Mitt Romney And The New Fair Deal

Harry Truman. This year was supposed to be the year Barack Obama switched persona, again. No longer the great and wise Abraham Lincoln (and extravagantly gaudy Mary Todd’s spouse), Barack Obama was to refashion himself into give ’em Hell Harry Truman (Michelle presumably sewing the sleeves back on her frocks to assume the role of modest Bess). Barack Obama was to abandon his celebrity sports friends in order to troll the streets of the nation at taxpayer expense damning the “do nothing Congress” and demanding “fairness”.

The fly in the ointment, the flaw in that notion, is that Harry Truman campaigned for popular New Deal programs. Obama has only Obaminations hated by the oppressed populace to offer. How to campaign against a “do nothing Congress” when the American people would have the Congress “do nothing” rather than legislate hated diktats?

But on “fairness” Obama was to be the head Occupy Wall Streeter occupying the White House (even though his coronation would be held at Bank of America stadium). Obamas were to parade like subsidized Colombian street walkers, on the taxpayer dime, shouting “FAIRNESS” while fist-bumping the unemployed peeps.

Michelle grudgingly agreed to her temporary supporting role. Usually dressed in garish outfits more appropriate to a drag queen remake of Queen of Outer Space (“I hate zat qveen“) Michelle Obama is now frequently the homespun “folksy” girl (“It could all come down to those few thousand folks we need to help to get to the polls…”). Michelle won’t give up those free vacations without a fight even if she has to lose her glue-on nails in the struggle.

Barack bowed to sacrifice as well. Slumming into dive bars to hang with the homies Barack suffered yogurt showers and foul breaths. The unfairness of it all – having to campaign again instead of just a shout of acclamation ‘midst Grecian columns. To Barack that is the real “unfairness”. But Barack still agreed to talk about the unfairness suffered by those other than himself. And that was to be the campaign theme. That was to be the message. But an odd thing happened….

* * * * * *

It wasn’t Mitt Romney, Mitt the presumptive Republican nominee, speaking the words of successful challenger Bill Clinton’s campaign that was so odd:

“Just as the Clinton campaign (whose manager James Carville famously coined the phrase ‘it’s the economy, stupid’) resisted President George H.W. Bush’s attempts to make the 1992 election about the then Arkansas governor’s character, Team Romney will try keep the focus on Obama and his record.

In this respect they will be helped by the cult of personality that surrounds Obama, and in large part on which his 2008 campaign was based. And Obama’s well-developed self-regard (he was quoted this week as telling the Democratic National Committee chair: “It’s not about you, it’s about me) could also play into Romney’s hands. [snip]

But there were other areas where Romney made clear he would fight for every inch of ground. He was determined not to allow Obama to own the concept of “fairness”.

It could be that last night Mitt Romney announced his campaign theme and it is to be about fairness. A New Fair Deal:

“He said: “This America is fundamentally fair. We will stop the unfairness of urban children being denied access to the good schools of their choice; we will stop the unfairness of politicians giving taxpayer money to their friends’ businesses; we will stop the unfairness of requiring union workers to contribute to politicians not of their choosing; we will stop the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the taxpayers they serve; and we will stop the unfairness of one generation passing larger and larger debts on to the next.”

Romney told his story. A dad that “sold paint from the trunk of his car” and later became the governor of that state. A young Mitt Romney “helping start a business that grew from 10 people to hundreds of people.” But it was the subject of “fairness” that resonated. In a country enraged about bank bailouts, insurance company bailouts and mandates to the citizenry to bail out the insurance companies by becoming serf customers, it is a powerful message.

To the urban poor, Latinos, Blacks, the White working class, the idea of school choice will be the way Romney intends to reach out. To socially conservative Latinos and Blacks this might be a way of prying them loose from Obama Dimocrat tentacles if not actually getting them to push the electoral ballot button for Romney. To Latinos concerned about immigration reform the Romney message will be economic opportunity. To all hard workers and those paying their own way, their own mortgages, it’s the Romney New Fair Deal.

Romney’s New Fair Deal is the mirror image of arguments Harry Truman made when he argued for the Fair Deal list of programs. Romney won’t necessarily be proposing new programs. Romney will seek to restore “fairness”. You know, if you work, you advance type fairness. You know, don’t bail out Wall Street and kill Main Street fairness.

After the second world war Americans needed a direction and help for returning soldiers. Truman proposed a 21 point domestic program (and the G.I. Bill of Rights) building on Roosevelt’s New Deal. Republicans opposed Truman. The Republican congressional majorities campaigned on the slogan “Had enough?” Truman won that battle.

Such is the corruption and incompetence of Barack Obama that – Mitt Romney will be able to run on both a New Fair Deal as well as the outrage expressed by “Had enough?”



As the American economy slows down yet again (durable goods orders drop 4.2% in March) Mitt Romney has a strong case to make against Barack Obama. Americans indeed have had enough. Americans indeed want fairness restored.

Mitt Romney already has an abundance of slogans to run on – “Obama Isn’t Working”, “Obama Made It Worse”, and “Had Enough?”. But if Mitt Romney needs a positive message, a campaign theme that weaves all the slogans together, all the messages into one, “Mitt Romney’s Fair Deal” is the ticket.

Share

Kyrie Eleison



It’s over. Romney’s victory speech:

“After 43 primaries and caucuses, many long days and not a few long nights, I can say with confidence – and gratitude – that you have given me a great honor and solemn responsibility. And, together, we will win on November 6th! [snip]

Four years ago Barack Obama dazzled us in front of Greek columns with sweeping promises of hope and change. But after we came down to earth, after the celebration and parades, what do we have to show for three and a half years of President Obama?

Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one? Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more in your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Do you pay less at the pump?

If the answer were “yes” to those questions, then President Obama would be running for re-election based on his achievements…and rightly so. But because he has failed, he will run a campaign of diversions, distractions, and distortions. That kind of campaign may have worked at another place and in a different time. But not here and not now. It’s still about the economy …and we’re not stupid.”

Said before the flood, said better:



There are no celestial choirs singing tonight except on Youtube. This is the end.

Angels and ministers of grace defend us. Lord have mercy.



Share

Obama Isn’t Working

We prefer the déclassé “Obama Ain’t Working.” But “Obama Isn’t Working” will do just fine. It’s a sister slogan to “Obama made it worse.”

“Campaigns for president always have one of two themes: “it’s time for a change” or “stay the course.” The incumbent power will always be the “stay the course” purveyors, even if “adjustments” or “tweaks/changes” garnish the formula. The out of power challenger will always run a campaign based on the “it’s time for a change” theme.”

As we wrote back then, this year’s battle of the slogans will be “Obama made it worse” versus Obama’s “it would have been worse.”

Ronald Reagan has the most famous and effective iteration of “THE” slogan:



Are you better off than you were four years ago?” Mr. Reagan asked, dwelling on Mr. Carter’s economic and foreign policy failures. Voters decided that they weren’t, and Mr. Reagan became the 40th president.”

Back in June 2007 we discussed why campaign messages should be a few words, both positive and negative simultaneously, and we provided several examples (“The New Deal”, “The New Frontier”, “Nixon’s The One”, “I Like Ike”, “Morning In America”, “Putting People First”) of earlier successful slogans.

Barack Obama’s 2008 slogan was a sharp attack on Hillary Clinton as well as a web of lies designed to delude the ranks about Obama’s abilities. “Change you can believe in” turned into neither change for the better nor change that could be believed. But it did the trick.

Mitt Romney’s latest appearances have been decorated with a sign that proclaims “Obama Isn’t Working.” Obama Isn’t Working does at least two things.

