<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; campaign</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/campaign/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:20:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>The &#8216;You Didn’t Build That&#8217; Party</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-you-didnt-build-that-party/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-you-didnt-build-that-party</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-you-didnt-build-that-party/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2014 04:14:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[businesses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[job creation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[martha coakley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[you didn't build that]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=243816</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A 5-second guide to job creation by Hillary Clinton.
]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Clinton_Coakley.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-243821" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Clinton_Coakley-435x350.jpg" alt="Clinton_Coakley" width="311" height="250" /></a>At a campaign rally in Massachusetts, Hillary Clinton did her best to prove that she could out-Warren Warren by declaring, “Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”</p>
<p>If the organizations that actually hire and pay workers don’t create jobs, who does?</p>
<p>Some leftists say that if you leave a glass of milk and a plate of cookies out on the table overnight along with a neatly spaced resume on recycled paper, elves will sneak in and create a job for you.</p>
<p>“You know that old theory, ‘trickle-down economics,’” Hillary smirked. “That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”</p>
<p>Speaking of things that have failed rather spectacularly, aside from Hillary’s time as Secretary of State, her latest memoir or Martha Coakley whose rally was the platform for Hillary’s tripe, there’s the old theory that government central planning creates jobs.</p>
<p>That theory has been tried in the last six years and it has failed rather spectacularly.</p>
<p>It has failed so spectacularly that Martha Coakley once again can’t beat a Republican in Massachusetts. Coakley is claiming that it’s a dead heat when polls show that she’s losing by 9 points. But while Hillary insisted that her husband “brought arithmetic” to Washington (someone had to count rental costs on the Lincoln Bedroom and presidential pardons for international fugitives), leftists are really bad at math.</p>
<p>Their theory failed so miserably that Hillary’s party is about to lose the Senate and no Democratic candidate wants to be seen with her old boss out of fear that his stench of failure will cling to them.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton is attacking Reagan while campaigning for Carter. She’s having Mondale acid flashbacks. But despite Marx, Obama and Warren, businesses actually do create jobs. Lefty politicians who have never worked for a living while claiming that businesses don’t create jobs… don’t create jobs.</p>
<p>The savviest cattle futures investor in all of Arkansas and former Wal-Mart board member is signaling that she intends to be a member of the Obama/Warren “You didn’t build that” party. And that’s her business. But Hillary Clinton’s only real business was monetizing her political connections.</p>
<p>That’s still the business that she’s in today.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton doesn’t know how jobs are created because her jobs have always come through her political connections. In Hillary’s world, government really does create jobs. To professional parasites like her, a private sector in which small businesses labor to deliver products or services to their customers without being subsidized by the government doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>A government economy makes sense if you’ve been living all your life in one. If your idea of “work” is going from the Ivy League to political non-profit activism interlinked with the government to law firms interlinked with the government to public office, you naturally think that corruption creates jobs.</p>
<p>Except you don’t call it corruption &#8212; you call it public service.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton’s current round of public service consists of giving six-figure speeches to corporations, trade industry groups and public universities, some of which just happen to be run by cabinet members from her husband’s old administration.</p>
<p>After stealing as much furniture from the White House as the moving van could carry, the “flat broke” Clintons bought a $1.7 mil colonial mansion in Westchester funded by Terry McAuliffe, the current ridiculously corrupt Governor of Virginia with a long history of mixing bad business with worse politics.</p>
<p>The Clinton-McAuliffe real estate deals go back to the early days of the White House when McAuliffe got an improper $375K payment from Prudential while his DNC picked up $85K in exchange for a government pension agency signing a $187 million lease on a Prudential building.</p>
<p>Who can believe that the corner store creates jobs when you’re looking at profit margins like that?</p>
<p>As McAuliffe once put it, “I&#8217;ve met all of my business contacts through politics. It&#8217;s all interrelated.”</p>
<p>This is the corrupt ocean that the Clintons swim in. Expecting Hillary to know how jobs are created is like expecting an ex-con to go straight. Crime is all he knows. It’s all that the Clintons, the Obamas and the Warrens know. We are dealing with people who have no concept of how earning a living even works.</p>
<p>Socialism appeals to them on two levels. First it lets them skim as much off the top as they can. Second it makes sense to them because in their experience jobs are created through government contacts. If Americans need jobs, why not just give money to a politically connected green energy company that promises to create a bunch of jobs while outsourcing its business plan to the elves?</p>
<p>Like McAuliffe’s GreenTech, which in true Clinton style involved Hillary Clinton’s brother, dirty Chinese businessmen, an international fugitive, endangering national security, insider lobbying, an SEC investigation, millions in government loans and 2,000 union jobs for Virginia that never materialized.</p>
<p>And those million cars a year that it was supposed to build are nowhere in sight. But that’s how you create jobs in Hillary’s world.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton thinks that jobs are created by magic elves named Terry McAuliffe in exchange for leaving out large bribes of milk, cookies and graft. And in her world, she’s right. Unfortunately the only people employed by McAuliffe jobs are Terry McAuliffe and assorted Clinton pals.</p>
<p>You can’t run an economy on McAuliffe jobs just like you can’t run one on Mafia jobs.</p>
<p>Corruption is a layer on top of the economy. It’s not the economy. That’s what corrupt politicians like Obama, Clinton and Warren don’t understand.</p>
<p>When central planning wins, everyone outside the Party loses. That’s what happened in the USSR where central planning built an entire economy of mandatory jobs without creating money or anything worth buying with it for anyone except Communist Party members. Most Russians just created their own private enterprises by reselling anything they could find at their jobs on the black market.</p>
<p>The Communist Capitalists of China get along so well with the Communist Capitalists of Chicago because they speak the common language of corruption, fake companies, big bribes and self-righteous ideology. But unlike the USSR, the progressives not only haven’t added money (to anyone except the Party), but they haven’t even created jobs. And unlike the ChiComs, they haven’t built anything either.</p>
<p>The modern leftist believes that wealth is created through debt and jobs through government orders. She knocks millions out of work and if they stay out of work long enough, she declares that the economy has recovered because unemployment is down. She raises the price of food and electricity to save the environment without ever being personally affected. She asserts that the vast diversion of wealth into government, crony corporations and dirty little McAuliffe schemes makes her a patron of the worker.</p>
<p>Businesses don’t create jobs, she thinks. She does. But the only jobs she creates are for the burly men stripping the covers off unsold copies of her memoir and tossing the rest in the trash.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-you-didnt-build-that-party/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>74</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Repubs to Dems: “Please Like Us – We’re Just Like You!”</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mark-tapson/repubs-to-dems-please-like-us-were-just-like-you/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=repubs-to-dems-please-like-us-were-just-like-you</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mark-tapson/repubs-to-dems-please-like-us-were-just-like-you/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2014 04:49:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Tapson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[culture war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people too]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican ad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vinny Manchillo]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=242013</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An ad campaign backfires.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/tg.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-242014" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/tg-450x272.jpg" alt="tg" width="296" height="179" /></a>In the wake of a second presidential election loss in 2012, Republicans went back to the drawing board looking for a more effective way to present themselves and their message. Now a brand new ad campaign has been launched which demonstrates that Republicans are even more clueless about selling themselves today than they were two years ago and four years before that. The pathetic message <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iff7mNsGK50">this disastrous ad</a> seems to be sending on behalf of Republicans is this: “Hey Democrats, please like us – we’re just like you!”</p>
<p>The 97-second ad, part of a campaign from GOP strategist <a href="http://www.vocativ.com/culture/media/republicians-are-people-too/">Vinny Manchillo</a>, a former member of Mitt Romney’s team, seeks to dispel hateful stereotypes of the right by humanizing Republicans and presenting them as victims of liberal bullying. Here is the message at the campaign’s website, <a href="http://www.republicansarepeopletoo.com/">republicansarepeopletoo.com</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>It isn’t easy being a Republican these days.</em></p>
<p><em>There are people who will stick up for Genghis Khan before they’ll defend a Republican. (“Genghis was just misunderstood.”)</em></p>
<p><em>We love political discourse. We encourage political discourse. But when did “Republican” become a dirty word?</em></p>
<p><em>Here’s the deal: before you post another bullying comment, think about this:</em></p>
<p><em>Republicans are people, too.</em></p></blockquote>
<p>The ad itself is backed by an upbeat soundtrack of guitar and hand claps accompanying images of Republicans of all colors and walks of life – <em>acting like Democrats</em>. A man stands proudly beside his car, for example, with a legend underneath that reads, “Republicans drive Priuses.” So right out of the gate it’s cringe-inducing, and it doesn’t improve from there. “Republicans recycle… Republicans read the New York Times… Republicans put together IKEA furniture… Republicans shop at Trader Joe’s… Republicans use Macs… Republicans enjoy gourmet cooking.” And just when you think, <em>This can’t get any worse</em>, it gets worse: “Republicans have feelings… Republicans are people who care… Republicans are people too.”</p>
<p>Of course we do and of course we are. But the ad and the campaign reek of self-pity, weakness, defensiveness, and desperation to be liked by progressives who view us with hatred and contempt. In light of this ad, it’s no <em>wonder</em> they have contempt for us. The left has had the right on the ropes for so long that the only strategy we know is defense, and yet we’re too punch-drunk to do even <em>that</em> effectively. We’ve been reduced to begging leftist haters for crumbs of kindness and respect and mercy.</p>
<p>This is the same concept behind our government’s failed efforts to win the hearts and minds of Muslim fundamentalists. Trying to convince people who have sworn to annihilate us that <em>Hey, we’re really nice and maybe we could be friends!</em> accomplishes nothing except to inspire the jihadists’ contempt and embolden them to close in for the kill. This “Republicans are people too” campaign will have precisely the same impotent effect on the hearts and minds of progressives.</p>
<p>Trying to convince the brainwashed left that we’re not heartless, unsophisticated, old white bigots is a very misguided strategy. First of all, we’re not simply misunderstood – we’ve been relentlessly <em>demonized</em>. The left has very effectively caricatured us as monsters, not people, in order to marginalize and then annihilate us. Second, pushing back against this demonization just plays into their hands. It allows them to frame the debate, set the rules, and control our response. And it is a doomed strategy because nothing conservatives can do will cause progressives to feel all warm and fuzzy about us. We are the enemy and they will make no concessions to us because they don’t need to or care to.</p>
<p>This is war. We must regain our self-respect, get off the ropes and go on <em>offense</em>. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b5g1avyCSA">To paraphrase General Patton</a>, who knew a thing or two about kicking the enemy’s ass, no bastard ever won a war by pleading with the enemy to be treated nicer. You win it by making the other poor dumb bastard plead with <em>you</em> to be treated nicer.</p>
<p>Instead of presenting ourselves as lukewarm Democrats so that we will be liked, let’s brazenly embrace who we are and what we believe. In addition to going for the left’s jugular with ads that expose their collectivist, racist, big government, anti-liberty philosophy, how about a 97-second ad that sells conservative qualities and ideals, and makes them so appealing and compelling that liberals and independents <em>wish</em> they were <em>us</em>? The message should be, “Proud to be conservative!” not “I can’t be <em>all</em> bad – I read the <em>New York Times</em>!” The message should be “We can make America strong and free again,” not “I drive a Prius because I’m an emasculated conformist too!”</p>
<p>It’s long past time for the right to snap out of our punch-drunk daze and take the fight to the progressives. We either stand unapologetically for our values and our beliefs, or surrender.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss Shillman Journalism Fellow <strong>Mark Tapson</strong> on this week&#8217;s <strong>Glazov Gang</strong> discussing<strong> Fighting the Culture War</strong>:</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/v5gR4E5UPB8" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mark-tapson/repubs-to-dems-please-like-us-were-just-like-you/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>46</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hillary’s $100 Million Hollywood Makeover</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillarys-100-million-hollywood-makeover/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hillarys-100-million-hollywood-makeover</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillarys-100-million-hollywood-makeover/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2014 04:55:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[humanize]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=241468</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What it takes to give "Madame Secretary" a human face.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/o-HILLARY-CLINTON-facebook.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-241469" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/o-HILLARY-CLINTON-facebook-450x332.jpg" alt="Key Speakers At The Clinton Global Initiative" width="313" height="231" /></a>The First Secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia described the reforms which resulted in the Prague Spring as &#8220;socialism with a human face.&#8221; The <i>New York Times</i> calls <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/even-the-new-york-times-vox-and-huffpo-pan-cbss-hillary-clinton-show-madam-secretary/">Madam Secretary</a>, CBS&#8217;s extremely expensive prime time contribution to the Hillary campaign, &#8220;Hillary with a human face.&#8221;</p>
<p>A network series can cost between $3 and $4 million an episode. Assuming that Madam Secretary runs even one season, instead of being canceled ignominiously like Commander in Chief, the 2005 attempt at giving Hillary a human face, it will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million.</p>
<p>That’s double the $46 million that Hillary’s campaign spent on TV ads against Obama and it gives the Hillary 2016 campaign over 20 hours of prime time network unpaid ad space. If the series lasts long enough to run through the whole campaign that will double to $200 million. But the Hillary 2016 campaign is expected to cost around $2 billion. CBS’s $100 million donation is only a drop in a big bucket.</p>
