Keeping Up With The Obamas

September 8, 2012 

UPI

Michelle Obama participates in a sound check in preparation for the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.

President Barack Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney have been trotting out their wives, hoping the women will swing votes to them in the upcoming election. For almost four years, we have had to hear the media idiots report on how Michelle Obama grows a fresh garden on the grounds of the White House and how determined she is to see that our children eat healthier food. Not to be outdone, the Romney campaign has recently repeated ad nauseam that Ann Romney does the family’s laundry.
All of it is nonsense, and it leaves voters less informed about either candidate’s plans to revive the American economy. It also needs to be noted that some great first ladies have been married to terrible Presidents. (Rosalynn Carter comes to mind.)
It is more idiocy pressed upon us by media executives whose cash-cow programs are patterned after the likes of “Keeping Up with the Kardashians.”
It used to be that becoming a celebrity was a by-product of talent. Today, people like Paris Hilton and the Kardashians are celebrated and financially rewarded simply because they turned themselves into celebrities through living an extravagant lifestyle. On that score, may we please add the first lady?
Recently, on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Olympic gymnast Gabby Douglas said she celebrated her gold medal by enjoying a McDonald’s Egg McMuffin.
Seated next to her was Obama, who preaches endlessly about healthy diets for our Nation’s young people. Obama told Douglas, “You’re setting me back, Gabby.” She declared that Americans should never be encouraged to eat Egg McMuffins.


BayouBuzz.com noted: “Michelle Obama needs to stop lecturing Americans on what they eat and start focusing on her own diet. In case anyone did not notice, she doesn’t exactly possess a model like figure.”
However, it is true that the first lady has the wardrobe of a rich supermodel. At an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace, Obama was sporting a J Mendel cap-sleeve jacket that reportedly costs $6,800. The jacket is from the designer’s 2013 collection but is not yet available to the public. That means that even the Kardashian gals are simply going to have to wait.
There is plenty more that is disparate between Obama’s recollection of her poor family roots and the lifestyle she is living. Last summer, while bicycling near Martha’s Vineyard (the furthest thing from a discount vacation), Obama was photographed wearing a $156 T-shirt. The good news is she got it on sale from its original $200 price. I didn’t even know they made $200 T-shirts, but it turns out that Ann Romney won’t be outdone and has a $900 shirt.
Still the first lady is sticking to her story that she lives an ordinary life with the exception that she works out at 4:30 each morning. No comment from her on whether she trains in the $540 Paris house Lanvin sneakers she was seen wearing in 2009 at a Washington-area food bank.
And while President Barack Obama may be every bit as ineffective of a leader as former President Jimmy Carter, he certainly doesn’t live the spartan lifestyle of Carter, who bought his suits off the rack. While the Obamas play it poor, they are very much part of the wealthy 1 percent.
Jodi Kantor, in her book The Obamas, writes:

Even the president made uncomfortable jokes about why his wife needed so many new things. Behind the scenes, aides said, the Obamas were concerned about money: the president’s books could only sell so many copies, and it would be years until he could write more and the first lady could write her own. From vacation rental homes big enough to accommodate the Secret Service to all the personal entertaining they did at the White House, their lifestyle had grown fearsomely expensive.

Kantor, who began covering the Obamas for The New York Times in 2007, based her book on multiple interviews with 33 White House staffers.
National Review Online offers proof of how atypical the Obamas are:

President and Michelle Obama’s combined adjusted gross income in 2009: $5,505,409.
President and Michelle Obama’s combined income in 2010: $1,728,096.
President and Michelle Obama’s combined income in 2011: $789,674.
The Obamas’ combined adjusted gross income for 2008, their last year before moving into the White House, was $2,656,902.

The Millionaire Versus The Billionaire
A lot has been made out of GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s vast wealth and the rich-and-famous lifestyle he and his wife enjoy. Although Romney may not be worth $1 billion (at least not yet), we must assume he has a net worth in the tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet it turns out that the Obamas are millionaires and will be worth a lot more after he leaves office (hopefully, sooner rather than later).
The problem for America with either Obama or Romney is that there is a disconnect between people with that kind of wealth and ordinary Americans who are still struggling to get out of a four-year recession — a downturn that could still turn into a depression.
Years ago, I was reading about the collapse of the Soviet Union. The writer said that for decades the members of the Soviet Politburo lived far from the poverty that had infested Moscow. They came to Red Square each day from their isolated villas in limousines whose windows were so darkly tinted they couldn’t even see the conditions that the people faced.
America will elect a President in two months. The Presidential candidates, along with the increasingly wealthy members of Congress, are ignorant of the growing economic burdens faced by Americans. (Forty-seven percent of Congress — 249 current members — are millionaires, according to a November 2011 study by the Center for Responsive Politics.)
This is the sort of isolation that contributed to the implosion of the Soviet Union. It is not incomprehensible that this could happen to America.
Yours in good times and bad.