First, Obama Isn’t Working is a reminder of the endless celebrity style vacations, the golfing, the sports fixations, the basketball games, the publicity stunts, the ceaseless river of words at venue after venue paid by the taxpayer, the flights paid for by the taxpayer, the parties, the celebrity get togethers, the wife trips, the wife vacations, the games, the talk show appearances, the sport show appearances, the children shows appearances, the awards shows appearances, the gala appearances, and of course the many campaign fundraisers tucked into the many fundraisers and fundraisers. Obama Isn’t Working, Obama is raising money for himself. Obama is hanging out with celebrities. Obama is on TV. Obama is at a sports game. Obama is busy avoiding work. Obama is vacationing. Obama is at a publicity stunt.

Second, Obama Isn’t Working is a warning and a bill come due. Imagine, a gorgeous pair of shoes, or a vroom vroom car, or that massive manse on the hill, or that app loaded super new smart phone, or those orchestra seat tickets, or that new super fast computer, or that huge 3d flat screen, or that perfect piece of jewelry, or that wonderful vacation, or that second honeymoon. But… you cannot afford it. You might want it but you can’t afford it. In the same way, you might like Obama, you might be happy you voted for him in 2008 but you still don’t have a job. You can’t afford Barack Obama. Even if you like him, even if you think you want him reelected, even if you think he’ll do a better job next time – you realize you can’t afford the lummox. Obama ain’t working. Obama isn’t working.

Obama Isn’t Working – you can’t afford the never there recovery. Obama Isn’t Working – you can’t afford the high unemployment rates. Obama Isn’t Working – you can’t afford the economic desperation. Hate him or like him – Obama Isn’t Working.

“Obama Isn’t Working” is working as a slogan. The proof “Obama Isn’t Working” is working is the yelps of “RACISM!”

“Obama Isn’t Working” is working so well it is a website. “Obama Isn’t Working” is a video:



If you notice that Obama is not working, that Obama is in way over his head, that Barack Obama does not have a clue about what he is supposed to do – that’s somehow racist. Black people are so delicate and weak and they are all exactly the same that one black person cannot be accused of being a boob. That’s racist.

The many 2008 Hillary Clinton supporters that happened to be black were accused of being racist even though they themselves were black and blacks can’t be racist don’t you know. But if blacks cannot be racists against whites or other races the exception was made for blacks being racists against blacks if they supported Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama.

The race-baiting to protect Obama – who is not working, is all the Barack Obama campaign has left. The alleged “likeability” issue (the one that supposes Barack Obama is more likeable than Mitt Romney even as that argument is made right after a bruising Republican primary) fails when one remembers that the reptilian Richard Nixon was elected twice.

Barack Obama Isn’t Working for Bo:



Obama Isn’t Working for small businesses:



Obama Isn’t Working:



Obama Isn’t Working for women. Obama Isn’t Working for the economy:



Obama Isn’t Working and neither are his policies.

Barack Obama is lazy.

Obama Isn’t Working. He’s a liar too:



Even some of his one time voters know Barack Obama is a liar and a phony.




His lies ain’t working this time. 2012 Obama lies ain’t working. Obama ain’t working.

Share

Impeach Hillary Clinton!

It’s the headline we never wanted to write. But we have no choice. Impeach Hillary Clinton!

Five years ago, April 19, 2007, this website began to publish. We’ve all been through a great deal. We’ve defended Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton when no one else has but only when they have deserved defending. But now it is time. Impeach Hillary Clinton!

What vileness requires such drastic action? Shamelessly we list the bill of particulars:

Charge #1: Hillary Clinton earlier this week while in Cartagena, Colombia took a half hour vacation.

Charge #2: While in Cartagena Hillary Clinton guzzled a bottle of beer paid for by the taxpayer.

Charge #3: Hillary Clinton has yet to condemn Barack Obama devouring dogs. World criminal Hitler has been moved to express outrage but Hillary Clinton remains silent about this outrage.

The lucid and courageous Niles Gardiner of the Telegraph is our prosecutor, our Javert, our Starr:

“Is Hillary Clinton becoming an embarrassment as Secretary of State?

The pictures of Hillary Clinton dancing the night away in Colombia during the Summit of the Americas are now all over Twitter, and were first reported by ABC News: [snip]

The overwhelmingly liberal US media is treating the story as a bit of fun, with the usually austere Mrs Clinton seen as letting her hair down. But I suspect that a lot of US taxpayers will see it differently – as a senior government official having a jolly time on an official overseas junket at taxpayers’ expense. And this was hardly a display of good judgment at a time when nearly 13 million Americans are unemployed, and US soldiers are laying their lives on the line every day in Afghanistan. In an effortless display of leading from behind, Hillary was partying in Colombia while the Taliban were about to launch a wave of terror attacks in Kabul.

It is hard to imagine Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright or Henry Kissingerlivin’ la vida loca on the world stage. This was less an example of “smart power” than a boozy nightclub audition for the sixth season of Jersey Shore. Hillary Clinton’s Colombian antics are an embarrassment for a high-level cabinet member on official duty, and have lowered the office of Secretary of State. Not exactly the sort of image the federal government should be projecting at a time of widespread public disillusionment with Washington excesses.”


Guzzle

* * * * *

A shameless hussy! People are dying and Hillary Clinton is partying like it’s 1999. Get thee hence to the Jersey Shore with Snookie you floozie.


BadAssCool

* * * * *

It’s shocking and disgusting! How dare she! A whole half hour wasted.

But what is even more shocking is the Hillary silence on the lurid practice of eating dogs! Hillary Clinton cannot pretend she does not know of this Fido cuisine. Today it was a Dog Day Afternoon at the White House as the doggie doo hit the White House: “Question for Jay Carney: Does Obama know that people are talking about him eating dogs?

Hillary Clinton cannot pretend she does not see. Barack Obama is already plotting his next assault on our pets. The menu is being planned. Run Bo Run.


Map The Menu

* * * * *

Hillary Clinton cannot pretend she is unaware of the shocking Barack Obama dog eating. Hillary Clinton must speak up. For the sake of Fluffy, for the sake of Spot, for the sake of all our furry friends – Hillary Clinton must speak out against this savagery – or be impeached!


Puppy Love on a bun.

* * * * *

Some will say we are overreacting. Indeed we are somewhat shocked that it is a Republican/right wing website that defended Hillary Clinton when they heard Hillary has a beer in Columbia:

“The photos are here in case you missed them elsewhere, and here’s the obligatory pun-tastic New York Post cover. Two camps on this one: Team Gardiner, which thinks she’s an embarrassment for cutting loose publicly in a way no other SoS would, and Team Fleischer, which thinks everyone should mellow out about an adult having a drink with staffers after work. I’m on Team Fleischer. The problem with the “beneath the dignity of the office” argument, I think, is that, like it or not, she’s not just any Secretary of State. She’s Hillary!, the rare SoS whose political stature exceeds that of the office. The public will cut her slack on this that it wouldn’t cut, say, Warren Christopher because they know Christopher only through his official role whereas they’ve known Hillary as First Lady, Senator, presidential candidate, feminist icon, and now chief diplomat for 20 years. She’s familiar in a way few apparatchiks are so it’s easier to relate to the human side of her. Frankly, I don’t even think of her as taking official trips when she’s jetting off to see some foreign leader in Europe or the Middle East or South America or wherever. She and Bill have known all of those people for years and could get a meeting with them even without the State Department’s imprimatur. Go figure that she thinks she’ll get a little slack for a half hour of light partying in Colombia.”

Well, the fact that Hillary is a fabulous political power is no excuse for the debauchery. True she is not the first diplomat that has taken a drink in the line of duty, even though the above defense does not mention that aspect of diplomacy.

What must be condemned is Hillary Clinton displaying in an international forum her BAD ASS COOL! Where is Texts From Hillary now that we need it to explain her thinking That she can be so brazen with her BAD ASS COOL. All the while Obama made a spectacle of himself in the realm of BOOBERY.