<p>There’s more than a whiff of Kim Jong-Il, Stalin and Saddam Hussein about needing so many actors to portray a current politician. But Madam Secretary reeks of political insecurity. A similar series about Obama would have been worshipful. Madam Secretary is nervously revisionist. It’s desperately trying to glue an appealing human face over the Hillary mask that Hillary Clinton wears over her real face.</p>
<p>Hillary won’t be able to get anyone to play Hillary Clinton once she actually runs for office. Lori McCreary, the executive producer of Madam Secretary, said <a href="http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/19/benghazi-moment-inspired-tvs-madam-secretary/">that she was inspired to create</a> the $100 million Hillary infomercial by watching the Benghazi hearings. Her obvious unspoken thought was that the scene of Hillary doing her best Khrushchev imitation while self-righteously covering up the brutal murder of four Americans would have gone much better if someone else had been playing Hillary.</p>
<p>Hillary isn’t very good at playing Hillary the way that Obama was at playing Obama. The Obama character was a charming rogue who could always find the right put down to dismiss criticisms of his inexperience and extremism. No one could have played the fake Obama better than the real Obama.</p>
<p>Hillary’s liberal supporters wish that she could play the Hillary of their imagination as well as Obama portrayed their imaginary Obama. Two years before the Hillary campaign, they recruited Geena Davis to be Hillary’s human face in Commander in Chief. Now they know that they can’t count on more than a season of Hillary TV so they waited this long to debut Tea Leoni as Hillary in Madam Secretary.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton isn’t the first Clinton to get an airbrushed fictional Hollywood substitute. Rob Reiner and Aaron Sorkin debuted a fictionalized version of Bill Clinton’s sex scandals with The American President. Not only did Michael Douglas class up the Clintons by playing Bill, but he was conveniently enough a bachelor romancing a liberal woman of his own class. It had as much to do with the reality of Bill’s groping frenzies as Madam Secretary’s take on Benghazi has to do with Hillary shopping for bad art while leaving a band of unpaid Islamic terrorists to “protect” the diplomatic mission in Benghazi.</p>
<p>The American President, like Madam Secretary, understood that it had to get rid of Hillary.</p>
<p>The Democratic Party has once again built up an elaborate pageant around a candidate. Gender will be swapped in for race. It’s a massive production that began with Hillary <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/why-hillary-clinton-will-lose-again/">receiving virtually every award known to man</a> and is meant to end with her political coronation that will secure the party’s image as progressive barrier-breakers. But Hillary doesn’t seem to know her lines and neither do her stand ins.</p>
<p>A professional actress playing Hillary could do better, but even Hillary substitutes don’t come out that much more popular than Hillary.</p>
<p>The Hillary Clinton book, written by someone else, was a flop. The Hillary Clinton book tour to sell the book was also a flop. The reviews are in for Madam Secretary and the word on the critic street is flopsville. No one really likes watching propaganda infomercials that take no risks and offer no rewards.</p>
<p>Commander in Chief went through three showrunners and barely one season. Madam Secretary will try to wring as much sympathy as it can out of her confrontations with the mean Dick Cheney substitute, scenes of her shoveling horse manure (all-too appropriate) and trying to balance work and family, but there’s only so much Hillary cynicism that even liberal television critics seem to be able to stomach.</p>
<p>The <i>Huffington Post</i> describes Madam Secretary as “contrived, predictable and seemingly allergic to ambiguity and subtext.” That’s also a really good description of Hillary Clinton. The two fictional Hillary Clintons, played by Tea Leoni and Hillary Clinton, have that much in common. They’re shallow creatures who would rather fish for sympathy votes and ratings than actually stand on their own merits</p>
<p>At press events, Tea Leoni insists that her Hillary lookalike is really based on Henry Kissinger. Hillary Clinton launched a book tour with stops at the Hamptons by claiming to have been flat broke. There’s something about being Hillary that makes one snap and tell crazy lies because the truth is just too awful.</p>
<p>The truth is that CBS, whose <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/cbss-hillary-clinton-show-madam-secretary-to-ref-benghazi/">boss was a big Hillary donor</a> last time around, is dropping a fortune on an illegal campaign commercial for a mediocre candidate who has never held any public office that she didn’t receive based on her husband’s political connections. The truth is that Hillary Clinton’s politics are both radical and boring and covering them up along with her corrupt dealings has made her paranoid.</p>
<p>The biggest threat to the creators of Hillary infomercials has been Hillary. Hillary Clinton disapproves of experiments to create a Hillary with a human face the way that Moscow disapproved of efforts to create Socialism with a human face. Like Brezhnev, Hillary responded by sending in the tanks.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/lights-camera-hillary/">CNN tried to develop a Hillary documentary</a>. <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/cnn-joins-nbc-in-producing-hillary-propaganda-flick/">NBC wanted to air a Hillary Clinton miniseries</a> which would have tasked Diane Lane with giving Hillary a human face. CNN and NBC were forced to abort after threats from David Brock, Hillary’s paranoid Media Matters attack dog, ended the Hillary Spring.</p>
<p>As the temperatures fall and the leaves die on the trees, CBS’s Madam Secretary is all that’s left.</p>
<p>Charles Ferguson, the leftist hack behind the CNN doc, attempted to reach Hillary to speak with her. <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/cnn-hillary-documentarian-calls-cancellation-of-film-a-victory-for-the-clintons/">&#8221; He was told</a>, “Over my dead body.”</p>
<p>That’s the real Hillary and it’s why she so desperately needs a human face. The real Hillary isn’t a mother figure. She’s <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillary-clinton-helped-child-rapist-get-off-attacked-12-year-old-victim/">the lawyer who laughed about how she freed the rapist</a> of a 12-year girl who had been beaten into a coma. The real Hillary isn’t the open box thinker of Madam Secretary; she’s a hack who did her best to stay under the radar during her time as Secretary of State to protect her political ambitions.</p>
<p>Hillary is a creature of masks because what is underneath is both banal and evil. Socialism with a human face from the Communist Party didn’t fix Communism. Sticking Tea Leoni, Geena Davis or Diane Lane’s face on Hillary Clinton won’t make her human. It makes her an inhuman Hollywood Frankencreation.</p>
<p>Obama could play Hollywood’s idea of a fictional president. Hillary Clinton just freezes up and her smile turns into a grimace as she sits waiting for an assistant to feed her the next scripted line.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><em>Don&#8217;t miss Shillman Journalism Fellow <strong>Daniel Greenfield</strong> on this week&#8217;s Glazov Gang discussing <strong>&#8220;ISIS Rising&#8221;</strong>:</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9E8gGysQZzU" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillarys-100-million-hollywood-makeover/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>47</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hillary’s Greed is Destroying Her Presidential Campaign</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillarys-greed-is-destroying-her-presidential-campaign/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hillarys-greed-is-destroying-her-presidential-campaign</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillarys-greed-is-destroying-her-presidential-campaign/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2014 04:45:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Broke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Money]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=236247</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Clintons can’t leave money on the table.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/hillary.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-236583" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/hillary-450x253.jpg" alt="hillary" width="338" height="190" /></a>Hillary Clinton’s book tour was supposed to be her first step on the road to the White House. Instead her publisher is looking at a $10 million loss on her royalties alone as shelves at every big box book store groan under unsold copies of <em>Hard Choices</em> and instead of answering softball questions about empowering women, she was forced to discuss her defense of a twelve year old girl’s rapist.</p>
<p>And then there was the money question.</p>
<p>Like the rest of their political movement, the Clintons want to be poor in spirit and rich in mansions. They want to play the class warfare game from a private jet. Usually the media lets them get away with it. No one asks Elizabeth Warren how she combines class warfare and a small fortune. But the media hacks holding out for a Warren candidacy began hammering Hillary over her enormous wealth.</p>
<p>And Hillary Clinton responded with off-the-cuff lies. Her “dead broke” gaffe reminded everyone why her husband wasn’t even the embarrassing one in the bunch. At least he could lie convincingly.</p>
<p>Hillary’s problem is that she is the inevitable candidate that no one actually wants. Everyone agrees that she has a lock on the Democratic Party’s nomination and yet no one likes her.</p>
<p>The right hated her all along and the left has never forgiven her for fighting Obama. If radical Hillary supporters were a problem for Obama, radical Obama supporters are becoming a problem for Hillary. Her enemies in the White House, beginning with Valerie Jarrett, are just waiting for a chance to steal the nomination from her a second time.</p>
<p>Hillary couldn’t afford to show weakness at such an early stage, but her greed did her in.</p>
<p>The Clintons could never stop shoveling every cent into their pockets. They were physically incapable of leaving money on the table. A lot of Democrats haven’t forgotten Pardongate and the disgraceful way that the Clintons left the White House. They just pretended to forget during Hillary’s Senate race.</p>
<p>Many are nauseated by the scale of Clintonworld, the hundreds of millions of dollars that have poured into the Clinton Foundation, an organization whose fundraising is disproportionate to the scale of its accomplishments, and directly into the pockets of Bill, Hillary and even Chelsea.</p>
<p>Liberals like to pretend that they aren’t in it for themselves. The vulgarity of the Clinton greed shows them a reflection of their movement that they don’t want to see.</p>
<p>As Maureen Dowd in the <em>New York Times</em> put it, “The Clintons keep acting as though all they care about is selfless public service. So why does it keep coming back to gross money grabs?” The public service angle is as phony for Hillary as it is for Warren or Edwards, but liberals need to believe the lie to believe in themselves. The infamous Clinton greed kills the illusion and reminds them it’s all about the cash.</p>
<p>Hillary’s book tour featured badly timed six-figure speeches at colleges. Two colleges were run by members of her husband’s cabinet. The whole corrupt spectacle could have been avoided, but she couldn’t help herself and the debate over those speeches became part of the book tour narrative.</p>
<p>But Hillary Clinton’s greed had sabotaged her whole tour from the start.</p>
<p>Her first biography, <em>Living History</em>, had scored a record advance and record book sales. It was sheer hubris for her to extract an advance that was almost twice as big for a second biography that covered nothing that anyone was interested in.</p>
<p>And yet that’s what she did.</p>
<p><em>Living History’s</em> sales were spurred by one woman and it wasn’t Hillary. Her name was Monica<em>.</em> <em>Hard Choices</em> was a futile effort at interesting people in her political career which consisted of a brief stint in the Senate, a failed presidential campaign and an even briefer and more disastrous stint as Secretary of State.</p>
<p>Hillary’s supporters have never been able to name a single one of her accomplishments. Neither could her ghostwriters.</p>
<p>But <em>Hard Choices</em> didn’t have to be a disaster. It sold reasonably well for a second biography. It wouldn’t have been seen as a disastrous failure if Hillary hadn’t extracted a $14 million advance from CBS. Making that advance back would have required her to sell 2 million copies of <em>Hard Choices</em>.</p>
<p>Almost twice as many copies as Living History.</p>
<p>Instead she managed to sell around 200,000 copies. If Hillary had accepted a modest advance with a sizable royalty, she could have still made out well if the book had done really well, without risking embarrassment if it didn’t.</p>
<p>The Clintons were rich enough not to need the advance. But they can’t leave any money on the table.</p>
<p>They couldn’t do it with Marc Rich. They couldn’t do it with Bill’s foreign speaking fees. They couldn’t do it with Chelsea’s NBC gig or Hillary’s college gigs.</p>
<p>And they couldn’t make the hard choice to forego the big <em>Hard Choices</em> payday.</p>
<p>Now <em>Hard Choices</em> is a bomb and its poor sales raise serious questions about Hillary Clinton’s popularity. CBS may have lost $10 million on Hillary, but the Clintons have lost even more because of their insatiable greed.</p>
<p>If Hillary’s shaky performance leads Elizabeth Warren to run, the Clintons will have to raise a lot of money to stop her. Hillary <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00000019">spent over $200 million</a> to lose to Obama. $11 million of it came out of her own pocket. Hillary’s greed for a big book advance is money that she may end up spending to fight off a left-wing primary challenger emboldened by her implosion.</p>
<p>The Democrats want to run on empathy for the common man suffering under a bad economy, but their candidate is a living reminder of why he’s suffering. The Clintons are part of an elite that profits from direct political access to the upper tier of the political and financial infrastructure of the country. Their enormous wealth makes a mockery of public service and non-profits. Their power and privilege reminds everyone that liberalism is a much bigger welfare state for those on top than those on the bottom.</p>
<p>That’s the dirty secret that strikes at the heart of the liberal power structure. And the Clintons are parading it all over town.</p>
<p>The biggest problem with <em>Hard Choices</em> was always the title. The Clintons don’t make hard choices because they have no impulse control.</p>
<p>That’s what led Bill Clinton to harass every woman within a hundred mile radius and it’s also why Hillary Clinton allowed herself to be recorded laughing about the time she helped a rapist who beat a 12-year-old girl into a coma beat the rap. It’s why the greedy couple stole White House furniture, traded pardons for cash and grabbed every bit of loose change that they could get their sweaty hands on.</p>
<p>The Clintons have always been oblivious to their own vulgarity. They have never understood how they embarrassed their own political allies. Hillary’s gaffes about money, like Bill Clinton’s gaffes about sex, are symptoms of their obliviousness to their lack of self-control.</p>
<p>Bill Clinton’s lack of self-control destroyed his presidential legacy. Hillary Clinton’s lack of self-control may keep her out of the White House.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillarys-greed-is-destroying-her-presidential-campaign/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>92</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Throwing Off the Veil</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/throwing-off-the-veil/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=throwing-off-the-veil</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/throwing-off-the-veil/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2014 04:45:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah Weiss]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[take off]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[veil]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=236073</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Facebook campaign demands fashion freedom for Iranian women.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/vl.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-236226" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/vl-450x270.jpg" alt="vl" width="303" height="182" /></a>Women in Iran are throwing off their veils, otherwise known as hijabs. Women in Iran have been forced by law to wear the hijab (headscarf) ever since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Indeed, going without the hijab is punishable by 70 lashes or 60 days in prison. Yet, led by a Facebook campaign titled “My Stealthy Freedom”, some Iranian women are daring to post public photographs of themselves veil-less with hair showing, in violation of Iran’s laws and in protest against Sharia law.</p>
<p>How are Muslim “feminists” in the West going to cope with this? They have worked so darn hard to fight for the right of Muslim women to be covered in America and Europe – and not just with hijabs, but with the full abaya and niqab as well, revealing only their eyes. After all, it’s “liberating” not to have men look at you with lust in their eyes, not to be objectified into a sexual object. True, one could refrain from romping the city streets in Madonna-like bra-shirts and mini-skirts that show too much, but why stop there? Muslim men are particularly alpha in nature and simply cannot control themselves around women who seduce them by merely exposing their hair. Nor should they have to. And for westerners to fail to understand this is just plain culturally insensitive.</p>
