Tag Archives: Obama 2012

‘Jay and Bey’ Fete Barry

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Forget the White House Honey Ale beer.  While cash-strapped Americans were attempting to squeeze two cups of tea out of one Lipton tea bag, Barack Obama was fundraising in a ritzy Manhattan nightclub that features an 18-foot tower of gold-bottled French champagne.

“It’s floor-to-ceiling gold bottles in the entire space. It’s beautiful – breathtaking,” a rep for the Flatiron District hot spot told The New York Post. “It’s the first thing you see when you walk in.”

That’s right — on behalf of your everyday middle-class American, Barack Obama was out stumping for dollars at hip-hop mogul Jay-Z and his diva wife Beyoncé’s 40/40 nightclub, which features “a custom-designed tower of $800-per-bottle champagne.”  Three hundred and fifty bottles of Armand de Brignac at $800 a bottle comes to a $280,000.  Allegedly, the “dazzling tower” was covered by a black drop cloth so the president could mock his wealthy competitor for being out of touch with Middle America without looking like a complete hypocrite.

Following a hard-hitting interview with David Letterman where Barry and Dave discussed pressing issues like the president’s weight and how good he looks and the misfortune of Obama never having seen the late-night comic in the buff, the president’s motorcade zipped over to a 200-person, $12,500-per-family Waldorf reception.  From there the entourage proceeded to the Flatiron District to raise money at a $40,000-per-person fundraising dinner with “Jay and Bey,” as Obama likes to affectionately call the power couple.

Once there, Barry thanked his former Situation Room guests for their friendship and acknowledged the similarities he shares with Jay-Z.  Taking a cue from David Letterman, Obama exercised his stand-up comedy routine, saying, “Jay-Z now knows, you know, what my life is like.  We both have daughters.  And our wives are more popular than we are.”

The president further addressed the crack dealer-turned-music magnate directly when he added, “So — you know.  So we’ve got a little bond there.  It’s hard, but it’s OK.”

In a red cocktail dress, the bodacious Beyoncé was also thanked by the president for being a role model to daughters Sasha and Malia.  Barack Obama must believe that gyrating around in your underwear, pole-dancing, and slithering along the ground in a leopard body suit are examples of “class … poise[,] and … talent,” because in the oh-so-very-talented Obama’s estimation, Beyoncé “[c]arries herself with such class and poise and has so much talent.”

Mrs. Shawn Corey Carter reciprocated with a compliment by telling the hundred or so multimillionaires that “I can’t tell you how proud we are to host tonight’s event with President Obama. … We believe in his vision.”  It would be interesting to hear Beyoncé share exactly what she understands that vision to be.

While Obama spoke, the tony crowd sat on plush couches munching on hamburger sliders and sipping champagne.  Some crowded the overhead balcony and listened as Obama talked about the “choice voters face this fall as they decide whether to give him a second term or elect Republican Mitt Romney. It is a choice, he said, that will determine the long-term direction of the country.”

The president said, “So, I don’t want people to be complacent, but I also don’t want people to be discouraged. We’re on the brink of an election, but more importantly, we’re on the brink of moving America in a direction where we’re going to be more just, more fair.”

We’re on the brink, all right.  As for the “fair” part — how fair is fair?  Are we on the verge of being so fair that all Americans will one day also be able to pay $40K for a teensy-weensy burger and some bubbly?

Either way, as unprecedented tornadic wind gusts and sideways rain beat against the side of the New York City nightclub, the Pharaoh — I mean Obama — promised the group that although the economy tanked during the last four years, he plans on doing exactly what he’s been doing, fully confident that “[t]he economy’s going to grow in a way that includes everybody.”

Wait — “the economy’s going to grow in a way that includes everybody?” If the $40,000 40/40 club group gave any thought to what including “everybody” could mean for them, after gagging on those cheeseburgers, Jay-Z, Beyoncé, and the donors would think twice before giving Barack Obama another turn at bat to level the playing field.

Nonetheless, in the shadow of the shrouded 18-foot champagne tower, the president declared that, despite his failed attempts at kowtowing to Islam, his being burned in effigy in India, and the ever-increasing anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, re-electing him guarantees an “America that’s respected around the world, because we’re putting forward our best values and our best ideals” — whatever that means.