Some of our readers will no doubt object to our IMPEACH HILLARY CLINTON demand. Perhaps they will not be persuaded by our reasons and/or reasoning above. But surely this next reason will be universally accepted as dispositive. Without referencing a certain HOOKER situation, here’s something else that happened in Columbia:

“If you want to feel embarrassed about a diplomatic gaffe — assuming the pathetic Secret Service scandal hasn’t already given you your fill — here’s O trying to talk about the Falklands. Emphasis on “trying”:

President Obama erred during a speech at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, when attempting to call the disputed archipelago by its Spanish name.

Instead of saying Malvinas, however, Mr Obama referred to the islands as the Maldives, a group of 26 atolls off that lie off the South coast of India…

D’oh! What a Homer. What an international embarrassment! What a boob!

Perhaps we have been too rash. We do not know what provocations Hillary suffered after spending so many hours with Barack Obama. Perhaps at dinner he offered Hillary a hot dog of dubious pedigree. Perhaps Hillary suffered too much and simply needed a beer to burn the memory of Barack Obama’s booberies out of her head.

Perhaps we are wrong that Hillary Clinton should be impeached as punishment for taking a half hour off to drink a beer. But we certainly are correct that Hillary Clinton should be impeached as a reward – anything to rescue her from Obama and his ceaseless booberies.

Share

An Open Letter: Watch Out Bo – You’re On The Menu

Update: Mitt Romney is correct. This election is about jobs not about Obama eating dogs. However the Michael Vick president wanted to attack Romney on Seamus and now that does not seem like such a good idea.



——————————————————————————————

Dear Bo:

Please understand. We Americans are a good people. You are an innocent Portuguese Water Dog afflicted with a most unfortunate name. You were gifted to your current masters as a political sacrifice by someone who is now dead. Your suffering is not yet ended. Watch your back! Be ever vigilant.

We have to explain to you why we are more worried for you than ever before. Last time we wrote to you directly it was December of 2010. We advised “Run, Bo, Run”. What we wrote then should make your four legs shake:

“While you are kept captive, leashed to that horrible name, you have to be watchful every second. You don’t know what you are living with. None of us completely do.

For instance, your “master”, the one who promised once again for the third or fourth time to keep completely focused on the economy, turned his focus away from the economy to express compassion for this guy:

The “guy” your master supported is a man called Michael Vick. Now it’s worse Bo. We thought your “master” was a better man, surely not a physical danger to you. Now we see we have been too kind. We have been too innocent. We were fools when we wrote this:

“Supporters say Vick apologized for his actions. But in his famous press conference apology, Vick admitted only to fighting dogs, despite the fact that he pled guilty to all charges, including the killings. He admitted to “making mistakes” and “immature acts.” But deliberately and repeatedly planning dog fights and repeated premeditated violent killings of dogs are not “mistakes.” They are not the acts of someone who’s merely immature. They are the acts of a sociopath and a predator.”

Birds of a feather, Bo. Your “master” took time out from his all important vacation to praise the “second chance” given the monster – the sociopath, the predator. We’re in Jeffry Dahmer territory here Bo.

We’re not saying that your “master” is a dog killing sympathizer. We’re not saying he is a dog killer or animal killer either. What we are saying is that no one knows who this guy is. Common sense tells us to watch out. You should watch out too Bo.

Back then we did not dare think your master is a “dog killing sympathizer”. Now we cannot be sure. We’re afraid for you Bo. Run, Bo, Run.

We have to give you some history for you to fully understand what is happening Bo. We homo sapiens have things called elections to elect what to you would be something like a pack leader. Your master wormed his way into that prestigious position and he is now up for reelection against a man called Mitt Romney.

Back in September of 2011 we warned that if a man called Romney was the alternative to your horrible master the life of dogs would be an issue in this election. We warned last year:

“There is one Romney problem we have only briefly discussed before and that during the 2008 election cycle. It’s that dog problem. Yeah, that dog problem:
[snip]

Do we really need to point out that Move-On, or somebody, at the behest of the Obama thugs will recreate that lurid drive for all American voters to see? A few days ago this tongue in cheek item appeared:

“I’m amazed that a 2012 presidential candidate hasn’t taken advantage of that, filmed a series of dog-loving commercials and pushed for things like “more dog beaches” and “better veterinarian health care benefits” as part of their platform. Dog lovers are totally irrational. I include myself. If Obama wants to improve his approval rating, he should rescue a mutt every six weeks and keep, like, 10 or 12 dogs in the White House — he’d have dog-lover voters saying, “Even if I’m let down by the last four years, I gotta be honest … it was pretty neat how Obama kept rescuing those dogs.”

Does anyone doubt that a desperate Barack Obama will utilize Romney’s soiled dog if it gets two or three votes from dog owners? Anybody?

We’re sure Barack Obama is already thinking that if Michelle Obama somehow gets herself impregnated that might help him get some votes. But that is a gruesome task few want to take on, let alone Barack. So the default emotional pull for the Obama 2012 campaign will be to remind everyone of Romney’s dog. Please spare us that horror Republican primary voters.”

Well Bo, Republicans have for all intents and purposes nominated Mitt Romney to run against your horrid master. But then yesterday the Mitt Romney campaign did a great thing for dogs. Mitt Romney’s campaign warned all our furry friends, including you Bo, of the horror in the White House:

“Much has been made about Mitt Romney, in 1983, putting his family dog Seamus in a kennel on top of his roof and driving from Boston to Canada, with said canine Seamus making his displeasure known in a rather scatological way.

Democrats have signaled they have every intention of making sure the American people — especially dog-lovers — know the tale. In January, senior Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod tweeted a photo of the president and Bo in a car, with the snide observation: “@davidaxelrod: How loving owners transport their dogs.”

The Romney campaign signaled Tuesday night that they are not about to cede any ground when it comes to a candidate’s odd past with man’s best friend.

And the Obama campaign shot back, with a spokesman suggesting the Romney team was attacking a child, since the Obama act in question took place when he was a kid.

The Daily Caller noted that in President Obama’s best-selling memoir, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,” the president recalls being fed dog meat as a young boy in Indonesia with his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro.”

That’s right Bo – Obama used to eat dog meat. In 2008 Obama bragged about how important the formative years, when he was ten years old, meant that he had foreign policy experience. Now we read that in his formative years Barack Obama ate your relatives Bo.

We’re worried for you Bo. Michelle, the one with the angry face, the perpetual scowl, could snap your leg bone with her lantern jaw like a matchstick. To Michelle and Barack you are the other white meat – and we are not discussing Louis Farrahkhan style white meat either. We are talking about our furry friends.

For a long time Bo, since 2007 we have had as the Big Pink catechism:

“Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.”

We have written:

“Barack Obama’s seal of approval on “trust” is as worthless as the latest Oprah diet.”

We were writing then about the endless stream of Obama vacations and the corruptions and lies of the Obamas – Michelle and Barack. Now Bo, Barack Obama is attempting to bamboozle yet again by using the word “TRUST”:

“Trust” to Join “Fairness” as Obama Buzzword, Sources Say

If the White House gets its political way, “trust” will be a word President Obama and his surrogates use in the next few weeks as often as Obama has talked about “fairness,” and Mitt Romney, once dubbed as hollow to the core, will increasingly be ID’d as a card-carrying ultra-conservative who bobbles into Etch A Sketch moments because his core is causing him problems.

There are six words at the end of that last sentence that cry out for quote marks, but the deep-background rules imposed Monday at the White House preclude the use of direct quotes or identifying the three “senior administration officials” who sought to lead reporters into the next phase of the campaign as well as strategy for Congress’ return to Washington. [snip]

But if voters select the next president based on the state of the economy since 2009, the senior officials conceded that continued high unemployment and a slow recovery could complicate Obama’s plea that middle-class voters trust his vision for the economy in a second term.”

