.
However, rules exist for a reason. Obama should have had to prove his eligibility, otherwise the concept of rules and requirements becomes moot. I am still waiting for any liberal to justify why Obama had his records in Hawaii sealed. If there is no problem, he would share the records and all of this birther talk would go away. What could justify the hiding of his documents? What’s in there that we will probably never see? If I were insanely rich I would offer one million dollars to anyone that could give me a reasonable explanation justifying Obama’s secrecy. I think my money would be safe.
How bout this: I’ll give out a rare and valuable RFC Radio sticker to anyone that can explain Obama’s lack of transparency on this issue. 
This from the party that wanted to investigate, indict and witch hunt as many Republicans as they could. So much for the most ethical Congress ever, huh Madame Speaker? Do you remember saying these words Nancy? Care for a do-over now?
“The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history”
Honest. Open. Ethical. Hope. Change.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PorKdlD46Q]
The AP reports: “The war-zone photo opportunity produced a stunning show of appreciation for Obama from military men and women who have made great sacrifices, many serving repeated tours in a highly unpopular war.”
Stunning is an appropriate word since it appears that the scene was staged like a Broadway play. A sergeant at the event said “We were pre-screened, asked by officials ‘Who voted for Obama?’, and then those who raised their hands were shuffled to the front of the receiving line. They even handed out digital cameras and asked them to hold them up.”
Would Obama do such a thing? Since he is all about flash over substance I say hell yes he would.Were soldiers pre-screened? Were Obama voters placed at the front of the crowd? Is there fire for this smoke? Will the press cover it? I doubt it, but something similar occurred under the Evil Bushbot and it was covered even by the evil Faux News. And, as reported by Flopping Aces the Bush scandal was not a scandal at all, yet it was covered ad nauseum. To quote from this article, “Now there is evidence that Obama perpetrated an actual fraud right under the watching eyes of the press, handpicking Obama voters to represent on television the views of our soldiers, and the press reports nothing but the fraudulent story.”
Let’s hear it for transparency. Go ahead, keep the change.
Hey America, go check out www.change.gov. It is described as being “for the Office of the President-elect and Office of the Vice President-elect.” Here’s a gem from the About page: “And just as this historic campaign was, from the beginning, about you – the transition process will offer you opportunities to participate in redefining our government.”
I’ll give you a few moments to stop chuckling.
Team Obama has added a new feature to this all so important web site that lets the people participate. It’s called “Open For Quesitons.”
Today, we’re rolling out a new feature that lets you ask the Transition team any questions you have about the issues that are important to you.
You can also browse through questions other folks have and check off the ones you think are the most interesting.
The Change.gov community has jumped into a true two-way dialogue with our Transition team members. So far, we’ve asked you questions about major issues in our discussion forums, and you’ve flooded this site with your comments.
However, when you browse the questions you quickly see that the site is taking a liberal view (imagine that). The site also lets you vote for questions you like and, more important, lets you mark questions that you feel are innapropriate. What exactly defines innapropriate ? Apparently it takes a village, and this village happens to have a lot of Huffington and Kos kids hanging around trying to shape the feedback. You can search the site for topics, go ahead and try. I searched for “Ramos, Compean” and found one question.
“I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU WILL PARDON OUR TWO BORDER PATROLS, JOSE COMPEAN AND IGNACIO RAMOS. ALSO, WHEN CAN WE EXPECT THE T-SHIRTS THAT WERE OFFERED, WITH A DONATION, ON 11/5/08? THANK YOU!”
It was followed by this comment: “This submission was removed because people believe it is inappropriate.”
People? Innapropriate? Are these the same people that believe it is inappropriate to have a recruiting office in Berklee, CA, or to let the Marines film a commercial on the Golden Gate Bridge? Is the the same people that like to wear pink and shout like angry children at conservative public speaking engagements? Apparently so.
Try searching for the Fairness Doctrine. You get five results.
1) “What is your stance on the “Fairness Doctrine” that would force radio stations to give equal time to all points of view?”
2) “Will you protect the First Amendment by rejecting the “fairness doctrine”?”
3) “Will you support bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine”?”
4) “Will you reinstate the Fairness Doctrine to stop the hateful conservatives from further polarizing our nation with slander and half-truths?”
5) “Will you reinstitute the Fairness doctrine?”
All five questions have high percentages of opposing votes. Look at question five above. How is this quesiton innapropriate? It is a binary question, yes or no. There is no agenda within it’s six words. Yet 15 out or 30 that have voted on the question think it is a bad question. WTF?
I’ve decided to sign up (using a legit hotmail address) and have voted on nearly 200 questions so far. Even better, I’ve submitted 14 questions, including almost all from my Questions for Barack-O post. To find all of my questions, search for the Fairness Doctrine, then find the question asked by Paul (that’s me). Click on my name after the question and you will see a list of all of the questions I’ve submitted.
So, in an attempt to balance the action at Change.gov, please make some time to visit the site, sign up, vote and even add your own questions. After all, the site is paid for by our tax dollars, right? We can’t let the left dictate more than they already have.