And in the end, Barack Obama’s ninth New York campaign haul, give or take an $800 bottle of champagne or two, came to a paltry regular-Joe total of $6 million.

Obama Dazzles Denver Dames

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

The Obama 2012 campaign, featuring Sandra Fluke, the “eloquent advocate for women’s health” and Georgetown University Law School graduate whose claim to fame is complaining that for lack of free contraceptives a friend with polycystic ovary disease lost an ovary, converged on Denver, Colorado.

The thrust of yesterday’s truth-stretching stump speech was to convince 4,000 swooning women that Mitt Romney is Ward Cleaver.  Primarily, the President was there to persuade the ladies that electing him for a second term would ensure that women’s issues would continue to take precedence over lesser concerns such as Afghanistan, the economy, the housing crisis, national security, illegal immigration, unemployment and anything else Obama has royally messed up.

To officially kick off the day, Obama referenced the Aurora and Oak Creek, Wisconsin shootings, promising that “This is going to have to stop. And as an American family — as one American family — we’re going to have to come together and look at all the approaches that we can take to try to bring an end to it.”

Shifting away from hinting at curtailing Second Amendment rights, the President then appealed to a full palette of women in the crowd.  The group included moms, grand moms, and those who exercised the right to choose not to be moms.

Obama told his female fans that not electing him for a second term would have “a direct impact — not just on your lives but on the lives of your children and the lives of your grandchildren.” What he failed to elaborate on was that the “direct impact” of not electing him for a second term would be a positive one.

Nevertheless, in the same way Obama stresses that accomplished individuals shouldn’t take credit for their successes, in like manner he took no credit for his failures and passed blame to G.W. Bush for the policies he said “got us into this mess” — policies that, Lord have mercy, he’s “spent… three and a half years trying to recover from.”

Alluding to the sacred rite of abortion, Obama referred to it as women making their “own health care choices.” He told the crowd that they deserved a president who would fight to uphold that care and that Mitt Romney would “take us back to the policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century.”

Then, Obama chronicled a litany of 1950’s-type things that will happen if Romney is elected president, some of which included: “going broke just because one of your loved ones gets sick,” being denied “coverage based on a preexisting condition, like breast cancer, or cervical cancer,” being charged  “more for care just because you’re a woman,” having “bosses” make health care decisions for women and, without free contraception, facing a future full of “ovarian and other cancers.”

And of course he broached the fate of female students having to “choose between textbooks or the preventive care” — like a spur-of-the-moment “preventive care” visit to Planned Parenthood.

The President accused Mitt Romney of disagreeing with him and Ms. Fluke when Obama said that Romney, rather than retaining the right to kill unborn children dead, would take the Affordable Care Act and “kill it dead.” Then, he said Romney would do the unimaginable and “get rid of” Planned Parenthood.

While in Denver, Obama also took credit for saving people sentenced to die from cancer and dragged his dead mother into the conversation who, like the late Ranae Soptic Romney-killed-her lie, the President claims might have lived if she had “spent less time focusing on how she was going to pay her bills and more time on getting well.”

Barry talked about his late mother Stanley Ann “being in a better place,” mentioned how an Obama Presidency 2.0 is the only thing standing between Sasha and Malia living in an America where they’d have “fewer choices than anybody’s boys do,” and encouraged illegal Dreamers when he vowed that he’d keep “building an economy where no matter what you look like or where you come from, you can make it here if you try.”

But despite shirking responsibility for the abysmal state of the nation and attempting to scare the bejeezus out of American women, probably the most stunning statement had to do with Barack Obama discussing equal pay.

Clearly, Barack Obama must have forgotten that his own female staffers are paid on average $11,000 less than the men employed by the White House, because he said “Think about what it means when a woman is the main breadwinner for her family, but she’s taking less pay home, doing the same work as a man, just because she’s a woman. That’s not right.”

Barack ‘Lilly Ledbetter’ Obama might have confused himself with Mitt Romney when he claimed that when the former Massachusetts governor’s campaign “was asked if he’d fight to guarantee an equal day’s pay for an equal day’s work, you know what the campaign said? They said, ‘We’ll get back to you on that.'”

After failing to “get back to” the underpaid women on his own staff, the President then went on to share that he wants his “partner” in the “journey of life,” Michelle — the woman attempting to control the diet of the entire nation — to have “control over her health care choices.”  Obama wants to make sure that “when [Michelle’s] working, she is getting paid the same as men.”