Bo, a man that repeatedly lies about TRUST will lie about anything. You better watch out. Your life is in danger. You are as safe as an Indonesian boy invited to dinner at Jeffrey Dahmer’s house.

Share

Luck Ain’t A Lady And Columbian Hookers Are Not Stay At Home Moms

Ever get the sense that the White House and Obama’s campaign to fool most of the people most of the time is unraveling? On the 100th anniversary (plus 2 days) of the sinking of the Titanic it’s the right question to ask.

Last week was supposed to be the week that the Obama campaign proved it was superior by dint of being quicker to attack and better at response than the Romney campaign. Last week was supposed to be the week that the Obama campaign put Mitt Romney in a deadly crossfire of attacks on ephemera such as the Buffett Rule. Last week was supposed to be the week that the Obama campaign savaged Mitt Romney while Barack Obama flew above the fray and off into the celestial choir realm of summitry.



However, as the War On Women surprise attack on Ann Romney (Happy Birthday Ann Romney!) and stay at home moms tallied Obama Dimocratic casualties and the Jorge Zimmerman case threatened a looming public relations race-baiting fiasco Big Media tried to rescue Barack Obama. The lead EMS team was Politico.

Politico tried to divert from the multiple dogs gnawing at Obama’s scrawny wrinkled ass-cheeks. Politico, on the very anniversary of Titanic hitting the iceberg declared smooth sailing for for the boob at the helm:

“But Obama’s weekend trip to Cartagena, Colombia, for the Summit of the Americas could be the rare election-year sojourn that’s almost all political upside for him and his reelection bid.

Here are five reasons why the whirlwind visit to Latin America could pay off for Obama:

A play for the Latino vote back home [snip]

Soak up Spanish-language media coverage [snip]

Swing-state fever: A bonus stop in Florida [snip]

Plugging the “Buffett Rule” theme [snip]

Maybe focusing on foreign policy isn’t so bad”

But then: Hookers on the port side and the S.S. Obama began to take on water. The great trip that was “all political upside” turned into National Enquirer heaven. Luck was not a lady.



Were drugs or the drug cartels a potential threat? Was it unperformed sexual kinkiness that angered Obama Secret Service agents to not pay the hookers. Wait. What? They didn’t pay the hookers? Yup at least one of the “working girls” did not get paid and she complained to the hotel security and Columbian police. It’s a war on women by not paying hard working sex workers.

The hard working, legal, sex workers of Columbia were not stay at home moms. If only they worked at home the hotel and police might not have gotten involved. They were not Barbra Streisand in For Pete’s Sake. In that film Barbra plays a loving wife who, in order to raise money to help her husband in a business deal becomes a part time stay at home hooker. Unfortunately, Barbra’s clients wind up either injured or dead and Barbra ends up riding cattle through New York City streets.



If only Barack Obama had been so lucky. He would have willingly allowed a bull to mount him if only to avoid the Romney plowing he got last week. As if Hookergate was not bad enough (it’s now up to 20 agents, some military men and no doubt a lot of angry stay working at home/working outside the home wives in D.C.) on Sunday David Axelrod hit the talk shows.

One iceberg hitting the S.S. Obama apparently was not enough. Titanic went down after one hit. S.S. Obama watched on Sunday as Hookers in Columbia became the focus. Then the S.S. Obama screamed, “David Axelrod Makes The Case For Mitt Romney“!:

“A great rapid response effort by the Mitt Romney team on this one … In an interview on Fox News Sunday this morning, David Axelrod said the 2012 election will come down to a choice: Do Americans want “an economy that produces a growing middle class and gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead?” Or do they want to continue down “the road we’re on”?



Axelrod was not the only iceberg hitting the Obama dingy on Sunday. There was also Afghanistan and the big attacks by the Taliban [We won’t delve into the North Carolina sex scandal today]. Tax cheat and head of the Internal Revenue Service Tim Geithner also did his part. On the Sunday Big Media slums Geithner crowed about the remarkably successful Obamanomics that might not produce growth this spring.



Not to be outdone in a New York Times interview Patrick Kennedy found hookers in the White House that in 2008 Barack Obama promised get rid of:

Access to the Obama White House is in direct correlation to the amount of money donated to the president’s reelection effort and the Democratic party, the New York Times reports today.

The Times reports: “those who donated the most to Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party since he started running for president were far more likely to visit the White House than others. Among donors who gave $30,000 or less, about 20 percent visited the White House, according to a New York Times analysis that matched names in the visitor logs with donor records. But among those who donated $100,000 or more, the figure rises to about 75 percent. Approximately two-thirds of the president’s top fund-raisers in the 2008 campaign visited the White House at least once, some of them numerous times.”

But the most explosive allegation in the news story comes from former Democratic congressman Patrick Kennedy, son of the late Ted Kenney, who calls what the Obama White House is doing “quid pro quo.”

HOOKERS AHOY! It’s pay to play.

Speaking of HOOKERS, wasn’t it Michelle Obama who said “if you can’t run your own house you can’t run the White House”? Observing the way the White House is run we must guess that that the inverse is true and Michelle and Barack can’t run their private house either.

HOOKERS! But these get paid. Patrick Kennedy is sure the Obama WH has a quid pro quo system for donors:

“The NYT’s Mike McIntyre and Michael Luo report that the Obama White House insists that they don’t take lobbyist money and don’t grant access to lobbyists — at least not directly. However, McIntyre and Luo describe how lobbyists do get into the White House. Call it the Lobbyist Buddy System, as they partner with big-time donors to become plus-ones to the West Wing:

Although Mr. Obama has made a point of not accepting contributions from registered lobbyists, a review of campaign donations and White House visitor logs shows that special interests have had little trouble making themselves heard. Many of the president’s biggest donors, while not lobbyists, took lobbyists with them to the White House, while others performed essentially the same function on their visits.

More broadly, the review showed that those who donated the most to Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party since he started running for president were far more likely to visit the White House than others. [snip]

One can argue that this isn’t all that much different than other Republican and Democratic administrations. The article recalls the infamous Lincoln Bedroom “rentals” of the Clinton administration, for instance. However, Clinton didn’t run for the office by demonizing lobbyists and wealthy donors and insisting that he would provide a New Purity to the Beltway, either. In 2008, that was almost the entire message from Obama, who had no executive, military, or foreign-relations experience before running for the one position that requires expertise in all three areas.”

The working women of the sex industry have more integrity than the Obama White House.

Speaking of hookers Barack Obama had another agenda as comparatively wealthy agents of the American government gypped hard working Columbian sex workers. For Barack Obama it was about another vacation. Yup, V-A-C-A-T-I-O-N:

“Just two days after President Barack Obama gave a sharply edged response to news anchor Larry Conners of KMOV in St. Louis after Conners had asked the president about Americans who “get frustrated and even angered when they see the first family jetting around [to] different vacations and so forth,” Obama told a panel at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia that part of his job there was to scout out locations for a future vacation with First Lady Michelle Obama.

HOOKERS! The HOOKE$RS are in charge – and we don’t mean the honest working ones that walk the streets. These are Chicago HOOKERS. We have to get rid of the Chicago HOOKERS.

Share

It’s Ann Romney Day In The War On Women

If Sexism and Misogyny had a son – it would look just like Barack Obama.

* * * * * *

For sure we thought today would be Jorge Zimmerman day – especially after Trayvon’s mom said “it was an accident”. But Bazinga! It’s Ann Romney Day.

And what a day it is. We’re going to grab from our comments section these past few days as we summarize the latest battle field developments in the War On Women. What are those latest developments? Well, Republican/Conservative HotAir strikes up the band and headlines: Democrats Declare War On Women:

“Rosen has delivered the Left’s honest opinion about women who choose to stay home to raise their children, and unless the DNC distances themselves from her, we can assume that’s the official Democratic Party position. If Democrats wanted to see Republicans unite behind Mitt Romney, they picked the best possible strategy to make it happen by declaring war on Ann Romney and stay-at-home moms.