Patriot or Traitor: Politico Fires a Shot Across Obama’s Bow with ‘Ego...

Patriot or Traitor: Politico Fires a Shot Across Obama’s Bow with ‘Ego...: Politico Fires a Shot Across Obama’s Bow with ‘Egotistical, Selfish, Dull’ Headline By: Jeff...

Politico Fires a Shot Across Obama’s Bow with ‘Egotistical, Selfish, Dull’ Headline

By: Jeff Emanuel (Diary)  |  September 4th at 01:00 PM  |  2

RESIZE: AAA

Under the improbable headline “Media: Obama is egotistical, selfish, dull,” Politico‘s Dylan Byers noted Monday that over the Labor Day weekend, “major media outlets…lobb[ed] five high-profile bombs at the incumbent.” The article itself isn’t as noteworthy as the title, which is particularly eye-catching from a political publication whose left-leaning orientation is well known.
The examples Byers points to come from the New York Times, the Washington Post, HuffPo, the Wall Street Journal, and his own Politico. Let’s take a quick look at them – and at the laugher that a senior campaign official offered in response.
The Politico piece is interesting in its classification of Obama as little more than a “conventional” politician, though its focus – on Obama’s failure to preside over “what Robert Frost at Kennedy’s inaugural called a ‘golden age of poetry and power,’ with artists and intellectuals prominent among the first family’s friends and the Georgetown social scene regularly enlivened with the presence of a young and outgoing couple – is trite and tired at best. As may be expected, it showcases quotes that excuse Obama’s failure to present himself as a luminary by denigrating the president’s political opposition and Americans as a whole. Perhaps the best example comes from David Remnick, Obama hagiographer and editor of The New Yorker:

Considering the political climate of Washington, and the degree of anti-intellectualism that is wielded so freely as a weapon, what do you think the reaction would be if he peacocked his learning in the law or literature or history in a way that was judged as flagrant or snobbish? How soon would it be before we heard about Obama being even more ‘out of touch’ with ‘ordinary people’?

In other words, as we see nearly every time a Democrat candidate or president is being discussed, it’s the rest of America’s fault for not understanding and appreciating just how much smarter, more urbane, and simply cooler [insert Democrat's name here] is than they are.
As the New York Times‘ Jodi Kantor notes, Obama himself has, unsurprisingly, bought into the press about his superlative nature, and is quick to declare everything he does in those terms. For example:

When he reads a book to children at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, Mr. Obama seems incapable of just flipping open a volume and reading. In 2010, he began by announcing that he would perform “the best rendition ever” of “Green Eggs and Ham,” ripping into his Sam-I-Ams with unusual conviction. Two years later at the same event, he read “Where the Wild Things Are” with even more animation, roooooaring his terrible roar and gnaaaaashing his terrible teeth. By the time he got to the wild rumpus, he was howling so loudly that Bo, the first dog, joined in.

She continues:

Mr. Obama’s fixation on prowess can get him into trouble. Not everyone wants to be graded by him, certainly not Republicans. Mr. Dowd, the former Bush adviser, said he admired Mr. Obama, but added, “Nobody likes to be in the room with someone who thinks they’re the smartest person in the room.”
Even some Democrats in Washington say they have been irritated by his tips on topics ranging from the best way to shake hands on the trail (really look voters in the eye, he has instructed) to writing well (“You have to think three or four sentences ahead,” he told one reluctant pupil).
For another, he may not always be as good at everything as he thinks, including politics. While Mr. Obama has given himself high grades for his tenure in the White House — including a “solid B-plus” for his first year — many voters don’t agree, citing everything from his handling of the economy to his unfulfilled pledge that he would be able to unite Washington to his claim that he would achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Those were not the only times Mr. Obama may have overestimated himself: he has also had a habit of warning new hires that he would be able to do their jobs better than they could.