Then, Barack Obama actually spoke these words: “I’ve got to say, first ladies right now don’t — [get paid] — even though that’s a tough job.”

So there it is! In Denver with Sandra Fluke, in addition to healthcare pledges and dire Romney warnings, on behalf of women being properly compensated Obama may have been hinting that if he’s reelected, while Michelle’s enjoying yet another 10 million dollars’ worth of taxpayer-funded vacations, she’ll also earn a paycheck.

Kabul or Just Plain Bull?

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Barack Obama flew all the way to Afghanistan to surprise the troops, sign a pact with President Hamid Karzai, have his picture taken giving a speech at Bagram Air Base with flag-draped armored military vehicles as a backdrop, and give himself a ‘We’ve got me in the house’ shout-out. Only God knows how much it cost the American taxpayer, not counting staff and security, to fuel up AF1 and fly 14,000 miles roundtrip to Kabul. At approximately $181,757 per AF1 hour, flying to Afghanistan for what amounted to a campaign speech tallied up to cost much more than if Obama stayed home and just used his $1.1 million dollar 2012 campaign bus, “Ground Force One.”

Once in Afghanistan, the President stopped just short of donning a fashionable Hamid Karzai-style Karakul hat and bomber jacket with his Nobel Peace Prize medal dangling from a ribbon around his neck.  Speaking from the bowels of a war zone in Kabul, international peacemaker/part-time poet Barack Obama regaled war-weary Americans with lofty images of “sunlight glistening off soaring new towers in downtown Manhattan,” and the “light of a new day on the horizon” in Afghanistan.

To some, traveling 14 hours one way to review his successes may seem a bit much.  However, the mysterious middle-of-the night trip provided the perfect milieu for Obama to read his victory list before taking the first of many planned victory laps.

According to the President, his Afghan victories include “devastat[ing] al Qaeda’s leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders,” and of course that ‘gutsy move’ when, one year ago, he allegedly remained on the golf course to avoid being blamed if the bin Laden assassination, carried out by Navy SEAL Special Forces, somehow went awry.

Therefore, on the anniversary of ridding the world of Osama, without mentioning the specifics of his future objectives Obama felt it was appropriate to fly to Afghanistan to reassure the people of America that the goal he “set to defeat al Qaeda, and deny it a chance to rebuild – is within reach.”

Emerging from between two armored vehicles, Obama approached the podium and spoke aggressively about how he and his Administration have successfully curtailed the “Taliban’s momentum.”  Evidently, when not in discussions with the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt, Obama took time to be in “direct discussions” with Islamic militants from Afghanistan, which is how he successfully impeded the Taliban’s momentum.

With a huge notch on his imaginary gun belt, tough-talking Barack Obama declared that “We have made it clear that the [Taliban] can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws.”

On the next campaign stop, someone should hold up a cue card to remind the President that asking Taliban fighters to renounce violence and adhere to Afghani law would be like asking the Muslim Parliament to place US foreign aid to Egypt ahead of their affection for the newly proposed “Farewell Intercourse” law.

Nevertheless, at least for the length of the President’s live broadcast from Afghanistan, wary Americans were able to relax knowing that “Many members of the Taliban – from foot soldiers to leaders – have indicated an interest in reconciliation.”

Unfortunately, the Taliban’s ” interest in reconciliation” must have been short-lived because less than two hours after Barack Obama headed home from his multimillion dollar campaign stop, militant suicide bombers bid him adieu by disguising themselves as women and blowing up a foreigners’ housing complex in Kabul, killing seven people.

So what happened to the successful negotiations Obama cited in his Bagram Air Base speech?  Well, it’s likely the Taliban, who regularly stone women and hang 10-year-old boys for allegedly spying, changed their minds.

Either way, when it comes to the war in Afghanistan it does seem that Obama is unofficially keeping score. Yet, despite tooting his own zurna, there is one success he keeps forgetting to mention. If election-year one-upmanship is Obama’s goal, he should at least share that when it comes to the question of who racked up the highest number of American body bags and flag-draped coffins in Afghanistan, he’s the hands-down winner.

