November 4, 2008

Sort-of Live Blog (Also, TIB Will Be Broadcasting); Result: ‘Say Hello to the Punk President’

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 7:21 pm

TIB can be found at Weapons of Mass Discussion’s home page.

If I have something worth saying, I will. If not, I won’t. So expect intermittent thoughts with occasional bluster.


10:50 p.m. – Say hello to the Punk President.

Hugh Hewitt: “Every American ought to pray for wisdom and judgment for President-elect Obama, for his safety and the safety of his country, and for the continued prosperity and greatness of America.”

Of course. So do I. Fact is, he’s conducted himself like a punk, meaning that I pray for a total change from the kind of person he appears to have been all his life, i.e., to demonstrate what he objectively did NOT demonstrate during the long campaign. So he is the Punk President until he demonstrates that he’s not.

That means I will, of necessity, be praying hard. But I will call him out when I must, as I have, within the limits of time and the medium, called out those who deserve it when they’ve deserved it as long as I’ve been doing this. Nothing will change around here when it comes to that.

Update, Nov. 5 — To be clear, I will offer tentative congratulations to Obama on his victory, pending proof that it’s a clean victory. This is why I’m not convinced. If it isn’t resolved, or is swept away, given how many states were very close, there will always be a cloud in this corner.


Early Assessment

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 7:04 pm

My e-mails and voting situation in my precinct are telling me that GOP turnout in Ohio is VERY big. I don’t expect that exit pollsters focusing on certainly supposed “key precincts,” and who are disproportionately likely to talk to Dems vs. Republicans (who are more likely to despise exit pollsters) would pick this up.

Pethokoukis at US News: “Florida looks good. Ohio, Penn., Virginia and NC are too close to call.”

We’ll see.

The Obama Campaign’s Carefully Crafted Card Crack-up

Filed under: Scams,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 2:22 pm

An unprecedented and from all appearances deliberate breakdown in controls has enabled foreign and other unaccountable money to pour into the Obama campaign.


Note: This was posted at Pajamas Media on Sunday afternoon.


The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has been and may still be accepting credit-card and prepaid-card contributions from overseas. It has done so in a way that may very likely prevent it from refunding the contributions to “donors,” many of whom may have had their credit cards used without their consent. It’s virtually impossible that the system for accepting card contributions was inadvertently set up without adequate controls, and almost certain that existing controls were instead deliberately disabled to create untraceability. Finally, it is likely that the total dollar amounts involved run in millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars.

In mid-August, the heroine in this story, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, writing at American Thinker, summarized a pattern of irregularities she had found. Geller, and readers who assisted her, discovered that:

  • “Obama’s overseas (foreign) contributors are making multiple small donations, ostensibly in their own names, over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances, but others are aggregating in excess of the maximums when all added up.”
  • The contributions had come from over 50 specifically named countries and major cities.
  • Obviously bogus contributor names that a 7 year-old would have known to be fictitious, including “Hbkjb, jkbkj,” “Doodad Pro,” and “Good Will,” were frequent.
  • “Thousands of Obama’s foreign donations ended in cents.” US contributors very, very rarely contribute in anything other than whole dollar amounts, so the reason why contributions would end with anything other than “.00″ would almost always involve foreign currency translation.

In a later post, Geller listed 18 donors who had contributed more than the legal $2,300 limit. “Good Will” and “Doodad Pro” were among them, to the tune of over ten grand each.

You might think “Well that’s pretty bad, but really no big deal, because at some point, Obama will just refund the money.”

In many cases ,that does not appear likely.

On October 22, Geller’s “Who Is John Galt?” post revealed bombshell information that should have set off urgent alarms in newsrooms across America, namely that anyone could pretend to be someone else, with someone else’s address, and successfully process a credit-card donation to Obama. Reader Craig reported the following (bold is mine):

I’ve read recent reports of the Obama campaign receiving donations from dubious names and foreign locales and it got me wondering; how is this possible?

I run a small internet business and when I process credit cards I’m required to make sure the name on the card exactly matches the name of the customer making the purchase. Also, the purchasers address must match that of the cardholders. If these don’t match, then the payment isn’t approved. Period. So how is it possible that the Obama campaign could receive donations from fictional people and places? Well, I decided to do a little experiment. I went to the Obama campaign website and entered the following:

Name: John Galt; Address: 1957 Ayn Rand Lane; City: Galts Gulch; State: CO; Zip: 99999

Then I checked the box next to $15 and entered my actual credit card number and expiration date (it didn’t ask for the 3-digit code on the back of the card) and it took me to the next page and… “Your donation has been processed. Thank you for your generous gift.”

This simply should not, and could not, happen in any business or any campaign that is honestly trying to vet it’s (sic) donors.

How can this happen? Here’s how (found at the same Atlas post; bolds are mine):

Having worked for companies that process credit cards online, it is necessary to go through and manually disable the safeguards that they put in place to verify a person’s address and zip code with the cardholder’s bank. But international banks don’t currently have the same safeguards that banks in the US have, which also works in the One’s favor.

So most likely they’ve disabled the necessary safeguards for US cards …..

The disabled components involved are part of what is known as the “AVS” (Automated Verification System). Many bloggers and blog commenters have confirmed the accuracy of the just-excerpted claims, including the fact that the merchant has to take proactive steps to rewrite or disable existing programming and controls to make AVS not work.

This information would indicate that Team Obama does not know (or pretends not to know; that would be for investigators to determine) who specifically has donated much of its campaign money — and the fact that they don’t know is deliberate.

Further, the lack of controls in Obama’s campaign-contribution system enables the use of prepaid cards, which if paid for in cash, are more than likely completely untraceable without going back to store video recordings, most of which are discarded or overwritten after a short time.

From all appearances, in both cases — unverified credit-card and prepaid-card contributions — it is very likely that the Obama campaign couldn’t refund monies received even if it wanted to. Donations to Obama are making it to statements of cardholders who never authorized them. The only people who might get their money back are the ones who catch the charges. And what about charges to stolen or forged cards?

Despite many tests, no one has been able to show that these material control weaknesses exist in the McCain-Palin contributions system.

Meanwhile, though space doesn’t permit fully chronicling the specifics, America’s mainstream Obama-mad media has been negligent in covering this astonishing story, either failing to report it at all (which Clay Waters of NewsBusters has noted is the case at the New York Times), or blandly understating the severity and, if you will, audacity of the enterprise (Washington Post, October 25 and October 28; National Journal).

If this were John McCain’s campaign, a deafening “what did he know and when did he know it?” chorus would have begun well over a week ago.

As it is, most voters have cast or will cast their presidential ballots totally unaware of what may very well be the largest and most highly-organized campaign-finance fraud in US elections history, when they should be asking, “What did Obama know and when did he know it?”

So, Will It Be Alfonzo and Values Voters …. or Jeremiah?

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 8:21 am

Alfonzo and Values Voters …. or Jeremiah (in “context”)?

You Stay Classy, Barack Hussein: This Is Why My Obama Nickname Has Been Perfect All Along

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 7:39 am

Yes, “The One” I refer to as “Mr. BOOHOO-OUCH, PUNK” (Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein ObambiObama – Objectively Unfit Coddler of Haters, Previously Unaccomplished Nonsupporter of Kin) is every bit the PUNK I’ve accused him of being for the last few months (click on pics to go to related YouTubes, or go here and here):

ObamaHillaryMiddleFinger0408 ObamaMcCainMiddleFinger1108

Once might be an accident (not really). Twice is proof (CNN’s hopelessly lame attempt to say “you didn’t see what you just saw” notwithstanding).

Y’know, Barack, most of us left that kind of immaturity behind us in our late teens. You’re 46 47 years old. What would your just-passed grandmother think?

Oh how nice it would be to be able to turn it around on him about 23 hours from now — I might think it, but I wouldn’t do it.

Certain SOBer, and Other, Thoughts

Filed under: TILTpatBIDHAT — Tom @ 7:39 am

The morning lightning round:

  • One Bob has final thoughts (“You Want Reasons to Vote Against Obama? Here Are a Bunch!”)
  • Mark Steyn at the Corner on the San Fran Chron’s virtual burial (noted first by yours truly) of Obama’s “bankrupt new coal plants” comments — “There is no explanation for the Chronicle’s action if they’re in the newspaper business (ie, in attracting readers, selling copies, etc.). But it makes perfect sense if they’re in the ideological PR business in hopes of electing politicians sufficiently grateful to include them in the next $700 billion bailout.”
  • Amazing how a British paper found Obama’s Aunt Zeituni (HT Mark Levin at The Corner) when no US media outlet could.
  • The topic lists at John Perazzo’s “Closing Argument” (HT Connect the Dots via Brain Shavings) reads like a list of “things the media refused to tell us.”
  • Buckeye RINO on his one-day early voting experience — “The early voting environment in my county doesn’t lend itself to confidence in the integrity of the system that Jennifer Brunner has provided us with. No matter how the elections turn out, there will still be questions raised about how they were conducted. My early voting experience in Erie County was, at the least, unsettling.”
  • Thomas Sowell — “Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else.”
  • Straddling — “Obama Says He Is Against Same-Sex Marriage But Also Against Ending Its Practice In Calif.” Translation: “I’m really for same-sex marriage if I’m ever safely elected.”
  • (added 9:00 a.m.) Under the radar — early last week, Michael Savage, who has the third or fourth-largest audience in talk radio (third, at 8.25 million, according to this link), endorsed McCain. This could be a big deal, as he had previously remained uncommitted, but decided in light of various events during the previous few weeks that the nation cannot afford to risk “this naked Marxist revolutionary.”

    Savage’s listeners, while certainly not mind-numbed robots, are, as he points out, largely independents who seriously consider his take. They would also tend to be among those least likely to talk to a pollster.