“Rosen” is Hilary Rosen a frequent White House visitor:

“A Democratic consultant with ties to the Obama administration sneering that Ann Romney “never worked a day in her life” is an opportunity for the Romney campaign, but a small problem in the big picture. In the big picture, women who are unable to find work in Obama’s economy are a bigger one.

Having said that, White House visitor logs indicate that “Hilary Rosen” visited the White House 35 times.

Gen. David Petraeus, head of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the current CIA director, nine times.”

Kudos to Hilary Rosen for unwittingly providing everyone a platform to discuss the rights of women. Lola, currently at large, pipes in with her solid gold two cents:

“Obama’s history is riddled with the political bones of women who got in the way. He always looks for the weakest link, and it’s usually a woman or, more rarely, another minority. He targets them and destroys them through well-timed leaks of sensitive information, or by stoking the inherent sexism of a male-dominated press, or the ginned-up ire of partisan women, and then he leaves their political carcass in his wake. If you want the truth, or specific names, you’ll have to go back through the archives because this has been well-documented by various bloggers and a few journalists, and I’m not about to rehash the whole thing, especially when I’ve got two prime examples of which most people are aware just sitting on the shelf: Hillary Clinton & Sarah Palin.”

Gee Lola, we wrote about sexist, misogynist Obama earlier this week. We’ve been writing about it since 2007. Anita Finlay has just written a book about all this too:

“The book written by Ani, available for purchase right now, is called Dirty Words On Clean Skin: Sexism and Sabotage, a Hillary Supporter’s Rude Awakening. Anita Finlay is not restricting her analysis to Hillary Clinton and Clinton supporters. Ani understands that 2008 is also the year of Sarah Palin hate. Ani writes “2008 is the year misogyny was made cool.“:

Sexism and misogyny hit a peak in 2008 and it was our party engaged in the full ugliness. We saw it with our own eyes. Now we are no longer on the fast track to the veal pen. We saw it with our own eyes and we continue to see the sexism and misogyny of Barack Obama and his band of boys:









For many years it was Republicans and conservatives that engaged in open sexism and misogyny. But in 2008 it was our ugly baby. If Sexism and Misogyny had a son – it would look just like Barack Obama.



* * * * * *

From our comments:

HoldThemAccountable, Ann Romney on Fox News made a smart expansion of her argument. Ann Romney gave a “shout out” to all the “dads” taking care of children.

The Obama campaign must be furious with Rosen, not happy as some not-in-depth “analysts” claim (check out this insanity: “The White House would be nuts to back Rosen’s play, but that doesn’t mean they don’t appreciate her lighting herself on fire to make the point, because it will resonate with many in Obama’s base.”)

Rosen has brought Ann Romney to the forefront of the Romney campaign. The married women versus single women divide is also now in the forefront and that helps Romney. Those that are cheering Rosen’s comments are likely in Obama’s camp already so the Obama campaign does not gain from this episode. Romney does gain because it helps him make the great pivot from the nomination fight to the general election fight.

Keep digging:

and Obama digs the hole deeper……

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-why-michelle-was-working-mom-316k-year-we-didnt-have-luxury-her-not-work

Obama on Why Michelle Was a Working Mom (at $316K Per Year): ‘We Didn’t Have the Luxury for Her Not to Work’

……………………………

and they call the Romneys out of touch.

More:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/debuts-on-twitter-to-counter-dnc-advisors-insult/


video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

More:

April is Romney’s lucky month. The myth of the economic recovery has been upended. Santorum quit in the face of a pending defeat in Pennsylvania. Now Ann Romney has been brought to the forefront of the debate after getting attacked.

Jim Messina and David Axelrod have both condemned Rosen’s comments because they don’t want a victimized Ann Romney to be made the face of the Romney campaign. In addition this too foolish attack by Rosen brings to the fore the divide between young single women and married women (shorthand for Democratic voting women and Republican voting women).

The timing of the Rosen attack is also perfect for Romney as it comes precisely at the moment Romney is shifting his campaign to capture the political center. No doubt the Romney campaign will profit the longer Rosen persists in not issuing an abject apology. This is the stuff good ads are made from.

More:

The part of Rosen’s PR firm’s website that last night proclaimed that they had a “far-reaching role in this election!” has been scrubbed. They are trying the old “This insane person is in no way connected to Obama AT ALL” gambit.

More:

Aaaand Rosen just cannot put down that shovel and stop digging to save her life. She’s whining now about Ann Romney’s ungraciousness:

Incredibly, Rosen later complained that Ann Romney “didn’t answer my follow up tweet to her! Which I thought was respectful and sincere.” What was Rosen’s idea of “respectful and sincere”? How about this: “I am raising children too. But u do know that most young american women have to earn a living AND raise their kids don’t u?”

I mean, geez, Ann, come ON! You DO know this, right? I mean, how stoopid are u? You’re a clueless rich bon-bon eater, right? Am I RIGHT?

More:

Here is the video of Hilary Rosen on CNN.. She says Mitt is so old fashioned when it comes to women’s issues and he does not really see us as equals. LOL. Please trot out Lenore Romney’s video (I linked to it in the last thread). I hope somebody makes a commercial using all that footage to show the woman who brought up Romney — she was no shrinking violet and Romney’s dad was no misogynist.



More:

Video here, and it’s BAD. Dripping with condescension. Women like Ann Romney (a cancer and MS survivor who raised 5 boys) are practically clueless about economic concerns. Why the hell is she telling Mitt her concerns? She doesn’t HAVE any, silly twit! Why, I’m betting the woman doesn’t even HAVE any dry-cleaning!

http://freebeacon.com/dem-strategist-ann-romney-has-never-worked-a-day-in-her-life/



More:

More, more, more War on Women:

http://freebeacon.com/hostile-workplace/

Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

Calculating the median salary for each gender required some assumptions to be made based on the employee names. When unclear, every effort was taken to determine the appropriate gender.

The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits.

President Obama has frequently criticized the gender pay gap, such as the one that exists in White House.

“Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income,” he said in a July 2010 statement. “And with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.”

It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act.

The president and his Democratic allies have accused Republicans of waging a “war on women,” and have touted themselves as champions of female equality. Obama’s rhetoric, however, has not always been supported by his actions.

White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters last week that Obama believes it is “long past the time” for women to be admitted to the traditionally all-male Augusta National Golf Club, site of the Masters golf tournament.

But the president has demonstrated a strong preference for all-male foursomes in his frequent golf outings, a bias that extends well beyond the putting green and into the Oval Office.

“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers told the New York Times.

In a 2011 article titled “The White House Boys’ Club: President Obama Has a Woman Problem,” TIME magazine’s Amy Sullivan detailed the president’s fondness for male-dominated environments.

“There’s a looseness to Obama when he’s hanging out with the boys club that doesn’t appear in co-ed gatherings,” she wrote. “The president blows off steam on the golf course with male colleagues and friends. He takes to the White House basketball court with NBA stars, men’s college players, and male cabinet members and members of Congress.”

More:

“More War on Women:



Oh my Obama White House paying women employees less than men

Follow the link for Beacon reporter Andrew Stiles having fun revisiting The One’s various other slights to women over the years, from his all-male golf outings to former communications director Anita Dunn describing attitudes in the White House as fitting “all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” Some of the things O’s taken heat for in this vein are overblown — this one pops to mind — but I’m keen to hear them explain why there’s an income disparity among their own staff. In some industries there may be a nondiscriminatory reason for a gender gap in pay, e.g., men may be overrepresented in jobs that require lots of strength or dangerous duties, which in turn may pay better because of the risk. But that’s surely not the case in the cubicle utopia of the West Wing. The most obvious explanation in an office setting is that men tend to earn more because there are more of them in senior positions. Is that true, champ? If so, how come?