Obviously, President Obama wants full credit for accomplishments that far exceed President Bush’s. Therefore, besides stomping all over eight years of GW’s foundational work that made killing Osama bin Laden possible, it should also be mentioned that in just “39 months in office, 69 percent of the U.S. military fatalities in the more than 10-year-old war in Afghanistan …occurred on [President Obama’s] watch.”

Comparing who’s done more, according to icasualties.org  there were approximately 1,234 U.S. military personnel mortalities related to Operation Enduring Freedom from January 20, 2009, when Obama took office, until December 31, 2011. Less than half that number of military deaths occurred in Afghanistan from 2001 through 2009 when George W. Bush was in charge.

While eager to share his successes at a podium at Bagram, somehow Barack Obama left the war-torn country without mentioning that one of his most notable presidential accomplishments since 2009, when compared with GW Bush’s last three years in office, is ownership of a whopping 233% growth in U.S. military fatalities.

How about that for a banner to unfurl at the next self-exalting Barack Obama-sponsored campaign event or inevitable “ticker-tape parade?’

And so, it seems that besides burning up expensive jet fuel by flying to Kabul, in anticipation of the 2012 election Barack Obama hopes to begin repackaging himself as a great wartime leader.

Most importantly, while in Afghanistan and on behalf of America’s dead war heroes, part of the President’s speech requested that Americans assist him in creating “a nation worthy” of those who gave their lives in fighting a decade-long war. Barack Obama’s chosen method to accomplish that goal?  Grant him another four years to rebuild a country whose three-year list of domestic catastrophes, much like the U.S. military’s mounting body count in Afghanistan, has also grown by 233%.

Throw Bo a Bone in 2012

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

This April is the third anniversary of the Obama’s playful pup being adopted by the first family. Who can forget when, as a reward for his winning the 2008 election, a little Portuguese water dog became a post-inaugural gift from the new President, via the Kennedys, to his daughters?

Unlike Seamus Romney who, in the past, on long trips was relegated to a dog crate on the roof of the family car, Bo is so highly esteemed as an Obama family member that, together with the President’s staffers, he travels in style on a private jet.

Late last year, in the midst of a “What does $40 mean to you?” campaign, after the wife and kids started their vacation in Hawaii without him, Barack Obama took best friend Bo to PetSmart on a middle-class chew-toy excursion. At more than $10 for a 24″ Bully Stick, for 40 bucks poor Bo couldn’t even get four beefy chews. Which means that in the world of doggy treats, $40 doesn’t go a very long way.

Nonetheless, this year, ever the creative pet owner, President Obama has come up with a way to not only get cyber-chew toys thrown in Bo’s “tail wagging” direction, but to also ensure that Bo ‘Diddley’ can keep on fertilizing the White House lawn.

Therefore, on Bo’s behalf, the Obama-Biden website has launched a new effort that begs for bones for Bo, saying, “Now, he’s got three years under his collar as the first dog. This April, wish Bo Obama a happy anniversary as a member of the first family. ‘Throw Bo A Bone On His Anniversary.'”

To counter that request, maybe the Republicans could introduce a singsong-y slogan that says “Throw America a Bone – find Bo and his family a new home!”

Either way, at double the price of a Dinner with Obama $5 raffle ticket, the idea is for dog-loving Democrats to contribute $10 to Obama 2012. Trained Americans hoping for another four years of being led around on a leash by Barack Obama have a unique opportunity to throw Bo one bone for each year. If they do, dollars to dog bones, even Obama will approve of how they’ve spent their “What does $40 mean to you?” money.

Totally aghast, Claire McLean of the Presidential Pets Museum feels that using a dog to raise money is “very crass.”  But then again, so is a Secretary of State swilling beer and whooping it up in a Colombian dance club, or a Secret Service detail getting caught pulling their proverbial pants up, or the President sitting on a panel with the presidents of Colombia and Brazil, announcing that he’s there to “scout out” potential vacation spots for his wife.

As far as ‘throwing the dog a bone’ for a sawbuck goes, McLean maintains that “That’s like raffling the dog or auctioning the pet,” which may even be worse than raffling yourself off for a dinner with strangers in a neighborhood bistro.

Ms. McLean argued that it’s not “presidential” to sell $10 dog bones for cash and that the gimmick sullies the dog’s pristine bipartisan reputation. Claire maintains that thus far Bo has been free of “real political affiliation.” However, soliciting bone donations morphs a non-political pooch into a canine version of the intellectually challenged Democrat ass/donkey, or the higher-thinking Republican pachyderm/elephant mascot.

Nonetheless, tacky or not, even Claire McLean agrees that Bo begging for bones has the potential to raise a truckload of money for the Obama 2012 campaign and, although not he’s officially involved in the effort, it smacks of the kind of idea a resourceful Bill Clinton, when not in the doghouse, could have easily come up with.

Mr. Flexibility Forgot to Unplug the Microphone — Again!

If ever there was a conversation that should scare the bejeezus out of every American, the one transmitted on an open mike between Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev is the one.

Caught in a conversation asking Medvedev to ask newly ‘elected’ Russian president Vladimir Putin to give him more “space” on the issue of missile defense, Obama assured the outgoing Russian President that as a lame duck, after the next election he’ll have “more flexibility.”

According to Carol E. Lee of the Wall Street Journal:

U.S. President Barack Obama told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday that his re-election campaign has tied his hands in resolving differences with Russia over U.S. plans for a missile-defense system in Europe, and suggested an agreement would be more likely after November.

Jake Tapper, Senior White House correspondent for ABC News, reported that the exchange went like this:

President Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.”

President Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…”

President Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

President Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

In other words, Obama believes that if he is reelected the brakes will be off and he can sell American and European national security down the river by making our allies and ourselves more vulnerable than ever before to an attack from any nation with a missile and a bad attitude.

Obama needs “space?”  Medvedev understands?  What are “all these issues,” including flexibility on missile defense, that a man who’s supposed to be protecting America is seeking reassurance about?

The understanding that is needed here is not on the part of Medvedev but on the part of the American people.  Every thinking person should seize upon that verbal transmission Barack Obama gave to messenger boy Medvedev to deliver to Vladimir Putin and use it as motivation to ensure that Mr. Flexibility/Barack Obama’s last election already took place.

Dinner With Obama: First Class for One Percenters, Coach for the ‘Average Folks’

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Whenever an opportunity is presented to live the values he professes, rather than do something nice for the ‘less fortunate among us,’ President Barack Obama chooses instead to cater directly to the very 1% he claims already have more than they need.  Listening to him speak, one would never guess that a man who often criticizes the wealthy for not sharing enough would then turn around and warmly embrace those he disparages.

Oftentimes, struggling lower- and middle-class people contribute to causes they believe in even though money is tight, which according to Jesus is a sacrifice deserving of a greater reward. Unfortunately for the poor widow who supports Obama’s reelection out of her Social Security check, the President believes the bigger the bundle, the better the bonus.

Recently, three middle-class donors from Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts contributed $3 to the President’s reelection fund and were entered into a sweepstakes. After a few spins of the raffle drum, three star-struck Obama admirers were selected, and each was allowed to bring along one guest for the grand prize of “Dinner with Barack” and Michelle — not in the elegant White House, mind you, but at a “comfortable convivial” Washington DC restaurant with a menu that features grilled hangar steak. In airline terms, the ended up with a coach dinner, not the fancy fare served up in the front cabin to the one percenters.

The excited winners dined with the first couple far from the “dramatically lit pavilion at the bottom of the South Lawn,” that soon after hosted the British Prime Minister, three dozen of the President’s mega-fundraisers, and a First Lady in turquoise Marchesa seated for dinner beside Hollywood heartthrob/Savior of the South Sudan George Clooney.

The truth is that despite his incessant, purely political populist rhetoric, when he’s offstage Barack Obama keeps the 99% percent at arms’ length. The White House doors that Michelle Obama promised would swing open wide to welcome everyone really only open just enough for Hollywood heavyweights, pop stars, and big money bundlers to quietly slip through.

Judging solely by how Obama treats “grass roots” donors as compared to coffer-cramming cash cows, one would think America’s first black president fosters his own brand of segregation.

Recently, dressed in formal attire, the President merrily clinked glasses with $500K and $45,000-a-plate fundraisers, but the “average folks out there” — as Joe Biden referred to them at a $10,000-a-plate fundraiser — after winning dinner were greeted off-campus by a President in rolled-up shirtsleeves.

What do the affluent do to earn such favorable treatment from a President who preaches impartiality?  Well, if it’s evil money we’re talking about, apparently quite a lot: “Thirteen of the dinner attendees raised more than a half a million dollars … 24 raised between $200,000 and $500,000, eight raised between $100,000 and $200,000 and three between $50,000 and $100,000.”

