What’s worse is, this creepy fella right here made the video public for the first time…
The Obama campaign has put out an official video targeting young adults that compares voting to having sex for the first time. There really are not words to describe the ad, but it gels with the Obama campaign theme that this year’s election is all about sex, birth control and abortion.
In a creepy manner, Jim Messina, Campaign Manager, Obama for America, tweeted the video — making it public for the first time.
“Your first time voting is important. Trust @lenadunham—you are ready,” he said.
Dunham, something of a vulgar performance artist, tweets out gems like this one: “My biggest sexual fantasy is that someone busts in when I’m singing in the shower and yells “girl, where you been hiding that voice?”
Yes, because voting for the narcissist-in-chief equates to a sexual experience.
Word of advice libs – if voting for Obama is like having sex … you’re doing it wrong!
Even the left-leaning Politico is out there mocking the Obama campaign as having no real message for the American people. They have a new blog posting titled, Chicago Gets Serious…, in which the first sentence reads, “…and by serious, we mean not at all serious.”
The Obama campaign is out this morning with a goofy video of the Big Bird variety, mocking Mitt Romney, as the president has put it, as going easy on Wall Street but heavy on Sesame Street.
The campaign is calling this a TV spot, but did not, as officials there usually do, say where it’s airing, suggesting this is a video for media and YouTube consumption.
As Alex noted yesterday when the Pew poll numbers came out, we’ve long warned – and been warned – about big swings in surveys in what has been a fairly stable race. But the sampling of surveys out there do suggest a real Romney bounce.
And the president, as others have noted, and his team have been going fairly small at a moment when Romney is consistent in a message and pivoting toward going bigger (the foreign policy speech, more emotion on the trail, and so forth). And this video is the kind of small ball that Boston smacked over for months.
Here’s the ad in question…
Over the last few days, the internet has been abuzz with the possibility that the Obama campaign was about to be nailed with a major foreign donor scandal, with some even speculating that the President was so distracted by the pending story, that it contributed to his horrible debate performance.
Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner wrote:
President Obama’s reelection campaign, rattled by his Wednesday night debate performance, could be in for even worse news. According to knowledgeable sources, a national magazine and a national web site are preparing a blockbuster donor scandal story.
The campaign tried desperately to block the story, indicating its importance.
Now, the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) has released the report that shows the campaign has been using social media portals to solicit foreigners for donations, using data mining techniques to gain information about people who may not have actually visited the campaign site, and even operating a website for internet users outside the United States.
This, to put it mildly, would be a violation of federal election laws.
The Daily Caller reports (emphasis mine):
President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign has been soliciting foreigners for donations, an explosive report from the conservative Government Accountability Institute (GAI) shows. Those foreign donors are allegedly visiting the Obama campaign’s donation solicitation Web pages through a social media website the campaign controls, and through an outside website that serves mostly Internet users from outside the United States.
About 20 percent of visitors to the “my.barackobama.com” social media website “originated from foreign locations,” the report found. That Web address is owned and controlled by the Obama re-election campaign.
“At no point during the [website’s] subscription process is a visitor asked whether he or she can legally donate to a U.S. election,” GAI notes.
The report adds that once a visitor signs up for the website, they are immediately solicited for campaign donations. “In fact, numerous foreign nationals report receiving solicitation letters and thank you emails from the campaign for their support.”
In a report accompanying the GAI report’s release, former U.S. Attorney Ken Sukhia concluded that the Obama campaign is clearly soliciting donations from foreign nationals.
They also add that the campaign site employs various techniques to mine e-mail and other data from “friends and associations” of members of the site. An example:
Neither President Obama nor his campaign owns Obama.com. Sukhia said data show that 68 percent of traffic to that website comes from foreign users, all of whom are redirected to Obama fundraising Web pages.
Obama.com was registered in September 2008 to Robert Roche, an Obama campaign bundler living in Shanghai, China, according to GAI.
“By October 2, 2008, Obama.com began redirecting all visitors to specific content on my.barackobama.com,” GAI wrote. “Upon arrival to my.barackobama.com, visitors were asked for their name, email, and zip code and presumably were sent solicitation letters, like every other visitor who provides that information to the campaign.”
The report then goes on to demonstrate other tactics that the websites use to gather information, such as e-mail addresses, and continues to redirect viewers to the campaign donation web page.
The donation web page seems to be the crux of the foreign donations activity.
For instance, the campaign website has disabled industry standard credit card verification methods, eliminating the necessity to provide the Card Verification Value (CVV) code on the back of a credit card. The Mental Recession reported on this several months ago, as conservative bloggers were easily demonstrating that the Obama campaign websites were allowing very real donations from some very fake names – Nidal Hasan and Hitler as an example.
Some in the media were pointing out this tactic all the way back to the 2008 presidential campaign, oddly enough spurred on similarly by a record breaking fundraising overhaul reported in September. Back in 2008, Obama had raked in $150 million. This September, $181 million, a massive increase from the donations submitted to his campaign the previous month. The release raised eyebrows, as it was announced quietly via Twitter on a Saturday morning, when it clearly should have been touted as a news story to energize his base.
What’s more, a vast majority of those donations – 98% – are not required to be reported, leaving the door open to the possibility that multiple millions in donations were generated from illegal foreign entities.
An excerpt from U.S. election code reads:
It shall be unlawful for –
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make –
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of
value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a
contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State,
or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political
The President himself has griped about American elections being bankrolled by foreign entities. Here is an excerpt from his 2010 State of the Union address (video below):
“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”
Hypocrisy, thy name is Obama.
The media and the voters didn’t seem to care about these illegal tactics in 2008, will it matter this election?
Update: Other high profile Democrats not using the CVV security measure on their campaign donation pages include House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin.
Update: Download the full report here…
Apparently, an official from the NAACP wasn’t about to support the Obama campaign effort, because he didn’t feel that the President’s policies best represented the black community. And with African-American unemployment at record levels, especially at the youth range, who could blame him?
Obama official Louis Raymond didn’t take kindly to the lack of support, replying essentially with ‘we know where you live’.
A police report was filed.
The Illinois political director of President Barack Obama’s campaign allegedly threatened a Chicago NAACP official because he did not support Obama’s reelection campaign.
David Lowery, the president of the South Suburban Branch of the NAACP, alleged to CBS Chicago that Louis Raymond, the Obama official, threatened him during a phone call because Lowery did not support Obama. Lowery felt Obama did not adequately address the concerns and issues of the black community.
“You know what? I know everything about you,” Raymond allegedly said, according to Lowery. “We’ve been watching you, and since you don’t support Obama, we’ll deal with you.”
Lowery filed a report with local police “in case something happens.”
The Obama campaign has dismissed the accusation calling it a “miscommunication”.
If true however, why would the campaign be so desperate to garner the support of one particular NAACP official? Democrats traditionally enjoy roughly 90% of the black vote. Are they concerned that the economy as well as the President’s support for gay marriage could cut into those numbers?
Over the last several months, Mitt Romney has been accused several times of pandering to the white vote, trying to get as many white people to vote for him as possible.
Is this more proof that the Obama campaign is doing the same with black voters?
Did the egotistical President finally accept a serving of humble pie?
After taking a beating on conservative blogs last week for redesigning the American flag by replacing the stars with an ‘O’ symbol, the Obama campaign has quietly removed the product.
But fear not Obamabots. Lest you think your campaign has lost their touch, they still managed to get caught in a blatant lie as to why the flag disappeared. They’ve still got it.
A page where the flag was now returns as error page. A cached version of the website still shows the product but returns a error page when attempting to add the item to the cart. An Obama campaign aide says the item quickly sold out and that sold out items are automatically removed. However, a similar item to the flag print that was also sold out was not automatically removed and appears on the site with “out of stock” below it.
It’s not just the narcissism involved in redesigning the American flag with your own logo, or the possible flag code violation, it’s the timing of the O flag’s release.
As Gateway Pundit points out, the flag design couldn’t have come at a worse time.