From the beginning:

“Romney’s answer on War on Women:

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/220843-romney-obama-war-on-women-economy-santorum?utm_campaign=thehill&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

In his first public event after Rick Santorum withdrew from the GOP race, Mitt Romney made a strong pitch for women voters who have turned sharply in favor of President Obama in recent weeks.

Speaking at a town hall in Wilmington, Del., Romney worked to flip the script on Democrats, who say Republicans have been waging a “war on women.”

“There’s been some talk about a war on women,” Romney said. “The real war on women has been waged by the Obama administration’s failure on the economy.” [snip]

“Do you know what percent of job losses in the Obama years have been casualties of women losing jobs as opposed to men?,” Romney said. “92.3 percent of the job losses during the Obama years have been women who lost those jobs. The real war on women has been the job losses as a result of the Obama economy.”

The figure comes from a Bureau of Labor Statistics report that says there are 740,000 few non-farm payroll jobs since Obama took office in 2009, and that 683,000 women lost jobs in that same time frame.

If Sexism and Misogyny had a son – he would look just like Barack Obama. If Sexism and Misogyny had a self-hating mom – she would look just like Hillary Rosen.

Share

Next For Romney: Savage Big Media Attacks

Big Media is about to start a savage campaign of attacks (posed as “examinations”) against Mitt Romney now that yes, it’s over. Some will say “so what, that was to be expected, that is not news”. But a recent news story clues in the Obama Praetorian Guard JournoListers that the attacks on Mitt Romney will have to be particularly savage and alarmingly quick.

Hillary Clinton supporters recall September 2007. It was back then that many in Big Media realized that Barack Obama was not going to beat Hillary Clinton – without a lot of help. It was then that Big Media scumbag Tim Russert pushed Barack Obama aside and lied and attacked Hillary Clinton in a nationally broadcast debate.

At that debate Hillary Clinton beat Tim Russert while Barack Obama rested with his doofus smile. That debate however signaled to the rest of Big Media that it was time to take down Hillary if Barack Obama was to have a chance of survival. Big Media united and upped the attacks on Hillary Clinton. From that debate on the Big Media attacks on Hillary Clinton and protection of Barack Obama escalated into something never before seen in American politics.

In the following debate it was a foregone conclusion that Hillary Clinton was in the lion’s den battling seven men, six of whom were candidates. Even the New York Times was surprised at the lead role of Big Media in attacking Hillary:

Mrs. Clinton walked into the debate expecting to be the target of attacks but as the night went on, she appeared surprised by the intensity as she was challenged not only by her opponents but by the moderators, Brian Williams and Tim Russert of NBC. [snip]

In an exchange with Mr. Russert, arguably her third toughest opponent on the stage…

Mitt Romney and his supporters are also about to be “surprised by the intensity” of Big Media attacks. The main reason for the attacks will be because of MONEY and the SuperPacs.

We’ve been microscopically examining the finances in this election cycle. Barack Obama is not raising nearly as much money as was to be expected. But to read Big Media is to be fooled into thinking that Obama’s finances make him the undisputed winner in November. But $84 million cash on hand at the end of February is hardly a big sum of money for a campaign that once dreamed of raising one billion dollars.

Barack Obama has had it fairly easy up to now. Romney and the Republicans have been fighting and spending money while Obama racked up the abacus. But even a raucously divided opposition has not been a miracle cure for Obama. Indeed, in the last poll before Santorum quit Barack Obama was tied with Mitt Romney in the (fairly useless at this point) national polls:

“In a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup, President Obama and Mitt Romney are tied at 45%.”

It was the New York Times that sounded the RED ALERT a few days ago:

“American Crossroads, the biggest of the Republican “super PACs,” is planning to begin its first major anti-Obama advertising blitz of the year, a moment the Obama re-election campaign has been girding for and another sign that the general election is starting in earnest.

With an anticipated bank account of more than $200 million, officials at American Crossroads said they would probably begin their campaign this month. But they said they would focus the bulk of the first phase from May through July, which they believe is a critical period for making an impression on voters, before summer vacations and the party conventions take place. [snip]

The ultimate goal of the Crossroads campaign, Mr. Law said, would be to better connect Americans’ disappointment with the economy to their views of the president, especially among crucial swing voters.

The Crossroads advertising push — the timing of which has been the subject of avid speculation at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago — would give the campaign of Mitt Romney, the Republican front-runner, the time and cover to map out its national organization, replenish its bank account and put the finishing touches on its own long-discussed advertising plan, which is expected to highlight the economic pain of ordinary Americans. [snip]

Combined with expected activity from a pro-Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future, and a Republican National Committee with better finances than expected, Crossroads is helping to ease fears among some Republicans that Mr. Obama’s projected financial advantage — with more than $80 million on hand and expectations to have raised at least $750 million all told — would overwhelm Mr. Romney, who had $7.3 million on hand in his last filing report from February, especially at the start.”

The implications of the Crossroads spending plan is that Barack Obama will have to begin to spend millions of the dollars he can only collect in increments of $2500. The well funded Republican and candidate SuperPacs however can collect as much money as they want in limitless amounts. Sky’s the limit.

Mitt Romney will now be able to hoard cash until late August while Obama’s campaign hemorrhages limited funds. Obama’s campaign will bleed funds against well funded, well led SuperPacs.

Politico tried to paint a smiley face on this news even as the desperation and fear oozed out between the pixels:

“The Obama campaign has long warned that it would face attacks from heavily funded Republican super PACs and other groups that can take unlimited contributions. Now, as several of those groups begin launching television blitzes, the task of defending Obama from their offensive has gained new urgency. [snip]

Democrats acknowledge that matching those groups dollar for dollar will be a difficult challenge — Crossroads alone may spend up to $300 million on all 2012 federal races, including the presidential contest.”

“The tast of defending Obama from their offensive has gained new urgency” – from Big Media. It is Big Media that will try to blunt the SuperPac spending with savage attacks against Mitt Romney.

Attempts by Obama Dimocrats to get sympathy votes and blame the messenger by attacking the Republican SuperPacs depend on how much Big Media can muddy up the issue. It was Obama who when running against Hillary Clinton deplored big money in campaigns and indicated he would accept public financing for the general election. However it was Barack Obama who outspent John McCain and never looked back as McCain (of McCain/Feingold) remained true to his word on public financing of campaigns.

Barack Obama was also the big money pal of Wall Street:

Barack Obama has literally taken more money from Wall Street than any politician in history,” said American Crossroads spokesman Jonathan Collegio. “The Obama campaign’s repeated, hypocritical overtures about money in politics can’t hide [the president’s] ineffective attempts to jump-start the economy.” [snip]

If it seems like the Democratic response plan rests in part on optimism and wishful thinking — that voters will be smart enough to see past attack ads, that their own cash resources will swell, that Obama will prove more resilient than congressional Democrats did in the midterms — there’s not much party strategists can do about that.

After all, the avalanche of outside money is coming. If the Democrats’ assumptions are wrong and it’s possible to incinerate Obama with super PAC money alone, then the race may as well be over.

Obama outspent Hillary Clinton 5-1 in many of the last primaries during the 2008 election cycle and Hillary Clinton still kicked his scrawny ass in 40 point margins of victory. Obama also outspent John McCain. Barack Obama has always relied on outspending his rivals (think of that Alan what’shisname who ran against Obama in the Senate race). This election will be different.

Mitt Romney will probably have more money than Obama. The RNC will have more money than the DNC. The many Republican SuperPacs will have much more money, much more money, than the pro Obama SuperPac. Obama will whine and pout, Michelle Obama will yank sleeves, and Big Media will not remind anyone that Barack Obama was against SuperPacs before he was for SuperPacs.

Big Media will assist Barack Obama in complaining that Obama is being outspent. Big Media will lead the attack against Obama foes in order to make up for the financial imbalance tipping against Obama.