All told, the guests who got to meet Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron and dine on “Kitchen Garden ‘Winter Harvest,’ Bison Wellington, Crisped Halibut with Potato Crust, [dessert]…and mystery wines,” amassed $10.7 million of the $250 million donated thus far.

Following this year’s State of the Union address, Stanley Fish commented in the New York Times on “President Obama’s choice to emphasize fairness rather than equality.” Fish said that rather than ‘equality,’ which stirs up images of income redistribution, the fairness Obama promotes is a “better mantra …[because]… it rests on a notion of formal equality — everyone should be treated alike — rather than a notion of substantive equality — everyone should have the same stuff.”

Yet, apart from what he advocates when revving up his base, it seems that instead of treating everyone alike, Obama lavishes luxury upon “the more fortunate among us” — also known as those with the most stuff — and merely placates those who have thus far helped him raise money a few bucks at a time.

Does Barack Obama Survive Because He’s Unfit?

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

According to a fired-up President, “We are not a country that was built on the idea of survival of the fittest.” Oh! So that’s how Barack Obama managed to become President of the United States.

A little less gray than he was when he “reached out” last week via live video to Democratic Iowa caucus-goers, this time at a Capital Hilton fundraiser in Washington DC Obama reached into the pockets of 700 people and pulled out 100 bucks a head.

Commencing with the first campaign speech of the season, Obama defended big, bloated, bureaucratic government and censured what he called Republicans’ “brand of you’re-on-your-own economics.”  In other words, the President registered his disapproval of liberty, individualism, and industriousness, and applauded the progression of collective weakness rather than job-creating small business by promoting economic policies that have been proven to fail.

Advancing the idea of communal mediocrity, Barack Obama pushed his interpretation of American history saying: “We are not a country that was built on the idea of survival of the fittest.”

In the minds of big-government liberals like Obama, fairness means the fittest must be weighed down by the motionless mass of dead weight – the best and brightest submitting hard work and effort to a parasitical entitlement mentality Obama feeds when he says, “We thrive when we work together, all of us.”

All that aside, isn’t Obama’s premise a bit of a problem for someone who is asking for money to run for an office he wants everyone to believe he’s the best suited for?  Here is a man who just last week told America that he couldn’t work with Congress and plans to do things on his own.  This week he’s asking for money and blathering on about thriving by working together.

President Obama’s self-perceived problem is that he cannot work with others because he’s smarter, better, and has a vision superior to everyone else’s.  But Mr. Obama shouldn’t ask for monetary support if he’s going to promote his own competence above all others while at the same time talking down individual excellence, or telling supporters that working together is what benefits the nation while he digs in and refuses to work with other branches of government.

This guy is embarking on an alleged billion-dollar presidential reelection campaign and he chooses to get the ball rolling by telling Democrats, who tend to be confused already, that they should invest in him because he’s the best – the fittest, as it were – and then, almost in the same breath, saying that in America the fittest shouldn’t survive?

And so as the 2012 campaign season starts, those 700 people should immediately ask for their $100 back, because either Obama is even more confused than they are, or he has no idea how absurdly contradictory his statements are; it’s as though he’s trying to solicit votes for himself by telling voters he’s the worst person for the job.

Obama’s Youthful Following is Falling Away

Similar to how children brought up in dys-fundamentalist churches that push hyped-up healing ceremonies based more on emotion than Scripture fall away from the church, it seems Obama Youth Group constituents have also become disenchanted with America’s political man-god.For those who grew up spending more time on the soccer field than Sunday service, Mr. Obama’s soaring speeches, miracle-working potential and contagious group enthusiasm made Barack Obama 2008 the closest thing to a Holy Ghost tent revival that anyone under 25 years of age had ever seen.

Young college students, many of whom were relatively un-churched, responded by volunteering to tirelessly participate in what some described as the “most exciting period of [their] life.” One female student shared that she and other faithful followers of the Obama 2008 Machine “did everything…went canvassing…phone banking.” In other words, young converts spent a lot of time evangelizing.