If the image looks familiar it could be because the red stripes resemble the bloody Benghazi hand prints. The bloodstained walls at the US consulate revealed that the US officials were dragged to their death by
Here’s your visual aid…
The point being drawn – the similarity of the images – is a graphic criticism of the Obama campaign’s indulgence in the Obama cult of personality, while the Obama administration neglects to provide adequate security for our diplomatic personnel currently in danger as the Arab Spring turns to a Muslim Brotherhood radical Fall.
Also, we’ll call BS on the statement that the flag has sold out. Nobody in their right mind is even sporting the Obama bumper stickers this go-around, due to embarrassment. It’s fairly certain they’re not going to be showing off their disrespectful Obama flag with pride.
A couple of nights ago, an 8-year-old girl with Asperger’s syndrome and her father tried to get into an Obama campaign event to see the President. As a reporter from KJCT in Colorado explains, that little girl’s dreams were crushed.
The problem started when Obama, who is notorious for showing up late to events, actually began his speech an hour early, finishing before he was even scheduled to begin.
Because of Alana Wenger’s health issues, warm weather can be difficult for her to cope with, prompting her father to wait a little later to stand in line for the event. By then, the President was speaking and the doors had been closed.
Upon arriving at the security entrance, the two were denied entry without explanation as to why.
Worse, after the denial, a “prominent” Democrat was whisked right into the event, despite the Secret Service saying that “nobody” would be allowed entry due to security risks.
The report (seen below) starts with this statement:
“An eight year old’s dreams were crushed when she wasn’t let in to see President Obama speak at Grand Junction High School…”
Usually when I hear the folks over at the Obama campaign speaking, it takes a matter of minutes and a good internet connection to recognize that what is coming out of their mouths is a slew of lies. They lie so often, it’s commonplace.
While it may mean the freezing over of the seventh circle of hell is inevitable now, as is the aerial ability of swine, the Obama campaign finally had to tell the truth. How sad it is that the truth meant admitting they had been lying, and lying rather blatantly.
Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki acknowledged Thursday that the campaign was no longer pleading ignorance about the story of a man who has appeared in both a super PAC ad and a campaign ad.
“No one is denying he was in one of our campaign ads. He was on a conference call telling his story,” Psaki told reporters on Air Force One.
Missouri steelworker Joe Soptic starred in an Obama campaign ad and participated in a conference call with the campaign in May, as POLITICO reported Wednesday. He resurfaced this week in a Priorities USA Action super PAC ad, charging that his wife died of cancer after Mitt Romney’s former private equity firm laid him off.
Distancing themselves from the controversial ad, Obama campaign staffers initially denied knowledge of Soptic’s story — despite the fact that he was in an Obama campaign ad.
Adviser Robert Gibbs said he didn’t know “specifics,” while deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said on CNN: “I don’t know the facts about when Mr. Soptic’s wife got sick or the facts about his health insurance.”
And yesterday on Air Force One, Psaki said, “we don’t have any knowledge of the story of the family.”
As a reminder, this is an ad that Brent Budowsky of the Hill said:
“It is sickening. It is despicable. It is unworthy of a sitting president. It is unworthy of a candidate for president. It is unworthy even of the campaign from hell we are witnessing.”
It is all of these things and more. The question now is the same thing we would ask our kids in a similar situation – What is worse, the act itself, or the lies trying to cover it up?
Should we really be questioning and reprimanding the President of the United States as if he were a child?
As a reminder, here is the disgraceful ad in question, which itself has been debunked as a lie…
If they were illegal aliens, felons, or dead people, the Obama campaign would surely be suing to make early in-person voting a year-round concept.
But this is the military, and while Team Obama wants you to think they’re concerned about laws that suppress the vote of everyone, the reality is they’re only concerned about suppressing the vote – of Democrat supporters.
How else to explain a lawsuit that fights the privilege of military members to earn three extra days to cast an early in-person vote in the state of Ohio?
President Barack Obama, along with many Democrats, likes to say that, while they may disagree with the GOP on many issues related to national security, they absolutely share their admiration and dedication to members of our armed forces. Obama, in particular, enjoys being seen visiting troops and having photos taken with members of our military. So, why is his campaign and the Democrat party suing to restrict their ability to vote in the upcoming election?
