I am now convinced that we are in the middle of a significant shift AWAY from public support for Barack Obama. Since March, aside from a few one-time spikes, he has enjoyed an approval index consistently in positive single digits, sometimes going above +9.
Rasmussen determines the index by comparing the number of people who strongly approve of Obama's performance vs. the number who strongly DISapprove.
We are likely witnessing a tipping point with respect to how he is viewed by the American people. Mr. Obama has logged too many straight days in the same territory for this to be an anomaly.
Exactly when are we going to stop being color blind when it comes to identifying racism?
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has said things, done things, and belonged to groups that should at the very least raise the possibility that she is a racist. First off, let's go to Merriam-Webster for a definition of Racist.
Actually, there are two... 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
First Black Attorney General calls us a "Nation of Cowards" in things racial.
Now, let's chronicle incidents which indicate that Sonia Sotomayor just might be a racist.. 1.) Her multiple comments about how a 'wise latina woman' would render better judgments than a white male 2.) Her membership in the National Council on La Raza, an hispanic civil rights organization with some extremely questionable ties to a group (MECHA) that calls for the annexation by Chicanos of a significant portion of the Western United States. 3.) Her affiliation with a group called Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which among other things, identified capital punishment as racist. As a citizen, you're entitled to that view but as a Supreme Court Justice, I don't think so. 4.) She has identified herself as an "Affirmative Action Baby" 5.) Belonged to a women's only group called Bohemian Grove, which she subsequently quit after her background was put under increased scrutiny. 6.) Now we learn that yet another one of her rulings is overturned by the Supreme Court. She has now had 6 of her rulings in front of the SCOTUS and 4 have been overturned (in baseball she's batting .333 but High Court Justice has a bit of a higher standard). That case just so happened to involve discrimination against white firefighters.
There are some who believe Sotomayor shouldn't be identified as a racist. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina says that it would be "out of bounds" to call Sotomayor a "racist". Yet, he also wanted her to apologize for comments that point to her being a racist.
Lindsey, if the comments weren't racist, what is she supposed to apologize for?
Texas Senator John Cornyn said he wants to put an end to the vicious cycle of SCOTUS nomination hearings (likely alluding to what happened to Sam Alito in 2006) by taking the high road.
Hey John, it's not going to work until you RINO's start giving these people a dose of their own medicine. Case in point: Robert Bork was the victim of the vicious cycle you refer to. Then your party basically gives Ruth Bader Ginsburg a free pass (some might argue to put an end to that vicious cycle). Then came the Alito hearings. How'd that work out?
Bottom line is that Sotomayor gives us far more indications that SHE is racist than do the white males she claims to have better judgment over.
It is time for the right in this country to stop proving Eric Holder right.
My brother and I went golfing one day and were paired up with another twosome.
As we got to talking to the guys in our group, one of them became animated out of frustration at the prospect of trying to understand what his wife chose to prioritize as being important. I remember him telling me that they were in financial straits and every time he tried to engage her in a discussion about it, she ignored him.
Then the source of his frustration comes out as he relays this story....
"I go to the fridge to make a sandwich and I dropped a jar of mayonnaise on the floor, which breaks open and ends up all over the place. My wife went off and wouldn't stop talking about mayonnaise. After hours of her bringing it up, I got in her face and said, 'Look, we have to deal with SERIOUS issues! We're being audited, we owe backtaxes, and we're in danger of foreclosure. Yet all you want to talk about is Mayonnaise?!'
Moral of the story? When it comes to matters of importance, Michael Jackson is on par with Mayonnaise all over your kitchen floor yet the mindless masses (many of whom voted for Obama and continue to blindly support him) continue to mourn the death of an alleged pedophile and freak.
In light of all of the important issues confronting us, the death of Michael Jackson = A Broken jar of Mayonnaise.
Remember the campaign pledge that people making UNDER $250k / year would not see a tax increase?
Well, today WH Press Secretary and Word Fumbler Robert Gibbs was forced to respond to the question, "Is that pledge still active?".
Gibbs response?
"UHHH......We're going to let the process work it's way through it."
Work it's way through it?
Gotta give Obama credit for learning from Bush Sr. though. Unlike George H.W. Bush, who said "Read my Lips" and then had to explain it away, THIS 'Read My Lips Moment' didn't actually come from Obama's lips. It came from someone we've grown accustomed to seeing have trouble moving his lips while getting coherent sentences to come out from between them.
Aren't you starting to feel sorry for Mr. Gibbs? He's got to be miserable if he's honest.
Iran has what many believe are fraudulent elections, the people protest, and Obama doesn't want to "meddle" in their affairs while later coming out decrying the Iranian government brutalizing its people for doing so AND canceling a shared July 4th celebration with an Iranian entourage.
At best, one can say he was ambivalent or indecisive relative to Iran.
Now, in Honduras, the president there (Manuel Zelaya), who is an ally of Hugo Chavez AND Fidel Castro allegedly attempts to circumvent his country's constitution by using a referendum to keep him in office even though the constitution forbids presidents from re-election.
With the apparent backing of the Legislative branch, the Supreme Court orders the military to detain Zelaya to prevent him from using a referendum to keep him in office. Some would argue that's not a coup but Obama is not mincing any words when it comes to how he views it - as a coup.
Now it appears that Mr. Obama is a bit more decisive on this matter, saying that the "coup" was "not legal". Yet, he makes NO MENTION of Zelaya's supposed attempt to guarantee his own re-election through an illegal referendum.
h/t to Allahpundit over at hot air for providing all of the key links...
BACKDROP: The president of Honduras (Manuel Zelaya) was forcibly removed from his home by the military on orders of the country's Supreme Court.
WHY? Zelaya allegedly attempted to circumvent his country's Constitution by using a referendum to keep him in office. According to a link provided by Piece of Work in Progress, the President of Honduras is forbidden from re-election upon completion of his term.
Title VII, with two chapters, outlines the process of amending the constitution and sets forth the principle of constitutional inviolability. The constitution may be amended by the National Congress after a two-thirds vote of all its members in two consecutive regular annual sessions. However, several constitutional provisions may not be amended. These consist of the amendment process itself, as well as provisions covering the form of government, national territory, and several articles covering the presidency, including term of office and prohibition from reelection.
Those in support of Zelaya being detained point to the fact that a president cannot remain in office by referendum and that being permitted to do so must involve the amendment process within the Legislative Branch.
CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS? By any measure, Honduras is in the middle of a constitutional crisis. The Executive Branch has been pitted against the Legislative and Judicial Branches.
Zelaya is reportedly an ally of both Chavez and Castro. The Fausta Blog (see link below) reports that Zelaya remaining in office could be the first step in allowing Chavez to govern Honduras by proxy.
Gee, doesn't Iran govern by proxy when it comes to Hezbollah? Are Ahmadinejad and Chavez operating from the same playbook?
As this plays out it will be interesting to see how the Obama Administration deals with this compared to how it dealt with the recent Iranian elections.
Time will tell.
The best place to find a blow by blow account of what happened seems to be over at Fausta's Blog.
Starting to look like a bit of a trend is developing over at Rasmussen.....
Today, Obama's approval index is at ZERO and while this is not a low for him in this daily tracking poll (low is -2), it's beginning to look like it's more than just a spike. Since being inaugurated, the gap between those who strongly approve and those who strongly DISapprove of his performance has been shrinking.
As you can see, sometime in March Obama began to flatline a bit, with an index of somewhere between +5 and +10 on any given day. Anything outside those parameters could almost be dismissed as a one time anomaly. However, his Cairo speech appears to have been somewhat of a turning point. More indicative are his numbers from this past week.
Looking at the chart, he is in unchartered territory, teetering around the ZERO number for about one week straight. This seems to indicate more of a trend than a spike.
My concern is that as his approval numbers rightfully fall, his actions seem to be outpacing his decline, almost like catching a wave that you're always in front of.
That said, it does look like Americans are beginning to wake up and take notice of the very destructive policies of this administration.
Let's see. California has one of the largest tax burdens in the country. Gov't waste is running amok, people are emigrating, and as of July 2nd, we're told it will begin paying its debt with IOU's.
So what on earth can possibly be at the root cause of the mess?
Government ineptitude, fraud, waste, and over-spending?
Gee, what's happened to home prices again? Oh yeah, they've plummeted while a great many mortgages have gone into default and California has been a hotbed for it. I guess O'Leary's answer would be higher property taxes so homeowners could foreclose sooner.
What's truly astounding is the notion that O'Leary just might actually believe what he wrote. Then again, maybe it just needs to be made more personal for Mr. O'Leary so I thought I'd write him a note that might jog his memory of a time when he learned about economics (assuming such a time ever existed).
Kevin,
You're trying to sell magazines, right? Your market consists of consumers who have a certain level of discretionary income (money left after paying taxes and bills). The more discretionary income one has, the more likely your publication would be appealing to those who have it.
If their taxes are raised, wouldn't they necessarily have LESS discretionary income? So why on earth would you advocate lowering the amount of discretionary income from your target audience? Are you advocating the destruction of TIME?
Following that logic, maybe you're targeting a different demographic. Perhaps you're wanting governments to find your publication appealing so that THEY will budget for a certain number of prescriptions using the taxpayer money you seem to be calling for them to increase.
But what if the government doesn't buy prescriptions? What if, instead, they just set aside some taxpayer dollars to subsidize your ability to keep writing? You'd enjoy that even better, wouldn't you?
There are two explanations for why O'Leary might write such dross. 1.) Brainwashed by the same liberal ideology hard-working Americans have been subsidizing for years or 2.) He doesn't believe a lick of it and wants TIME to get some STIMULUS!
The Eight Republicans who signed on to the Traitorous Cap and Trade bill actually have until July 2nd to change their votes according to the Tea Party Patriots
Call them and tell them to change their votes or go down in history as honorary ancestors of Benedict Arnold!
It is becoming apparent that Senator Chuck Grassley(R) Iowa may just be digging into the Inspectors General Scandal(s).
Robert Stacy McCain at the American Spectator has done some awesome work on the stories.
And Gerald Walpin isn't the only IG who has apparently been intimidated into doing the will of the Obama administration.
Anyone remember Amtrak? The rabbit hole that got gobs of stimulus money? IG Fred Wiederhold resigned abrubtly and unexpectedly on June 18th and indications are that he and Walpin may have had one thing in common - sent packing for doing their jobs.
"...we have concluded that the Amtrak OIG's independence and effectiveness are being substantially impaired by a number of policies and practices at the corporation relating to Law Department oversight of OIG investigations, OIG personnel matters, and OIG funding."
Interestingly, Wiederhold resigned on the same day he presented the report to the officials at Amtrak (June 18th).
hmmmm. Walpin and Wiederhold should have dinner together. I'm sure they'd hit it off fairly quickly.
Wait, make it a table for three as it appears the IG for TARP is encountering similar problems.
Now, in addition to Walpin and Wiederhold, we learn that the Special Inspector General for TARP (SIGTARP), Neil Barofsky is not getting cooperation from Treasury Secretary Timothy "tax cheat" Geithner according to Hot Air.
I have long maintained that the best way to defeat evil is to get it to unmask itself. Couple that premise with Edmund Burke's quote of "Evil can only succeed when good men do nothing" and you have what I call the Grassley Opportunity. It's looking like Grassley is beginning to head in the right direction - doing something that just might get some evil to unmask itself.
I find it very interesting that Barack Obama co-signed the Inspectors General Reform Act of 2008 (IGRA) which requires that IG's be protected from White House interference while having them be more answerable to Congress. Curiously, it seems that all the alleged interference involves stimulus and TARP money.
Hang on! How about 4 chairs at the dinner table?
Mr. Grassley,
Would you be so kind as to join us for dinner? We really have to talk.
Signed, Gerald Walpin Fred Wiederhold Neil Barofsky
First off, I assure everyone that there is no conspiracy at work here. The June 21st show featuring a debate between Andrew Walden and Orly Taitz is NOT being held up intentionally. It will be posted as soon as humanly possible. Ben Barrack DOT com recently underwent a significant upgrade and there are still a few kinks being worked out.
In fact, the new and improved site literally went up on June 21st.
Secondly, I will not be broadcasting LIVE on June 28th or July 5th. Instead, the June 14th show will re-air on 6/28 and the June 21st show will re-air on 7/5 at 7:05am CT.
You will be able to hear the re-broadcasts live by clicking the "listen live" link on my homepage or right from here..
Is there anything worse than mocking the mentally disabled? If so, it's a short list.
That didn't stop Democrat operative Linda Kellen Biegel from doing so with Sarah Palin's youngest son, Trig.
What sort of bile is Biegel responsible for posting? How about blatantly distorting the face of a small child with Downs Syndrome? If she had a conscience, she may have snuffed it out when she hit "publish".
No other explanation for how someone like this sleeps at night.
h/t to Gateway Pundit for turning over a rock and finding the hateful and despicable work of Biegel.
As details continue to come out about why Inspector General Gerald Walpin was fired by the Obama White House, it continues to appear that the administration is increasingly being put on its heels.
To this point, evidence suggests that the 77 year-old Walpin is plenty sharp (contrary to White House claims that he was "confused" and "disoriented" at a May 20th meeting). In fact, indications are that the May 20th meeting is where Walpin threw down the proverbial gauntlet with respect to his objections that St. HOPE (Kevin Johnson's Organization) should not receive further grants (as the settlement would allow).
Walpin has done in two weeks what no one in higher positions of power seem all that willing to do - hold the executive branch accountable.
Now, all eyes turn toward Chuck Grassley. If Walpin's claims are investigated and pressed, it will be the Iowa Senator who will have to lead the charge. Will Grassley take the baton from Walpin or will we see the typical show hearings designed to appease those demanding real ones?
Grassley may find himself getting dragged kicking and screaming to the former by Walpin.
As this all plays out, I'm reminded of a quote from Edmund Burke...
I have received a flood of requests asking when the June 21st show, featuring a debate between Andrew Walden and Orly Taitz, will be archived to my site.
The website was recently upgraded and as a result, the uploading process is a bit more intricate. Until the process is made more efficient, it may take slightly longer than in the past to post the shows.
I have been informed by my webmaster that the show will be posted very soon.
Note: Orly Taitz was late for the debate but did join after about 10 minutes.
Whether Democrat, Republican, or an Obama sycophant, it's denying truth to deny the likelihood that thug-like tactics were used against an American patriot when Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin.
In fact, by whipping out the "confused and disoriented" defense, Obama used Saul Alinksky tactic #5, which states that Ridicule is your most potent weapon and forces your opponent to react to your advantage. The problem here seems to be that Alinsky didn't put a caveat in there to use Rule #5 ONLY when on offense. When your hand is caught in the cookie jar, a more conciliatory tone is often a better tactic.
What I do not understand is how a man charged with blowing the whistle on taxpayer dollars being wasted is not embraced by ALL TAXPAYERS when he does his job! The left appears so invested in making the right feel as miserable as they felt, they're willing to sign on to firing people who want to protect their money.