<p>In Islamic countries, the hijab is a political as well as religious statement. It is forced upon Muslim women by men, in order to let everyone know that, well, they are Muslim. Its significance is that under Sharia law, Muslims are superior to the rest of us infidels. That’s why even Jews and Christians are required to adhere to Islamic Sharia law. It’s the reason it’s forbidden to repair an old church or synagogue and the reason Christian and Jewish prayer is disallowed in public yet, Muslims can build as many mosques as they desire and ring Minaret bells 5 times a day in a call to Islamic prayer. It’s the reason that an infidel’s testimony is not permitted in Sharia courts, and the reason that acts of murder against infidels are not punishable by the Hudud criminal code. It’s the reason that infidels must walk on the side of the street, and strip naked to provide a Muslim his clothes if he is in need, free of charge, of course. And it’s the reason that Muslims are forbidden to befriend “people of the book”, those evil Jews and Christians who keep insisting on loving their neighbors and turning the other cheek. Dammit, don’t they understand that Allah wants martyrs who are willing to blow themselves up in the holy war to kill as many kuffar as they can?? How stupid can they be? Such is the fate of the infidel.</p>
<p>Islamic supremacism is the reason that it’s A-Ok for Muslims to loot the property of infidels and rape their women and children. Yup, it’s a grand old time for Islamists, especially if they are of the male variety. There’s just one problem. How are Muslim men to know whom to rape and whom not to rape? Enter the hijab and therein lies the answer. As the the Koran 33:59 states, “Oh Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested.“ Thus, the hijab is a political statement, letting men know who is and isn’t Muslim, so they know that the hijabbed women are off limits for raping purposes. What a bummer! Still, they usually have plenty of kaffir females to choose from and they’re probably not all that picky.</p>
<p>Now that Muslim women in Iran are throwing off the veil, it’s likely Muslim men could get confused. And if a non-hijabbed Muslim woman gets raped, well, obviously it’ll be her own fault for enticing her perpetrator with her long flowing hair. And that’s true even if her hair is short.</p>
<p>Besides, hijabs are cool. Oh, I don’t mean physically cool. In that case they are hot. Like in Saudi Arabia where the hijabs and abayas must be black and walking in the summers is sweltering hot underneath all that covering. But I mean that they look cool, and that’s what’s important. After all, in the US, women can buy hijabs that are red, orange, and all the colors of the rainbow. They can even put jewels on their hijabs and pretend that they are stylish.</p>
<p>After all the work that Muslim “feminists” in the west have endured to ensure that Muslim women have the choice to stay in tune with their Islamist supremacist misogynistic culture that treats men as superior to women in matters of inheritance, child-custody, court testimony and almost every other aspect of life, it’s pretty darn insensitive of those women in Iran to throw off their veils, seeking the freedom <em>not</em> to wear this political symbol in favor of being equal.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/throwing-off-the-veil/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Samar Ali: Her Father’s Organization Wants to Destroy Israel</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-james/samar-ali-her-fathers-organization-wants-to-destroy-israel/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=samar-ali-her-fathers-organization-wants-to-destroy-israel</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-james/samar-ali-her-fathers-organization-wants-to-destroy-israel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2014 05:02:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David James]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boycott]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Samar Ali]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=216777</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By any means possible.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/samar.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-216781" alt="samar" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/samar.jpg" width="300" height="460" /></a>Dr. Subhi Ali, Chairman of the Jerusalem Fund, is the father of Haslam appointee Samar Ali.  Dr. Ali’s organization advocates BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) against Israel as a way to end Israel as a Jewish state; to destroy it by any means possible.</p>
<p>Hisham Sharabi, who founded the the Jerusalem Fund (JF) in 1990, along with its programmatic arms including the Palestine Center (previously named the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine), endorsed the anti-Israel rhetoric and actions of pro-Palestinian groups like Hamas.</p>
<p>As detailed in <a href="http://tn4politicaljustice.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/newsletter-39-dr-subhi-ali-and-the-jerusalem-fund/" target="_blank">Newsletter #39</a>, Dr. Ali joined the JF in 2000, became Vice-Chair in 2004 alongside founder Sharabi and has served as Chairman since 2005.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html" target="_blank">Hamas Charter</a> is posted on the JF website, along with position papers and information briefs suggesting that there are positive aspects to Hamas. Is this JF’s effort to help legitimize Hamas regardless of its terrorist designation?  Or is it because JF’s founder Sharabi supported Hamas’ strikes against Israel?</p>
<p>The terrorism financing prosecution referred to as “The Holy Foundation” (HLF) involved the largest pro-Palestinian Islamic charity in the U.S.  It was designated as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” and shut down by the U.S. government.  Its leadership was convicted for raising money for the designated terrorist group, Hamas.  Just like the Jerusalem Fund, HLF’s mission was to provide humanitarian assistance to needy Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza.  But HLF was proven to be a funding source for Hamas whose avowed purpose is to destroy Israel.  The Hamas charter advocates <a href="http://www.charityandsecurity.org/system/files/HLF%205c%20Opinion%20%281%29.pdf" target="_blank">violent jihad as the only solution</a>.  The charter identifies Hamas as Muslim Brotherhood.</p>
<p>A 1979 report “<a href="http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/downloadFile.cfm?FileID=17768" target="_blank">Anti-Israel Influences in American Churches</a>” referred to “Dr. Hisham Sharabi, president of the National Association of Arab Americans, who has been publicly criticized by moderate Arab-American leaders for his defense of Palestinian terrorist tactics.”  A former student also noted Sharabi’s <a href="http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/11150" target="_blank">support</a> of “radical Palestinian terror groups.”</p>
<p>Sharabi <a href="http://www.e-ir.info/2011/06/22/on-hamas-a-fresh-analysis-of-an-old-%E2%80%98problem%E2%80%99/" target="_blank">described</a> Hamas as “the true fida’i (self-sacrifice) resistance in Palestine since the outbreak of the Palestinian intifada.” In <a href="http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/cpap_conference_israel_s_policy_of_apartheid_and_ethnic_cleansing_" target="_blank">2003</a> he said:</p>
<p>“In the face of relentless Israeli force, the only weapon the helpless and desperate have is to           fling their bodies against the beast.  Suicide bombings are no longer the lone act of desperate         fanatics, but have become a conscious weapon of resistance and war.  The culture of death          and self-sacrifice is spreading in many Arab and Muslim countries.”</p>
<p>Of course when you consider Sharabi’s affiliation with <a href="http://tn4politicaljustice.wordpress.com/?s=jerusalem+fund" target="_blank">WISE</a> and Sami al-Arian of Palestinian Islamic Jihad notoriety, it all makes more sense.</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">The Jerusalem Fund and BDS</span></p>
<p>Keeping with its anti-Israel campaign,Yousef Munayyer in his position as Director of the Jerusalem Fund, openly supports and advocates for BDS against the State of Israel.</p>
<p>In a January 2013 “Palestine Note” <a href="http://www.palestinenote.com/people-for-palestine/people-palestine-yousef-munayyer/" target="_blank">video interview</a>, JF’s Munayyer discusses his support for BDS. While he is disappointed that BDS has not yet been adopted by world governments, being blocked for  now by the U.S. at the UN Security Council, Munayyer resigns himself to accepting BDS initiatives from non-state actors.  As he says, “while BDS is not the most efficient way, BDS is the only option people have left.”</p>
<p>Sounds eerily similar to the justification given for why Palestinian suicide bombers blow themselves up in civilian settings like the <a href="http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Sbarro_Pizzeria_Massacre.htm" target="_blank">Sbarro pizza restaurant</a> and why the terrorists are subsequently <a href="http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&amp;doc_id=5581" target="_blank">glorified</a> by their media.</p>
<p>Why does the leadership of the Jerusalem Fund promote BDS? Because the end goal of the BDS movement is to end Israel as a Jewish state.  And destroying Israel means destroying Jews.  Same objective as the “radical Palestinian terror groups” Sharabi is reported to have supported.  Just a different means.</p>
<p>Law school professor William Jacobson <a href="http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/10/bds-movement-distilled-when-israeli-soldiers-not-raping-arab-women-is-racist/" target="_blank">explains</a>, “BDS should being seen for the anti-Semitic movement it is, a movement that demonizes only the Jewish State, holds only the Jewish State to the highest standards no one else meets (certainly not in the Middle East), and seeks the destruction only of the sole Jewish State in a sea of Islamic States.”</p>
<p>Former <a href="http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/2305/pid/2255" target="_blank">Jerusalem Fund Palestine Fellow</a>, and <a href="http://electronicintifada.net" target="_blank">Electronic Intifada</a> co-founder Ali Abuminah is a virulently<a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eedgerider/bds-electronic-intifada.html" target="_blank"> hateful</a> anti-Israel voice on the internet and on the speaking circuit, including college campuses.  Abuminah served as Vice-President on the board of the Arab American Action Network, a controversial anti-Israel organization founded by Rashid Khalidi and his wife who coincidentally <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/activist-for-anti-israel-group-with-ties-to-obama-exposed-as-terrorist/" target="_blank">are friendly with the Obamas</a>.</p>
<p>Sharabi, Ali, Munayyer, Abuminah and their fellow Israel haters well understood that the Palestinian suicide bombers of the second intifada in 2000 laid the foundation for the BDS assault on Israel’s legitimacy and right to exist.</p>
<p>There is also the matter of Subhi Ali’s <a href="http://tn4politicaljustice.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/newsletter-23-the-company-we-keep/" target="_blank">financial support</a> for anti-Israel politicians like U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney.  Is that why he <a href="http://tn4politicaljustice.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/newsletter-23-the-company-we-keep/" target="_blank">also donated</a> to Tennessee Senator Mark Norris?</p>
<p>When news first broke and questions were raised about Samar Ali’s hiring, ECD Commissioner Bill Hagerty told the June session of First Tuesday that Subhi Ali called him and asked him to look at Samar’s <a href="http://tn4politicaljustice.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/newsletter-39-dr-subhi-ali-and-the-jerusalem-fund/" target="_blank">resume</a>, which includes work done on behalf of the Jerusalem Fund.   Sounds like Haggerty knows Subhi Ali and his family pretty well.  Makes you wonder whether Haggerty agrees with their politics?</p>
<p align="center">*************</p>
<p>Subhi Ali has chosen to align himself with and lead an organization that has committed itself to a course of action which at its core, is intended to destroy the State of Israel.</p>
<p>Politics may make strange bedfellows, but you always have a choice about who you wake up to in the morning.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-james/samar-ali-her-fathers-organization-wants-to-destroy-israel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Soros and Hillary Take on America</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/soros-and-hillary-together-again/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=soros-and-hillary-together-again</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/soros-and-hillary-together-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2013 04:56:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2016]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soros]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208839</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Anti-American financier pumps cash into the war chest of his chosen Obama successor.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/soros_2.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-208848" alt="soros_2" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/soros_2.jpg" width="276" height="172" /></a>Radical anti-American billionaire George Soros is going all-in for Hillary Clinton&#8217;s yet to be officially declared run for the presidency in 2016.</p>
<p>And because Soros&#8217;s wealthy leftist friends often follow his lead, a tsunami of early money may be poised to swamp the former U.S. secretary of state&#8217;s zygotic campaign.</p>
<p>Soros <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/george-soros-hillary-clinton-98796.html?hp=f3" target="_blank">is lending</a></span> his name to the &#8220;Ready for Hillary&#8221; super PAC, giving $25,000 to snag a co-chair post on the organization&#8217;s National Finance Committee. Soros&#8217;s political director Michael Vachon confirmed Soros’s involvement with the super PAC.</p>
<p>“George Soros is delighted to join more than one million Americans in supporting Ready for Hillary,” Vachon said. “His support for Ready for Hillary is an extension of his long held belief in the power of grassroots organizing.” (Soros also gave $2,300 to Hillary Clinton&#8217;s 2008 presidential campaign.)</p>
<p>After pledging for the umpteenth time to abandon electoral politics, Soros keeps allowing himself to be pulled back in. A currency speculator and convicted inside-trader, Soros is a practiced hand-wringer who frequently tells gullible reporters he is getting out of electoral politics altogether. This is his mantra between elections even though he never actually follows through on the threat.</p>
<p>Soros is now spreading his wealth around to help a slew of Democrats in future elections.</p>
<p>In addition to the &#8220;Ready for Hillary&#8221; donation, so far In 2013 Soros has given: $1,500 to challenger <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/09/24/sean_eldridge_faces_tough_race_in_ny-19.html" target="_blank">Sean Eldridge</a></span> (D-NY19); $2,600 to Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.); $2,600 to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.); $20,000 to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; and $2,500 to Sen. Al Franken&#8217;s (D-Minn.) campaign, along with a separate $2,500 to the political committee, Franken MVPs.</p>
<p>Soros <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/26/Soros-Has-Donated-More-than-100M-to-Immigrant-Rights-Groups" target="_blank">has also given</a></span> more than $100 million to groups that support &#8220;immigrant rights,&#8221; immigration amnesty, and open borders since 1997. The idea is to flood America with reliably Democratic future voters who will support Soros&#8217;s extreme policy agenda.</p>
<p>He makes little effort to conceal his contempt for this nation. Soros co-founded the ultra-secretive Democracy Alliance, a billionaires’ club that wants to radically transform America, delivering the nation to Greek-style socialist mayhem. He has said that European-style socialism “is exactly what we need now” and cheers on American decline.</p>
<p>Soros openly favors the collapse of the greenback and the decline of America in general. “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States,” he has said.</p>
<p>Soros praises Red China effusively, saying the totalitarian nation that cuts babies from unauthorized pregnancies from the wombs of their mothers and runs over eminent domain resisters with steam-rollers, has “a better-functioning government than the United States.”</p>
<p>Soros <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/02/22/group-plays-the-hypocrite-on-soros-and-nazi-comparisons/" target="_blank">loves</a></span> calling Republicans Nazis. Leading up to the 2004 election Soros said that ousting George W. Bush was critically important because of the administration’s “supremacist ideology.”</p>
<p>Soros said that rhetoric emanating from the Bush White House reminded him of his childhood in Hungary during the Nazi occupation. “When I hear Bush say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ it reminds me of the Germans,” he said. “My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me.” In his 2006 book <i>The Age of Fallibility</i>, Soros likened Bush’s campaign to “the Nazi and Communist propaganda machine.”</p>