On July 17th, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state’s law governing voting by members of the military. Their suit said that part of the law is “arbitrary” with “no discernible rational basis.”
Currently, Ohio allows the public to vote early in-person up until the Friday before the election. Members of the military are given three extra days to do so. While the Democrats may see this as “arbitrary” and having “no discernible rational basis,” I think it is entirely reasonable given the demands on servicemen and women’s time and their obligations to their sworn duty.
Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that the military typically votes Republican, or that veterans have already shown overwhelming support for Mitt Romney.
Not too shabby for a guy who hasn’t officially held a campaign rally yet. White House correspondent Mark Knoller, indicates that the President is really only fooling himself, having already held twice as many campaign fundraisers than George Bush did during his entire 2004 re-election bid.
Via the Daily Mail:
According to Mark Knoller of CBS News, unofficial keeper of presidential statistics, Obama has held 124 fundraisers – about one every three days – since he launched his re-election bid last April compared to the 57 Bush held to raise cash for his re-election bid eight years ago.
Obama’s frenetic fundraising schedule had prompted the Republican National Committee (RNC) to lodge a formal complaint with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about misuse of taxpayer money.
Speaker John Boehner ripped the President, demanding that he ‘pony up and reimburse the Treasury’.
‘Frankly, I think this is beneath the dignity of the White House … for the president to make a campaign issue about it and then travel to three battleground states,’ he said.
‘This one does not pass the straight-face test. You know it, and I know it. It’s time for the Obama campaign to pony up and reimburse the Treasury.’
He added that ‘the president keeps trying to invent these kind of fake fights because he doesn’t have a record’ and ‘the emperor wears no clothes’.
What exactly has this administration accomplished that does pass the straight-face test?
So how does he get away with using your money as opposed to his own? RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, explains.
‘Throughout his administration, but particularly in recent weeks, President Obama has been passing off campaign travel as “official events”, thereby allowing taxpayers, rather than his campaign, to pay for his re-election efforts.’
The rate we’re being stuck with? Air Force one costs roughly $180,000 an hour to operate, and the President has unlimited power to use it for his campaign tour stops.
A newly released video from a citizen journalist shows that making contributions to the Obama campaign website is significantly easier than say, for other Presidential candidates – because it doesn’t require the standard credit card verification code.
The video can be seen here – Obama Donations – Anyone, Anywhere
The description reads:
The Obama campaign does not have the universal 3-digit security code feature for credit card transactions on their website. It appears that anyone, anywhere can donate to President Obama’s re-election campaign, all you need is a credit card number. Watch me put Obama’s donation system, as well as his opponents, to the test.
Why is this such an issue?
Well for one, the Obama campaign website accepted donations from people named Nidal Hasan, Adolph Hitler, and Aunt Zeituni.
The PJ Tatler explains how this can happen:
Let’s take a look at the three campaign websites mentioned in the video. Here’s Obama’s donation page.
The Obama campaign’s donation page for Americans living outside the US also lacks the security verification code field.
Here’s Mitt Romney’s donation page. I’ve circled the verification number field on it. I would have done the same on Obama’s page, but it wasn’t there.
Here’s Rick Santorum’s donation page. The security code field is circled in red.
Only the Obama campaign’s web site lacks the security code field. The others require it, and will not accept donations unless the security code and payment information match up.
In 2008, the Obama campaign did the same exact thing.
There’s three main points that the Tatler smartly points out with this method of accepting donations…
One, the Obama campaign disabled the verification system. The verification system is turned on on web sites that accept credit cards, by default. I used to manage the website for the Texas Republican Party, so I know this from personal experience. Someone had to take the action of turning it off on the Obama site. Two, the Obama campaign can accept donations without the identity of the donor being positively verified. Three, not only can people in foreign countries donate to the Obama campaign in violation of federal campaign law, so apparently can identity thieves who have access to stolen credit card numbers. People who do not know that their credit cards have been compromised may not notice small amounts in the $3 dollar donation range that the Obama campaign has been targeting, when such donations show up on their statements.