The Obama Sex Tape: The Desperate Attempt to Lure Virgins Into the Voting Booth With Barack Obama

Bookmark and Share   No, it’s not what you think, but it is an Obama video that uses sex to try to get young women, more specifically brainless, young women, to vote for Barack Obama. (View the ad in the video beneath this post)

The new ad entitled “Your First Time” features Lena Dunham, a rising star among Hollywood’s liberalatzi, who compares a young woman’s decision to have sex for the first time, with a young woman’s first time voting.   Afterall, it’s a very natural comparison, right?

The ad is perhaps the most desperate attempt yet to try to make sure that Barack Obama’s base turns out to vote for him  in the same historic numbers that they did in 2008.  For Barack Obama’s campaign that apparently means he must target a demographic that is not usually sought after… stupid people.

That is the only logical conclusion which one can draw from this latest commercial approved by the President and his campaign.  In it, writer/actress Lena Dunham starts out by very suggestively saying “You’re first time shouldn’t be with just anybody”.  Then she discusses the qualities a girl wants in the first guy she sleeps with.  In this case she says you want a guy “who cares about whether you get healthcare, specifically birth control”.  At one point Dunham even states; “You don’t want to do it with a guy who say’s ‘oh hey, I’m at the Library studying”, when really he’s not out there signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act.”

While the ad is not the x-rated porn flick intentionally suggested by the title of this post, it remains to be as inappropriate as any attempt to sincerely describe this new Obama ad as a sex tape.  But with an election that is suppose to be about the future of our nation and the issues important to its future, does anyone really believe that it is appropriate for any serious political candidate to be actively comparing a young girls decision to have sex for the first time, to her first time deciding who to vote for?    It is bad enough that our President runs around talking about Big Bird, binders and bayonets, instead of balanced budgets, block grants, and explaining Benghazi, but do we really need his campaign interjecting sexual intercourse in to the political intercourse?

The ad tries to be creative in a way that is similar to the eclectic HBO series that the actress in the ad writes and stars in.  The series is called “Girls”. 

One critic described the show as…

 “a television program about the children of wealthy famous people and shitty music and Facebook and how hard it is to know who you are and Thought Catalog and sexually transmitted diseases and the exhaustion of ceaselessly dramatizing your own life while posing as someone who understands the fundamental emptiness and narcissism of that very self-dramatization.”

In other words, it’s a ridiculously stupid show about ridiculously stupid characters who put more thought into what they want to wear to bed than who want to go to bed with.

Yet here we have the Obama-Biden campaign using the person who writes and stars in this sleazy piece of pop-culture crap, trying to get young women to pick our President the same way they would if they were picking a partner to sleep with.  Afterall, that’s how I decided who I wanted to vote for the first time I was able to cast my ballot for President back in 1988.  It’s well known that back then I really wanted to sleep with George Herbert Walker Bush, so he got my vote.  And in 1996, I was dyeing to go to bed with Bob Dole.  Isn’t that the determining factor behind all of our votes?

Throughout this election, Barack Obama and his campaign have been doing everything they can to get women to vote for him.  They have tried to paint Mitt Romney as a woman hating, slave driver, who will enact Sharia Law, wrap women up in burkas and cut their tongues out.  They have tried to claim Romney discriminates against women, wants them to receive less pay than their male counterparts, and that he practically wants to rip their uterues out and ban the practice of abortion from sea to shining shining sea.  What they don’t tell you is that while this White House pays its female staff 14% less than women, the Lilly Ledbetter law they brag about had nothing to do with equal pay for women but everything to do with giving women more time to accuse their employer of not giving them equal pay for equal work.  What they don’t tell you is that all Lilly Ledbetter is, is a boondoggle for trial lawyers who can now make tons of money through the litigation of cases that exceeded their statute of limitations.

What they don’t tell you is that over the last four years, women have actually been victims of President Obama’s policies, not beneficiaries of his failed policies.  Under President Obama women are suffering more than men when it comes to our continued stagnant economy.As recently pointed out by Paul Ryan, the poverty rate among women is at a seventeen year high and over five million women have recently been forced out of the workforce because of job killing policies.

What you don’t hear the Obama campaign telling you is the truth about the fact that fewer women are working today than there were when he took office.  You don’t hear them telling the truth about how even if Mitt Romney did want to outlaw abortion in the law under all circumstances, he couldn’t because the most he could actually do is make it possible for the states to decide if they will or will not allow abortions to be conducted within the confines of their own borders.

But while you don’t hear such truths,  you do hear the President’s campaign telling young girls to think with their private parts instead of their smarts.

In many ways the Obama approach to getting women to vote for him is down right insulting.  In addition to making it seem as though women are helpless victims who require the government to prop them up, he is also making women out to be a gender that thinks about nothing else other than sex.  Hence the new ad equating a first time decision to vote to a first time having sex.

Fortunately, most women are not quite as dumb as the President and his liberal compatriots would like to think.  Oh sure, there are the dumb as nails Debbie Wasserman Schultz-like dim wits and Nancy Pelosi-like nincompoops out there in Liberal Lala land.  But most women have more self-respect, integrity, and brains than those two liberal hacks.  Most women would rather support themselves than have the government limit their opportunities and future by forcing them to become dependent on a behemoth government bureaucracy that is ethically and economically bankrupt.   Which is why most women have begun to stop supporting Barack Obama.  They see through the President’s shallow pitches to them and even more than that, they are beginning to be offended by the very shallow characterization of them that is created by the ignorant messages his campaign is sending through their attempts to win women over.  And that’s a good thing because it’s nice to know that unlike Lena Dunham, most women will not have the need for condoms when they step in the voting on Election Day.

Bookmark and Share

Big Bird, Binders, and Bayonets: Obama Making a Big Elections About Small Things

  Bookmark and Share  A new ad from the Republican national Committees artfully shows how President Obama is doing exactly what he decried in 2008: making a big election about small things.  Instead of talking about his record he spends most of his time on the campaign trail talking about Big Bird, binders, and bayonets.

It’s evidence of the President’s inability to defend his record and proof that he is  flat out of ideas to get our economy moving again.

Bookmark and Share

New Emails Reveal That The White House Knew Far More About Benghazi Than They Admit

   Bookmark and Share  Within at least two and a half hours  of the attack that killed our Ambassador and three other Americans at our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House was told that Ansar al-Shariat, an Al Qaeda linked group of militants were taking credit for the attack.

No more than 2 and half hours after the attack, an email  identifying the group claiming responsibility for the terrorist attack was sent to  several locations, including The White House Situation Room, where President Obama was being made aware of the details as the tragedy unfolded.

According to Reuters news agency, the emails specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had taken responsibility for the attacks. In addition to these emails being dispatched by the State Department’s Operations Center the White House Situation Room, they also went to offices in the Pentagon, within the intelligence community, and the FBI,.  All on the afternoon of September 11.

Below you will find copies of the actual missives. The names of the individual recipients of the emails are redacted.

The first email, contains the  subject line of “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack,”.  It was sent at 4:05 PM, approximately 25 minutes after the attack began.  It describes an assault on the compound by 20 armed people.

Click on the image for a larger version

The second email was sent at 4:54 PM and it states that the shooting has stopped and the compound was cleared.  It further states that a response team was “onsite attempting to locate COM personnel.”

Click on the image for a larger version

The third email, was sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time and had the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

Click on the image for a larger version

These documents were released from government sources who are reportedly not connected to any U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity.  So as is the case with most everything we have been learning about the events leading up to and following the attacks in Benghazi, the facts contained in these documents were not released by the White House.  Nevertheless, these facts do contradict just about everything the White House has been saying about what they knew and when they knew it.  And it especially points to attempts by the White House to cover-up the fact that this was terrorist attack, a description which both the Obama White House and Obama reelection team refused to admit to out of fear that it would be get in the way of the President’s reelection chances.

These emails now cast more doubt on the Administration then ever before.  They reveal that the White House knew that a terrorist group claimed responsibility for the attack even though they spent more than two weeks claiming that the attack was the result of a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video that was placed online back in July.  This now makes it hard for anyone not to be suspicious of what else the White House and the President knew.  So far, both the President and Vice President claimed to have not known of two months worth of warnings from Ambassador Chris Stevens about al Qaeda gaining strength in Eastern Libya and of his requests for additional security.  If true there is scandal in just the fact that this information never made its way to the Commander-in-Chief.  If it is not true, and he did know of those developments, than our Commander-In-Chief is absolutely incompetent and directly responsibly for allowing the events that killed Ambassador Stevens and three others to have gotten as far as they did.  But no matter how you look at it, right now there is either one scandal or two.  Are we left with a scandal dealing with an intolerable level of incompetence that killed our Americans in Benghazi, or are we left with one scandal regarding incompetence and another scandal regarding an attempt to cover-up the first scandal?

Bookmark and Share

Is Barack Obama Really a Good Friend to Israel? See the Video

   Bookmark and Share   While Mitt Romney did a good job in the last presidential debate, there was one thing I really think he was remiss in not pointing out.  When the topic of Israel came up, the Governor should have mentioned the unprecedented proposal that President Obama made in 2011 when he told Israel to adopt its 1967 borders. (See the video at the bottom of this post)

With all the attempts by President Obama to claim that he has established the strongest relationship with Israel of any previous President, there are many facts which contradict that claim. Between his refusal to ever visit Israel during his entire term in office, his recent refusal to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while Bebe was visiting the U.S. last month, and a history of Obama snubbing the Prime Minister on many occasions prior to that, it is clear that the American relationship with Israel is not as warm and close as it has been under previous presidents. But one of the most egregious acts against Israel committed by President Obama was his attempt to have Israel return to its indefensible 1967 borders.   It is a point which has not gotten the attention that it should in this election but for good reason, it must.

By trying to have Israel return it’s pre-1967 borders, President Obama was providing Arab states and the Palestinians with the ability to launch ground and missile attacks on the Jewish state with ease.  As explained in this video, a return to those borders would make it impossible for Israel to effectively defend itself against the enemies who surround them and have a great capacity to exploit added opportunities to launch ground and missile attacks.  Yet this is the position that Barack Obama proposed one of closest allies in the world to put themselves in.

During the last presidential debate, Mitt Romney had multiple chances to remind voters of this major Obama foreign policy initiative. And he should have.  At one point Romney reminded voters about Obama’s the apology tour to the Middle East he went on when first coming to office.  Governor Romney reminded us that while the President took the opportunity to fly to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to Turkey and Iraq, he skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region.  It was around then that Romney should have at some point pivoted to President Obama’s 1967 border proposal by adding that while he has apologized to audiences that consisted of our enemies, he has also asked our friends to make fatal concessions to our enemies.  In this case it was a concession that would have moved Israel closer to extinction.

Obama’s attempt to have Israel adopt indefensible borders is a major issue.  It is another sign of his bass ackwards policies.  Policies which seek to placate our enemies and offend our allies.  A policy that is more in the best interests of enemies than our own nation.

When it comes to the Middle East, Israel is the only nation in the region that the United States need not fear a terrorist attack from.  If it is not our only real friend in the Middle East, it is certainly our best.  For that reason alone, it should not have a so-called friend who makes it easier for Israel’s enemies to destroy them.  Yet that is a part of the Obama foreign policy which was not mentioned in any of the debates.  So I have prepared the following video to make the point that Mitt failed to and that others have forget to.

Bookmark and Share

Apology Tour: The New Romney Ad That Highlights Obama’s Bass Ackwards Foreign Policy

Bookmark and Share  In the wake of last night’s final presidential debate of the 2012 election cycle, Mitt Romney has released a new 30 second ad which powerfully explains why many people believe Barack Obama’s foreign policy priorities are as bass ackwards as his failed economic policies

In addition to making its obvious point about the President, the ad also goes a long way in reminding Jewish voters that Barack Obama is not exactly the close friend of Israel that he would like us to believe he is.  That is a critical message for Romney get across to Jewish voters in important battleground states such as Florida where the Jewish is significantly larger than it is in other states.

Bookmark and Share

Romney Stings Obama With “Apology Tour” Remark

During last night’s debate, Mitt Romney stung Obama when he stated that the president went on an apology tour and conveniently skipped Israel. You could tell immediately the comment hurt. And why wouldn’t it? It’s true. And as the cliche states — “the truth hurts.”

Attempting to ease the sting, Obama got a little bit uppity. He leaned in, elevated his voice and went into a denial and distort story about visiting Israel before he was the President of the United States. He rambled on, as he is prone to do, but ultimately skipped addressing the Israel slight or the numerous speeches he made about “America is bad and we’re sorry” during the apology tour.

Romney’s jab is significant because it showcases how Obama conducts his foreign policy — as an weakling.

Look at the Libya events that took place just last month. Obama and his administration spent numerous weeks stating the violence was sparked by an anti-Muhammad video and apologizing to the Middle East for it. During that time, not a word was mentioned about the concept of freedom of speech nor that Obama was intent on protecting it.

Authorities actually approached Google (the owner of You Tube) and requested they squash access to the video. Isn’t that censorship? Consider, too, that the video-maker was identified, detained, questioned and even forced to do the “perp-walk” in front of national media. All this because he made a video. But making amateurish videos is not against the law. Nor is criticism or making inflammatory remarks. Yet, as of today, more authority has come down upon our video-villain than on the militants that carried out the attack that killed four Americans.

And this is the problem with being an international weakling — you end up making America look bad by undermining our founding principles. The reality is those that hate us already see America as bad, depraved and evil. We are the Great Satan. Who would be so naive as to think that validating their outlook will change their minds? Erroneously acknowledge we are evil to those that portray us as evil and you re-enforce their outlook — you don’t alter it.

The sad reality is that Obama and his liberal-progressive, utopia-loving lunatics actually believe in the preposterous “we can all be friends” approach to foreign policy. And they’re so desperate to prove it correct that they have become blind to reality. As a result, when things go wrong they can’t blame the other party because that would be admitting we really can’t all be friends. This would invalidate their life view. So to perpetuate their adolescent outlook, they claim it must be something we did. In the case of Libya it is “that terrible video insulted people beyond their ability to be rational, that’s why they hurt us. Take away the video and we can still be friends.”

We just can’t make videos. Or openly critique Islam. Or call radical terrorists — radical terrorists. It is an immature and self-destructive outlook. America has a black president. It has a woman that runs the State Department. Americans believe in freedom of speech and equal rights. At the same time, there exist cultures in the world that shoot children for seeking an education, lock people in jail for bad-mouthing leaders and don’t allow women to drive. Yet, to the apologists, it is our values that create the problems of the world.

If you believe the Left, foreign policy was a feather in Obama’s cap. The “courageous” decision to kill Osama bin Laden and Obama’s “heroic” drone attacks were scenarios the Left could spin a narrative around as a reason for re-electing Obama. Better still, if the Right attacked his approach, the Left could counter by claiming apologies do work because Obama has kept us safe.

Unfortunately, the terror attack against the American consulate in Libya shows this narrative to be just another lie.

Do you think they will apologize?

Video — Some samples of Obama’s Apologies

Follow I.M. Citizen on Facebook or visit at IMCitizen.net 

The Last Presidential Debate: Obama Hit Mitt Hard But Romney Won (See The Full Debate Video and Transcript)

   Bookmark and Share   Without question, President Obama had a good night last night but he failed to achieve his goal of beating Mitt Romney by landing political punches that successfully painted Romney as a clueless, warmonger whom Americans can’t trust on the world stage  (See the transcript and video of the entire debate at the bottom of this post).

From the beginning it was clear that the two men had two entirely different demeanors.  President Obama began and ended the night with an aggressive, combative almost angry quality that was often sarcastic and condescending.  For his part, Romney was friendly, respectful and un-rattled by the President.  But most of all, while President Obama failed to essentially disqualify Romney and his foreign policy vision, Governor Romney again passed the presidential test and proved to the American people that he is prepared to take on the job of President.

President Obama tried his best to describe Romney as “always wrong”, and “all over the map” and at one point he even spoke to the Governor as if he were a child after launching in to this diatribe about Romney’s call for a stronger navy;

“You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

For Romney, while he spent most of the night demonstrating that he is quite informed on matters of foreign policy and proving that he has a vision for America’s role in the world, he never exhibited the type of bitter and arrogant behavior that was put on display by the President.  And in one of his strongest remarks of the night, Romney turned the attacks against him on to the President ;

“I can say this, that we’re talking about the Middle East and how to help the Middle East reject the kind of terrorism we’re seeing, and the rising tide of tumult and – and confusion. And – and attacking me is not an agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we’re going to deal with the challenges that exist in the Middle East, and take advantage of the opportunity there, and stem the tide of this violence.”said Romney.

Overall, President Obama may have actually won last night’s debate on the basis of his ability to defend his own unravelling foreign policy by aggressively trying to put Romney on the defense throughout the night.  But Romney was actually less defensive than the President and held his own.   In doing so Romney made this debate a draw, which for a challenger to a sitting President is ultimately a win.

Many may not initially see it that that way though.  That includes Romney supporters, who may have been disappointed by the fact that Mitt Romney did not beat President Obama over the head with Benghazi.  But as I suggested in a post prior to the debate  any attempt to go after the President so aggressively on Benghazi  risked “the creation of a new narrative that will suggest that Romney took legitimate questions about the events surrounding Benghazi and exploited them by over-politicizing them in a desperate attempt to win the presidential election.  Such a narrative just two weeks before Election Day would produce irreversibly damaging results for the Romney-Ryan ticket and future headlines in the biased liberal media will deal more with their accusing Romney of attempting to exploit Benghazi than the facts that make Mitt Romney right to make Benghazi an issue”.

I added;

“So while the temptation to confront President Obama with the evidence and questions surrounding the obvious foreign policy and national security blunders behind Benghazi, Romney would probably be best advised to allude to these legitimate concerns in broader terms.”

It is clear that Governor Romney agreed and instead he used this debate as an opportunity to apply a strategy that targeted listeners of the debate who’s votes he needs to win in key battleground states such as Florida and Ohio.  This too was a point I predicted Romney would take in the post refered to above.  Romney applied this strategy by offering a solid defense of his position on the auto bailouts, a point Romney proved the President to be wrong about when he mischaracterizes Romney’s real position.   Romney’s decision to spend time explaining that domestic policy issue during a foreign policy debate was a clear attempt by Romney to address the swing voters among Ohio’s  auto workers.

Romney also appealed quite well to the relatively large Jewish vote in the battleground state of Florida.  In one exchange between the two men, Romney eloquently laid out  how much “daylight” President Obama created “between ourselves and Israel”.

All of this means that Governor Romney accomplished all that he really needed to last night.  Not only did he avoid making any gaffe’s, he demonstrated a clear knowledge and command of foreign policy issues.  He also conducted himself in a way that avoided any negative impressions among voters who watched the debate.  While President Obama may have turned off some voters with his small and petty style during the debate, Romney was  strong, confident and principled.

In the final analysis Romney needed to demonstrate that he is presidential and on equal  footing with President Obama and when all was said and done, he did just that.  That means that despite President Obama’s strong but condescending performance, Mitt Romney won.  Why?  Because President Obama failed to change few if any of the undecided minds that he needed to if he wants to win this election.  But Romney’s inoffensive performance added to his credibility as a candidate and it quite tactfully targeted the voters he needed to speak to last night.  And with the momentum behind Mitt, President Obama failed to turn this election around.

Click here for or a complete transcript of the debate.  See the full video of the debate below:

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: