Barack Obama: The Celebrity President

When you're President is best pals with the immoral, anti-God, Hollywood Left you just know that something's not right with our leadership. I mean Sarah Jessica Parker putting ending a war on the same scale as "marrying whoever you want"?!?:

Queen Elizabeth II celebrated her Diamond Jubilee a few days ago — that’s 60 years on the throne. Just to put it in perspective, she’s been queen since Harry S. Truman was president. At any rate, her jubilee has been a huge success, save for a few churlish republicans in various corners of Her Majesty’s realms from London to Toronto to Sydney pointing out how absurd it is for grown citizens to be fawning over a distant head of state who lives in a fabulous, glittering cocoon entirely disconnected from ordinary life.

Which brings us to President Obama.


Last week, the republic’s citizen-president passed among his fellow Americans. Where? Cleveland? Dubuque? Presque Isle, Maine? No, Beverly Hills. These days, it’s pretty much always Beverly Hills or Manhattan, because that’s where the money is. That’s the Green Zone, and you losers are outside it. Appearing at an Obama fundraiser at the home of Glee creator Ryan Murphy and his “fiancé” David Miller, the president, reasonably enough, had difficulty distinguishing one A-list Hollywood summit from another. “I just came from a wonderful event over at the Wilshire or the Hilton — I’m not sure which,” said Obama, “because you go through the kitchens of all these places and so you never are quite sure where you are.”


Ah, the burdens of stardom. The old celebrities-have-to-enter-through-the-kitchen line. The last time I heard that was a couple of decades back in London when someone was commiserating with Sinatra on having to be ushered in through the back. Frank brushed it aside. We were at the Savoy, or maybe the Waldorf. I can’t remember, and I came in through the front door. Oddly enough, the Queen enters hotels through the lobby. So do Prince William and his lovely bride. A month ago, they stayed at a pub in Suffolk for a friend’s wedding, and came in through the same door as mere mortals. Imagine that!


So far this year, President Obama has been to three times as many fundraisers as President Bush had attended by this point in the 2004 campaign. This is what the New York Post calls his “torrid pace,” although judging from those remarks in California he’s about as torrid as an overworked gigolo staggering punchily through the last mambo of the evening. According to Brendan J. Doherty’s forthcoming book The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign, Obama has held more fundraisers than the previous five presidents’ reelection campaigns combined.


This is all he does now. But hey, unlike those inbred monarchies with their dukes and marquesses and whatnot, at least he gets out among the masses. Why, in a typical week, you’ll find him at a fundraiser at George Clooney’s home in Los Angeles with Barbra Streisand and Salma Hayek. These are people who are in touch with the needs of ordinary Americans because they have played ordinary Americans in several of their movies. And then only four days later the president was in New York for a fundraiser hosted by Ricky Martin, the only man on the planet whose evolution on gayness took longer than Obama’s. It’s true that moneyed celebrities in, say, Pocatello or Tuscaloosa have not been able to tempt the president to hold a lavish fundraiser in Idaho or Alabama, but he does fly over them once in a while. Why, only a week ago, he was on Air Force One accompanied by Jon Bon Jovi en route to a fundraiser called Barack on Broadway.


Any American can attend an Obama event for a donation of a mere $35,800 — the cost of the fundraiser hosted by Dreamworks honcho Jeffrey Katzenberg, and the one hosted by Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg, and the one hosted by Will Smith and Jada Pinkett, and the one hosted by Melanie Griffith and Antonio Banderas, and the one hosted by Crosby, Stills, and Nash. $35,800 is a curiously non-round figure. Perhaps the ticket cost is $36,000, but under Obamacare there’s a $200 co-pay. Those of us who grew up in hidebound, class-ridden monarchies are familiar with the old proverb that a cat can look at a king. But in America only a cool cat can look at the king.


However, there are some cheap seats available. A year and a half ago, big-money Democrats in Rhode Island paid $7,500 per person for the privilege of having dinner with President Obama at a private home in Providence. He showed up for 20 minutes and then said he couldn’t stay for dinner. “I’ve got to go home to walk the dog and scoop the poop,” he told them, because when you’ve paid seven-and-a-half grand for dinner nothing puts you in the mood to eat like a guy talking about canine fecal matter. And, having done the poop gag, the president upped and exited, and left bigshot Dems to pass the evening talking to the guy from across the street. But you’ve got to admit that’s a memorable night out: $7,500 for Dinner with Obama* (*dinner with Obama not included).


And here’s an even better deal, for those who, despite the roaring economy, can’t afford even $7,500 for non-dinner with Obama: The president of the United States is raffling himself off! For the cost of a $3 non-refundable online-application processing fee, you and your loved one can have your names put in a large presidential hat from which the FBI background-check team will pluck two to be ushered into the presence of their humble citizen-executive. That’s to say, somewhere across the fruited plain, a common-or-garden non-celebrity will win the opportunity to attend an Obama fundraiser at the home of Sex and the City star Sarah Jessica Parker, co-hosted by Vogue editor Anna Wintour, the British-born inspiration for the movie The Devil Wears Prada. I wish this were a parody, but I’m not that good. But I’m sure Sarah Jessica and Anna will treat you just like any other minor celebrity they’ve accidentally been seated next to due to a hideous faux pas in placement, even if you do dip the wrong end of the arugula in the amuse-bouche.


If you’re wondering who Anna Wintour is, boy, what a schlub you are: She’s renowned throughout the fashion world for her scary bangs. I’m referring to her hair, not to the last sound Osama bin Laden heard as the bullet headed toward his eye socket on the personal orders of the president, in case you’ve forgotten. But that’s the kind of inside tidbit you’ll be getting, as the commander-in-chief leaks highly classified national-security details to you over the zebra mussel in a Eurasian-milfoil coulis. For a donation of $35,800, he’ll pose with you in a Seal Team Six uniform with one foot on Osama’s corpse (played by Harry Reid). For a donation of $46,800, he’ll send an unmanned drone to hover amusingly over your sister-in-law’s house. For a donation of $77,800, he’ll install you as the next president-for-life of Syria (liability waiver required). For a donation of $159,800, he’ll take you into Sarah Jessica’s guest bedroom and give you the full 007 while Carly Simon sings “Nobody Does It Better.”


There are monarchies and republics aplenty, but there’s only one 24/7 celebrity fundraising presidency. If it’s Tuesday, it must be Kim Cattrall, or Hootie and the Blowfish, or Laverne and Shirley, or the ShamWow guy . . . I wonder if the Queen ever marvels at the transformation of the American presidency since her time with Truman. Ah, well. If you can’t stand the klieg-light heat of Obama’s celebrity, stay out of the Beverly Wilshire kitchen. 

RELATED: Ann Coulter On Red Eye: ‘Not A Good Image’ For Obama To Be Meeting With ‘Young Bimbos In Hollywood’

Herman Cain: "Obama Is Determined To Destroy Our Capitalistic System"

 

RELATED: Herman Cain to Host a National Radio Show

Frustrated (White) Liberals Want More From Obama

Townhall.com:

They are trying to be hopeful, but the Democratic Party's most passionate voters are struggling to hide their frustration with President Barack Obama.

Republicans attack the president as a big-government liberal. Many liberals meeting Thursday at Netroots Nation _ it describes the annual convention as "a giant family reunion for the left" _ argue instead that Obama hasn't fought hard enough for progressive priorities on taxes, health care and the economy.

Even more problematic for the president: With the election just five months away, some are threatening not to donate money or time or even vote in November for the man who overwhelmingly ignited their passions and captured their imaginations four years ago.

"I want to be happy with him," said Democrat Kristine Vaughan, a 45-year-old school psychologist from Canton, Ohio. "But I am finding that he has succumbed to the corporate influence as much as everyone else. I think he has so much potential to break out of that, but overall he has been a disappointment."

Vaughan isn't sure whether she'll vote for Obama a second time and probably won't donate money as she did during his first campaign. She refuses to support Republican challenger Mitt Romney, but is considering writing in another candidate in protest.

The sentiment is not unique among the 2,700 people gathered on the first day of this three-day convention. More than a dozen liberals interviewed here indicated some level of frustration with the president, despite widespread praise for his recent decision to support gay marriage and ongoing push to scale back military action in the Middle East.

Most plan on voting for Obama and their gripes are not unlike what the White House has heard for much of the president's term. But these left-leaning backers' varying levels of enthusiasm could spell trouble for a president whose 2008 victory was fueled by a massive network of grass-roots volunteers and small-dollar donors. Polls show the president locked in a tight race that's likely to be decided in several swing states where he scored narrow victories four years ago. Places like Ohio, Florida and Virginia are expected to be especially competitive, and Obama will need liberal supporters to both work on his behalf and turn out in droves on Election Day.

"He's done a good job, but he could have done a lot better," said Ed Tracey, 55, of Lebanon, N.H., who heads his local chapter of the group, Drinking Liberally.

Tracey was one of Obama's many small-dollar donors four years ago, but his dissatisfaction has affected his generosity: "I decided that unless I thought he really needed it, I wouldn't contribute," he said.

Despite the criticism, polling suggests Republicans may face a larger enthusiasm gap than Democrats.

In late May, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 93 percent of Obama voters said they are enthusiastic about voting for him, including 51 percent who were very enthusiastic. For Romney supporters, 75 percent were enthusiastic, and just 26 percent were very enthusiastic.

Still, a closer look at the Democratic base shows an evolution of enthusiasm _ or lack thereof _ over the past four years.

The widespread belief in Obama's message of hope and change turned to frustration as the president yielded to Republican pressure by devoting a significant portion of the 2009 stimulus package to tax cuts. Liberals were further irked when he abandoned the so-called "public option" in his health care overhaul, didn't go after big banks more aggressively in his financial overhaul bill and supported the extension of Bush-era tax cuts.

Now, many say Obama is not fighting hard enough for tax increases on the wealthy to help close the federal deficit.

"I look forward to him fighting much harder," said Arshad Hasan, executive director of Democracy for America, a group founded by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

But, like many liberals here, Hasan offered a mixed review of the president. He said Obama's decision to support gay marriage was "a huge accomplishment for progressives." He also was hopeful that Obama might shift further to the left should he win a second term.

RELATED: Do-Nothing, Vacation-Loving, Golf-Addicted, Underemployed, Underachieving Candidate (for Reelection)

Mike Huckabee: Without Fox News, Americans ‘Will Assume That Obama Really Is Doing A Great Job’

Of course anyone with an inkling of how the liberal media works knows that Huckabee is right:

On his radio show Monday morning, former Arkansas Governor and current Fox News host Mike Huckabee suggested that without Fox News acting to balance out the “mainstream media,” most people “will assume that Obama really is just doing a great job.”

The former governor criticized Fox News’ competitors: “If people only watch the three big networks and BS-NBC, as I like to call them — MSNBC — if they watch BS-NBC and the three networks, then I think sometimes we may be kidding ourselves because a lot of people will assume that Obama really is just doing a great job and he just can’t get those crazy Republicans to help him out.”

Huckabee suggested his network and conservative talk radio act as counterweights to that positive coverage of the president: “I think a lot of people, if all they do is listen to conservative talk radio and maybe watch Fox News, they assume that all of America is getting what I would call at least a balanced approach to understanding that there are a lot of real problems going on that Obama could do better on.”

Liberal blogs take this as an unwitting admission that Fox News is the anti-Obama arm of the media, but Huckabee’s point was a bit more nuanced than that: he is right in that Fox News’ right-leaning commentary developed as a counterweight to a mainstream press that had long been seen as dominantly left-leaning. But the problem now, of course, is that cable news has developed into something of an “echo chamber,” where people tune in to the station that will confirm the viewer’s own biases. For generally favorable coverage of the administration, you can rely on one network, and for less favorable coverage, the other.

Mitt Romney’s New Attack: Why did Obama Focus on ObamaCare instead of on the Economy?

God, I love this line of attack because it's so on point (just like he fully "evolved" on gay marriage so he could get that liberal big money). Bottom line Obama's a con artist so always puts his base first, even when it comes to what's best for the American people:

In an appearance in Texas Wednesday, Mitt Romney charged that President Obama "knowingly slowed down the recovery in this country…in order to put in place Obamacare."  The president's action, Romney said, "deserves a lot of explaining."

Speaking to an audience at USAA, an insurance and financial services company headquartered in San Antonio, Romney cited a book, "The Escape Artists: How Obama's Team Fumbled the Recovery," by the liberal journalist Noam Scheiber.  In the book, Scheiber discussed Obama's thinking on the question of whether, early in his term, to focus more attention on passing a national health care law or to devote more energy to bringing about economic recovery.  As Scheiber put it, Obama saw health care as a bigger long-term accomplishment. "There was a strain of messianism in Barack Obama, a determination to change the course of history," Scheiber wrote.  "And it was this determination that explained his reluctance to abandon his presidential vision."  So health care it was.

"I always admired the president's courage for recognizing that fifty years from now people would remember that all Americans had health care," former Obama economic adviser Larry Summers told Scheiber.  "And even if pursuing health care affected the pace of the recovery, which was unlikely in my view, people wouldn't remember how fast the recovery from this recession was."

A few weeks ago, Romney began putting a reference to Scheiber's book into some of his speeches.  Today, Romney signaled that he'll make the accusation -- that Obama neglected the recovery to work on Obamacare -- part of his larger case against the president.

Scheiber recently wrote that Romney is "misreading" his book.  But Scheiber's explanation essentially conceded that Romney is, in fact, reading the passage correctly.  'While he's definitely misrepresenting Summers and the administration, there's a kernel of truth to his interpretation of my book," Scheiber wrote. 

"I argue that Obama really was more focused on long-term, historically significant accomplishments than marginal, near-term differences in the pace of the recovery. On some level, Obama was prepared to accept (and I'm making up these numbers for argument's sake) three years of painfully high unemployment with health care reform rather than 30 months of painfully high unemployment without it. And the reason is the one Summers alluded to (before disputing): Health care was simply more historically important than avoiding those extra six months of pain."

The bottom line: On Obama's priority list, passing Obamacare ranked higher than economic recovery.  Mitt Romney is likely to talk about that a lot more as the campaign goes on.

In Wisconsin, the Left Picked a Fight—and Lost

TheAtlantic.com:

It's important to remember, as Democrats cope with their failure to topple Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in Tuesday's recall, that this was a fight they chose. 

Unlike the vast majority of elections, which occur on a regular schedule, the recall was a fight the left picked on purpose. They picked it because they thought they could win. And they were wrong.
It wasn't even close. In the final tally, Walker led his Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, by 53 percent to 46 percent. 

The idea behind the recall effort was to send a message: a warning to conservatives across the country that there was a line not to be crossed when it came to messing with the hard-earned gains of public worker unions. By losing, however, the consortium of unions, progressives and Democrats that worked so ardently to send Walker packing may have sent the opposite message. If Walker can survive, what's to stop any other right-leaning governor from pushing the envelope? 

"This really is a test case. The far right made Wisconsin its petri dish," said Robert Kraig, executive director of Citizen Action Wisconsin, a grassroots progressive group that supported the recall effort. Walker's win, he said, will embolden the Koch brothers and other national conservative funders to get ideologically sympathetic Republicans to push their agenda across the country. 

"Wisconsin will not be the high water mark of the attack on unions, public employees, and the middle class," Kraig said. "You will see more Walker-like politicians elected in other states, and you will see more current governors taking this type of attack." 

When I interviewed Walker a couple of months ago, that was his prediction, too, though he naturally didn't put it in quite those terms. If he prevailed in the recall, he told me, "It suggests to other elected officials that you can tackle tough issues, you can face the wrath of organized special interests like the public employee unions, and ultimately prevail," he said. "They're not going to be able to bully and intimidate people who are trying to act in the best interest of the taxpayers." 

It's not only Republican governors, Walker noted, who are pushing to reform the pension, benefit and pay privileges enjoyed by public workers. He pointed to the efforts of Deval Patrick in Massachusetts, Lincoln Chafee (a liberal independent) in Rhode Island, Andrew Cuomo in New York and Jerry Brown in California, all of whom have approached the issue of public sector pension reform, if in less inflammatory manner. 

The results for the labor movement, of which the public sector is now the backbone, could be dire. Already, there are signs Walker has succeeded in crippling Wisconsin's unions, whose membership has sharply declined since his reforms made it easier for workers to opt out and harder for the groups to gain recognition. In just over a year, the union representing state workers has seen its membership drop by two-thirds, while the American Federation of Teachers has lost more than a third of the 17,000 members it formerly claimed in Wisconsin, according to the Wall Street Journal. 

RELATED: Ed Schultz Demands Union Members Voting For Scott Walker Explain ‘Why The Hell You Did That’

Former Lesbian Janet Boynes Confronts Dr. Drew For Not Being Fair & Balanced About Jesus Curing Homosexuality

For Hip Hop News & Entertainment at DimeWars.Com

Homosexuality is a behavioral choice (even current celebrity lesbian Cynthia Nixon said so before the Gay Mafia silenced her). Christians and conservatives know this despite the liberal media's agenda to continue to promote lies disputing this undeniable fact. Another fact is that there are hundreds of thousands of "former gays" around the world who've found God and removed homosexuality from their lives because they know that it is sinful behavior (our bodies alone tell us that) that goes against everything God preaches. But since it doesn't fit their Godless agenda, the liberal press would have you believe that these people don't exist. Thank goodness for people like Janet Boynes, able to speak the truth to power:

Janet Boynes has suggested that Ellen DeGeneres, Anderson Cooper, President Barack Obama and Dr. Drew are suppressing the voices of people who formerly identified as gay or lesbian, or “ex-gays.” 

Boynes, the author of Called Out: A Former Lesbian's Discovery of Freedom, made the claim during an appearance Monday on cabler HLN's Dr. Drew. 

“Dr. Drew you always have a tendency of putting people on your show that is against Christianity,” Boynes complained. “Why don't you, Anderson Cooper, and Ellen DeGeneres, Barack Obama put people on their show or bring them to the White House that [believe] change is possible. You never give us the opportunity to come on the show and really tell our side of the story. It's always one sided.” 

She also told Dr. Drew that all a person needs to do to alter his or her sexuality is “ask Jesus in your heart.” 

“It's not about an intervention. My intervention was Jesus Christ.” 

 Boynes has the endorsement of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, who once said: “Janet's life is a powerful testimony of the changes that Christ can bring through His healing power from the bondage of sin.”

Scott Walker Wins Wisconsin Recall

Damn, he even exceeded his 2010 vote total. Now the question is whether or not this election makes a difference in November:

Wisconsin GOP Gov. Scott Walker wakes up Wednesday knowing he’ll get to finish out his term, after voters by a wide margin sided with him in a recall election that had gained national attention and divided much of the state, from opposing political parties to neighbors and even family members.


However, several key questions remain unanswered, including whether Wisconsin now can move past the recent acrimony -- and how much impact the recall results will have on the presidential election just five months away.


“Now is the time for us to come together,” Walker told supporters after claiming victory. “Tomorrow we are all Wisconsinites.”


Walker’s Democratic challenger, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, made a similar plea in his concession speech late Tuesday night, urging supporters residents to put aside their differences.


“Now we must look to the future,” said Barrett, who also lost to Walker in 2010.


Walker led Barrett in the official count 53 percent to 46 percent with 99 percent of the 3,424 precincts reporting. Walker’s lieutenant governor, Rebecca Kleefisch, also was projected to survive her recall election.


The recall effort began when the first-term governor and Republicans in the state legislature rolled back what they considered excesses in the collective bargaining agreements of public-employee unions -- an effort to cut Wisconsin’s estimated $3.6 billion budget shortfall.


Wisconsin went for President Obama in 2008, but the recall results give Republicans hope that their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, can win there in November.


“Governor Walker has demonstrated over the past year what sound fiscal policies can do to turn an economy around, and I believe that in November voters across the country will demonstrate that they want the same in Washington,” Romney said.


Republicans see Walker’s win as evidence voters across the country want their elected officials to keep government living within its means. They said this paves the way for Romney to become the first Republican candidate to carry Wisconsin since Ronald Reagan in 1984.

RELATED:  Progressive Pundits Lay Groundwork To Blame Obama If Wisconsin Recall Fails

This Week's Sign of the Apocalypse: Miss Ohio Cites Prostitute In ‘Pretty Woman’ As Positive Portrayal Of Women In Film

Mediaite.com:

During Sunday evening’s Miss USA contest on NBC, top five finalist Miss Ohio Audrey Bolte told the judges that Julia Roberts‘ character in the 1990 romantic comedy Pretty Woman is an example of a positive portrayal of women in film.

Judge Marilu Henner asked Bolte: “Do you think women are depicted in movies and on television in an accurate and positive way? And please give us an example.”
Bolte responded:

I think it depends on the movie. I think there are some movies that depict women in a very positive role, and then some movies that put them in a little bit more of negative role. But by the end of the movie, they show that woman power that I know we all have. Such as movie Pretty Woman. We had a wonderful, beautiful woman, Julia Roberts, and she was having a rough time, but, you know what, she came out on top and she didn’t let anybody stand in her path.

Lord knows that in liberal Hollywood there are few female role models out there, but really? She couldn't think of anything better than Pretty Woman?!?

Politics As Usual: In The News 6/4/12

George Zimmerman Surrenders, Is Booked Into Florida Jail

Nigeria Seeks Answers To Fatal Crash

The False Promises Of Modern Liberalism

What's This? Obama Longs For GOP Rival Like McCain

Pelosi Predicts Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Roberts Will Side With Administration on Obamacare

Lori Lolo Jones says No-No To Sex, ‘Infuriates’ Entertainment Media

Gulp: Bloomberg’s Stunning Nanny State Overreach

Remember When the National Media Despised Recall Elections? California in 2003

Faith Leaders: Obama Losing Religious Vote

Assad: Syria Massacre Carried Out By 'Monsters'

Grading On A Curve

Bush and Obama at the White House: Why the yukfest? (+video)