Already JournoLister Ben Smith is on the Obama protection beat. The question at Smith’s Buzzfeed? Buzzfeed: Romney faces challenge on Mormonism and Race. Race-baiting is usually the go to card for Ben Smith and we see nothing has changed.

The JournoLister Obama protection has already begun. On the Republican side the wheel of fortune is in spin:

“In an ad entitled “Too Much,” focused on President Obama and energy prices, the outside group Crossroads GPS is going on air for a week on broadcast and cable in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia, with a total buy costing $1.7 million, per POLITICO’s James Hohmann.

“President Obama’s ‘hope and change’ has deteriorated into hype and blame – puffing up his record and blaming others for his policy failures,” said Crossroads GPS president Steven Law. “This ad sets the record straight and calls for real solutions to sky-high gas prices, not more political spin.”

Law had made clear in a New York Times interview that GPS and its affiliated group American Crossroads would be going up with moderate-level buys in April, with the intention of starting a real blitz against the president from May through July. This is the downpayment version.”

The new ad hits Obama on gas prices:



The ad will air in the states which Obama must win: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. Is true blue New Jersey next? Could Christie’s high approval rating put New Jersey in play for Romney? Not if Big Media can help it by scorching all the potential Romney VP picks.

Paid media advertisements are about to vet Barack Obama’s record. Big Media will attempt to counter Republican/conservative paid media with an assault on Mitt Romney and potential VP picks. The savaging of Mitt Romney is about to begin.

Share

Skin In The Game: Anita Finlay, Trayvon Martin, Jorge Zimmerman, War On Women, Sexism, Racism, Race-Baiting, And Why Rush Limbaugh Is A Better Person Than Slut Barack Obama

Anita Finlay comments as “Ani” on several website blogs such as this one. Along with an successful acting career, Ani has written a book.

Many Dimocrats and Republicans are perplexed about why websites of Hillary Clinton supporters, such as this one, mock Occupy Wall Street, deride as a scam Obamacare, do not jump on the Trayvon Martin bandwagon, are not on the barricades in the “War on Women” and some even side with Rush Limbaugh instead of Barack Obama in the Fluke contraception spat. The perplexed might want to read Ani’s book to begin to understand what happened to us and why we no longer jump when the usual red flags are waved on issue after issue which once mobilized us into action.

The book written by Ani, available for purchase right now, is called Dirty Words On Clean Skin: Sexism and Sabotage, a Hillary Supporter’s Rude Awakening. Anita Finlay is not restricting her analysis to Hillary Clinton and Clinton supporters. Ani understands that 2008 is also the year of Sarah Palin hate. Ani writes “2008 is the year misogyny was made cool.“:

“The treatment received by Hillary Clinton, who won more votes than any candidate in Primary history, and Sarah Palin, only the second woman to get on a presidential ticket, served as horrifying cautionary tales rather than encouragement. Why would more qualified women run for higher office when a misogynist gauntlet awaits them?

2008 is the year misogyny was made cool. Four years later, the verbal and visual assaults against women continue unchecked. The culprits may surprise you. The facts will shock you.”

This April 19th we will celebrate our fifth anniversary of publishing this website. Our original intentions were to support Hillary Clinton (fully expecting she would get the nomination in 2008) and then move on to the general election as a united Democratic Party. But something happened, which is the focus of Ani’s book. We saw what we saw and we spoke up. We saw unbridled sexism and misogyny. We saw corruption and race-baiting. We saw a party which pumped out hate, treachery, lies. We were shocked that it was our party. Ani saw it too.



As Ani writes the “verbal and visual assaults against women continue unchecked.” Much was made when Rush Limbaugh recently called a young woman a “slut”. We know why words such as “slut” are deployed against women. The Women’s Media Center commissioned a poll which we discussed and which documented how effective it is to make sexist attacks against women. Particularly effective was calling a woman politician a “whore”. Although the poll was concerned with women political candidates it is likely that the results hold true when any woman speaks.

But what about Rush? Rush’s views have been well known for a long time. Rush enjoyed himself immensely for years deriding women’s rights activists as “femi-nazis”. No one should be surprised by Limbaugh calling anyone a “slut”. We never viewed Rush Limbaugh as an advocate for women. As bad as Rush is he is being true to what he believes. What Rush said is despicable but Rush has never pretended to be Gloria Steinem.

If you want to despise Rush Limbaugh despise him for 2008’s Operation Chaos in which Rush urged his listeners to vote for Barack Obama in order to thwart Hillary Clinton (and later Hillary in order to thwart Obama). Limbaugh treated the primary process as a game and he to some small extent should be held to account for helping Barack Obama get the nomination when Limbaugh certainly knew that Barack Obama lacked the experience (at the very least) to be chief executive.

Rush Limbaugh has never pretended to be Gloria Steinem. Barack Obama however appeared on the cover of Ms Magazine with the caption “This is what a feminist looks like.” What a slut! It was Obama who ran a 2008 campaign based on race-baiting and misogyny. It was the once decent Democratic Party that enabled the sexism and misogyny – to everlasting shame. It was slut Obama who pretended to be Gloria Steinem, not Rush Limbaugh.

But these days Gloria Steinem pretends to be Gloria Steinem. Recently Barack Obama urged supporters to donate to a SuperPac. The call was answered by Bill Maher who donated a million dollars to the SuperPac. Bill Maher has called Sarah Palin a c*nt and a t*at. Maher has a history of sexism and misogyny. But Barack Obama takes Bill Maher’s money. Barack Obama is a slut who will take the money from sexist/misogynist Bill Maher.

On his cable TV show Bill Maher was confronted on his sexism and misogyny. The episode in which Bill Maher was confronted featured as guests Gloria Steinem and Ann Coulter. Guess who it was that confronted Bill Maher? It was Ann Coulter. Gloria Steinem remained silent.



Gloria Steinem’s money has not been silent however. Gloria Steinem continues to raise money for Barack Obama. Recently Gloria Steinem held a fundraiser for Obama as the book The Obamas was making headlines. In that book it was revealed that Anita Dunn (whose husband is White House Counsel so perhaps she knows something of the law after discussions with him) described the White House as legally fitting the definition of a hostile workplace for women. Gloria Steinem is not Gloria Steinem anymore.

As to Anita Dunn formerly of the hostile workplace White House, it was her public relations firm that was hired to represent the woman Limbaugh called a slut. Who can believe any of these people? Who can believe any of this “War on Women” propaganda when it emanates from a crew that utilizes sexism and misogyny like a 2×4 when it needs to beat up on a woman that gets in their way?

The Bill Maher hypocrisies also play into the Trayvon Martin versus Jorge Zimmerman scam. Jorge Zimmerman was accused of using a racial slur so archaic few even know it is a racial slur. Use of the “N” word cannot even be used in a comedy club (as Michael Richards learned). But words such as t*at and c*nt can be used to general amusement. Skin color attacks are forbidden but a woman can still be skinned alive.

Barack Obama, the Gloria Steinem of our age, is a slut that will accept money from sexists and misogynists like Bill Maher while talking about a “war on women”. Barack Obama will even dance up after an introduction to a song about having “99 problems and a b*tch ain’t one“.

We have a slut problem and Barack Obama is one of them:

“On February 23, comedian Bill Maher announced that he was giving a one million dollar donation to President Obama’s Super PAC. [snip]

Among other comments, Maher has referred to Sarah Palin as a “cunt,” called Michele Bachmann a “dumb twat,” and asked whether the real name of Bristol Palin’s book should be retitled, “Whoops, There’s a Dick in Me.”

We have a slut problem called Barack Obama:

“Yes, Obama’s Super PAC accepted a $1 million donation from serial misogynist Bill Maher — but Obama had a “woman problem” long before that. While Obama has always worked assiduously to ensure that female voters will support him in his upcoming reelection bid (most recently even going so far as to call Sandra Fluke!), he apparently has been less concerned about the relative contentment of his female staffers. You might recall that journalist Ron Suskind released a book last fall called Confidence Men that included a quote that suggested the Obama White House was a “hostile” workplace for women.”



Ani saw the sexism and misogyny unleashed against Hillary Clinton in 2008 and that the attacks came from beasts on the left and the right. We never doubted that the right would attack but the ugliness from the left was a brutal assault that will never be forgotten.



The rot came from Barack Obama. It was the Obama speech writers, Jerry Brown calling Meg Whitman a “whore”, Howard Dean pretending that he just doesn’t see that awakened Ani and many others. In 2008 we saw that the party of women haters is the Obama Dimocratic Party.

The women haters are in control. It took Greta Van Susteren to fight Big Media on the all too apparent sexism and misogyny:

“Another pig….and a media association has hired the pig, Louis C.K., to be their headliner for the big media dinner? Really? I am not going. I refuse to go. Everyone in the media should join me in this boycott.

The headliner of this year’s Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner is “comedian” Louis C.K. Comedian? I don’t think so. Pig? yes.

He uses filthy language about women…..yes, the C word…and yes, even to describe a woman candidate for Vice President of the United States. It isn’t just Governor Palin he denigrates. He denigrates all women and looks to the crowd to laugh.

I refuse to show any support for this guy or for the Radio and Television Correspondents Association Dinner Committee who hired him. I think the organization that hired him is just as bad as he is. It is no secret that he denigrates women.

Here is a sample of what he said about Governor Sarah Palin and you tell me whether any member of the media should sit in the crowd while he speaks to them:

Louis C.K. says of Palin: “her f*** retard making c***” and “the baby that just came out of her f**** disgusting c***.”

To Palin: just “stick your t** in its mouth and shut up.”

And here is more: ”…her f***** retard making c****”

Need more to convince you? Here is what he says on twitter:

“I want to rub my father’s c*** all over Sarah Palin’s fat t***”

Greta Van Susteren spoke up and the invitation to this pig was withdrawn. But why was it even necessary for Van Susteren to speak up? If it wasn’t the word “c*nt” or “t*at” but rather the “N” word would any of this be allowed? Would any of it be considered? Would any such invitation be issued? Has Michael Richards who used the “N” word at a comedy club been invited to any Big Media function?

The sexism and misogyny that was deployed full force against Hillary Clinton was later turned as a weapon against Sarah Palin and other women such as Michelle Bachmann. So when we see Barack Obama hold events to dupe votes from women we will remind women that Barack Obama is a sexist and a misogynist when it is to his advantage (which is often).

When we hear Nancy Pelosi and other Obama enablers urge Hillary Clinton to run in 2016 after demanding Hillary Clinton get out in 2008, we know that is merely a way to fool women and Hillary Clinton supporters into support for slut Obama in 2012. Calls from Obama enablers for Hillary 2016 are a means to fool women into voting for Obama.

Every trick will be deployed to fool most of the people most of the time. It is all they have left because Obama knows the game is on but the messages is off.



Soon we will hear that women have to vote for treacherous Barack Obama because of the Supreme Court. In other words Obama will ask for a political vote to appoint a political appointee to the court all the while attacking the Supreme Court as political. But it won’t work anymore. The red flags won’t work anymore. Obama’s recent attacks on the Supreme Court have only increased the popularity of the Supreme Court. Shocking but true. The Supreme Court ratings jump to new high after ObamaCare arguments is true according to a new poll.

There is some hope for Barack Obama. If Mitt Romney chooses a woman for his VP the Obama campaign will unleash waves of sexism and misogyny from their potent arsenal of hate. Ani will have more material for another book.

We will have more material too. We’ll continue to speak out.

The Barack Obama thugs thought that once the campaigns of 2008 were over a fog of amnesia would befall us all. That hasn’t happened. Very recently a new website called Texts From Hillary has made it’s appearance. It’s a fun filled website full of pictures and amusing captions proving Hillary supporters have not left the battlefield. It’s a lesson Barack Obama and his henchmen will learn in 2012.

Share

Get It In Writing – Obama Versus The Supreme Court And The 5th Circuit Ka-Pow

The moment we heard about the 5th Circuit order for a written letter on whether the Obama Department of Justice agrees that the courts have the authority to determine the constitutionality of laws, we quoted Elena Kagan. “Wow”.

Judge Smith, a Reagan appointee who spoke on behalf of the three judge panel of the 5th Circuit understood and acted on Ronald Reagan’s smart warning against the Soviet, “Trust but verify.”

Today the reply was due. Instead of the ordered three pages Eric Holder could not resist but show his contempt by providing only two and a half pages (enough to appear to satisfy the order but not enough for the court to make a stink about it). Holder sent the letter to the Fifth Circuit and added a too late argument – courts are supposed to presume that laws are constitutional, you know.

The forced confession, er letter, from Holder tried to explain Barack Obama’s attempts to thug the Supreme Court a few days earlier. At the White House, that walking gastric distress advertisement for Tums – Carney the Clown, explained that the American people are too stupid to understand brilliant Mess-iah:

“White House press secretary Jay Carney tells the press corps that President Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court was misunderstood because he was speaking in “shorthand” since he is a former professor of law.

Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his words, the president “obviously misspoke earlier this week”, quote “he didn’t say what he meant and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.” I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak. What do you make of the president’s former law professor saying he did?

Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise and I know you don’t believe that.

Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more than you and I about constitutional law.

Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.”



Despite later ass covering by the University Obama was a lecturer not a professor so it is lies piled on top of lies to explain boobery and thuggery. We also see the return of WORM (What Obama Really Meant) as a tactic to muddy the obvious fact that Barack Obama is not very smart, or smart at all. Obama however, as we have observed many times before, is a master glad-handler/backslapper and a Thomas Edison level genius when it comes to self-promotion, deception, treachery and self-advancement. This simple concept of smart versus self-interested smart is extremely difficult for the Hopium addled to comprehend.

The Fifth Circuit panel was smart to get it in writing when it comes to Barack Obama and his circus of thugs and liars. When dealing with flim-flam men like Barack Obama it is very wise to get it it writing. Not that that matters to twisted men like Obama. Recall what Hillary Clinton said:

“I do think your record and what you say matters. And when it comes to a lot of the issues that are important in this race it is sometimes difficult to understand what Senator Obama has said because as soon as he’s confronted on it he says that’s not what he meant.”

That’s only half the problem. Barack Obama lies but he does more than lie – his lies are stacked on top of other lies. “As soon as he’s confronted on it he says that’s not what he meant” but the moment you explore that lie you find other lies gush out like a Texas oil strike.



Pity Thom Lambert who does not even know he was lectured to by someone posing as a professor:

“By Thom Lambert

Imagine if you picked up your morning paper to read that one of your astronomy professors had publicly questioned whether the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun. Or suppose that one of your economics professors was quoted as saying that consumers would purchase more gasoline if the price would simply rise. Or maybe your high school math teacher was publicly insisting that 2 + 2 = 5. You’d be a little embarrassed, right? You’d worry that your colleagues and friends might begin to question your astronomical, economic, or mathematical literacy.

Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Putting aside the “strong majority” nonsense (the deeply unpopular Affordable Care Act got through the Senate with the minimum number of votes needed to survive a filibuster and passed 219-212 in the House), saying that it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that violates the Constitution is like saying that Kansas City is the capital of Kansas. Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”: “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”

I actually know the answer to that question. It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t). President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago. Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student). Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment. (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn’t seem too concerned about “an unelected group of people” overturning a “duly constituted and passed law” when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.) Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President’s “unprecedented, extraordinary” remarks...”

Get your tuition money back from the school Thom. Ya wuz flim-flammed.

Take your country back from “uniter” Obama, America. Ya wuz flim-flammed.

Share