New York Times “Uncovers” Evil GOP Super PAC plot to “Smear” and “Dehumanize” Barack Obama by Connecting Him to the Man Who Baptized His Children

Posted on by
Reply

Several weeks ago, the several dozen people watching Rev. Al Sharpton’s unintentionally hilarious show on the 24/7 nuthouse, MS-NBC, would have thought that Trayvon Martin’s parents had become co-hosts of the show. Now that the whole “racist, profiling, trigger-happy white Hispanic” fairy tale has completely unraveled, Al was heard asking “Trayvon Who?” He has moved on to another racially-charged bombshell, exposed this morning on the front page of the Liberal Death Star aka The New York Times; specifically, the sickening scheme by anti-Obama political operatives, funded by one of those scumbag rich guys, to actually–forgive me, I’m having a hard time writing because it’s hard for me to even think about something so ugly–connect Barack Obama to the man who performed his marriage ceremony and baptized his children!! How low will these people go to try to destroy, or as Rev. Al said on his program this evening “dehumanize” this man?

(Video below)

The Lame Stream Media-Chicago axis of evil is up to its old tricks. Just as we described here and here, yet again they are resorting to threats, Intimidation and lies to silence anyone who dares to criticize the One.

All of what is described above is completely predictable. What I find interesting is the answer to the question “Who leaked this plan to the New York Times?” It pains me to say that the answer is painfully, and I do mean painful, if you are a Republican, obvious. The giveaway is this line from the NY Times’ story:

Timed to upend the Democratic National Convention in September, the plan would “do exactly what John McCain would not let us do,” the strategists wrote.

So, it’s clear that the leaker is someone eager to deflect blame for what was laughably called the McCain “campaign.” Think Steve Schmidt, Nicole Wallace or another one of the brilliant minds who paved the way for Barack Obama to begin occupying the Oval Office. If possible, these McCain campaign consultants are more obsessed with Sarah Palin than Chris Matthews is, and they have spent the last 3+ years trying to get the stink of defeat off their sorry hides. It’s not a feel good for me to say that a Republican leaked this information, but, as I noted above, it’s very clear to me that that’s what happened.

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the irony of Mr. Ricketts, owner of the Chicago Cubs, adopting John McCain’s unwillingness to raise the issue of Rev. Wright’s hate speech? After all, aren’t the Cubs often described as “lovable losers?”


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks to all of you who voted for the Teri O’Brien Show as Talk Show of the Year on Red State Talk Radio. We won! We really appreciate your encouragement and support!

Politics, Pop Culture, the Hottest Issues of the Day, and Your calls. The Teri O’Brien Show, featuring America’s Original Conservative Warrior Princess, Live and in color, Sundays 4-6 pm Central time  at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Teri-OBrien. Daring to Commit Common Sense, Fearlessly, and More Important, Cheerfully, in the Age of Obama.

Make My Day: Text “FAN TOBCWP” to 32665

Can’t listen live? Download it from iTunes and listen on demand. 

As one listener wrote “one of the most insightful and entertaining pundits in America. Also, her voice is magical.”

Serious Ideas, Irresistible Entertainment. Warning: listeners may become hopelessly addicted.

Obama, Are You Sure You Want to Change the Subject to the Economy?

Posted on by
Reply

As you know, I watch so you don’t have to, so on last Sunday’s show, we heard a sound bite from Chris Matthews’ silly syndicated show, in which Howard Fineman and Chrissy agreed: if the subject is the economy, it’s bad for the One. I guess that Team Obama didn’t see Chris’ show or hear ours. After seeing that the gay marriage gambit backfired, they decided to change the subject, and talk about–wait for it–jobs. Being democrats, and therefore, not known for original ideas they recycled some ads from the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s 1994 campaign against Mitt Romney. Actually, I’m being a tad harsh, since when you consider that they spend most of their time trying to force feed us putrid flesh from the rotting corpse of Karl Marx, 1994 seems bright, spanking fresh and new! Or it would if in fact the stuff from 1994 didn’t come from that afore-mentioned rotting corpse.

On Monday, they rolled out a misleading, demagogic ad featuring another collection of victims, former employees of GS Industries, a Kansas City steel plant. The ad uses the sort of reasoned, logical argument we’ve learned to expect from democrats. For example, one former steel worker says “They made as much money off it as they could and they closed it down, they filed for bankruptcy, without any concern for the families or the communities,” says Joe Soptic, a former steelworker. “It was like watching an old friend bleed to death.” They also refer to Romney as a “vampire,” which is interesting since the former Massachusetts governor said he doesn’t know any vampires.