College-aged “faith without works” Obama disciples “washed feet” with youthful exuberance and proved their undying devotion by self-sacrificially cleaning campaign offices and dropping off and picking up the dry cleaning of campaign bosses. In churchspeak, what went on would be equivalent to exploitative clergy taking advantage of wide-eyed new Christians with servants’ hearts, only in this case “What Would Jesus Do” WWJD bracelets were substituted with WWOD. The reason?

According to less-than-enthusiastic President Obama devotee Emma Guerrero, “We all believed and wanted him to get elected.”

Unfortunately, after being baptized in the “Yes we can” tank, those who drank the Kool-Aid have emerged somewhat disillusioned and unwilling to commit with the same level of zeal they displayed circa 2008. Now that the revival meeting has ended, the Greek columns have been packed away, and the economic crutches that Barack Obama promised would be cast aside are actually needed more than ever, the youthful Obama-ites like Ms. Guerrero find themselves crawling around on all fours, unable to find job, and as a result lack the “time or spirit to work for Mr. Obama.”

Faith in flesh and blood is funny like that, and Barack Obama proves it. After passing the plate on Election Day, the “Hope and Change” Crusade collapsed the folding chairs, pulled up the tent pegs and left town to venture forth and wreak havoc on the faithful from a larger platform of power. Like a charlatan preacher capable of mesmerizing the flock, the President encouraged blind faith and exploited an idealistic desire for “change” in naïve congregants, and did so to provide a vehicle to win historically red states like North Carolina and Indiana. Afterwards, he failed to deliver the promised goods.

Disappointed student Ms. Guerrero says she doesn’t “blame Mr. Obama for the 13.4 percent unemployment rate gripping the state of Nevada.”  That sort of brainwashed mentality smacks of excusing a snake oil swindler at a faith-healing crusade and blaming the blind, deaf and crippled for leaving in the same condition they came in because of their lack of faith. Emma Guerrero lamented that “I don’t think I could do it anymore.

That campaign was an amazing experience.  But I don’t think I’m in the same mind-set anymore.  He hasn’t really addressed the young people, and we helped him to get elected.” Such sentiments indicates that some of the youth who supported Barack Obama are like disillusioned attendees of a dysfunctional congregation who, after contributing everything to help build a mega-church, are forced to sit in the overflow room.

Some of the faithful have fallen away to such a degree that one Brigham Young University-Idaho student confessed: “I don’t know if I’ll support him next year.”  A conversion of that magnitude would be like a Mormon switching allegiance from Joseph Smith to Bahá’u’lláh.

The state affected most by Obama’s economic prowess, Nevada, has ex-“gung-ho” supporters like Jolie Glaser, who identifies herself this go-round as less passionate and a more “thoughtful supporter.”  It seems Jolie decided to keep the emergency exit at the back of the house of worship in plain sight, and to do a lot more listening and a lot less dancing in the aisle.

Brown University alumni Sandra Allen admitted to not being all that optimistic anymore.  Sounding jaded, cynical and relatively disinterested in the political process, when asked if she’d be involved in similar get-out-the-vote/home-based work for Mr. Obama in 2012, she responded “Not now. And I will not be streaking across the main green of any campus with hundreds of thrilled people were he to be re-elected next year.” It’s doubtful Ms. Allen will be found running around the perimeter of INVESCO field waving a tearstained hankie accompanied by Oprah.

Based on her attitude, it’s also unlikely Sandra will be contributing to the Barack Obama Rebuilding What I Destroyed Reelection Fund. It is also doubtful she willingly sit through another four years of the President’s hollow, meaningless sermons promising that the economic lame and blind will walk and see, only to watch the nation stumbling around in the dark unable to establish even the most tentative fiscal footing.

Still, even with all the regret there is still a measure of guilt associated with criticizing someone viewed as politically anointed as the messianic Barack Obama.  Those refusing to blaspheme are the people who, although unwilling to “jump back into the trenches,” say they are “still inclined to vote for him.” If they decide not to remain true to the faith and leave the flock permanently, according to Jim Messina, Barack Obama’s campaign manager, it’s not a problem because there is fresh blood out there. Mr. Messina is counting on a brand new group of converts.  Jim says there are “eight million voters aged 18 to 21 registered since the last election, most of whom [are] Democrats.”

Messina is self-assured and believes that “Their brothers and sisters started it, and they are going to finish it.” If a second wave of college-age students manage to successfully keep Barack Obama in the White House for a second term, Jim Messina could very well be considered the first official Barack Obama Ministry prophet for accurately predicting the looming apocalypse brought to America by those who, when it’s too late, will end up suffering the most in the future.

