2012 Election

[vector7]

More proof the country has been virally infected with socialism and has become overrun with Obama Zombies...



Howard Stern Interviews Obama Supporters 2012

Howard Stern contributors Sal and Richard travel to Harlem to interview Obama supporters and ask them why they are voting for Obama.

Stern and his crew ask denizens of Harlem various outrageous questions, including if they believe Obama will find and kill Osama bin Laden; if Romney is a Muslim and if Obama is a Mormon; if Obama made the right choice by picking Paul Ryan as his running mate and if he did it because he is black.

One interviewee was under the impression that 2008 Republican nominee John McCain is also running this time.

"Just trust me, not one person knew that Osama bin Laden was dead," Stern said during the segment.

"Well, we're obviously dealing with a whole population that doesn't listen to the newscasts or read a newspaper," co-host Robin Quivers said.

[American Patriot]

News/

Madonna Calls Barack Obama the "Black Muslim in the White House" During Politically Charged Spiel

by Alexis L. Loinaz Today 11:45 AM PDT

• Tweet

Kevin Mazur/WireImage
Madonna's rocking the vote—and rocking some controversy while she's at it. (Try not to look so shocked.)
On Monday night, the pop star took the stage in Washington, D.C., where, during a lull between songs, she urged the roaring crowd to reelect President Barack Obama…but not before firing off a head-scratching battle cry.
What feud? Madonna now gaga over Gaga, says they'll share the stage "very soon"
"So, you all better vote for f--kin' Obama, OK?" she exhorted concertgoers. "For better or for worse, all right, we have a black Muslim in the White House!"
It wasn't clear whether Madge was being earnest or sarcastic or just plain ignorant (E! News has reached out for comment), but the tidbit figured prominently into a cuss-filled, patriotic spiel about trailblazing political leaders, in which she name-checked luminaries like Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr.
Aside from giving a shout to Obama's historic election—"Now that's the s--t, it means there is hope in this country," she raved—the 54-year-old also praised the president for "fighting for gay rights."
Madonna loses swastika for France concert after legal threat
The rant capped off a concert tour already rife with in-your-face political overtones and politicized stunts—she did, after all, incite the ire of a French political party after slapping a swastika onto the forehead of its leader.
But she also combed darker themes throughout the show, including a montage of polarizing figures like Sarah Palin and Pope Benedict XVI, as well as unnerving flashes of gunplay and prisoner torture during songs like "Revolver" and "Gang Bang."
Guess simply flashing your nips and bum just ain't cutting it for Madge these days.
Madonna's just the latest star to get all political

[Ryan Ruck]

You know, if Obama is reelected, just fuck the population of the US. Seriously, fuck the welfare leaches, fuck the brain dead idiots who vote for an image, fuck all the useless slags who sit and follow pop culture more closely than politics and fuck up the voting process because of it - fuck them all. They'd obviously be too stupid to deserve the society our Founders fought and died for and deserve the chains of slavery they seem so intent on wanting instead. I'll be damned though if those chains will be put on me.

I was talking with a coworker/friend earlier and I told him I'd be lying if I said I felt even remotely confident in a Romney victory. Here in Ohio I have been seeing way too many Obama signs and stickers versus Romney. I really just don't get it... Most people realized what a failure Carter was and voted him out and yet we are seeing the exact opposite going on here. Obama has been an even bigger failure by every metric but we see some people, including the media, sticking up for him with even more zeal than before! I saw an individual of a certain demographic that went 98% to Obama last election wearing a goddamned Obama ball cap. Took every ounce of my control to not ask what is so great that Obama has done that he deserves reelection.

I told the coworker/friend the only things that gives me any hope at this point is how much the pollsters are having to weigh polls in favor of Dems, how big and unexpected a success the Chik-Fil-A deal was, and how successful the mid-term elections were. I'm still going to go to the polling station on Election Day and cast my ballot for Romney but I'm not hopeful.

[American Patriot]

The point of that article, I think Ryan was to PROVE beyond a doubt that this is how the Left actually sees the man. They revel in the fact a "Black Muslim" is in the White House because frankly sluts like Madonna like Black men (I'm certain of that... lol) and so do most white Liberal males.

They are the biggest fucking sissies on this planet and love the fact a black man is now in charge. You see, it makes them feel protected and even less of a "man" than they could feel.

Those Liberal Males hate guns, hunting, war and anything there is that is "manly" and they view manly things as "chauvinistic" and "Neanderthal", low brown and ignorant. They are "Elites". They are sissy boys who wax, botox and even paint their nails (I've seen them around town), they wear sissified clothing and consider it "fashion".

If they aren't outright homosexual they believe they should "try both sides of the spectrum" but whatever they do, they can't be manly men because their Liberal cunt bitches would leave them home at night while they go out with some black man someplace.

(Ok... have I offended anyone yet? LOL God I hope I have, since I'm trying)

[American Patriot]

The fight over Elizabeth Warren’s heritage, explained

Posted by Sean Sullivan on September 27, 2012 at 9:09 am

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Democrat Elizabeth Warren have spent the last six days trading blows over an issue that first emerged in the campaign nearly six months ago: Warren’s heritage.
(Michael Dwyer/AP)

If you’re just tuning in, here’s a summary of the spat: Warren claims she has Native American ancestry. She’s never substantiated her claim with documentation, saying she learned of her background from her family. Warren insists she has never sought to gain a professional advantage because of her heritage. Brown isn’t satisfied. He wants Warren to release personnel records backing her assertion.
The longer version of the story is filled with some twists and turns. Here’s a look at how it has unfolded:
In late April, the Boston Herald reported that in the 1990s, Harvard Law School – where Warren began in 1992 and was granted tenure in 1995 – touted the Democrat’s Native American background as part of an effort to boost its diversity hiring record. Warren’s campaign said she didn’t bring up her heritage before Harvard hired her and that her background came out through later conversations.
The next week, Warren acknowledged listing herself as a minority in a directory of law professors. The directory included her on a list of minority professors from 1985-1996, the Boston Globe reported. Warren said she listed herself as a minority because she wanted to connect with “people for whom native American is part of their heritage and part of their hearts.” Brown, meanwhile, went on offense, calling for more scrutiny.
In late May, the Globe reported that Warren acknowledged that at some point after she was hired by Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, she informed the schools of her Native American heritage. The revelation spurred a new round of questions, since Warren never brought up the fact a month earlier, instead saying she didn’t know why Harvard listed her as Native American. Earlier in the May, a report pointed out that she listed herself as “white” at the University of Texas Law School, prompting questions about consistency.
Throughout it all, Warren struggled to get past the story. Her responses to questions about why she identified as Native American were convoluted (and included a discussion of “high cheekbones” at one point).
And Brown’s campaign piled on, seeking to raise more questions about whether Warren used her claim to Native American heritage to her professional advantage. They continue to do so, citing the fact that Warren stopped listing herself as a minority in the faculty directory in 1995 — the year she received tenure at Harvard — in a recent press release.
Brown has repeatedly called on Warren to release personnel records to prove she never received professional advantage. She has declined to do so. Officials responsible for hiring her have said her heritage was not a factor in their decision.
Polling conducted after the story received nearly daily coverage in the Bay State’s most prominent media outlets for about a month showed – somewhat surprisingly – that Warren was largely unharmed by the scrutiny her heritage received. Brown’s camp chalked the numbers up to being outspent on TV by the Democrat. For Warren, much of May was spent on defense and the heritage debate was still a distraction from her message, if not a clear negative in the polls.
Over the summer, the quarrel simmered, and the near daily back-and-forth slowed. Brown didn’t touch the issue in TV ads, opting instead to run positive spots featuring his signature pickup truck. Warren didn’t highlight the issue, either.
That all changed last week.
In the opening minutes of the first debate, the candidates were asked about each other’s character. Brown quickly brought up the issue of Warren’s heritage.
“Professor Warren claimed she was a Native American, a person of color — and as you can see, she is not,” Brown said at the debate. “I didn’t get an advantage because of my background,” rebutted Warren.
It didn’t end there. On Monday, Brown released his first TV ad raising the topic. The 30-second spot comprised of TV news clips about Warren’s heritage. Warren responded with her own ad later on Monday, in which she once again repeated that she never received any professional advantage due to her background.
On Tuesday, a video showing individuals making war whoops and tomahawk chop gestures outside a rally reportedly included Republican staffers and an aide to the senator, forcing Brown to play some defense. He said he did not condone the actions. The principal chief of the Cherokee Nation called on Brown to apologize.
It remains to be seen whether the whole thing will do Warren serious damage at the polls in November, or perhaps whether Brown’s decision to continuously press the issue could backfire on him. But this much is clear: During a cycle when the economy has dominated nearly every competitive statewide race, the nation’s fiscal state has taken a back seat (for a while at least) to a very different issue in one of this year’s most competitive contests.

[American Patriot]

September 27, 2012 8:45 AM

• Print
• Text

Judge signals Pa. voter ID law may be blocked

• comments
  5
• More

By

Paula Reid

Kathryn Whitecotton covers her personal information as she shows her Pennsylvania driver's license and her address update card outside the PennDOT Driver's License Center in Butler, Pa., Sept. 26, 2012. (AP Photo)
Campaign 2012

• Ohio tilts blue in latest electoral map estimate
• A culture clash over Obama in Virginia
• McCaskill hits Akin for "legitimate" rape comment

• Obama makes two-minute appeal to voters
• Judge signals Pa. voter ID law may be blocked
• Complete Coverage »

(CBS News) A hearing on Pennsylvania's strict Voter ID law resumes Thursday in Harrisburg after the judge gave a strong indication on Tuesday that he may block at least part of the law.
"I'm giving you a heads-up," Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson told lawyers in the case. "I think it is a possibility that there could be an injunction here."
He asked lawyers to prepare arguments for Thursday not on whether he should grant an injunction, but on what kind of injunction he should impose. Lawyers had a day to prepare their argument because court did not meet on Wednesday.
Thursday, the plaintiffs are expected to present a dozen witnesses who will describe significant difficulties they encountered while trying to obtain the kind of ID required to vote.
If Judge Simpson finds that voters are unable to easily obtain required IDs or if some voters will be disenfranchised by the ID requirement, he must block the law from taking effect before the November's elections per an order from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
The voter ID law was signed into law by Republican Gov. Tom Corbett in March; the law generally requires voters to present a photo identification card in order to cast a ballot. Pennsylvania is one of 10 states that have passed ID laws in the past two years.
Opponents argue the law could create "a very large problem" for as many as half a million voters in Pennsylvania. They argue that a disproportionate number of those impacted would be racial minorities, the elderly and other vulnerable groups.
"We know there was a strategic and targeted move behind the passing of this law ... this law was passed because someone wants to control an election," said John Jordan, Director for Civic Engagement for the Pennsylvania NAACP.
In court on Tuesday, lawyers for the plaintiffs grilled Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) officials on a litany of issues voters have encountered when trying to obtain an ID.
PennDOT Deputy Secretary Kurt Myers testified that PennDOT has, "Reacted to [these] concerns by making changes."
Changes include easing restrictions on a Department of State voter ID, just hours before Tuesday's hearing.
At Tuesday's hearing, PennDOT announced that voters could now apply for a voting-only ID without first having to apply for a Pennsylvania non-driver ID, which has more stringent application process. Voters will also no longer have to show proof of residence.
"We're in the business of issuing IDs, not denying IDs," Myers told the court.
But some see the state's last minute measure to make it easier to get an ID as a ploy to deter the judge from issuing an injunction.
"All of this is because of the pressure that is on [them] and to make sure that the judge does not overturn this thing," according to Jordan.
Judge Simpson previously declined to issue a preliminary injunction against the law back in August. In that opinion, Judge Simpson wrote that opponents of the voter ID law "did an excellent job of 'putting a face' to those burdened by this new requirement," but he does not "have the luxury of deciding this issue based on my sympathy for the witnesses."
Opponents of the law appealed his decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court returned the case to Judge Simpson and ordered him assess the availability of ID cards in light of "expedited" efforts put forth by the Pennsylvania government.
After hearing the rest of the case on Thursday, Judge Simpson must issue an opinion on or before October 2, next Tuesday, just 35 days before Election Day. He is expected issue his decision quickly as he told the court on Tuesday, "Sooner is better for everybody involved."

[American Patriot]

This guy never should have lost support. The lies and BS coming out of the other side, along with all the misstatements they make??? Come on.

Why Todd Akin sees support from some Republicans

David Grant | The Christian Science Monitor | Sep 27, 2012

Alaska News & Features


Photos: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge




Arctic Ocean vs. ANWR: A hard-earned quest to drill in the icy abyss




most read

• Arctic Ocean vs. ANWR: A hard-earned quest to drill in the icy abyss
  
• Arctic Bigfoot? Balding polar bear? Inquiring minds want to know
  
• Todd and Sarah Palin listed among Exxon Valdez spill fund claimants

Todd Akin won’t have to go it alone. The Missouri Republican’s senatorial campaign, rocked by his remarks regarding “legitimate rape” last month, was left for dead by scores of national Republicans. Weeks ago, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and Crossroads GPS, a Republican heavyweight “super PAC,” pulled advertising from the Show-Me State.
But on Wednesday, the day after Representative Akin could pull out of the race and his name not appear on the ballot, his campaign against Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) was supported by former presidential candidate Rick Santorum (who won Missouri’s Republican presidential primary) and two Republican senators – one of whom previously called for Akin to step down.
"If Republicans are to win back the Senate and stop President Obama's liberal agenda, we must defeat Senator Claire McCaskill in Missouri. Her support of President Obama's job-killing, big-spending policies are sending our country into an economic abyss,” said Mr. Santorum and Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina in a jointly released statement.
Senator DeMint, a leading figure of the Senate’s most conservative wing whose political-action committee has supported many stridently conservative candidates, is weighing whether to put financial support behind his political vote of confidence.
The other senator voicing support for Akin? Sen. Roy Blunt (R) of Missouri.
“Congressman Akin and I don’t agree on everything, but he and I agree the Senate majority must change,” Senator Blunt said in a statement. “From Governor Romney to the county courthouse, I'll be working for the Republican ticket in Missouri, and that includes Todd Akin."
In August, however, Blunt joined all four living former Missouri senators in calling for Akin to step down.

“We do not believe it serves the national interest for Congressman Todd Akin to stay in this race,” the five men said in a joint statement. “The issues at stake are too big, and this election is simply too important. The right decision is to step aside.”
Blunt’s about-face seems to be about making the best of a bad situation, says Dave Robertson, a professor of political science at the University of Missouri in St. Louis. With control of the US Senate hanging in the balance, the GOP can’t afford to give up on a race that many thought would be one of its easiest takeover opportunities before Akin’s debacle.
“Whether Akin loses or wins, Blunt is doing this for the party,” Professor Robertson says. “I think it’s not going to be remembered that he did much of this, besides by people who support Akin. For Blunt, it probably is mostly pluses and not many minuses.”
Will any of this backup make a difference for Akin?
It’s unlikely, says Brian Calfano, a political science professor at Missouri State University in Springfield, that Santorum and DeMint will move the needle for the congressman.
“They’re both appealing to a strongly partisan or ideologically pure element of the electorate,” Professor Calfano says. “And Akin already has that support.”
Blunt, on the other hand, may help.
“He’s not as associated with the kinds of tea party or strident social conservatism that DeMint or Santorum are,” Calfano says. “Being as he is the hometown senator, he’s going to have a lot more influence” with more center-right voters.
Yet it’s going to take money, and lots of it, to get Akin back on top against the flush McCaskill campaign.
That’s what DeMint may offer – and possibly other national Republicans who have turned off the spigots.
“There’s no way they’re going to ignore the possibility of knocking [McCaskill] off,” Calfano says. “You’re probably still going to see some support from a [political-action committee] or a NRSC to come in and do something, even though they said they wouldn’t. They’re going to need that seat.”

[American Patriot]

Mitt Romney to 'fact check' Obama in debate

Republicans are telegraphing Romney’s hard-line strategy for his faceoff with Obama. | AP Photos




By KEVIN ROBILLARD | 9/27/12 10:03 AM EDT
Mitt Romney plans to turn himself into a one-man truth squad during the first presidential debate next week, casting President Barack Obama as someone who can’t be trusted to stick to the facts or keep his promises.
Top Republicans are telegraphing Romney’s hard-line strategy for his faceoff with Obama, according Mike Allen’s Playbook in POLITICO on Thursday. The debate plan comes during a presidential cycle where media fact-checkers have held a high profile and where an earlier effort by Democrats to cast GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan as untrustworthy got results.

Romney himself was the first to signal the strategy.
“I think he’s going to say a lot of things that aren’t accurate,” Romney said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” earlier this month, adding he would have to choose between correcting Obama and delivering his own message.
(Also on POLITICO: Full 2012 presidential debate schedule)
“I’d be tempted to go back to that wonderful line by Ronald Reagan, ‘There you go again,’” Romney said.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who is playing Obama in Romney’s debate prep, told POLITICO he needed to replicate the president’s ability to explain “the issue from his perspective, hedging on the truth sometimes by doing so.”
And in another sign of the Republican strategy heading into debate on Wednesday in Denver, Karl Rove used his Wall Street Journal column Thursday to advise Romney to call out Obama’s misstatements, without actually calling the president a liar.
“While Mr. Romney must point out the president’s misrepresentations, he can’t take on the role of fact-checker-in-chief,” wrote Rove, who runs a constellation of outside groups spending millions on ads attacking Obama and backing Romney. “He should deal comprehensively with several of Mr. Obama’s untruths and, having done so, dismiss the rest as more of the same. By carefully calling into question the president’s veracity, Mr. Romney will have the opportunity to provide context: Mr. Obama doesn’t shoot straight because he can’t defend his record and has no agenda for the future except the status quo, stay the course.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz27gI8koiA

[American Patriot]

Saying 'This is a crisis,' Romney promises better care for vets

• 
• Comments
  0
  

• Email

  Share

  
  
  

Mitt Romney speaks during a Veterans for Romney event at American Legion Post 176 in Springfield, Va. (Alex Wong / Getty Images / September 27, 2012)

Related photos »

By Maeve Reston September 27, 2012, 11:28 a.m.

SPRINGFIELD, Va. -- Mitt Romney told an audience of veterans in Northern Virginia on Thursday that President Obama has not done enough to help U.S. soldiers returning from conflicts abroad, and argued that his Democratic rival bears full responsibility for failing to halt automatic defense cuts that are slated to take effect early next year.


Struggling to recover after the disclosure of derisive comments he made at a private fundraiser in which he seemed to discount 47% of Americans who don’t pay federal income taxes, Romney is heightening his focus on foreign policy and military affairs, a message well tailored to Virginia’s huge community of veterans. (He will campaign Friday at Valley Forge Military College in Pennsylvania.)


At an American Legion hall in Springfield, Romney said Obama should have found a way to halt the automatic cuts in defense and domestic spending, known as sequesters, which will take effect next year unless Congress can find a better way to whittle down the deficit.


PHOTOS: Mitt Romney on the campaign trail
Democrats and Republicans in Congress, including Romney’s running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul D. Ryan, agreed to the cuts as part of a deal to raise the federal debt ceiling last summer.


Both Obama and his Defense secretary, Leon Panetta, oppose the cuts, but Romney faulted them for even contemplating such an agreement — calling it a “kind of a gun-to- your-head opportunity” that came into being because “Congress couldn’t get the job done properly, and the president couldn’t lead them.”


He noted that Virginia’s economy is hinged to the defense industry and said the cuts could lead to a loss of 136,000 jobs in Virginia. “It is still a troubled and dangerous world, and the idea of cutting our military commitment by a trillion dollars over this decade is unthinkable,” he said.


On Thursday, Romney sought to highlight unemployment among younger veterans and the psychological problems they face returning home from war. He called the current backlog of claims in the veterans system unacceptable.


“We have huge numbers of our men and women returning from conflict that are seeking counseling, psychological counseling and can’t find that counseling within our system —and, of course, record numbers of suicides. This is a crisis,” Romney said.


Given the threats around the world and the needs of veterans, “how in the world, as commander in chief, you could stand by as we shrink our military commitment financially is something that I don’t understand, and I will reverse it,” he said.
PHOTOS: Mitt Romney’s campaign gaffes
Last week, Republicans in Congress blocked the president’s proposal for a Veterans Job Corps that would have spent $1 billion over five years hiring service members to work on federal public lands projects. Members of the military who have served since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, faced an unemployment rate of 10.9% in August — which was higher than the national rate of 8.1%. But Senate Republicans balked at the cost of the bill.


Romney has called for massive budget cuts to reduce the deficit, but he has not specified what specific cuts he would propose in the defense budget — or most other areas. “I’m sure there’s opportunity to economize and do a better job with the funds we have,” he said. “I expect to go after the Department of Defense and look in every single corner and see if we can’t do things in a more efficient way.”


But he said he would take the “resources we save and use them to make sure we care for our veterans in the way they deserve to be cared for.”


Keying off the lack of specificity in Romney’s budget-cutting plans, Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith countered that his proposals “could result in deep cuts to the VA.”


“Because of his refusal to lead his party and demand that congressional Republicans, including his running mate, drop their opposition to asking for a penny more from millionaires and billionaires, he’s stood in the way of preventing devastating automatic defense cuts,” Smith said, referring to the deadlock over sequestration. “These policies would be disastrous for America’s military, military families and veterans, and we can’t afford them.”

[American Patriot]

So... I just took this "test"

I side with Mitt Romney on most issues in the 2012 Presidential Election.

Candidates you side with...

92%
Mitt Romney

on economic, domestic policy, environmental, foreign policy, social, immigration, and science issues

85%
Gary Johnson

on economic, domestic policy, environmental, and healthcare issues

76%
Virgil Goode

on domestic policy, economic, environmental, healthcare, and immigration issues

37%
Barack Obama

no major issues

11%
Rocky Anderson

no major issues

5%
Jill Stein

no major issues

49%
Colorado Voters

on domestic policy, economic, and immigration issues.

46%
American Voters

on domestic policy, economic, and immigration issues.

[American Patriot]

http://www.isidewith.com/

[Malsua]

I took the Isidewith a few weeks ago.

I can't believe I'm so close to mittens.

[Malsua]

I figure the only thing I agree with Obama on is that yes, he indeed is currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue, that the sun is a ball of fusion and that we as humans breathe air and expel CO2. Everything else we disagree about.

[American Patriot]

I'm actually not too sure I agree with Obama about the CO2 thing, cuz, honestly I don't think he actually KNOWs that particular answer. As for the sun, he doesn't know shit about physics because almost everything that comes out of his mouth is a myth. Science in his world doesn't exist.

I was suprised I hit 92%...

Honestly, I can't figure out WHAT I agree with Obama on. Nothing probably. I think that was to make him look good. lol

[Ryan Ruck]

I think I took it a while back. Only sided with Zero 9% and the stuff they said I sided with him was mostly BS.

Sided with Mitt 94% I think and Gary Johnson 80-some percent. Paul wasn't on there as he wasn't a candidate any longer. Maybe all the Ronulans pressured them to put him back up.

[American Patriot]

I didn't see Paul up there....

I'm still trying to figure out who that other guy is...
85%
Gary Johnson

Never heard of him before!

[Brykovian]

Cool site, Rick ... thanks for linking that!

You really haven't heard of the former Governor Johnson before? Wow -- I'm a "squishy moderate" and I know him (and really like a lot of what he says ... but don't tell anyone).

I'm not overly surprised with my top 3 results, but I am surprised on the overlap with the current Pres. ("squishy moderate" again, I guess)



I'm curious to see how my wife lines up ... she thinks she's a Democrat (raised by a pair of midwestern teachers), but I think she's primarily libertarian (small "l").

[American Patriot]

My wife is a registered democrat. She hated Clinton with a passion. She hates Obama even worse. She said all those "stupid women who think he is good looking and vote for him because he's a good speaker are stupider than a box of rocks". lol

No, I REALLY have never heard of that guy. Ever.

[American Patriot]

Hey, everyone should listen to loudmouthed actors. But remember those of us who aren't actors can cuss too.

• September 28, 2012, 10:00 AM ET

Samuel L. Jackson to Obama Voters: ‘Wake The F— Up’

By WSJ Staff

Associated Press

In this Feb. 24, 2008 file photo, actor Samuel L. Jackson speaks on behalf of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama at a rally in Tyler, Texas. (AP Photo/Dr. Scott M. Lieberman, File)

WASHINGTON –Actor Samuel L. Jackson has a simple message for voters who supported President Barack Obama in 2008 but aren’t enthusiastic this time around: “Wake the f— up!”


The popular film and voice actor channels his inner Jules Winnfield in a new video from the Jewish Council for Education and Research that riffs on the hit book “Go the F–k to Sleep.” Featuring a young girl concerned about her family’s apathy about this year’s election, the spot shows a salty-tongued Mr. Jackson calling out the girl’s parents, siblings and grandparents as he seeks to energize their support. (A version with the F word beeped out can be seen here, while the original, profanity-laced version is here.)


“Hell no it can’t wait, your lives will be affected. Romney and Ryan will gut Medicare if they’re elected. Ask the fact checkers, those two are fact duckers,” Mr. Jackson says to a pair of randy grandparents.
“What do you want us to do?” asks the grandmother.


“Say ‘Hell no, motherf—–s!” yells the actor, wearing his trademark Kangol cap.


Read more on our fellow blog Washington Wire.

[Ryan Ruck]

Yeah, I saw it on Red Eye.

I think it is rather classless to debase the Presidency to that level.

So the left gets Sam Jackson (who I have enjoyed in movies) and we get Mike Rowe. Loudmouth versus hands-on, sweat-of-the-brow. I can live with that...