As the Washington Post‘s Amy Gardner notes, Obama’s overestimation of his own eloquence has caused him plenty of problems in the form of verbal gaffes, with none having such a great influence on the current course of the race than his “you didn’t build that” declaration. “During the original 42-minute speech in Roanoke on July 13,” she writes, “Obama used no teleprompter, instead relying on notes and at times injecting lengthy and impromptu riffs about the role government has played in building this nation.” That sure turned out well.
The idea that Obama would be transformative has, of course, been refudiated by the president’s own actions, as HuffPo’s Ryan Grim and Sam Stein note in an article titled, “Barack Obama Promised A New Kind Of Politics, But Played The Same Old Game.” Make no mistake, though; the criticism from HuffPo is entirely from the left, with comments like, “His first two years in office have repeatedly been compared to the New Deal under Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Society under Johnson, with historic achievements on health care, Wall Street reform and other domestic priorities. But Obama’s first term has also left many of his supporters wondering whether those accomplishments could have been bigger in size, scope and impact.” This remark is followed by the claim that both Obamacare and “financial regulatory reform” were “built largely off a conservative[!] model,” and the complaint that neither card check nor an abrupt and precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan were immediately pursued.
The far-left perspective pervades the entire article. When Grim and Stein give Obama credit for accomplishments, it’s on pet lefty issues like successfully raising the debt ceiling, changing his stance on same-sex marriage, and rewarding illegal immigrants by unilaterally making the DREAM Act into policy. Additionally, in their conclusion, the authors put on a brave face and try to make the absurd claim that “it remains unclear whether [Obama is] comfortable with [the] type of politics” that involves “using political force to win with a bare majority rather than reaching consensus [and] letting go of the illusion that the Republican Party is looking to work with you.” In other words, we’re supposed to believe that there’s not a Chicago bone in that Chicago politician’s body. Right.
The Wall Street Journal article takes a different angle than those mentioned above, instead chronicling Obama’s stunning unwillingness to extend his coattails to Democratic candidates around the country – even when they are present at his events. Laura Meckler writes:

At rallies, Mr. Obama seldom urges supporters to volunteer – or even vote – for other Democrats running for office. Sometimes, he mentions other politicians in the room without noting that they are seeking re-election. He rarely shares the stage with other candidates.

The reason? Obama’s election is the one that matters – and the campaign’s (and candidate’s) focus on that goal is so singular that nobody else matters.

He’s ultimately there to communicate where he wants to bring the country and the differences he has with Mitt Romney. He’s not out there campaigning all around the country for other candidates,” a senior Obama campaign official said. “It’s not that he doesn’t want them to get elected, but it’s a campaign event to elect him.”
The result is that Democrats are running parallel campaigns that coordinate little with each other.

That lack of coordination and cooperation extends to finances, as well. Meckler notes that, “early this year, Mr. Obama’s top aides told the Democratic campaign committees for the House and Senate not to expect money from the Obama campaign or the DNC.” Mmmm. Smells like team spirit.
The biggest laugh line in Byers’s own article comes from Obama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt, who claims that the president received harsh media scrutiny in his 2008 run. “As one of the people who picked up the phone during the last campaign when the press combed through every vote the president ever made and class he ever taught,” LaBolt said, “I can tell you from personal experience it’s a myth that we enjoyed some sort of honeymoon wave of coverage in 2008.” LaBolt is quite the joker. Seriously – that’s funny.

Patriot or Traitor: Over 30,000 deceased people on average per state a...

Patriot or Traitor: Over 30,000 deceased people on average per state a...: Colorado Counties Have More Voters Than People By: Aaron Gardner ( Diary )  |  September 4th at 05:00 PM  ...

Over 30,000 deceased people on average per state are registed to vote. Patriots are we to allow this to happen?

Colorado Counties Have More Voters Than People

By: Aaron Gardner (Diary)  |  September 4th at 05:00 PM  |  6

RESIZE: AAA

A review of voter registration data for ten counties in Colorado details a pattern of voter bloat inflating registration rolls to numbers larger than the total voting age population. Using publicly available voter data and comparing it to U.S. Census records reveals the ten counties having a total registration ranging between 104 to 140 percent of the respective populations.
Counties such as Gilpin and Hinsdale have 110 percent of their populations registered to vote. Gilpin County has a total population of 5,441 with 17.4% of the population below the voting age, making the highest possible number of registered voters 4,494. Currently Gilpin County has 4909 registered voters. Hinsdale County has a total population of 830 with 20% of the population below the voting age, making the highest possible number of registered voters 664. At 110 percent registration, that means that there are 515 excess voter registrations in Gilpin county and 68 excess registrations for Hinsdale.

When Media Trackers requested comment on the voter bloat in Gilpin county, Chief Deputy Gail Maxwell explained that “This is just a reminder Gilpin is a Gaming Community.  The voters come and go!” While these voters come and go, they manage to turnout to vote. Records show Gilpin County had 61 percent voter turnout in the 2010 election and Hinsdale County had an astounding 92 percent voter turnout. This is far above the Colorado average turnout of 48 percent, and the national average of 41 percent.

All ten counties investigated by Media Trackers reported voter turnout greater than the national average. Nine out of ten also showed voter turnout well above the Colorado average. Mineral and San Juan counties, which have voter registration numbers of 126 percent and 112 percent respectively, had voter turnout of 96 and 83 percent respectively.
Jackson, Summit, Cheyenne, and Elbert counties have 111, 107, 105, and 104 percent of their population registered to vote, while managing 71, 44, 71, and 63 percent voter turnout.
Rounding out the ten counties looked at by Media Trackers are San Miguel county, which topped the list at 140 percent of the population being registered to vote and 52 percent voter turnout, and Ouray county, which had 119 percent of the population registered to vote and a whopping 74 percent voter turnout.
While Ouray County has a total population of 4,356, with 17.8 percent of the population below the voting age, the county has 4,246 people registered to vote. The highest possible number of voting age residents in the county is 3,581, which is 775 less than the actual registered total.
San Miguel County has a total population of 7,359 with 19.2 percent of the population below the voting age, making the highest possible number of registered voters 5,946. If the census numbers are to be trusted, that results in the possibility of up to 2,390 individuals on the voter rolls who should not be.
Kathleen Erie, the Clerk and Recorder for San Miguel County, preemptively excused the voter bloat when responding to the CORA request from Media Trackers, saying “San Miguel County is a resort community.  Many young people come here to work for a season or two and then move on.” Erie continued by explaining some of the voter bloat was due to senior citizens who “leave during large parts of the year, causing a (non-forwardable) mail ballot not to reach them.”
When Media Trackers asked Michelle Nauer, Clerk and Recorder for Ouray County, for an explanation regarding the enlarged voter rolls, she gave an answer similar to Erie’s. “Ouray has a large snow bird population” Nauer stated, “and residents fly south during the snowiest months, January through April.” Nauer went on to dispute the accuracy of the Census numbers, stating that “most of [her] voters were “counted by the census” in warmer climes, likely Arizona or Texas.”
In a separate analysis done by the Franklin Center, it was found that seventeen of Colorado’s sixty four counties have registration greater than 100 percent of the US Census voting age population.

As seen in the chart above detailing the persistent over registration of Ouray County, the Franklin Center analysis found that there are five counties which have reported greater than 100 percent of the voting age population as registered to vote for all years between 2004 and 2012.
Many of the counties contacted by Media Trackers responded with letters detailing the definitions of different voter classifications, i.e. active and inactive, as well as rules relating to the purging of voter data.

Patriot or Traitor: Democrats Proudly Declare We All Belong to the Gov...

Patriot or Traitor: Democrats Proudly Declare We All Belong to the Gov...: Democrats Proudly Declare We All Belong to the Government. Ditch God From Their Platform. The Democrats Have Doubled Down on "You Didn't ...

Democrats Proudly Declare We All Belong to the Government. Ditch God From Their Platform.

The Democrats Have Doubled Down on "You Didn't Build That". The State Built It.

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  September 4th at 05:06 PM  |  124

RESIZE: AAA

In a statement right out of a communist state, the Democrats started their convention with a bit of propaganda declaring we all belong to the government. Seriously. They started their convention with this video:  http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/04/democrats-proudly-declare-we-all-belong-to-the-government/
Paste the above link to your browser for the video.
This is unreal. The founders must be rolling over in their grave. The constitution starts with “We the People,” not we the government. The government belongs to us, we do not belong to the government. The government is our servant. We do not serve government. We are Americans. We are not all wards or property of the state, despite Barack Obama’s best efforts.
I think we can say the Democrats are fulling embracing Barack Obama’s claim that “you didn’t build that.” It’s clear from this we did not take Barack Obama out of context. The Democrats really do believe government built it all.
This is what the Soviets did in their propaganda. They portrayed the people in service to the state. The collective overrode the individuals. The Democrats are finally embracing their inner marxists. Consistent with this, they’ve ditched God from their platform. Religion is, after all, the opiate of the people and is unnecessary when we are all collectively creatures of the state.
By the way, you’ve now heard the Democrats’ audio that “we all belong to the government.” I’ll see you that and raise you Clint Eastwood. Listen to what he had to say on this topic and tell me who is more in touch with America?