Even the WaPo says the ad “shades the truth,” and gives it “One Pinnochio.” No doubt this rating has something to do with the fact that in 2001, eight years after Bain acquired GS, when the plant filed for bankruptcy, Mitt Romney was no longer actively involved in managing Bain. Translation: it’s typical liberal deception. No matter, Obama’s apparatchiks are trying to defend it. Former John Kerry operative/ditz Stephanie Cutter was on the case. You remember Stephanie Cutter, don’t you? She was right in the middle of that really cringe-inducing episode in October 2004, involving the late Christopher Reeve. Kerry claimed to have had a death bed conversation with the revered actor, in which Reeve supposedly thanked Lurch for raising the issue on stem cell research in the most recent presidential debate. Like the Kerry campaign, Obama’s operation also has that “Sixth Sense.” They not only see dead people. They speak for them, most recently for the alleged victim of Mitt Romney’s high school bullying, a previous exploding cigar.

The Romney campaign’s response was swift and effective.

The Chicago boys looked like geniuses in 2008 when they ran unopposed with the slobbering Lame Stream Media propagandizing non-stop. Now they look like what they really are: a bunch of doofuses loading up the One’s TelePrompTer with threadbare clichès that don’t pass the laugh test. You guys want to talk about jobs and the economy? As that great democrat John Kerry would say “Bring it on.”

Barry Obama’s Lost High School Years: Show Notes, 5/13/12

Posted on by
Reply

How’s That Workin’ Out For You? | Barack Obama (ft. Ronald Reagan) (The terrific song we played. Please check out the video currently in the sidebar on the right of this page, and if you like the song, go to the link, and download the song or the video. Thanks to Russ Diamond for permission to play the song.)

 Why Are Lies Necessary in the Service of the the Left? I explain.

ABC News Finds Washington Post Romney Falsehood, Buries It

Washington Post Changes Story, Doesn’t Admit Error

Romney’s High School Record Fair Game. Obama’s Not So Much

Flashback: Obama’s Sordid High School Past

Oh no …

Jealous Michelle vs. Oprah – m.NYPOST.com

Time for a Moochelle v. the Oprah cage match?

Who is the real bully?

Romney Donor on Obama’s Enemies List: They’re Stalking My Kids

David Axelrod Up to His Old Tricks: Obama’s Enemies List, Part II

From our terrific guest, Michael Patrick Leahy, the man who uncovered Elizabeth Warren’s “Native American” fraud:

Warren’s Cherokee Claim Based on Family Newsletter; No Marriage License Application to Be Found

Warren Campaign Offered Cousin’s Cookbook as Proof of Native American Ancestry

Amazon.com: Covenant of Liberty: The Ideological Origins of the Tea Party Movement (9780062066336): Michael Patrick Leahy: Books

If there’s a Pow Wow Chow cookbook, does that mean Obama’s cookbook is called Bow Wow Chow? (H/T SL Rob)

As Afghanistan falls apart, thanks to the One’s politically-motivated decision to announce our skeedaddle date, his campaign attempts to continue to dine out on the killing of Osama bin Laden. Did someone commit the criminal leak of the foiling of the recent attempt to blow up another airplane to help the Obama campaign have another success to use in the campaign?

Arsala Rahmani, Taliban leader turned Afghanistan peace mediator, slain in Kabul – The Washington Post

The Man Who Exposed Elizabeth Warren’s Phony Native American Claim: Today on the Teri O’Brien Show, 5/13/12

Posted on by
Reply

Last week’s news cycle shined an enormous spotlight on the ridiculous, irrelevant charade that passes as serious journalism in the dinosaur media today. Whether it’s the incessant celebration of Barack Obama’s “historic” “evolution” on the issue of so-called same-sex marriage, in which he returned to the position he had in 1996, coincidentally before arriving with an open purse at George Clooney’s house, or the laughably transparent collusion between the Obama campaign and the Washington Post in breaking the blockbuster news about Mitt Romney’s high school behavior, the evidence is in. Serious people who hope to be well-informed should not waste their time, and risk the potential loss of IQ points involved, by exposing themselves to the kabuki-like foolishness and outright propaganda broadcast on traditional media outlets.The faux news of the week also reminded us that while Barack Obama may be “historic,” he is also a bully and con artist.

While pumping out pro-Obama propaganda, our Lame Stream Media friends have been remarkably silent regarding the campaign antics of liberal darling and current Massachusetts’ democrat Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren. Did Prof. Warren game the affirmative-action system for two decades by claiming to be a “Native American?” Our special guest, Michael Patrick Leahy, one of the founders of the Tea Party, author of Covenant of Liberty: the Ideological Foundations of the Tea Party Movement, and unfortunately for Prof. Warren, amateur genealogist, is the man who exposed the fraud.

Michelle v. the Oprah? Say it ain’t so!

Finally, on this Mother’s Day, what is the best advice your mom gave you? What are the origins of Mother’s Day, and why did its founder come to regret ever having the idea in the first place?

Tune in today for the rest of the story.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks to all of you who voted for the Teri O’Brien Show as Talk Show of the Year on Red State Talk Radio. We won! We really appreciate your encouragement and support!

Politics, Pop Culture, the Hottest Issues of the Day, and Your calls. The Teri O’Brien Show, featuring America’s Original Conservative Warrior Princess, Live and in color, Sundays 4-6 pm Central time  at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Teri-OBrien. Daring to Commit Common Sense, Fearlessly, and More Important, Cheerfully, in the Age of Obama.

Make My Day: Text “FAN TOBCWP” to 32665

Can’t listen live? Download it from iTunes and listen on demand. 

As one listener wrote “one of the most insightful and entertaining pundits in America. Also, her voice is magical.”

Serious Ideas, Irresistible Entertainment. Warning: listeners may become hopelessly addicted.


David Axelrod Up to His Old Tricks: Obama’s Enemies List, Part II

Posted on by
Reply

He's making a list and checking it twice.

Earlier in the week, we noted Kimberly Strassel’s excellent reporting on the Obama campaign’s strong arm, Chicago Way of dealing with anyone who dares to exercise his right to oppose B. Hussein’s re-election. The Community Organizer in Chief hasn’t forgotten his Alinskyite training, a key feature of which is demonizing those who disagree with him. Nor has his key apparatchik David Axelrod, forgotten how he vaulted this narcissistic, unaccomplished, petulant, affirmative-action assisted C-player from obscurity into the Oval Office. As many of you know, in 2004, during Obama’s race for the U.S. Senate, Axelrod managed to eliminate two of the One’s formidable opponents by preparing detailed, fact-filled analyses of their positions on serious issues and helping the young state senator develop effective, common-sense responses that guaranteed success. OK, I’m making that up. What the Walrus did was dig up dirt on these candidates, both of whom were divorced, and with the very enthusiastic assistance of his former employer, the Chicago Libune (Tribune), make sure that the sordid details were widely publicized. Blair Hull was eliminated during the democrat primary. In the general election, Obama would probably have been opposed by former investment banker and Harvard Law grad Jack Ryan, described by local lefty pencil-necked columnist who actually worked for the Libune, as “[t]all and handsome in a way that recalls JFK Jr. Not particularly outspoken on any hot-button issues, but so dedicated to the idea of helping others that he dropped out of the investment banking world several years ago to teach full-time at an inner-city high school.” Mysteriously, his divorce records, featuring accusations by his ex-wife that he wanted her to accompany him to sex clubs, ended up in the hands of the Trib, Ryan was forced out, and Obama ran virtually unopposed.(Alan Keyes doesn’t count.)

Apparently, the Obama campaign is up to its old tricks again. Ms. Strassel has a follow up report on today, in which she writes about the campaign’s activities against Romney supporter Frank VanderSloot:

Frank VanderSloot is the CEO of Melaleuca Inc. The 63-year-old has run that wellness-products company for 26 years out of tiny Idaho Falls, Idaho. Last August, Mr. VanderSloot gave $1 million to Restore Our Future, the Super PAC that supports Mitt Romney.

Three weeks ago, an Obama campaign website, “Keeping GOP Honest,” took the extraordinary step of publicly naming and assailing eight private citizens backing Mr. Romney. Titled “Behind the curtain: a brief history of Romney’s donors,” the post accused the eight of being “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records.” Mr. VanderSloot was one of the eight, smeared particularly as being “litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement.”  About a week after that post, a man named Michael Wolf contacted the Bonneville County Courthouse in Idaho Falls in search of court records regarding Mr. VanderSloot. Specifically, Mr. Wolf wanted all the documents dealing with Mr. VanderSloot’s divorces, as well as a case involving a dispute with a former Melaleuca employee.

Mr. Wolf sent a fax to the clerk’s office—which I have obtained—listing four cases he was after. He would later send a second fax, asking for three further court cases dealing with either Melaleuca or Mr. VanderSloot. Mr. Wolf listed only his name and a private cellphone number.

Some digging revealed that Mr. Wolf was, until a few months ago, a law clerk on the Democratic side of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He’s found new work. The ID written out at the top of his faxes identified them as coming from “Glenn Simpson.” That’s the name of a former Wall Street Journal reporter who in 2009 founded a D.C. company that performs private investigative work.

The website for that company, Fusion GPS, describes itself as providing “strategic intelligence,” with expertise in areas like “politics.” That’s a polite way of saying “opposition research.”

When I called Fusion’s main number and asked to speak to Michael Wolf, a man said Mr. Wolf wasn’t in the office that day but he’d be in this coming Monday. When I reached Mr. Wolf on his private cell, he confirmed he had until recently worked at the Senate.

When I asked what his interest was in Mr. VanderSloot’s divorce records, he hesitated, then said he didn’t want to talk about that. When I asked what his relationship was with Fusion, he hesitated again and said he had “no comment.” “It’s a legal thing,” he added.

We don’t know who is paying Mr. Wolf to troll through Mr. VanderSloot’s divorce records, but I’ll take a wild guess and suggest that it’s George Clooney.

There you have it, my friends: threats, intimidation, smears, outright lies and all the other skullduggery that used to be deplored as “the politics of personal destruction” in the service of hope, change and transparency, courtesy of our “historic” Dear Leader.

 

Barack Comes Out of the Closet

Posted on by
1

As I’ve said many times, I think Barack and his apparatchiks drew the wrong conclusion from the 2008 election; specifically, that the American public is as dumb as a box of rocks. I can certainly understand why one might draw that conclusion, but it’s incorrect. The truth is that, thanks in part to guys like Richard Lugar and Kirk Dillard (“poor guy,” that Dillard) who gave Obama the political cover that enabled him to masquerade as a pragmatic, centrist uniting problem-solver, rather than the hard-wired left-wing Chicago politician that he is, the public was deceived. Sadly for the One and his supporters, increasing numbers of people who voted for him in 2008 realize that they were lied to, not only by the Lame Stream Media, but by Obama himself. These are the people that are deserting him in droves. There is no greater evidence of the Obama campaign’s growing desperation than today’s “surprise” announcement in support of so-called same-sex marriage. Stop the presses. There’s a real jaw-dropper, from the guy whose administration said last year that it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

I told you on last Sunday’s show, right after the Critiquelator’s excellent commentary about Obama’s composite girlfriends, that Joe Biden’s risible comment on “Meet the Press,” citing “Will and Grace,” in support of redefining the word “marriage,” was no accident. It was deliberate, another dog whistle to one of the identity politics constituencies that they are counting on to win, in this case militant homosexuals. Bitter, single women who consider the government a substitute for a husband? In that case, the dog whistle was Hilary Rosen’s attack on Ann Romney. Check that box. Hispanics? Obama’s statement during his delightful Cinco de Mayo party last week at the White House, in which he stated he had the pens ready to sign the “DREAM act,” was a message to them. Check. For the gullible, wet-behind-the ears clueless kids, he jetted in to a couple of college campuses to tell them how cruel and unfair it is that other people don’t finance their worthless degrees in medieval French poetry, women’s studies and web design. Check. Clearly, the campaign understands that they have to energize every single member of each of these groups to have a prayer of winning. The strategy is get 100% of these folks to the polls, and count on lukewarm enthusiasm by Republicans come November.

As it turns out, Obama was assisted in this decision by some of those imaginary friends that Democrats love to invent. From ABC News:

“It’s interesting, some of this is also generational,” the president continued. “You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same-sex equality or, you know, sexual orientation, that they believe in equality. They are much more comfortable with it.”

And of course, as always, when the Obama campaign feels threatened, they trot out their little kiddie human shields, who are “off limits” to everyone else, Malia and Sasha.

You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and, frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.”

Really? So public policy about an issue critical to the future of civilization should be about what would or wouldn’t dawn on a ten-year-old and a thirteen-year-old? I haven’t heard such brilliant analysis since Jimmy Carter regaled us with his ten-year-old daughter Amy’s deep thoughts about nuclear proliferation.

In the slobbering media celebration of the One’s “historic” “evolution” on this issue, they are forgetting that he was for so-called same-sex marriage before he was against it before he was for it.

Is it possible that there is anyone on the planet who is buying this load of BS (Barry Soetoro)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks to all of you who voted for the Teri O’Brien Show as Talk Show of the Year on Red State Talk Radio. We won! We really appreciate your encouragement and support!

Politics, Pop Culture, the Hottest Issues of the Day, and Your calls. The Teri O’Brien Show, featuring America’s Original Conservative Warrior Princess, Live and in color, Sundays 4-6 pm Central time at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Teri-OBrien. Daring to Commit Common Sense, Fearlessly, and More Important, Cheerfully, in the Age of Obama.

Make My Day: Text “FAN TOBCWP” to 32665

Can’t listen live? Download it from iTunes and listen on demand.

As one listener wrote “one of the most insightful and entertaining pundits in America. Also, her voice is magical.”

Serious Ideas, Irresistible Entertainment. Warning: listeners may become hopelessly addicted.

“Like a Nigerian bank-account scam”: The story of “Doodad Pro” and Other Participants in Obama’s Online Donation Operation

Posted on by
Reply

The Obama campaign is very proud of the fact that so much of its fundraising comes from small donors. (Some might say that all of their fundraising comes from brain donors, but I digress …) As is so often the case with this bunch, it turns out that this “we get our donations from small donors-Hooray for us!” claim is not true, or at least it wasn’t during the 2008 campaign. From a USA Today story that appeared in November, 2008:

Despite attracting millions of new contributors to his campaign, President-elect Barack Obama received about the same percentage of his total political funds from small donors as President Bush did in 2004, according to a study released today by the non-partisan Campaign Finance Institute. …

“The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama’s finances,” said Michael Malbin, the institute’s executive director. “The reality of Obama’s fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth.”

“The reality does not match the myth?” Are we talking about the same Barack Obama we all know and love? Hard to believe, I know.

Later in the story there’s this seemingly innocuous paragraph:

The small-donor percentage is lower than figures previously reported in news stories because the institute’s analysis accounted for people who gave several small donations over the course of the election that added up to a larger sum, Malbin said.

As you read what follows, keep that phrase “people who gave several small donations over the course of the election that added up to a larger sum” in mind.

From a Daily Caller story “Fraud found in Obama’s online donations:”

President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign has hundreds of thousands of eager, low-dollar donors — and a tiny trickle of unwilling, defrauded donors.

The latest example comes from David Newman, who found a $15 charge, dated May 6, from the “Obama For America” campaign on one of his debit cards.

Newman had supported Obama in 2008, but “I didn’t sign up to say ‘Do this every three months or every three years when you need money,’” he told The Daily Caller.

“This is completely 100 percent unauthorized,” said Newman, an information technology specialist. The money has since been returned by Bank of America, and the debit card has been cancelled, he said.…

These minor examples of fraud, however, follow the discovery that Obama’s campaigns in 2008 and 2012 adopted shady practices that increased the potential for fraud.

In 2008, for example, Obama’s 2008 campaign accepted donations made via untraceable digital gift cards sold over the counter by Mastercard and Visa. National Journal proved that practice on October 24, 2008, but a recent test by TheDC showed that his campaign is now rejecting donations made via gift-cards.

However, Obama is still using many of the same tech experts that he used in 2008, and is still accepting credit card donations made under incorrect names, according to numerous reports from blogs.

Like in 2008, the 2012 campaign is also not asking donors to provide the three-digit or four-digit CVV number on credit cards. That decision reduces the campaign’s fundraising costs, but increases the chance of fraudulent donations by people who know the primary long number of a credit card, but not the short CVV number.

The practice may have contributed to a 2008 fraud when a woman in Missouri, Mary Biskup, discovered that her name had been attached to $174,800 in credit card donations sent to the Obama campaign. Biskup told the Washington Post that her credit-card was not charged for the donation.

Obama’s campaign is not legally required to ask for the CVV number. It is also not required to confirm that the names given by small-dollar online donors are correct, partly because the campaign automatically collects the real names and addresses attached to donors’ credit cards.

Yet a campaign’s decision to accept the false names attached to small donations can have a broader impact than a few cases of fraud.

That’s because campaigns are free to assume that multiple small-scale donations made via one credit card are from different people, providing that different false names are provided online with each donation.

They’re free to do that even if donors’ fake names are utterly implausible, such as “Adolf Hitler,” “Osama bin Laden” or “Mickey Mouse.”

“Mickey Mouse and Adolph Hitler?” Shades of the Wisconsin recall petitions, another democrat fraud boiler-room racket.

Then there’s the donor named “Doodad Pro” and his friend “Goodwill,” also reported in the Daily Caller story.

In 2008, National Journal successfully used custom made software to deliver numerous “robo-donations” to three campaigns via gift cards. The test was conducted after a check of Obama’s 2008 campaign records which showed numerous, sequential and identical donations donations by donors with strange names, such “Doodad Pro.”

“Doodad Pro” submitted at least 791 contributions by October 2008, providing $19,065 to the campaign, while “Good Will” sent in 835 donations worth $20,225 between March and May 2008. The source of those donations was not disclosed by the 2008 campaign.

 

 How very fitting: a fraud using fraud to violate the law and steal other people’s money. Obama supporters, how much deceit will you overlook and excuse before you admit that the phony jerk with the braying jackass grin is completely untrustworthy and unworthy of the office that he occupies?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks to all of you who voted for the Teri O’Brien Show as Talk Show of the Year on Red State Talk Radio. We won! We really appreciate your encouragement and support!

Politics, Pop Culture, the Hottest Issues of the Day, and Your calls. The Teri O’Brien Show, featuring America’s Original Conservative Warrior Princess, Live and in color, Sundays 4-6 pm Central time  at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Teri-OBrien. Daring to Commit Common Sense, Fearlessly, and More Important, Cheerfully, in the Age of Obama.

Make My Day: Text “FAN TOBCWP” to 32665

Can’t listen live? Download it from iTunes and listen on demand. 

As one listener wrote “one of the most insightful and entertaining pundits in America. Also, her voice is magical.”

Serious Ideas, Irresistible Entertainment. Warning: listeners may become hopelessly addicted.


Obama’s Enemies List

Posted on by
Reply

As frequently noted in this space, and on the Teri O’Brien Show, our country’s White House is currently occupied by a blatantly lawless regime, led by a man determined to conduct business using naked coercion or even bare-knuckle force to do whatever he wants, statutes, U.S. Constitution, the rule of law or even common decency be damned. (For specific examples, read this post.) To make this governing style work, it’s essential that you “reward your friends and punish your enemies,” as Barack Obama famously said. That’s the Chicago Way, and it is being practiced unabashedly by the One’s administration, be it in the crony capitalist scams like Solyndra, or in the employers humbly beseeching the crown for temporary waivers from its health care system destroying scheme, to cite only two examples among many. The reeking stench of these things is very familiar to denizens of Chicagoland. I suspect that even some of the well-intentioned people who in 2008 allowed their emotions to blind them to the obvious are starting to detect the odor, and asking themselves how they could have believed that the spawn of the slough of corruption known as Cook County by way of ACORN would be a non-partisan, centrist, uniting reformer.

Of course, if you’re going to punish your enemies, you have to have an enemies list. As Kimberly Strassel notes in this piece, fortunately Obama has one, and all you have to do to earn a spot on it is contribute to Obama’s opponent.

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for “betting against America,” and accuses you of having a “less-than-reputable” record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Are you worried?

Richard Nixon’s “enemies list” appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.” In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having “less-than-reputable records,” the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that “quite a few” have also been “on the wrong side of the law” and profiting at “the expense of so many Americans.”

Not that His Highness is opposed to the idea of fundraising. Au contraire. From ABC News:

Obama has headlined 132 re-election fundraisers for his campaign and the Democratic Party since early last year, according to tracking by ABC News and U.S. Naval Academy political scientist Brendan Doherty.

President George W. Bush attended 86 fundraisers for his re-election campaign, the Republican Party or both groups during his first term.  Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush appeared at a total of 70 and 24, respectively.

And as Obama travels the country – or across the street, as was the case last night – taxpayers foot most of the bill, experts say.

In a little less than six months, we will have the opportunity to put a stop to the attempt by this narcissistic, deceitful empty suit to “remake” America into Cook Country writ large. If we don’t do it, we’ll deserve what we get.