Obama for America Emails Demand Donors Get ‘Fired Up’ or Shamed for Non-Contribution

Originally posted at BIG Government

One year out from the next election, the President’s 2012 reelection coffers are failing to fill up at a fast enough rate to meet the quarterly bilking quota.  Thus the situation demands a new tactic to prod, embarrass and shame former contributors into making the same mistake they made last time by sending money to reelect a man who, if truth be told, most people wish would retire.

One thing Obama has never had a problem doing was finding a way to guilt people out of money.  In fact, money grubbing appears to be the President’s singular forte.

With that in mind, the Obama reelection campaign has come up with a way to mortify people into contributing – sending emails that threaten to expose traitorous former patrons to neighborhood drones who remain faithful.

Initially, the Obama 2012 fundraising effort commenced with a $5 Dinner with Barack raffle. After that idea failed to sell, the concept morphed into a “fired-up” first lady cheerleading supporters into coughing up cash by hawking raffle tickets for the discounted price of $3.

Apparently, that creative tactic hasn’t worked either, because America’s socialist-leaning anti-capitalist president is now hoping to finance his reelection by injecting a perverse form of — dare I say,competition — into the fundraising effort by “ever-so-gently sham[ing] supporters into donating.”

Even if the effort ends up failing, the concept is a good one, because the method could have an effect on baby boomers who grew up way before being first in a competition was considered mean-spirited and guilt and humiliation still held sway over the insecure.

With that in mind, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina came up with an “Everyone else has done it, so what’s your problem?” approach to fundraising.  On Obama’s behalf, Mr. Messina is encouraging potential supporters “to chip in, by pointing out how many of their neighbors had already done so.”   Let’s just say it’s a community-minded “Keeping up with the Joneses” fundraising endeavor.

According to a New York recipient who hadn’t yet contributed, an email of shame was dispatched which pointed out the following:  “Here’s something you don’t have in common with 15,049 other supporters of this movement who tell us they live in New York, NY.”

Maybe the next email can say “Hey Charlie, since you’re the only cheapskate on the block, when we send out the Non-Contributor Hall of Shame flyer next week we’ve decided to feature your picture on the cover.”

Messina’s email informed delinquent donors that those who have already been successfully conned “had their own personal reason for giving.” Yeah, like avoiding public degradation; being spurned by Democrat neighbors; or risking being visited personally by a troupe of convincing donation collectors hand-picked by Rahm Emanuel.

Those trying to keep a low profile by refusing to pick up the phone and waving off the door-to-door solicitors can run but they can’t hide, because the Obama reelection campaign is actually keeping score.  The “Cheapskate” email informed non-donors that the campaign is aware of who is giving and who is not, saying, “Our records show that you aren’t one of the 15,049 people where you’re from who have stepped up for 2012.  Now’s your chance to change that.”

One email sent to Grayslake, IL noted that 160 people had “stepped up for the president.” In other words, step up the giving, or prepare to be publicly stepped on.

Former Bush campaign worker Brad Blakeman, who worked on the 2000 campaign and served in the Bush White House, commented that he’s “never seen a fundraising pitch quite like it — and there’s a reason for that.”  Blakeman feels that this style of fundraising borders on coercion because it intimates that if a person doesn’t contribute to Obama, somehow their neighbors are going to be alerted to private donation information.  In other words, it’s a pioneering effort in strong-arming via email.

Let’s face it, what disgruntled Obama 2008 voter living in Ithaca – New York’s most liberal town – while dragging the recycling bin to the curb or adjusting their solar panels, would want to chance hearing their name broadcast over a mobile loudspeaker identifying them as the sole Obama campaign non-contributor in town?

Nonetheless, as with everything the Obama administration does, according to Blakeman, “the approach will probably work on some people but is ‘more detrimental than it is beneficial.’”   Especially since Jim Messina isn’t even taking into consideration the fact that, according to the polls, not everyone, even on the most liberal block in America, is planning to vote for Obama again, let alone contribute to his 2012 reelection bid.

In the current political climate, even people in Ithaca may find themselves in greater danger of humiliation if they contribute to Obama in 2012 than if they joined the rest of the nation and chose not to.

%d bloggers like this: