GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/04/14/ann-romney-rallies-conservative-troops-to-her-husbands-cause/trackback/

  1. Actually, what wasn’t criticized about Palin and her family? Palin and her family are still criticized and there is never ending criticism of Bush and Cheney to this day. Hopefully, Romney will fight back as Palin is doing but Bush and Cheney never did.

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 14, 2012 @ 8:10 am - April 14, 2012

  2. Hillary Rosen made the classic mistake of repeating something that should only be said inside the leftist bubble. I am sure the Wiccan clerk at the Womyn’s Empowerment Organic Food Co-Op thought the remark that Ann Romney had never worked a day in her life was hilarious and spot on. It never occurred to Ms. Rosen that normal people would find it insulting and offensive.

    Comment by V the K — April 14, 2012 @ 9:47 am - April 14, 2012

  3. Hilary Rosen has had her ass handed to her on Twitter.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — April 14, 2012 @ 10:44 am - April 14, 2012

  4. obama has no patience for attacks on his family – believe me, he is squarely behind this attack on Ann Romney. Has he called her up to see how she’s doing? Like he did for that stupid Fluke girl? Of course not, he’s whining about all his hard work and how Americans recognize his need for lavish vacations.

    H. Rosen did us all a favor in having conservatives rally around Romney – if only because of his wife. Thank you b***h.

    Comment by Leah — April 14, 2012 @ 11:35 am - April 14, 2012

  5. When has Obama ever denounced a political attack against an opponent’s family?

    Comment by V the K — April 14, 2012 @ 12:45 pm - April 14, 2012

  6. Rosen was tagged with the first official foul/penalty in the Romney/Obama competition. Although Rosen has been a regular playa visiting the WH, she was slapped down by many lefties, for going after the fam of a politician in the presidential race.

    But it certainly set the bar early in this ‘no hold bars’ race. NO Put downs on the wives.

    I think Ann Romney did a stellar job raising her family while staying at home.

    Is she really the person Mitt wants to reach out to the struggling families caught up in this ‘who da best’ candidate? Probably not.

    From the few clips that I have seen of Ann, she comes across as a wonderful person, devoted mother, champion and advocate of her partner and a survivor. But the Rosen glitch as a paid – for commentator has opened the door. whether planned or not, there will be very few opportunities for either side to go after families.

    But it will ask folk to consider the current financial standing of the RMONEY clan and it is interesting how Mittens did secure some of his fortunes in a trust for his boys without paying heavy penalties.

    Comment by rusty — April 14, 2012 @ 12:48 pm - April 14, 2012

  7. This episode further reinforces what we increasingly realize about the left.* The left doesn’t have fixed principles. Not really. And by extension they don’t believe very much of what they say. Not really. The only thing that matters is the Goal. We can discuss and debate exactly what the Goal is but it has a lot to do with gaining and maintaining social and political Power.

    They’re against intemperate language – except when they use it. They think you should accept their apology – except when you offer one. They complain you don’t have more liberals on your show/faculty/whatever – and don’t care about including conservatives on their show/faculty/whatever. If you’re rich you’re an Other (ha!) and out of touch with regular Americans and use that to attack a candidate during an election – but never seem concerned when rich liberals run for office (Pelosi, Bloomberg! and so on). Similarly if you’re a stay-at-home mom what do you know about economics? (said word coming from the Greek word for “household”) but boy they’d like stay-at-home moms to vote their way. If you say or do something stupid they’ll use it to discredit you and your opinions forever (as with Limbaugh’s previous medication and marriage issues, refudiate, and so on) – but don’t seem to care if one of their own does the same or worse or more (57 states, Austrian, Rutherford Hayes, corpse-man, and so on). They’ll scold you for attacking the president’s family, or being “disrespectful” – and had no qualms about any of that during the Bush year and still don’t with current political opponents.

    It’s truly astonishing, and I didn’t really perceive this until this year. Almost everything is ad hoc, a tool at hand for the moment, to score a political point or attack an opponent or a position they don’t like. And yesterday they said/did something different, tomorrow they’ll do, and even today in an unguarded moment. I think that’s what frosts my mug the most about the American social-political-cultural left. They don’t really believe in what they say. There’s a word in English for that and it also comes from Greek.

    *I concede that these are generalizations, and I’m sure there are exceptions.

    Comment by Rick67 — April 14, 2012 @ 2:30 pm - April 14, 2012

  8. Forgot to mention the Supreme Court. They’re all for the Supreme Court’s authority, that’s settled, it’s the “law of the land” – until it’s their laws in question.

    Comment by Rick67 — April 14, 2012 @ 2:36 pm - April 14, 2012

  9. Hi Dan,

    Didn’t we have a conservative reader who said that he media attacks on Mitt Romney make the former Massachusetts governor more sympathetic to him? This guy, as I recall, had not previously been favorably disposed to the presumptive Republican nominee.

    Would you be suggesting that this conservative reader might actually have voted any differently in November, had media coverage been a little (a lot?) more favourable to MR? Seems a real stretch to me…

    In any case, you can have your cake and eat it as well, Dan–after all, if attacks on MR make him more sympathetic to conservatives “not previously favourably disposed to him” out of sympathy; and, favourable coverage makes him look even better to conservatives, so conservatives will be even more likely to back him. What a fantastic great dynamic! I am sure he can ride that effect all the way to victory in November!

    Comment by Cas — April 14, 2012 @ 2:38 pm - April 14, 2012

  10. Perhaps, Cas, particularly if the attacks come from the president and his closest associates.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 14, 2012 @ 3:02 pm - April 14, 2012

  11. If Hillary Rosen really cares about the economic concerns of working women, well, how does she tip?

    Comment by Lesbian Tipping Habits — April 14, 2012 @ 4:23 pm - April 14, 2012

  12. But it will ask folk to consider the current financial standing of the RMONEY clan and it is interesting how Mittens did secure some of his fortunes in a trust for his boys without paying heavy penalties.

    Comment by rusty — April 14, 2012 @ 12:48 pm – April 14, 2012

    Actually, it’s very easy to explain.

    Notice in particular this point:

    As for paying income taxes on that great growth, Romney is footing the bill. According to his tax forms, the trust is set up as an “intentionally defective grantor trust,” which means the senior generation pays income tax on the trust each year, but they don’t pay the estate tax.

    In short, what Romney has done is to set aside money for his children and plan intelligently for it. And he’s even paying the taxes on it — more taxes in a single year, rusty, than you will pay over the course of multiple decades.

    And you want him to be penalized for doing so.

    Romney is doing a good thing by planning for his children’s future. He is giving them every possible opportunity that he can. He himself is paying the taxes and using his expertise to ensure that his children receive the best possible return.

    And you want him to be punished for it.

    Why? You aren’t accusing Obama of fraud. You aren’t insisting that Pelosi cheats on her taxes. You aren’t insinuating that the Kennedys are illegally burying assets. You even, hilariously, are decrying the fact that gays and lesbians have to pay penalties on transferring assets while you are demanding these penalties be applied to straight people.

    Rick67 again nailed you and your Obama Party beautifully:

    The left doesn’t have fixed principles. Not really. And by extension they don’t believe very much of what they say. Not really. The only thing that matters is the Goal. We can discuss and debate exactly what the Goal is but it has a lot to do with gaining and maintaining social and political Power……

    Almost everything is ad hoc, a tool at hand for the moment, to score a political point or attack an opponent or a position they don’t like. And yesterday they said/did something different, tomorrow they’ll do, and even today in an unguarded moment.

    Hence we need read your statements only as what they are — something that you are saying today that you won’t tomorrow, something that you don’t really believe but say anyway, and something which has no purpose other than to destroy someone else who threatens you.

    In other words, malicious lies.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 14, 2012 @ 4:40 pm - April 14, 2012

  13. Hi Dan,

    Perhaps, Cas, particularly if the attacks come from the president and his closest associates.

    I think that would just be “icing on the cake”, so to speak. :)

    Comment by Cas — April 14, 2012 @ 5:49 pm - April 14, 2012

  14. Feh. In general, stay-at-home moms work, and work hard – just as hard as moms who work outside the home. And every woman *should* be entitled to make the choice to do one or the other. But the reality is that not every woman does have that choice.

    And it’s a little disingenuous to say that the work of a wealthy SAHM who never has to worry about health insurance and has to instead manage an army of support staff and decide which Escalade to bring down in the garage elevator… is in ANY way equivalent to that of an uninsured mother who has to worry about where her kids’ next meal might come from and MUST therefore work outside the home. That was Rosen’s point. You can pretend you didn’t hear it, but we all know it’s true.

    Romney’s repeated attempts to position himself as middle-class just show how tone-deaf he is to the plight of the middle-class in America. And when Bain Capital blows up, not to mention his sneak donation to NOM, well… Obama may as well fire up a rocket-powered skateboard back into the White House.

    Comment by Joseph — April 15, 2012 @ 12:30 am - April 15, 2012

  15. Rusty-regarding Mitt Romney’s trusts for his children. Why is this a wrong thing to do? He’s not disobeying tax laws. It’s not morally wrong to follow the tax law to your advantage.

    I remember over 30 years ago the first day of Tax Class, the professor started the class by having us discuss Christ’s statement to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. (It was a Catholic university.) Should we be spending our lives on taxes? Was this a moral thing to do? The conclusion was if society sets up the rules this way, it is not wrong to help people follow those rules to their advantage. Indeed, we should help as many people as possible. All the tax law I learned in that class has changed, but the principle I’ve never forgotten.

    Now rusty, if you want to talk about simplifying the tax laws, I’m all in favor, but don’t condemn people for following the tax laws. Condemn those such as Tim Geithner who don’t. All people should be equal before the tax law, and no one else would get off with the payment he did.

    Comment by Louise B — April 15, 2012 @ 10:21 am - April 15, 2012

  16. Noyhing wrong with trusts for children. Nothing wromg for dispersing monies before death tax.

    What I was trying to point out that Mitt will have some splainin’ when it comes time to warm up to the lil’ peeps.

    RMONEY is likely going stick on Mitt. Especially with the requests for tax info coming from not only obama but th DNC.

    Hope you have a blessed weekend NDT, sounds like you are in one of your pissy moods again. Smooches

    Comment by rusty — April 15, 2012 @ 12:42 pm - April 15, 2012

  17. What a fantastic great dynamic! I am sure he can ride that effect all the way to victory in November!

    How many people do you reckon have/will vote for the SCOAMF just because he’s black? How many do you suppose support him because they think they should and fear being labeled a raaaaaaaacist if they don’t?

    Comment by TGC — April 15, 2012 @ 2:45 pm - April 15, 2012

  18. Especially with the requests for tax info coming from not only obama but th DNC.

    I would follow the dumbass’s example and get a note from my tax guy.

    Comment by TGC — April 15, 2012 @ 2:47 pm - April 15, 2012

  19. Rusty, I’m sorry I’m not understanding your point about Mitt having explaining to do. About what? Please help me to understand your point. Thanks.

    Comment by Louise B — April 15, 2012 @ 3:42 pm - April 15, 2012

  20. How many people do you reckon have/will vote for the SCOAMF just because he’s black?

    Is there any *other* reason to vote for the SCOAMF?

    Comment by V the K — April 15, 2012 @ 4:50 pm - April 15, 2012

  21. RMONEY is likely going stick on Mitt. Especially with the requests for tax info coming from not only obama but th DNC.

    Hey man, how do you all do that trick where you pretend the SCOAMF has any shred of “moral authority” in accusing his opponents of hiding shit?

    That’s pretty impressive, even for a bunch of ideological sociopaths.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — April 15, 2012 @ 6:32 pm - April 15, 2012

  22. Please, Joseph, do tell how Romney is trying to portray himself as middle-class.

    And please tell me elections where class warfare has made a difference in favor of those waging the battle. If the incumbent and his policies are the issue in this election, then he will not remain an incumbent much longer and will no longer be able to implement his policies.

    All this is just an attempt to distract the American people and the mainstream media wish to play along, but there are new media out there — and Obama and his allies will not be able to define the narrative, particularly if the economy remains sour.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 15, 2012 @ 6:35 pm - April 15, 2012

  23. I’m over this kerfuffle, but I wrote this on Thursday:

    I have no problem criticizing any politician when he or she is pandering, which Mitt was doing with his original comment. And it was clumsy, as usual. But what Rosen did, in order to score some political points, was akin to throwing fellow woman Ann Romney under the bus. And here it’s worse, because Mrs Romney wasn’t even in the road, but was a pedestrian on the sidewalk, and Rosen had to swerve to nail her!

    Comment by sonicfrog — April 15, 2012 @ 7:12 pm - April 15, 2012

  24. And it’s a little disingenuous to say that the work of a wealthy SAHM who never has to worry about health insurance and has to instead manage an army of support staff and decide which Escalade to bring down in the garage elevator… is in ANY way equivalent to that of an uninsured mother who has to worry about where her kids’ next meal might come from and MUST therefore work outside the home. That was Rosen’s point.

    She may have had a point, but it is totally irrelevant and it is unfortunate that Romney brought his wife into things in the first place. If I recall correctly, he did so to counter the “war on women” meme or something, which he should never have done, because that meme is self-evidently baseless to anyone who actually knows how to use his or her brain.

    Romney’s repeated attempts to position himself as middle-class just show how tone-deaf he is to the plight of the middle-class in America.

    RMONEY is likely going stick on Mitt.

    All this portrayal of Romney as some out of touch wealthy fatcat is quite hilarious considering how wealthy the Obamas are, and considering Obama’s connections to Wall Street.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 15, 2012 @ 11:51 pm - April 15, 2012

  25. that’s hilarious. Rosen pointed out a simple factual reality: Mrs. Romney hasn’t a freaking clue how the Other Side lives.

    that you wimps jump to her defense only makes you look pathetic..

    at some point you sad white boys need to realize that your parents don’t hate you because you’re gay, they hate you because you’re complete wimps about being gay.

    grow balls and a spine.

    Comment by Little_Kiwi — April 16, 2012 @ 12:50 am - April 16, 2012

  26. #25: “that you wimps jump to her defense only makes you look pathetic..”

    Shhhhhh. No one tell Little_Kiwi that President Obama, The First Lady, David Axelrod, Obama’s Campaign Manager Jim Messina, and many other prominent Democrats ‘pathetically’ ‘jumped’ to Ann Romney’s defense within hours of Rosen’s comments. It would crush him if he found out.

    Comment by Sean A — April 16, 2012 @ 2:12 am - April 16, 2012

  27. Hillary Rosen made $2.8 million her last year at the RIAA. Who knew siccing lawyers on kids who download music could be so lucrative?

    M’Chel Obama was making over $300,000 a year at the University of Chicago Medical Center where her main job was figuring out how to dump poor patients on other hospitals. Her kids eschewed the Chicago Public Schools and got free tuition at an exclusive private school thanks to her husband’s connections.

    Sandra Fluke attends a $45,000 law school, dates a millionaire trustarian, and whines about having to pay $9 a month for contraception.

    The left has some interesting ideas of who constitutes a champion for middle-class women.

    Comment by V the K — April 16, 2012 @ 5:39 am - April 16, 2012

  28. [...] propel his candidate back into the Oval Office.  In response to my piece on Ann Romney, Joseph wrote: And it’s a little disingenuous to say that the work of a wealthy SAHM [Stay-at-Home Mom] who [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Has class warfare rhetoric ever won an election? — April 16, 2012 @ 9:18 am - April 16, 2012

  29. Rusty is carrying the water for the class warfare mob.

    Supposedly, the 99% will hate “Rmoney” for his wealth alone. (Not the case for a Kennedy or Pelosi or John F’n Kerry, because they were/are on the “correct” team where “social justice” abides.

    There is class envy and there is class warfare. Which one has the most political resonance? The occupy crowd, the woe-is-me-because-of-slavery swarm, the don’t-mess-with-my-welfare pack, the “undocumented” aliens, the grifters, malcontents, bomb-throwers, freeloaders, sycophants, barnacles, groupies, leeches, sponges, parasites, mendicants and misfits all prefer class warfare to personal achievement.

    Rusty is speaking for the Reverend Al, Juicy Jackson, Calypso Louie, Frances Fox Piven, ACORN mindset which is clearly part of the Axlerod-Ayres-Soros-Alinsky-Obama strategy of mob confluence bunching together to squash and ram and overwhelm.

    RMONEY is the useful idiot bumper sticker for CAFE. [Community Amalgamation of Freeloaders and Extortionists.]

    In short, you can not win these people over. Romeny stands as convicted of greed, aloofness, and disconnectedness as Sarah Palin, GW Bush and Reagan were convicted of mind boggling stupidity.

    We can only hope to outnumber the pitchforks and torches horde at the polls. Their trenches are full of paid voters, the voting dead, alzheimer’s patients who vote absentee with clairvoyant help from the ward heeler, and amazing bundles of paper ballots which miraculously appear after sudden discovery during recounts.

    This election is a measure of whether the tipping point has been reached. If it has, we are on the down-hill slide with scant chance of effecting a recovery.

    For all the chatter by “Progressives” of “disappointment” in Obama, it mostly disappointment over his “timidity.” Nothing “Rmoney” says or does will win their vote.

    The divide is complete. The “debate” is for the middle and not the indoctrinated. The Obamanauts and voters-for-Obama-by-default can not articulate, let alone defend, what they want and how it can be paid for. They are a flash mob in the US Treasury grabbing Skittles and iced tea and cigarettes and munchies as they gush back out into the night. They are looters, pillagers, kleptos, plunderers, corrupted cockroaches who demand the host feeds them more and more to stuff their parasitic tick bodies.

    In no manner or way am I impugning those who need and deserve a hand up or community care. Those genuinely needy people are not a part of the systemized, organized, politicized, manipulated group I have described above.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 16, 2012 @ 10:47 am - April 16, 2012

  30. Hmm… So calling the SCOAMF “Barack Hussain Obama” is divisive, but calling Gov Romney RMONEY is fine.

    Always good to know the lack of standards.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 16, 2012 @ 10:00 pm - April 16, 2012

  31. om(freaking)g-d

    everybody, take your hands off your hips and for one moment think about the fact that MITTENS, as so often referenced, is standing up as the trophy choice of the R folk pretty much by financial default.

    Even the most reverend V has stated over the past couple of months that Mittens only saving grace was his ability to outspend the other folk, especially Santorum, who stepped down siting financial woes and Gingrich was bouncing checks. Not to mention that some of the folk didn’t even have their ducks in a row to get all the paperwork filed just to get on the lists in some primaries. So please you all can just put your hands down and maybe re-evaluate what I was trying to get to.

    Romney is the R choice. Yet even in this small little group of chatty cathy’s here at GP, there are those voicing their own concern about the Mittens.
    Now, I agreed that Ann RMONEY did quite well raising her boys as a SAHM.

    What I would like folk to reflect upon is the fact that Mitt Romney wasn’t the first choice on that list of replacements when it comes to securing a new POTUS. I, just to be clear, still like Obama. But over the next few months, I like many other folk who are waffling, those key swing voters as the MSM likes to clarify, will be waiting for the new MITT and his almighty plan.

    Mittens will take the next couple of months, with the help of the ‘oh so hearty established spin doctors loaned out by the big boys’ and will double, triple and maybe even quadruple his team in size. These consultants and advisers from the different camps will help polish Mitten’s image.

    Please remember there was and still is the not-romney camp.

    Little side commentary . . .

    “You’re a tool. And a coward. A surrender monkey. Willingly voting for a known abortionist/socialist constitution trampling liar. Going down on your knees for the evil bastards for political expedience. If I were you with your cowardly attitude I wouldn’t wait to be banned. I’d flee this pro-life conservative site as fast as my weak knees could carry me. But that too would take guts and obviously you don’t have any. So long, RINO.” – Free Republic founder Jim Robinson, in a message to one of his longtime site members who expressed opposition to Robinson’s edict against voting for Mitt Romney. Robinson is issuing bizarre commands for a “Tea Party revolution” against the RNC. Any Freeper who doesn’t fall in line is now being banned from the site.

    So girls, now you have Mitt, sort of like the guy that ended up in front of the line and no one really wanted to choose him but hey that is the way money rolls.

    Mitt is kinda like that piece of wedding cake that gets served at one of those weddings you get dragged to but you really can’t leave because your absence will be noticed so you end up graciously taking the cake from the little server. You look at the cake. and then you look around. Not everyone ate the cake, but some folk kinda picked at that fruit filling, and others nibbled at the dry cake. But you, along with the rest of the folk at the gathering, all smile as the toast is proposed and everyone gets to eat their cake, wondering and spinning in the back of their mind. . .how long will this last.

    And just to be clear, I like Romney. He is a little stiff but I am sure he would do a fine job if he gets elected. But I am looking at it this way. I will be satisfied if Obama is re-elected or if Romney is elected.

    Romney had a bit of a lead start with his earlier run back in 2008, and had a better idea of what he and his staff were going to encounter. Tis funny that when he dropped out, McCain got the MITTENS nod. Now, Mittens got McCain’s nod and McCain is defending Romney’s reluctance for his delayed financial disclosure.

    Louise, I apologize for my tardy response, but I hope I cleared things up. Romney is going to have to prove himself for he is (clearly) not the cat’s meow for most folk. And the $$ thing is just but one item on that check list while folk take their time to warm up to him.

    Comment by rusty — April 17, 2012 @ 4:01 am - April 17, 2012

  32. Well done, Rusty.

    The only pause I have in what you have explained about your position is concerning the conservatives (like me) and their principles. We will fall behind Romney because what separates us from Obama is incalculably wide. We can see Romney from our kitchen window. He is not sitting inside at the kitchen table, but he is close enough that we can shout back and forth and be heard.

    Romney’s money was amassed entirely by Romney. Kerry’s money came from dumping a wife and carefully wooing a huge inheritance widow. The Kennedy and Roosevelt money was inherited. The Pelosi money and the Reid money and Boxer money and Clinton money and Obama money has some ‘splainin’ to do.

    How a one person’s wealth is critically important in politics and another person’s wealth is not seems to be largely dependent on whether the rich guy is liberal. For all intents and purposes, rich liberals are all “good” guys.

    I understand there is no parallel other than symbolic, but what is the reason we need to see Romney’s tax returns back to 1970 (41 years) and we don’t need to see Obama’s college transcripts or Kerry’s military records?

    You are a liberal, so I turn to you for a clear explanation of what it is about Romney’s wealth and wealth accumulation that sets him apart from Warren Buffet, Paul Allen, Bill Gates, the bundlers and fat cats for Obama?

    If a person on welfare qualifies by the rules to receive welfare, why does a wealthy Republican who uses the tax code as it is written have to explain why he follows the law?

    After all, it is Warren Buffet who is fighting paying $1 BILLION in unpaid taxes from his corporate taxes while legitimately paying the low capital gains rate on his investment income.

    The Buffet Rule, if passed, would pay for 17 minutes of government spending, if the wags who have made this talking point public have their facts straight.

    Obama cut his own taxes down to a little over 20% by enjoying a lot of capital gains income. Even he would escape the penalties of the “Buffet Rule.”

    So, let us have a discussion about wealth and how the rich “do not pay their fair share.” Or as Obama whines, “we are only asking the rich to pay their fair share.” Get it? Its the rich who screwing the little guy in the Obama version. He has no intention on going after people like himself. Any rich lib is who is guilt ridden has always been free to stroke a check to the US Treasury as penance.

    You sense that Romney will compromise a lot and be enough liberal friendly to be palatable. Many of us have the same sense and that is our beef with him. Until your side takes responsibility for the underfunded and unfunded entitlement liabilities and gets serious about repairing our crushing deficits, it remains your side that is driving us into oblivion while passing Greece on the way.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 17, 2012 @ 9:50 am - April 17, 2012

  33. Heliotrope, TY
    Will ponder a bit and once I have access to a standard keyboard, will try to present you with a reply.

    Comment by rusty — April 17, 2012 @ 12:04 pm - April 17, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.636 Powered by Wordpress