<p>During World War II, Soros accompanied his guardian around Nazi-occupied Hungary as he confiscated the property of Soros’s fellow Jews. Years later he referred to that time as “probably the happiest year of my life” and “a very happy-making, exhilarating experience.”</p>
<p>Soros has influence over Obama administration policy. He has <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://matthewvadum.blogspot.com/2012/06/george-soros-has-visited-white-house-5.html" target="_blank">visited</a></span> the Obama White House at least five times.</p>
<p>Like the protagonist in the classic Orson Welles movie <i>Citizen Kane</i>, Soros can never have enough power. But unlike Charles Foster Kane, the haughty, imperious fictional media mogul, Soros views himself as much more than a mere leader. He told reporters, “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”</p>
<p>Soros says he funds the fake media watchdog, Media Matters for America, because it is &#8220;one of the few groups that attempts to hold Fox News accountable for the false and misleading information they so often broadcast. I am supporting Media Matters in an effort to more widely publicize the challenge Fox News poses to civil and informed discourse in our democracy.&#8221;</p>
<p>In the 2012 election cycle Soros also gave $1 million to American Bridge 21st Century, a super PAC headed by David Brock, who founded Media Matters for America. Soros also  pumped $1 million into Senate Majority PAC and $675,000 to House Majority PAC, two Democrat-affiliated committees.</p>
<p>Last year Soros gave $1 million to Priorities USA Action, the super PAC whose infamous TV ad blamed the tragic cancer death of an ex-steelworker&#8217;s wife on Mitt Romney. Soros said he was “appalled by the Romney campaign, which is openly soliciting the money of the rich to starve the state of the money it needs to provide social services.”</p>
<p>Soros also bankrolled a documentary that celebrated left-wing terrorists who plotted to napalm Republicans at the 2008 GOP convention in Minnesota. The left-wing 2011 documentary <i>Better This World</i> depicts David Guy McKay and Bradley Neil Crowder as idealistic activists who, according to the official blurb, “set out to prove the strength of their political convictions to themselves and their mentor.” In fact McKay and Crowder were convicted of making instruments of death calculated to inflict maximum pain and bodily harm on people whose political views they disagreed with.</p>
<p>So, of course, it is only logical that Hillary Clinton, who presided over the shameful Benghazi saga and coverup as secretary of state, would be Soros&#8217;s choice for the White House in 2016.</p>
<p>Mrs. Clinton is a hardcore Saul Alinsky devotee just like President Obama. Soros is banking on her to destroy whatever remains of America at the end of Obama&#8217;s term of office.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/soros-and-hillary-together-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>45</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s &#8216;Non-Profit&#8217; Sells Political Access</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obamas-non-profit-sells-political-access/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamas-non-profit-sells-political-access</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obamas-non-profit-sells-political-access/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 04:29:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[access]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[donors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-profit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organizing for Action]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=179207</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An incestuous relationship brews between the mega-wealthy and the White House. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obamas-non-profit-sells-political-access/gty_barack_obama_election_ll_121107_wmain/" rel="attachment wp-att-179211"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-179211" title="gty_barack_obama_election_ll_121107_wmain" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/gty_barack_obama_election_ll_121107_wmain.jpg" alt="" width="248" height="209" /></a>Last weekend, the <em>New York Times</em> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/politics/obamas-backers-seek-deep-pockets-to-press-agenda.html?pagewanted=1&amp;#59&amp;ref=politics&amp;%2359;_r=0&amp;_r=2&amp;">revealed</a> that President Obama’s campaign apparatus, <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/?source=action-bar">Organizing for Action</a> (OFA), has reinvented itself as a 501c 4 tax-exempt non-profit advocacy group offering access to the president in return for a large donation. &#8220;Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House,&#8221; reports the <em>Times.</em></p>
<p>Furthermore, the OFA&#8217;s reincarnation as an IRS-identified social welfare group is nothing less than a cynical attempt to violate the spirit of federal election laws. As the <em>Times</em> notes, OFA&#8217;s new status means that &#8220;it is not bound by federal contribution limits, laws that bar White House officials from soliciting contributions, or the stringent reporting requirements for campaigns. In their place, the new group will self-regulate.&#8221; That self-regulation will ostensibly include releasing the names of the group&#8217;s largest donors &#8220;every few months,&#8221; as a well as a promise not to have administration officials involved in fund-raising &#8212; even though those officials may appear at some events.</p>
<p>&#8220;The Obama team&#8217;s brazen attempt to convert the assets of its political campaign into assets to promote the President&#8217;s political agenda and the electoral fortunes of his Democratic allies is unprecedented in American political history,&#8221; writes Breitbart&#8217;s Michael Patrick Leahy. Leahy also contends Obama and OFA are &#8220;betting that they&#8217;ve cleverly discovered a loophole, one that Republicans will fail to challenge legally.&#8221; Robert K. Kelner, a Republican election lawyer agrees, noting that this unprecedented arrangement “presents a rather simple loophole in the otherwise incredibly complex web of government ethics regulations that are intended to insulate government officials from outside influence.”</p>
<p>On Monday, in a rare attempt by the White House press corps to ask challenging questions, Press Secretary Jay Carney was challenged to explain what was going on. As this <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/25/watch-as-obama-press-sec-tries-to-explain-why-group-is-auctioning-access-to-obama-for-500k/">video</a> reveals Carney did nothing more than read talking points from a prepared statement. “Administration officials routinely interact with outside advocacy organizations, and this has been true in prior administrations, and it is true in this one,” Carney insisted. He further insisted the president was prepared to do several things &#8220;to eliminate the corrosive influence of money in Washington.&#8221;</p>
<p>Yet Carney was pressed further by Fox News&#8217; Ed Henry. &#8220;You&#8217;re not denying the point that was reported by the <em>New York Times</em>, that even though (Obama) is for all those reforms, that if you give $500,000 or more to this group, you get access to the president,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The president is engaged in an effort to pass items on his agenda, and outside organizations that support that agenda…administration officials can meet with them, including the president,&#8221; Carney responded. &#8220;But the fact of the matter is this is an independent organization supporting an agenda.&#8221;</p>
<p>In other words, the answer is yes.</p>
<p>As for the agenda itself, OFA&#8217;s executive director, and Jon Carson illuminated the opening salvo of causes to prospective donors in a conference call last Wednesday, according to those involved. “There are wins we can have on guns and immigration,” he contended. “We have to change the conventional wisdom on those issues.”</p>
<p>The effort to change the conventional wisdom is made far easier by a state-of-the-art technological infrastructure with access to the president&#8217;s 2 million volunteers, 17 million e-mail subscribers, 22 million Twitter followers, and virtually every registered voter in the country. That technology allows OFA to deliver millions of messages in several different formats, including Facebook, Twitter, email and texts. It has already been used to pump up support for the president&#8217;s State of the Union speech, and his gun-control agenda.</p>
<p>OFA was <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-campaign-20130119,0,7910410.story">launched</a> on January 18. At the time, the president sent out an email with the subject line &#8220;Say you&#8217;re in,&#8221; to his supporters. He promised them OFA would constitute &#8220;an unparalleled force in American politics&#8230;turn our shared values into legislative action&#8212;and it&#8217;ll empower the next generation of leaders in our movement.&#8221;</p>
<p>OFA&#8217;s roster includes 2012 Obama campaign manager Jim Messina as Chairman of the Board, and Obama advisor David Axelrod as a consultant. Other members of the group, based in Washington and Chicago, include 2008 Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, and other longtime supporters, such as Robert Gibbs, Stephanie Cutter, Jennifer O&#8217;Malley Dillon, Erik Smith, Julianna Smoot, and technology entrepreneur and top campaign fundraiser Frank White.</p>
<p>To reiterate, presidential access requires $500,000 or more, which the group anticipates will fund at least half of its anticipated budget, expected to total $50 million. Yet in March, when OFA holds a “founders summit” at a hotel near the White House, donors willing to pony up $50,000 will be granted access to Jim Messina and Jon Carson.</p>
<p>President Obama’s willingness to make himself accessible to this organization and its high-rolling donors has come under criticism. “It just smells,” said Bob Edgar, the president of <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&amp;b=4860183">Common Cause</a>, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to holding elected officials accountable to the public. “The president is setting a very bad model setting up this organization.” At MSNBC, even the <a href="http://www.publiusforum.com/2010/07/20/top-ten-most-left-biased-american-journalists-4-chuck-todd-nbc/">reflexively liberal</a> Chuck Todd was <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2013/02/26/chuck-todd-declares-just-looks-bad-obama-nbc-news-skips-access-buying-w">incredulous</a>. &#8220;This just looks bad. It looks like the White House is selling access,&#8221; he contended. &#8220;The definition of how you define selling access. If you believe money has a stranglehold over the entire political system, this is ceding the moral high ground. And the President always has, from the moment he first announced his presidential bid in Springfield, six years ago, he stressed the need to curb the influence of special interests in Washington.&#8221;</p>
<p>One needn&#8217;t go back six years. In 2010, when the Supreme Court <a href="http://cnsnews.com/node/60484">ruled</a> in favor of rescinding government-imposed restrictions on free speech, President Obama railed against the decision. “With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,” he said. “It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”</p>
<p>Thus, the hypocrisy is breathtaking. And it is further amplified by the president&#8217;s effort to <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/barack-obamas-new-grassroots-group-tied-to-big-liberal-donors-corporations-86708.html">characterize</a> OFA as an organization powered by &#8220;grass roots activists.&#8221; Yet according to Politico, OFA has &#8220;closely affiliated itself with insider liberal organizations funded by mega-donors like George Soros and corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Citi and Duke Energy,&#8221; as well as &#8220;the same rich donors who backed Obama’s campaigns, asking for help from Democratic donors and bundlers in town for the Inauguration at a closed-door corporate-sponsored confab that featured Bill Clinton as the keynote speaker.&#8221;</p>
<p>None of this should surprise anyone. Barack Obama has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he is willing to advance his agenda by any means necessary, even if he is revealed as an overt liar and unbridled hypocrite in the process. During his inaugural address, Obama <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/21/transcript-president-obama-inaugural-address/">claimed</a>, &#8220;We do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky or happiness for the few.&#8221; On the other hand, access to the president is reserved for those with $500,000 or more.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obamas-non-profit-sells-political-access/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>It&#8217;s the Message and Yes the Messengers &#8212; NOT the Voters</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/its-the-message-and-yes-the-messengers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=its-the-message-and-yes-the-messengers</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/its-the-message-and-yes-the-messengers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:02:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 message]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=174325</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Anyone remember a Republican attack ad from the 2012 campaign? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/its-the-message-and-yes-the-messengers/mitt_romney_/" rel="attachment wp-att-174327"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-174327" title="mitt_romney_" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/mitt_romney_-450x243.jpg" alt="" width="315" height="170" /></a>Bruce Thornton, a highly intelligent and eloquent writer is one hundred percent wrong <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-thornton/its-not-the-message-its-not-the-messenger-its-the-voter/">in attributing </a>the Republican election loss to the alleged fact that 47% of the country are now “takers” from government. If Thornton is right, how is it that Republicans were the minority party in 1960 and 1964, before Medicare and all the entitlements that followed the Great Society programs were in place? I say that 47% takers is an “alleged fact” because millions of veterans receive benefits that they made sacrifices for, and millions of older people receive medicare and social security assistance that they also paid for. Moreover, millions of Republican voters are among these so-called takers, and millions more have children who took government loans to get through college.</p>
<p>Asian Americans voted 70% for Obama. Because they are takers? These are entrepreneurial, traditional value, family oriented Americans. They have Republican values. They are welfare averse. Yet they voted for Obama because he persuaded them that he cared about minorities, and Republicans didn’t. That is they didn&#8217;t communicate to America&#8217;s minority populations that they cared for them. It&#8217;s always so easy to blame others for your own screw ups.</p>
<p>The 2012 campaign was all about message. Romney and the Republicans were tarred and feathered for imaginary crimes – wars against women (no free contraceptives), minorities and the middle class. The Democrats&#8217; message machine blistered their opponents day in day out. Anyone remember a Republican attack ad? Republicans didn’t lay a finger on Obama and the Democrats for <em>their</em> wars against women, minorities and the middle class. They hardly mentioned the suffering of these groups under Obama’s policies. They didn’t dare raise the issue of his betrayal of all our soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq to keep it from falling into the hands of Iran. They were silent over his criminal betrayal of our embassy in Benghazi, and the fact that he has aided and abetted the Muslim Brotherhood in its conquest of the Middle East. That he is supplying weapons to Al-Qaeda.</p>
<p>There is a famous poem by Bertolt Brecht called The Solution about the revolts against the Soviet occupation of East Germany. It’s a sad day when Frontpage and a gifted writer like Bruce Thornton embrace this solution:</p>
<p><a title="Die Lösung" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_L%C3%B6sung" target="_blank">The Solution</a></p>
<p>After the uprising of the 17th of June<br />
The Secretary of the Writers Union<br />
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee<br />
Stating that the people<br />
Had forfeited the confidence of the government<br />
And could win it back only<br />
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier<br />
In that case for the government<br />
To dissolve the people<br />
And elect another?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/its-the-message-and-yes-the-messengers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>66</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hollywood&#8217;s Last-Minute Push for Obama</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/hollywoods-last-minute-push-for-obama/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hollywoods-last-minute-push-for-obama</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/hollywoods-last-minute-push-for-obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:43:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Tapson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[celebrities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chris Rock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kathy griffin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[will ferrell]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=163972</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tinseltown is panicking. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/hollywoods-last-minute-push-for-obama/cher_kathy_griffin_psa_-_h_2012/" rel="attachment wp-att-164030"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-164030" title="cher_kathy_griffin_psa_-_h_2012" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/cher_kathy_griffin_psa_-_h_2012.gif" alt="" width="315" height="232" /></a>Right on the heels of President Obama’s very revealing statement encouraging his supporters to vote out of a sense of revenge, comes a spate of last-minute pushes by his loyal (but gradually dwindling) supporters in Hollywood, attempting to help him get those voters to the polls.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/will-ferrell-president-obama-ad-386245">a video</a> posted Saturday on the Obama camp’s YouTube Channel, comedian Will Ferrell addresses the camera with “I will do anything to get you to go out and vote November sixth. I’m not kidding.” In a smoking jacket adorned with an Obama 2012 pin, he promises to do a little dance, eat anything we tell him to, even punch himself in the face, if we go to the polls and vote Obama. Ferrell helped raise funds for Hollywood’s President in 2008, and <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/barack-obama-hollywood-foo-fighters-will-ferrell-fundraiser-291403" target="_blank">co-hosted</a> a $38,000 a person fundraiser for him in February.</p>
<p>An anti-Romney <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cher-kathy-griffin-slam-mitt-386235">political spot</a>, paid for by the pro-Obama <a href="http://jcer.info/candidates">Jewish Council for Education and Research</a>, was released by former singer Cher and buzzsaw-voiced comedienne Kathy Griffin. The idiotically-titled “Don&#8217;t Let Mitt Turn Back Time on Women&#8217;s Rights” features footage of Romney stumping for Richard Mourdock, the U.S. Senate candidate who came under fire for saying that “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” The video also attempts to link Romney to Senate candidate Todd Akin, who said in August that women’s bodies could prevent pregnancy in instances of “legitimate rape.”</p>
<p>What the Cher-Griffin ad doesn’t mention is that the Romney camp <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/mitt-romney-richard-mourdock_n_2007559.html">stated</a> that “he disagrees with Richard Mourdock&#8217;s comments, and they do not reflect his views.&#8221; Romney also <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/08/todd-akin-rape-mitt-romney-paul-ryan-/1">denounced</a> Akin’s comments as “inexcusable,” “insulting,” and “wrong.”</p>
<p>“There’s a lot at stake for women and people who like and respect women,” Cher says to the camera, clinging desperately to the left’s talking point that the sole issue in this election is “women’s rights.” She calls Republican candidates’ attitudes toward women “sick stuff,” and she and Griffin joke about Romney running mate Paul Ryan being “the guy who looks like Dracula.” The only funny thing about this ad’s jocular tone is the sight of someone who looks like an <em>Addams Family</em> cast member ridiculing the cleancut Ryan as a Dracula-lookalike, but Cher isn’t known for her wit or political acumen, not even by her fans. She was recently found to be the fifth <em>least</em> credible political celebrity by a <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/election-donald-trump-clint-eastwood-385762">poll released this week</a> by entertainment industry website <em>The Hollywood Reporter</em> (<em>THR</em>).</p>
<p>That Oct. 29 <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/election-donald-trump-clint-eastwood-385762">survey</a> of likely voters showed that politically opinionated celebrities definitely have the power to affect elections. But some of the most influential celebrities actually steer voters toward the <em>opposite</em> of what they recommend, which accounts for why Donald Trump comes in second place in this <em>THR</em> list of celebrities who make the highest percentage of voters more likely to support Democrats, and why Oprah Winfrey appears on the list for Republican supporters:</p>
<p>Oprah Winfrey and Ellen DeGeneres (12%)<br />
Donald Trump (11%)<br />
George Clooney (9%)<br />
Tina Fey (8%)<br />
Eva Longoria and Clint Eastwood (7%)<br />
Katy Perry and Bruce Springsteen (6%)<br />
Meat Loaf and Cher (4%)<br />
Lena Dunham (3%)</p>
<p>If you’re unfamiliar with Lena Dunham, she is the doughy face of the recent “<a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/like-a-virgin-obama-ad-sets-a-new-low/">My First Time</a>” video comparing voting for Obama to losing one’s virginity.</p>
<p>The top five most politically credible celebs for Obama voters are, in order:</p>
<p>Oprah Winfrey<br />
George Clooney<br />
Ellen DeGeneres<br />
Tina Fey<br />
Barbra Streisand</p>
<p>The <em>least</em>-credible political celebs for Obama voters are:</p>
<p>Donald Trump<br />
Kid Rock<br />
Meat Loaf<br />
Clint Eastwood<br />
Katy Perry</p>
<p>For Romney voters, the top five most-trusted are:</p>
<p>Clint Eastwood<br />
Donald Trump<br />
Oprah Winfrey<br />
George Clooney<br />
Ellen DeGeneres</p>
<p><em>Least</em> credible celebs for Romney voters:</p>
<p>Ellen DeGeneres<br />
Katy Perry<br />
Cher<br />
Eva Longoria<br />
Tina Fey</p>
<p>Who cares about the endorsements of modern-day court jesters, you may well ask? Younger voters do, and that’s why the Obama campaign is targeting them again, as they did successfully in the previous election. Pop singer Katy Perry’s appearance, for example, on the list of least credible stars for Obama voters is misleading, because another <em>THR</em> <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/poll-katy-perry-more-credible-386176">poll</a> shows that likely voters under 35 find her<strong> </strong>eight times more credible as a political spokesperson than older voters do. The enormously popular Perry, wearing a skin-tight dress designed like a voting ballot with the box for Obama checked off, <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/president-obama-katy-perry-draw-386241">performed</a> last week at a rally for Obama <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/obama-rally-katy-perry-performs-383053">in Las Vegas</a> and at another one in Milwaukee over the weekend.</p>
<p>Lesser celebrity music stars <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/president-obama-bill-clinton-dave-386252">assisting</a> in their Messiah’s last-minute campaigning include aging rocker John Mellencamp, aging indie rocker Dave Matthews, and soon-to-be aging “recording artist” will.i.am (yes, that’s how he spells it, to let you know he’s an artist).</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/thr/news/~3/_EN9U_KlnRs/story01.htm">satirical spot</a> on ABC’s <em>Jimmy Kimmel Live</em> Friday, comedian Chris Rock aimed to provide proof that Obama is whiter than Romney, in hopes of helping Obama close Romney’s substantial lead with white voters. According <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Walshs-Washington/2012/10/29/obama-coming-up-short-with-white-voters">to a recent <em>Washington Post</em>/ABC News poll</a>, Obama trails Romney with white voters by more than 23 points while leading non-white voters with 79 percent.</p>
<p>As evidence of the president’s whiteness, Rock served up photos and footage of Obama playing golf, wearing “mom jeans” at a baseball game, and dancing on <em>The Ellen Degeneres Show</em>. Rock notes that Obama formerly went by Barry, “the third whitest name on Earth.” And after college, the president went into black Chicago neighborhoods to organize people. “How white is that? Black people don’t go into black communities,” Rock says. “We don’t have to. We’re already there.”</p>
<p>Finally, Rock demonstrates that Romney is actually blacker than Obama by showing a picture of the president’s four-member immediate family, and contrasting it with a panoramic view of Romney’s extended clan. “Kids. Cousins. Aunts. Uncles. Mitt Romney’s family has more people in it than a Tyler Perry movie,” Rock says, referring to the highly successful creator of films aimed at black audiences.</p>
<p>Chris Rock’s video may have the unintentional effect of aiding Romney, because it’s actually Obama who is being gently mocked. In fact, this time around, Hollywood cheerleading in general may unintentionally aid Romney, because Americans are becoming increasingly fed up with out-of-touch celebrities who won’t just <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Shut-Up-Sing-Hollywood-Subverting/dp/0895260816/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1352064190&amp;sr=8-3&amp;keywords=shut+up+and+sing">shut up and sing</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/hollywoods-last-minute-push-for-obama/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>54</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s a Winner &#8212; In Europe at Least</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-bawer/obamas-a-winner-in-europe-at-least/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamas-a-winner-in-europe-at-least</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-bawer/obamas-a-winner-in-europe-at-least/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:42:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Bawer]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capitalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Denmark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Socialism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wealth redistribution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=163870</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The president gets campaign help from socialist Scandinavia.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-bawer/obamas-a-winner-in-europe-at-least/20110521_obama-europe_33/" rel="attachment wp-att-163888"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-163888" title="20110521_obama-europe_33" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/20110521_obama-europe_33.gif" alt="" width="315" height="234" /></a>Chris Matthews isn&#8217;t alone.  Gunvor Holm Vibroe, a Danish woman who traveled all the way from her homeland to the state of Ohio to campaign for President Obama, &#8220;trembled in her pants&#8221; when she met the great man in person, she <a href="http://politiken.dk/udland/ECE1801175/dansker-moeder-obama-i-ohio-han-havde-varme-haender/">confided</a> to the Danish newspaper <em>Politiken</em>. &#8220;I&#8217;m still trembling a little in my pants,&#8221; she confessed.</p>
<p>When she told Obama that she was Danish and had traveled to Ohio to help out with his re-election campaign, he was impressed.  “You came all the way from Denmark to work for me?  Wow!” he said.</p>
<p>“He was very moved by that,” Gunvor said.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s been widely reported that while the ecstatic European enthusiasm that Obama enjoyed early in his term has long since subsided, he would still receive the overwhelming majority of votes on Tuesday if it were up to European citizens to choose between him and Governor Mitt Romney.  “A survey of seven European nations, including longtime U.S. allies Britain and France, has found that Obama would win more than 90% of the vote if the respondents could cast ballots in Tuesday’s race,” <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/11/obama-winner-europe.html">reported</a> the <em>Los Angeles Times </em>last Thursday.  “The poll, which covered Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, found that Romney failed to garner more than 10% support in any of those countries. In Sweden and Denmark, the former Massachusetts governor fared even worse: Only 1 in 20 people named him as their choice.”</p>
<p>Apparently by way of explaining President Obama&#8217;s popularity in Europe relative to Romney, the <em>Times </em>sugested that, despite many disappointments with his record, such as his failure to close Guantánamo, “Obama is still seen as an inspirational figure.” But surely a major part of the reason why he&#8217;s the big favorite among Europeans is that his political views are far more aligned than Romney&#8217;s with those of your average European statist.  Europeans take Obamacare as a sign of the President&#8217;s acknowledgment that they&#8217;ve got health care right and we&#8217;ve got it wrong.  His eagerness to appease Islam, and to gut the First Amendment in order to do so, brings him closer than any previous occupant of the White House to the thinking of European leaders on the subject.  And so on.</p>
<p>European anti-Americanism has a long history, dating all the way back to colonial times.  Over the generations, it&#8217;s risen and fallen for various reasons.  During the last days of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan&#8217;s strong language about the Berlin Wall antagonized plenty of people in Western Europe who thought that the wall was there to stay, that the best approach to the situation was to make nice with the Russians, and that Reagan&#8217;s rhetoric was crude, sentimental cowboy nonsense that could only antagonize the Kremlin and make matters worse.</p>
<p>Europeans have always preferred American presidents who projected weakness and apologized for the U.S. to those who unapologetically asserted American strength, preached American values, and reminded Europeans, in one way or another, of their own dependence on American military defense.  Europeans don&#8217;t like U.S. presidents who go on about freedom; they prefer those who criticize capitalism and who seek to redistribute the wealth.  Above all, they&#8217;re attracted to a U.S. head of state who projects an air of not really, entirely, completely being American himself – whose own upbringing (in part) in another country sets him apart from his Oval Office predecessors and who delicately intimates, between the lines of his speeches, that he thinks of himself as a citizen of the world.</p>
<p>Europeans are also accustomed to, and most comfortable with, the idea of heads of government who have spent their lives in politics.  Obama&#8217;s rise from Chicago community organizer to Illinois congressman to senator to president of the Republic is something they understand.  By contrast, Romney&#8217;s background in business is, for them, not a reason to hope that he stands a better chance than the incumbent of rescuing the U.S. (and the world) from the economic mess it&#8217;s in but, rather, a cause for serious discomfort.  In their view, after all, one of the most important roles of government is to protect the people from the excesses of private enterprise – to keep corporations in line.  For Europeans, big business, not big government, is the enemy.  They don&#8217;t worry, as many Americans do, about entrepreneurs being overtaxed or bureaucratized to death by the state; they worry about the state being unduly influenced by evil capitalists.</p>
<p>Naturally they prefer Obama.</p>
<p>And naturally Obama’s re-election campaign, according to some sources, has <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/08/claim-obama-campaign-illegally-solicited-foreign-donors-via-social-media-website/">solicited</a> and <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bam_blind_eye_to_illegal_donors_8SWotytr1RvbhyDCRyyrEL">accepted</a> good-sized donations from Europeans who are eager to play a small part in his securing another four years in office – a practice which is, ahem, not quite legal.</p>
<p>Our friend Gunvor&#8217;s decision to make her way to Ohio and work for the Obama campaign came suddenly and at the last minute – specifically, Saturday before last.  On the spur of the moment, she decided to book a ticket to the Buckeye State, found somebody to stay with, and got herself a volunteer job at a campaign office, where her job is to phone registered voters or to go door-to-door singing the praises of the Commander- in-Chief.  It was while she was sitting there one day at the campaign office making her phone calls that Obama dropped in.  Gunvor, whose regular job is with <a href="http://www.danchurchaid.org/">DanChurchAid,</a> a charitable organization connected with the Danish National Evangelical Lutheran Church, told <em>Politiken</em> “that the president had warm hands, that he pressed her hand, and asked if she was enjoying the work.  He concluded the forty-five-second-long conversation with &#8216;Keep up the good work!&#8217;”</p>
<p>“It means a lot to me – and also to my children&#8217;s future – who will run the U.S. during the coming years,” Gunvor told the newspaper, and added: “I&#8217;m still trembling a little in my pants.”</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-bawer/obamas-a-winner-in-europe-at-least/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Have Sex With Barack Obama</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/have-sex-with-barack-obama/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=have-sex-with-barack-obama</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/have-sex-with-barack-obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 04:26:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Shapiro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lena Dunham]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[virginity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=163485</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hollywood makes its pitch.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/have-sex-with-barack-obama/lena_dunham_commercial_screenshot_cna_us_catholic_news_10_26_12/" rel="attachment wp-att-163515"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-163515" title="Lena_Dunham_commercial_screenshot_CNA_US_Catholic_News_10_26_12" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Lena_Dunham_commercial_screenshot_CNA_US_Catholic_News_10_26_12-442x350.gif" alt="" width="309" height="245" /></a>Hollywood has trotted out celebrity after celebrity to back Barack Obama. But none has had a greater impact on the presidential race than Lena Dunham, creator and star of HBO’s repulsive <em>Girls</em>. Dunham cut an ad for Obama in which she likened voting for the first time to losing one’s virginity. “Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody,” she cooed to the camera. “You want to do it with a great guy. It should be with a guy … who really cares about and understands women.”</p>
<p>And who is that cherished lover?</p>
<p>Why, it’s Barack Obama, of course! As Dunham describes Obama, “A guy who cares about whether you get health insurance, and specifically whether you get birth control. The consequences are huge. You want to do it with a guy who brought the troops out of Iraq. You don’t want a guy who says, ‘Oh hey, I’m at the library studying,’ when he’s really out not signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act.” And most importantly of all, Dunham says you don’t want to be caught still being a voting virgin after the election: “it’s super uncool to be out and about and someone says, “Did you vote,’ and ‘No, I didn’t vote, I wasn’t ready.’”</p>
<p>Dunham is widely perceived in Hollywood as the voice of her generation. Which is to say, my generation. To which I say, paraphrasing Ronald Reagan, I’ll sell my bonds.</p>
<p>But this is how the Obama campaign – and the left – views young people. We’re a bunch of sex-obsessed morons who don’t care about the economy. We don’t care about the future of the country. All we care about is condoms now, abortion later, and sexual freedom forever.</p>
<p>But that’s not us. That’s our parents.</p>
<p>The truth is that my generation does care about the economy. Half of us graduate from college without jobs to go to. More and more of us pile up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to get degrees in useless majors. Our college choices are rarely geared toward our future careers. We know that our taxes will be jacked up to pay for our parents’ and grandparents’ Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments. And we know that by the time we hit our parents’ age, the chances of us receiving those social welfare benefits are slim and none.</p>
<p>If we’re not getting married at the same rate as our grandparents, that’s our parents’ fault. Back in 1960, 72 percent of all adults were married; by 2010, it was down to 51 percent. Overall, 6.8 out of every 1,000 members of the US population get married each year. In 1960, that number was 8.5. That’s a substantial decline – but that number really began to decline steadily in approximately 1970. Our parents thought marriage was taboo; they celebrated sexual profligacy. That’s why so many more  middle-aged women seem to care about abortion than younger women. Polls show that 59 percent of people aged 18-34 want serious restrictions on abortion; 58 percent of those aged 35-54 say they don’t want serious restrictions. In other words, <em>older people</em> are more concerned with sex, abortion, and the rest of the Democratic social agenda than young people.</p>
<p>The truth is that Lena Dunham isn’t speaking to people of my generation. She’s speaking to post-menopausal women who spent their youths annoyed that they didn’t go to Woodstock, then got married, divorced, and married again – and now vote liberal to maintain a ghostly connection with the good old days they have otherwise severed in their conspicuous consumption. There are few young adults seriously concerned about the availability of condoms. Kids in college know that free condoms are just a dorm resident advisor away. These scare tactics simply don’t work.</p>
<p>And we’re not dumb enough to mistake sex for voting, either. Only our parents, who coined the notion that the personal is political, would make such an idiotic mistake. And only our parents worship politicians to the extent necessary to make decisions based on fantasies of which candidate they’d like to sleep with.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/have-sex-with-barack-obama/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>107</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Like a Virgin: Obama Ad Sets a New Low</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/like-a-virgin-obama-ad-sets-a-new-low/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=like-a-virgin-obama-ad-sets-a-new-low</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/like-a-virgin-obama-ad-sets-a-new-low/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:45:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Tapson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[birth control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Girls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lena Dunham]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=163168</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’m Barack Obama and I approved the worst political ad ever.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/like-a-virgin-obama-ad-sets-a-new-low/1351193304234-jpg-crop-rectangle3-large/" rel="attachment wp-att-163252"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-163252" title="1351193304234.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/1351193304234.jpg.CROP_.rectangle3-large.gif" alt="" width="315" height="217" /></a>You’re Barack Obama. It’s less than two weeks before the election, and your competition Mitt Romney is overtaking you. As with your first election, you depend heavily on new young voters, because grownups know you’re a bull****ter (as you projected onto Romney in your <em>Rolling Stone</em> <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-romneys-bulls_657708.html">interview</a>), so you need to send out a compelling message that wins them over in this final stretch of the race. What do you do? Why naturally, you approve a stunningly ridiculous political message featuring a vapid young woman comparing voting for you to having sex with you.</p>
<p>If you haven’t heard of Lena Dunham before, it’s because you’re not obsessed with the degrading hookup culture among today’s young people as depicted in HBO’s series <em>Girls</em>, a sort of poor woman’s <em>Sex and the City</em>. Dunham, 26, is the creator, writer, and star of the show, which has made her such an icon of her lost generation that her upcoming memoir of sexual experiences just <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/10/lena_dunham_book_deal_people_value_potential_over_achievement_in_books_sports.html">netted</a> a $3.7 million advance from Random House.</p>
<p>The Obama campaign released a one-minute <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6G3nwhPuR4&amp;feature=plcp">video</a> last week featuring Dunham encouraging first-time voters to take the plunge, speaking intimately to the camera as if giving advice to a teenager or fellow twenty-something female about losing her virginity. You read that right. You have to see this video to believe it – and even then, you might not. As <a href="http://twitter.com/keder/statuses/261600069281787904">Kevin Eder</a> at Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center put it, “I’ve now watched it four times. I refuse to believe that it’s a real, actual thing.”</p>
<p>It is a real, actual thing. It is the Obama campaign hitting a new, simultaneously desperate and contemptuous (and contemptible) low.</p>
<p>“Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody,” the tattooed Dunham begins creepily, her head so close to the camera that you find yourself leaning back in your chair as you watch. “You want to do it with a great guy. It should be with a guy with beautiful … somebody who really cares about and understands women.” Obama really cares about and understands women, and Romney doesn’t? Says who? Oh wait, I forgot that Republicans are waging a War on Women.</p>
<p>The video is full of “Huh?” moments like that, such as “You want to do it with a guy who brought the troops out of Iraq.” Huh? The troops left Iraq on a timeline established by George W. Bush. Obama is not responsible for “bringing the troops out of Iraq” any more than he is for <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191021/EXCLUSIVE-Obama-cancelled-missions-kill-bin-Laden-THREE-TIMES-getting-cold-feet--Hillary-Clinton-stepped-claims-explosive-new-book.html">killing Osama bin Laden</a>.</p>
<p>Dunham rambles on: You should do it with “a guy who cares about whether you get health insurance, and specifically whether you get birth control. The consequences are huge.” Huh? The consequences of not having your birth control paid for by the taxpayers are “huge”? Seriously? This is what Obama’s young supporters are concerned about? Under him, our economy is plunging off a cliff. Unemployment and energy prices have skyrocketed. Businesses are leaving the country. Our foreign policy is in a shambles. The country is more divided racially than at any time since the ‘60s. So many Muslim Brotherhood members are passing in and out of the White House, it’s like Grand Central Station. And this woman is horrified that a Romney win will mean she has to pay for her own birth control?</p>
<p>Dunham moves on to address what she apparently believes is another issue of critical importance: gay marriage. Don’t vote, she says, for a guy “who thinks that gay people should never have beautiful, complicated weddings of the kind we see on Bravo or TLC all the time.” The silliness of that comment aside, is she oblivious to the fact that the cynical Obama was <em>opposed</em> to gay marriage until his reelection campaign began and he decided it was politically convenient to claim that he had “evolved”?</p>
<p>Dunham’s not done yet: “It’s a fun game to say, ‘Who are you voting for?’ and they say ‘I don’t want to tell you!’ And you say, ‘No, who are you voting for?’ And they go, ‘Guess!’” This is just beyond embarrassing.</p>
<p>“Also,” Dunham continues, in case you didn’t have the stomach to keep watching, “it’s super uncool to be out and about and someone says, ‘Did you vote,’ and ‘No, I didn’t vote, I wasn’t ready.’” So she’s using peer pressure to get her generation to vote for Obama by telling them it’s uncool not to – like being a virgin. “My first time voting was amazing,” she says. “It was this line in the sand: Before I was a girl. Now I was a woman.” That’s doubtful, considering her juvenile presentation.</p>
<p>Parodies of the ad sprang up online almost immediately, most notably Steven Crowder’s disturbingly good one <a href="http://www.bookwormroom.com/2012/10/26/an-ad-that-invites-parodies/">here</a>, although the Dunham ad is already a parody of itself. Remember, this isn’t the usual pro-Obama celebrity video like one from the perpetually unfunny <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/the-celebrity-left%E2%80%99s-obsession-with-obscenity/">Sarah Silverman</a> or something slapped together for the comedy website “Funny or Die”; this is <em>a political advertisement authorized by the Obama campaign itself</em>. This is how Obama believes he can and should appeal to young Americans.</p>
<p><em>National Review Online</em>’s Jim Geraghty <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/331728/obamas-first-time-ad-layers-upon-layers-creepy">compiled</a> some flabbergasted responses of conservative bloggers. <a href="http://twitter.com/BiasedGirl/statuses/261609934712631296">Biased Girl</a> wonders, “Is that what this administration thinks Real women are like?” <a href="http://twitter.com/StacyOnTheRight/statuses/261616521829285888">Stacy Washington</a> tweeted, “The #MyFirstTime ad is the height of vulgarity. Tell me #Democrat Moms: Is this how you want the president talking to your daughters?” <a href="http://twitter.com/moelane/statuses/261603249520521216">Moe Lane</a> wrote, “I know I’m supposed to be shocked… but instead I’m embarrassed.” <a href="http://twitter.com/nydem49/statuses/261609888453632000">NY Dem49</a> has a word of advice for Obama: “Don’t create an ad you wouldn’t be comfortable with your daughter reciting.” Ace from <a href="http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334241.php">Ace of Spades</a> nails it:</p>
<blockquote><p>It’s hideous. It’s not funny, it’s not cute, and it’s not persuasive, unless you think the important issues in this campaign are Binders Full of Birth Control… It continues to be weird that Democrats want so bad to have sex with their cult leader.</p></blockquote>
<p>What this silly travesty of a political ad says is, Obama doesn’t respect young American women at all. He thinks, or hopes, that they’re too ignorant and self-absorbed to understand what the real issues are and to care about them, and that they can be lured to the voting booth with this sleazy trivialization of the voting process and of the state of our union.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/like-a-virgin-obama-ad-sets-a-new-low/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>46</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Biden, Obama and the Politics of Personal Destruction</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/biden-obama-and-the-politics-of-personal-destruction/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=biden-obama-and-the-politics-of-personal-destruction</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/biden-obama-and-the-politics-of-personal-destruction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2012 04:54:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Caroline Glick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Biden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Martha Raddatz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitt romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=148126</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The vice president's debate nastiness is the new Obama campaign strategy. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/biden-obama-and-the-politics-of-personal-destruction/joe-biden-paul-ryan-debate/" rel="attachment wp-att-148133"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-148133" title="joe-biden-paul-ryan-debate" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/joe-biden-paul-ryan-debate.gif" alt="" width="315" height="230" /></a>Visit <a href="http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2012/10/biden-obama-and-the-politics-o.php">CarolineGlick.com</a>.</strong></p>
<p>Thursday the <em>Wall Street Journal&#8217;s</em> Daniel Henninger published a column called <a href="http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443749204578048682120159150.html?mg=reno64-wsj">&#8220;Obama and the L-word.&#8221;</a> In it he described with disgust and dismay the way the Obama administration has been playing fast and loose with the term &#8220;liar&#8221; to describe Mitt Romney since Romney trounced Obama in last week&#8217;s presidential debate.</p>
<p>Henninger noted that the use of the term cheapens and coarsens the political discourse in the US in a manner that is unprecedented in US politics. He also noted rightly that this is not part of the American political tradition. It is of a piece with the propaganda of totalitarian regimes.</p>
<p>As he explained:</p>
<blockquote><p>The Obama campaign&#8217;s resurrection of &#8220;liar&#8221; as a political tool is odious because it has such a repellent pedigree. It dates to the sleazy world of fascist and totalitarian propaganda in the 1930s. It was part of the milieu of stooges, show trials and dupes. These were people willing to say anything to defeat their opposition. Denouncing people as liars was at the center of it. The idea was never to elevate political debate but to debauch it.</p>
<p>The purpose of calling someone a liar then was not merely to refute their ideas or arguments. It was to nullify them, to eliminate them from participation in politics. That&#8217;s what is so unsettling about a David Axelrod or David Plouffe following accusations of dishonesty and lies with &#8220;whether that person should sit in the Oval Office.&#8221; And that is followed by President Obama himself feeding the new line in stump speeches without himself ever using the L-word.</p>
<p>This Obama campaign is saying, &#8220;We don&#8217;t want to compete with Mitt Romney. We want to obliterate him.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Henninger ended his column by wondering how the Obama campaign&#8217;s post-presidential debate employment of this tactic against Romney would impact Biden&#8217;s debate performance.</p>
<p>And last night we got the answer. Throughout the debate, Biden treated Rep. Paul Ryan with contempt. He never responded to any of Ryan&#8217;s reasoned, substantive criticisms of Obama&#8217;s policies. He simply called him a liar, repeatedly. With no justification. He sneered. He guffawed. And he maligned Ryan for 90 minutes.</p>
<p>I watched the debate on Fox News. I suppose the commentators hadn&#8217;t read Henninger&#8217;s article. They were all expressing shock at Biden&#8217;s nastiness. They didn&#8217;t seem to recognize that it is part of the Obama campaign&#8217;s strategy.</p>
<p>Another aspect of this that both Henninger and the Fox commentators were too gentle to mention outright &#8211; although Henninger nearly did &#8212; is that the politics of personal destruction are based on projection. The side doing it is accusing their opponents of doing precisely what they are doing.</p>
<p>In last night&#8217;s debate, Biden lied, flat out lied, repeatedly. He lied about what the military thinks of the sequestration policy of gutting military budgets. He lied about what the intelligence community said about the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. He lied about how Medicare is impacted by Obamacare.</p>
<p>And that&#8217;s just off the top of my head.</p>
<p>A word about those lies. At least in the case of the Benghazi lie, Biden&#8217;s actions show how lies are part and parcel of how the Obama administration does its business on a daily basis.</p>
<p>The only basis for the claim that US intelligence said the attack on the consulate wasn&#8217;t a terror attack but a response to that stupid, irrelevant anti-Islam film on YouTube was a statement by James Clapper, Obama&#8217;s appointed Director of National Intelligence.</p>
<p>It must be said, Clapper is not a credible source.</p>
<p>Clapper has abused his office repeatedly to politicize intelligence and facts in order to advance the appeasement-of-Islamic-terrorists agenda of the president he serves.</p>
<p>This came across <a href="http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2012/07/the-muslim-brotherhoods-americ.php">most brazenly</a> during the uprising against longtime US ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. On Feb 10, 2011, the day before the Obama administration forced Hosni Mubarak to resign from the Egyptian presidency, Clapper appeared before the House Select Committee on Intelligence and told the Congressmen that the Muslim Brotherhood is a &#8220;largely secular&#8221; movement.</p>
<p>In his words, &#8220;The term &#8216;Muslim Brotherhood&#8217; is an umbrella term for a variety of movements. In the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaida as a perversion of Islam. They have pursued social ends, betterment of the political order in Egypt, etc.&#8221;</p>
<p>This was a complete lie and anyone with even a modicum of awareness about the Brotherhood &#8211; even without the benefit of classified information &#8211; knows that it is a lie. He should have been fired for saying such nonsense because it isn&#8217;t just wrong, it is dangerous, as we see today with the Muslim Brotherhood in charge in Egypt.</p>
<p>But this is par for the course for Obama appointees. And it shows the depths to which its officials will sink in order to push the President&#8217;s agenda.</p>
<p>Lies are not simply a campaigning tactic or strategy. They are the heart of how this administration does business.</p>
<p>Steven Hayes on Fox made the important point that in the space of just a couple of minutes Biden said US intelligence misled the administration on Libya and could be totally trusted to get Iran&#8217;s nuclear capabilities just right.</p>
<p>Do you feel safe with that assessment?</p>
<p>I was dismayed that Ryan didn&#8217;t just come out and attack Biden for doing what he was doing. But he was in a tight spot. Martha Raddatz, the moderator was there playing interference for Biden the whole time. Every time Ryan started making a point, she&#8217;d interrupt him and change the subject.</p>
<p>Aside from that I felt the age disparity worked in Biden&#8217;s favor because Ryan was obviously  trying to be deferential to his elder who clearly did not deserve any deference from him. Ryan was playing by the old rule book, treating his opponent with respect. Biden was playing by the Obama rulebook and treated his opponent with contempt as a means of destroying him personally.</p>
<p>Commentators all say that Ryan held his own. And that&#8217;s true and good for him, as far as that goes. But that isn&#8217;t the point.</p>
<p>The point is that Romney has been warned by Biden and the campaign. He needs to stay on offense. And that doesn&#8217;t just mean to defend his positions or call Obama on the failure of his policies. It means he needs to confront Obama on what he is doing in his campaign and refuse to pretend that this is business as usual.</p>
<p>The ugliness we saw last night is just a foretaste of what will come in the next three weeks and Romney better be ready.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/biden-obama-and-the-politics-of-personal-destruction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama Camp Has No Excuse for Foreign Funding Negligence</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/volpe/obama-camp-has-no-excuse-for-foreign-funding-negligence/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-camp-has-no-excuse-for-foreign-funding-negligence</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/volpe/obama-camp-has-no-excuse-for-foreign-funding-negligence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2012 04:35:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Volpe]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[donations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doodad pro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=147430</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An old problem comes back to haunt Team Obama. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/volpe/obama-camp-has-no-excuse-for-foreign-funding-negligence/download-2-3/" rel="attachment wp-att-147486"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-147486" title="download-(2)" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/download-21.gif" alt="" width="315" height="243" /></a>A new report from the Government Accountability Institute concludes that an alarming number of federal campaigns have made themselves vulnerable to illegal campaign contributions from foreigners. The campaigns of both presidential candidates were cited, with the campaign of President Obama given an especially large amount of scrutiny.</p>
<p>Highlights of the report include: that less than half of all congressional campaigns take the basic measures to protect against fraud; about forty percent of all traffic to President Obama’s official campaign website comes from foreign computers; lack of transparency on small donations makes it easy for foreigners to donate smaller amounts without being tracked; and that numerous foreign websites link to donation pages of various candidates.</p>
<p>“The Government Accountability Institute (GAI or ‘the Institute’) conducted an extensive eight month investigation into the potential for foreign and fraudulent online campaign donations to influence House, Senate, and presidential elections. The findings are alarming,” read the report.</p>
<p>Foreign donations are strictly illegal, and any campaign <em>knowingly</em> accepting foreign funds could be cited not only by the Federal Election Commission but charged in the criminal justice system. Still, the report concluded that outdated laws (which fail to address the use of social media and Internet) along with most campaigns&#8217; unwillingness to self-police have led to vulnerabilities.</p>
<p>Often, the report concluded, campaigns failed to take even the basic measures to protect against contributions from foreign investors. One easy method is to require a Card Verification Value (CVV) with any credit card donation. The CVV is the three (or occasionally four) digit number found on the back of credit cards. By requiring a CVV, a campaign could ensure that the individual donating is in possession of the card. The report found that of the 535 US legislators, only 47.2% of this year’s congressional pages require a CVV with a credit card donation.</p>
<p>The report also cited a lack of required reporting of donations under $200 as another area of vulnerability. For individual donations between $50-200, disclosure is only required in the event of an FEC audit, which, according to the report, almost never happens. For donations below $50, no reporting is required at all.</p>
<p>Allegations of foreign donations are nothing new for the Obama campaign, which has been well aware of its fundraising negligence in this regard for years. One case cited from the 2008 campaign was that of Mary T. Biskup, an individual from Missouri who made donations of over $174,000 in 2008, according to records from the FEC. Ms. Biskup was interviewed and claimed to have never made any donations to the Obama campaign, nor was her credit card used. The episode raises the specter that foreigners or others trying to make illegal campaign donations &#8212; of considerable sums &#8212; may have used her name to make donations.</p>
<p>In addition, the name &#8220;Doodad Pro&#8221; was on at least 791 individual donations to the Obama campaign in 2008 for a total of $19,065. One address given for this identity was of a small liquor store whose proprietors had no knowledge of the donations. A slew of other nonsense names also made large contributions with phony personal information given. These revelations produced a media uproar early on in Obama&#8217;s presidency, and were never satisfactorily addressed. With virtually no improvements to the system since 2008, what certainty do we have that illicit funding is not happening again this campaign season?</p>
<p>Part of the problem, as the GAI report pointed out, is that the Obama campaign doesn’t require a CVV in order to make a donation. A CVV is required before making a donation to Mitt Romney’s campaign. The report also found that a startling 43% of all visitors to <a href="http://mybarackobama.com/">mybarackobama.com</a> (the campaign’s official website) came from foreign computers. The study found that 11% of visitors to Mitt Romney’s website were foreigners.</p>
<p>The report concludes that between the large amounts of foreign traffic, along with not requiring CVVs, the Obama campaign is significantly vulnerable to illegal foreign donations.</p>
<p>“Though there is nothing inherently wrong with the President’s international attention, his donation pages’ lack of CVV means that this interest creates significant vulnerabilities for the integrity of the campaign’s donation process,” read the report.</p>
<p>A number of foreign bloggers have suggested that foreign donations to Obama are common place, the report cited.</p>
<p>“I have in practice given money to Obama, I had done it,” said an unidentified Norwegian blogger in the report.</p>
<p>A Dutch blogger named Dirk echoed similar thoughts. “I imagine many non-Americans have money transferred to the Obama campaign. It’s just too easy.”</p>
<p>The report also cited the case of Obama.com. Not owned by the Obama campaign itself, the website was owned for years by Robert Roche, an American expatriate living in Shanghai. Roche has been living in the Far East for more than two decades, but has also contributed regularly to Democratic candidates since he’s gone abroad.</p>
<p>The website Obama.com provides a direct link to the donation page on the official campaign website for the Obama campaign, and about 80% of all traffic to Obama.com comes from outside the US.</p>
<p>Probably not coincidentally, Roche has enjoyed great access to the White House. White House logs list nineteen visits by Roche since 2009. Roche was afforded a seat at President Obama’s head table during a 2011 State Dinner with Chinese President Hu Jintao.</p>
<p>The report recommended requiring CVVs for credit card donations. It also suggested the use of geo-location on all campaign websites. Geo-location software would identify a foreign Internet Protocol (a computer using the internet from a foreign country), and anyone with such an IP would then be required to prove they are a citizen. The report also recommended that rules for reporting donations less than $200 be increased to provide more transparency.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/volpe/obama-camp-has-no-excuse-for-foreign-funding-negligence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Panicked&#8217; Soros Bankrolls Obama Campaign</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/panicked-soros-bankrolls-obama-campaign/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=panicked-soros-bankrolls-obama-campaign</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/panicked-soros-bankrolls-obama-campaign/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2012 04:50:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democracy alliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Funding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mother jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[panicked]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soros]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=146223</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Did left-wing 'Mother Jones' spike a story revealing the radical mega-funder's true state of mind? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/George-Soros-007.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-146278" title="George-Soros-007" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/George-Soros-007.gif" alt="" width="375" height="251" /></a>George Soros is airdropping bushels of cash to the Obama campaign because the preeminent funder of the Left is reportedly “panicked” that Mitt Romney could win in November and halt America’s ongoing slide into socialist chaos and civil unrest.</p>
<p>Soros’s alarm at the prospect of a Romney victory may also have led him to squelch a report in the Soros-funded <em>Mother Jones</em> magazine that revealed his desperate state of mind.</p>
<p>“Is there possibly some panic among the liberal elite that the media are not telling us about? Amazingly, <em>Mother Jones</em> might have accidentally provided a clue – and then quickly covered it up,” <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/28/PANIC-George-Soros-To-Give-1-Million-to-Pro-Obama-PAC">opines</a> Big Journalism.</p>
<p>After Romney pulled even in recent national polls –and after pledging for the umpteenth time to get out of electoral politics– America’s anxious would-be undertaker committed to spending an extra $1.5 million on reelecting Obama and helping congressional Democrats. Soros previously bankrolled a leftist scheme called the <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/soros-election-rigging-scheme-collapses/">Secretary of State Project</a> that aspired to rig elections from coast to coast. He also <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/2011/10/21/george-soros-funds-occupy-wall-street/">indirectly funded</a> Occupy Wall Street.</p>
<p>A currency speculator and convicted inside-trader, Soros is a practiced hand-wringer who frequently tells gullible reporters he is getting out of electoral politics altogether. This is his mantra between elections even though he never actually follows through on the threat.</p>
<p>Soros openly favors the collapse of the greenback and the decline of America in general. “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States,” he has said. He has also said European-style socialism “is exactly what we need now.” He praises Communist China effusively, saying the brutal totalitarian nation that literally cuts babies from unauthorized pregnancies from the wombs of their mothers and <a href="http://www.infowars.com/man-crushed-by-road-flattening-truck-on-orders-of-chinese-officials/">runs over</a> eminent domain resisters with steam-rollers, has “a better-functioning government than the United States.”</p>
<p>Soros also seems to suffer from messianic delusions, describing himself as “some kind of god, the creator of everything.” During World War II, <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977">Soros accompanied</a> his guardian around Nazi-occupied Hungary as he confiscated the property of Soros’s fellow Jews. Years later he referred to that time as “probably the happiest year of my life” and “a very happy-making, exhilarating experience.”</p>
<p>Soros will give $1 million to Priorities USA Action, the super PAC that <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/shadow-party-strikes-with-romney-cancer-ad/">produced</a> the infamous TV ad in which ex-steelworker Joe Soptic falsely blamed his wife’s tragic cancer death on Romney. Soros is splitting $500,000 between Majority PAC and House Majority PAC, both of which back Democrats seeking congressional office, the <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/soros-gives-1-million-to-democratic-super-pac/"><em>New York Times</em></a> reports.</p>
<p>The Obama campaign also appears to be panicking. Chicago’s mayor, the ruthless former Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, is exiting the Obama campaign to help raise money for Priorities USA Action. If anyone can put together an ad more loathsome than the Soptic spot, Emanuel’s the man.</p>
<p>The new donations were announced by Soros spokesman Michael Vachon at a luncheon Thursday hosted by the <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7151">Democracy Alliance</a>, an invitation-only club for radical plutocrats. (Former President Bill Clinton and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were also in attendance.) Members of the ultra-secretive Democracy Alliance have committed to swamping Democrats and President Obama’s re-election campaign in an ocean of cash this year. Donations could easily reach $100 million or much more before Election Day, especially because other Democracy Alliance members are following Soros’s lead.</p>
<p>The ultra-secretive group, founded in 2005, is a financial clearinghouse that recommends to its wealthy members projects and groups that aspire to dismantle America as we know it, delivering the nation to Greek-style socialist mayhem. The group has directed untold hundreds of millions of dollars to left-of-center causes.</p>
<p>To quell rumors that he was unhappy with Obama, Soros sent an email to other luncheon guests saying, “I fully support the re-election of President Obama.” Soros wrote that he was “appalled by the Romney campaign, which is openly soliciting the money of the rich to starve the state of the money it needs to provide social services.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/panicked-soros-bankrolls-obama-campaign/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Hip-Hop President</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/michellemalkin/the-hip-hop-president/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-hip-hop-president</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/michellemalkin/the-hip-hop-president/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2012 04:25:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michelle Malkin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ambassador]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chris Stevens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Libya]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[radio]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=144050</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The nation's existential crises take second place to frivolous campaign stops. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/obamasunglasses.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-144052" title="obamasunglasses" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/obamasunglasses.gif" alt="" width="375" height="249" /></a>Wazzup, President Obama? You&#8217;ve got room on your schedule to schmooze hip-hop radio DJs, debate Nicki Minaj&#8217;s rap lyrics, hobnob with big donor celebs Jay-Z and Beyonce, and hang with Hollywood gossip TV anchors. _</p>
<p>We see your passion on the golf course, basketball court and beach. We see you late night on Letterman and Leno. We see your boundless energy on the campaign trail. We see your Twitter donation solicitations from dusk till dawn.</p>
<p>But when it comes time to play leader of the free world in times of international crisis, it&#8217;s &#8220;see ya, wouldn&#8217;t wanna be ya.&#8221; He&#8217;s all swag, no cattle.</p>
<p>I know I&#8217;m not the only one who was flabbergasted by Obama&#8217;s bloodless Rose Garden appearance following the planned two-part 9/11/12 jihadi attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.</p>
<p>Late as usual, the president ambled up to the podium 15 minutes behind schedule on Wednesday morning. Teleprompter-less, he spent the majority of his fleeting five-and-a-half-minute appearance with eyes downcast on his script.</p>
<p>With a grim Secretary of State Hillary Clinton looking over his shoulder, Obama delivered a flat, obligatory tribute to the murdered Americans. And then he read these words, drained of any iota of outrage, as if reading a local weather forecast. Or a fifth-grade book report. Or a dinner menu:</p>
<p>&#8220;The United States condemns (pauses, looks down) in the strongest terms (pauses) this outrageous and shocking attack (monotone). We&#8217;re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I&#8217;ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.&#8221;</p>
<p>Punctuated with noncommittal &#8220;uhs&#8221; and a pedestrian lilt, he read some more:</p>
<p>&#8220;And make no mistake (eyes looking down). Uh. We will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people (eyes down, flipping page).&#8221;</p>
<p>In a bland and unconvincing recitation, Obama stated perfunctorily: &#8220;No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.&#8221; Looking down at his script again, he hurried along: &#8220;We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.</p>
<p>And make no mistake, justice will be done.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/michellemalkin/the-hip-hop-president/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Media Yawn at Obama Hurricane Reaction</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/media-yawn-at-obama-hurricane-reaction/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=media-yawn-at-obama-hurricane-reaction</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/media-yawn-at-obama-hurricane-reaction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2012 04:35:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FEMA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hurricane Isaac]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hurricane katrina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Louisiana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitt romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=142498</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Continuing a long track record of covering the President's non-response to natural disasters. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/a-obama-westx-large.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-142509" title="a-obama-westx-large" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/a-obama-westx-large.gif" alt="" width="375" height="240" /></a>After Hurricane Katrina struck Louisiana on August 29, 2005 president George W. Bush was excoriated by the mainstream media for his lack of compassion as well as the racist undertones that ostensibly precipitated it. The media fanned the flames even hotter when Bush was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/06/bush-katrina-photo-mistake_n_779527.html">photographed</a> flying over New Orleans to survey the damage two days later. Hurricane Isaac struck Louisiana on August 29, 2012 inundating that state with up to <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/weather/storms/story/2012-08-29/hurricane-isaac-wednesday/57401670/1">22 inches</a> of rain. Yet President Obama waited until Monday, four days after disaster struck, to visit that state. Americans are still waiting for the Democratic president to get even a modicum of the same kind of criticism the media so willingly applied to the president Bush.</p>
<p>That is not to say no criticism at all was meted out. In a remarkable, albeit inadvertent testament to their own bias, several media outlets criticized Republican Mitt Romney for taking time from his campaign to <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-hurricane-20120831,0,2951507.story">visit</a> Louisiana last Friday, one day after the GOP convention ended. The <em>Washington Post</em> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/31/harry-reid-romneys-attention-to-storm-relief-the-height-of-hyprocrisy/">ran</a> a prominent story featuring Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who recently accused Romney of being a tax cheat, absent a shred of evidence to back up his claims.</p>
<p>This time Romney is a hypocrite. “It is the height of hypocrisy for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to make a pretense of showing sympathy for the victims of Hurricane Isaac when their policies would leave those affected by this disaster stranded and on their own,” Reid said. “If Paul Ryan and his fellow House Republicans had succeeded in blocking disaster relief last fall, there would have been no aid for the victims of Isaac today. And Paul Ryan’s budget would gut disaster funding, making it much harder to get aid to our fellow Americans in their time of need,” he added.</p>
<p>That meme was picked up by the <em>Huffington Post</em>, which <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/harry-reid-mitt-romney_n_1847708.html">posted</a> a bit more of Reid&#8217;s outburst and its standardized Democratic talking points. &#8220;This is yet another example of Mitt Romney&#8217;s extreme right wing agenda, which asks middle class families to sacrifice in order to protect millionaires and billionaires from paying their fair share,&#8221; Reid said. The Daily Kos referred to Romney as the &#8220;Pretend President&#8221; and called his visit to the state &#8220;an odd and self-centered distraction,&#8221; and a &#8220;photo-op&#8221; hiding the fact that Romney intends to give first responders a pink slip if he becomes president.</p>
<p>President Obama? &#8220;Obama has gone to great lengths to show that he is on top of the response to Isaac,&#8221; <a href="http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/usa-campaign-romney-idINL2E8JVKJQ20120831">reported</a> Reuters<em>.</em> &#8220;He made several references to the storm in his campaign remarks this week and said he had been in contact with various federal agencies.&#8221; For anyone inclined to check, the same thing could have been said about Bush&#8217;s <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/society/katrina_what_happened_when.html">response</a> to Hurricane Katrina. On August 27, 2005, two days before the storm hit, Bush was asked by then-Governor Kathleen Blanco to declare a state of emergency for the state of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina.  Bush did so, authorizing the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA &#8220;to coordinate all disaster relief efforts…&#8221; The former president also freed up federal money to assist the state.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/media-yawn-at-obama-hurricane-reaction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Yes, Romney&#8217;s Welfare Ad Is Accurate</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ann-coulter/yes-romneys-welfare-ad-is-accurate/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=yes-romneys-welfare-ad-is-accurate</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ann-coulter/yes-romneys-welfare-ad-is-accurate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 04:35:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ann Coulter]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kathleen Sebelius]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[welfare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[work requirement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=142106</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Respected left-wing figures who agree with the ad are curiously being ignored by the Left. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/100818_mitt_romney_ap_328.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-142157" title="100818_mitt_romney_ap_328" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/100818_mitt_romney_ap_328.gif" alt="" width="375" height="264" /></a>Poor Mickey Kaus. He&#8217;s the liberal intellectual (not an oxymoron &#8212; he&#8217;s the last known living &#8220;liberal intellectual&#8221;) lefties on TV are usually stealing from, but now that this welfare reform maven has concluded that Romney&#8217;s welfare ad is basically correct, liberals refuse to acknowledge his existence.</p>
<p>The non-Fox media have formed a solid front in denouncing Romney&#8217;s welfare ad for daring to point out that Obama has gutted the work requirements of the 1996 welfare reform bill.</p>
<p>The New York Times claims that Romney&#8217;s ad &#8220;falsely&#8221; charges Obama with eliminating work requirements. CNN rates the ad &#8220;false.&#8221; Underemployed hack Howard Fineman says Romney&#8217;s ad &#8220;is just flat out wrong on the facts&#8221; and &#8220;that every fair analyst, every fact checker&#8221; has said it&#8217;s &#8220;just factually wrong.&#8221;</p>
<p>When a campaign ad induces this much hysteria, you know Romney has struck gold. On closer examination, it turns out that by &#8220;every fair analyst,&#8221; Fineman means a bunch of liberals quoting one another.</p>
<p>This is how the media&#8217;s &#8220;fact checkers&#8221; operate when it comes to a Republican campaign ad. One not very well-informed person (or a heavily biased person) announces that Romney&#8217;s welfare ad is false, and the rest of the herd quote him, without anyone ever bothering to examine the facts, much less citing anyone who knows what he&#8217;s talking about.</p>
<p>It is striking that everyone who actually knows something about the 1996 welfare reform law says that Romney&#8217;s ad is accurate.</p>
<p>One of the principal authors of the 1996 welfare reform, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, and Douglas Besharov, who advised Hillary Clinton on the 1996 welfare reform law, say Romney&#8217;s ad is accurate.</p>
<p>Andrew Grossman, also of Heritage, produced something the MSM &#8220;fact checkers&#8221; avoid: a specific and detailed explanation of how the new waivers will allow states to evade the work requirements.</p>
<p>Even Ron Haskins, one of the reform bill&#8217;s authors now at the liberal Brookings Institution &#8212; cited far and wide for &#8220;blasting&#8221; Romney&#8217;s ad &#8212; doesn&#8217;t deny the Obama administration plans to waive the work requirements. He just says he supports waivers for &#8220;job training.&#8221; That&#8217;s not disputing the accuracy of Romney&#8217;s ads.</p>
<p>A lot of Americans don&#8217;t support waiving the work requirements, even for &#8220;job training.&#8221; Mitt Romney thinks they should know that that&#8217;s what Obama is doing.</p>
<p>And liberal Kaus &#8212; whom liberal hacks are usually plagiarizing from &#8212; has written a series of blog posts explaining in detail why the Times is wrong and Romney&#8217;s ad is not incorrect. True, he says the ad is &#8220;oversimplified,&#8221; but I think most people grasp that a 30-second ad will not provide the lush analytical detail of a Kausfiles blog posting.</p>
<p>We know liberals are reading Kausfiles; why aren&#8217;t they stealing from him this time?</p>
<p>As Kaus explains, HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius has interpreted the welfare law to allow her to waive work requirements &#8220;subject only to her opinion&#8221; as to what will serve the purposes of the law.</p>
<p>By viewing the work requirements as optional, subject to her waiver, Kaus says, the law has been &#8220;altered dramatically&#8221;: &#8220;Old system: Congress writes the requirements, which are &#8230; requirements. New system: Sebelius does what she wants &#8212; but, hey, you can trust her!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ann-coulter/yes-romneys-welfare-ad-is-accurate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What the Ryan Choice Means for November</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-thornton/what-the-ryan-choice-means-for-november/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=what-the-ryan-choice-means-for-november</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-thornton/what-the-ryan-choice-means-for-november/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 04:45:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Thornton]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vice president]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=140221</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A stark choice awaits voters.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/gty_paul_ryan_mitt_romney_2_jt_120811_wg.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-140238" title="gty_paul_ryan_mitt_romney_2_jt_120811_wg" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/gty_paul_ryan_mitt_romney_2_jt_120811_wg.gif" alt="" width="375" height="247" /></a>Last week’s poll numbers seemingly confirmed the doubts about democracy’s viability expressed in last week’s <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-thornton/will-democracy%E2%80%99s-critics-be-proven-right-this-november/">column</a>. After a barrage of outrageous smears fired off by the Obama campaign, which accused Romney of killing a woman with cancer and failing to pay any income tax, Obama is leading Romney by 7-9 points. Coming on top of the continuing approval of Obama’s economically disastrous, class-envious assault on the “rich,” the success of patent lies in improving Obama’s numbers makes one think that democracy’s critics may be right: most people lack the ability to see past their selfish, short-term interests and make electoral decisions that benefit the state as a whole.</p>
<p>But let’s not give up on democracy yet. Mitt Romney’s pick of Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential candidate should give us hope that maybe a critical mass of Americans will rise above petty self-interest and do what must be done to keep the United States from morphing into California on its way to becoming Greece on steroids.</p>
<p>Judged solely on political expediency, Romney’s choice seems a disaster. According to “one of the country&#8217;s most prominent and influential conservatives,” as the Huffington Post <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-fineman/rep-paul-ryan-vp_b_1768137.html">claims</a> of its anonymous commentator, Ryan is too much like Romney, a wonky white guy too polished and detached from the average American. Ryan, this unknown Solon continues, can’t deliver any electoral votes, is too obsessive about the deficit, has been tarred by his zeal to reform Medicare, and fails the “3 A.M. crisis call” test. No wonder some Democrats are happy about the choice. “Democrats are gleefully united in bashing Rep. Paul Ryan,” Politico’s John Bresnahan <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79613.html">writes</a>, “blasting him as the author of the controversial ‘Ryan budget,’ claiming his proposals ‘end Medicare,’ and warning that his policies will return the country to the ‘trickle-down economics’ of the 1980s and the presidency of George W. Bush.”</p>
<p>We’ll soon know if the Dems are whistling past the graveyard. But if we forget political expediency and think about principle, the choice of Paul Ryan should give us hope that the defining crisis of our times––the fiscal apocalypse fast approaching if we don’t cut back on spending, debt, and deficits––will be confronted, and the tough policies needed to mitigate it be frankly acknowledged.</p>
<p>Paul Ryan has been the only politician to do just that. His budget <a href="http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf">plan</a> cuts spending to 20% of GDP by 2022, cuts the deficit to 2% of GDP by 2050, and reforms the tax code so that revenues stay near the historical 20% level by 2015, saving $5 trillion. In contrast, under Obama’s budget, spending rises to 24%. If nothing is done to rein in spending, debt will rise to 800% of GDP. And if history is any guide––tax revenues average around 20% no matter how high the rates–– Obama’s plan to raise tax rates will not generate enough money to pay the government’s bills. That’s why the Ryan plan reforms the tax code to make it more efficient and more pro-growth while maintaining revenues. Finally, given that entitlement spending will devour all tax revenues by 2050, the Ryan plan reforms Medicaid and Medicare, controlling cost by adding choice and market competition to both programs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-thornton/what-the-ryan-choice-means-for-november/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1466/1539 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 12:56:14 by W3 Total Cache -->