Rasmussen's Obama Approval Index has now been in negative double digits for nine straight days. Last week the index stood at the previous record low, -14, for three consecutive days.
According to Rasmussen, support for the Democrats' Obamacare has fallen to a new low of 38%. Sixty percent of voters believe passage of the bill will lead to higher health care costs.
Rasmussen Reports presidential job approval ratings are based upon a
sample of likely voters, rather than samples of all adults. Obama’s
numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather
than likely voters because some of Obama's most enthusiastic
supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote.
It's not just Rasmussen, Gallup, Quinnipiac, and Hawkeye all find Obama's approval to be 48%.
In the following CBS video, John Dickerson discusses Obama's falling approval rating:
As we have said before, the more voters find out about President Obama,
the less they care for him and his radically liberal policies.
Fred Thompson nailed the impact of Obama's Ahfghan indecision during his radio show today:
It really doesn't matter how President Obama divides the Afghan baby, how he splits the difference between McChrystal and Biden. Because the war in Afghanistan has been lost.
[. . .]
I say this because of one sad and simple fact. The president does not have the will and determination to do what's necessary to win it. His heart's not in it, and never has been. The Taliban knows it. Al Qaeda knows it. Our allies know it. And the American people know it.
Our enemies are now emboldened and our friends are discouraged. We cannot prevail if the American people are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary for an extended effort. The case has not been made to them to justify this effort. The case can only be made by the president. This president is unable or unwilling to make that case,
Listen to the whole thing:
I remain an unrepentant of the war. But if Obama does not give the commander he selected the resources he needs to win the war then I may have to reconsider.
Unable to make a decision for months, President Obama continues to indecisively dither about whether to send
more troops to Afghanistan to fight what he correctly calls a "war of
necessity."
Obama spent the day golfing instead of making his long awaited decision about sending more troops to Afghanistan.
For weeks, President Obama has been indecisively dithering about whether to send more troops to Afghanistan to fight what he correctly calls a "war of necessity." General Stanley A. McChrystal's report, in which he requests more troops, was issued at the end of August.
The Commander in Chief, taking political heat for not having enough women in his inner circle, found golf a more important political expediency than finally making the Afghan decision. There was so much heat that an article in the New York Times began, "Does the White House feel like a frat house?" Obama apparantly needed headlines proclaiming that he golfs with a woman, more than he needed to make the life and death decision as to whether he will send more troops in support of his "war of necessity."
Obama's Afghan indecision has gone on for so long, some wonder if Obama has delayed his long overdo decision until after this year's gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia in order to help struggling Democrat candidates Jon Corzine and Craig Deeds. Others have simply concluded that Obama is breaking his vow to fight his "war of necessity" and is ignoring the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A new Harris poll finds President Obama's job approval rating continues to fall. Only 45% still approve of Obama's performance, while over half of Americans (55%) disapprove.
There is the usual partisan divide, with 77% of Democrats giving President Obama
positive ratings compared to 14% of Republicans. Obama continues to lose Independents, with 60% now disapproving, and mature voters (those aged 64 and
older), with 61% disapproving.
The Harris poll was conducted between October 5 and 12, 2009
The latest FOX News poll conducted by Opinion Dynamics from October 13 to October 14, found that just 43% would vote to re-elect Obama. No wonder Obama has expanded his propaganda war against Republicans to include fox News.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
I do not understand what Obama has accomplished to earn this honor. Nevertheless, I congratulate Obama and his supporters.
With members of President Obama's brotherhood of community organizers, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, more commonly known "ACORN," caught on video while they gave advice on how to skirt federal laws to buy a home to use as a brothel and how to cloak the status of underage "sex workers," Obama renews his effort to distance himself from ACORN.
During Sunday's talk show Obamarama, the President acted as though he barely knew about ACORN. In an exchange with George Stephanopoulos, Obama said that ACORN "deserves to be investigated," but did not endorse recent votes in Congress to cut off ACORN's federal funding but did not endorse recent votes in Congress to cut off ACORN's federal funding:
STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the funding for ACORN?
OBAMA: You know, if -- frankly, it's not really something I've followed closely. I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Both the Senate and the House have voted to cut it off.
OBAMA: You know, what I know is, is that what I saw on that video was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're not committing to -- to cut off the federal funding?
OBAMA: George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to.
Does Obama really expect us to believe that because he was one of he Senators that did not bother to vote for The Housing Assistance Tax Act of 2008 that he did not know that it provided a mechanism to provide community organizing groups like ACORN federal funding? Does Obama really expect us to believe that he was not aware of the brouhaha over efforts to include even more federal money to community organizing groups like ACORN in the big $700 billion bailout bill that Obama voted for during the heat of the Presidential campaign?
Obama’s campaign paid more than $800,000 to ACORN - The 800,000 was allegedly for get-out-the-vote efforts, but the Obama campaign "mistakenly misrepresented" what ACORN was doing to The Federal Election Commission. Some found this "mistake" highly suspicious:
"Barack Obama's failure to accurately report his campaign's financial records is an incredibly suspicious situation that appears to be an attempt to hide his campaign's interaction with a left-wing organization previously convicted of voter fraud."
ACORN received thousands of dollars from the Woods
Fund during the time Obama served on the board of directors of the Woods
Fund (1993 to 2002) --$45,000
(2000), $30,000 (2001), $45,000 (2001), $30,000 (2002), and $40,000
(2002) [Donors Forum website - ifs.donorsforum.org, accessed 6/10/08].
ACORN was caught over and over again engaging in fraudulent voter registration. Something NBC, CNN and John Fund documented.
Then there are the attempts to wipe the web clean of potentially damaging articles concerning Obama's involvement with ACORN and the false claim, made on Obama's so-called fight the smears website, that Obama was never an ACORN trainer.
If I was Obama and my community organizer experiences were so closely tied to ACORN and all it's fraudulent and otherwise dubious activities as Obama's are, I'd try to hide the connections too.
Seven former directors of the Central Intelligence Agency urge President Obama to stop Attorney General Eric Holder's politically motivated decision to conduct a criminal investigation of CIA operatives who used enhanced the interrogation techniques.
The seven directors; John Deutch, Porter Goss, Michael Hayden, James Schlesinger, George Tenet, William Webster and James Woolsey, tenures span 35 year period, wrote a letter to Obama saying the Holder inquisition will "seriously damage the willingness of many other intelligence officers to take risks ... vital to success in the long and difficult fight against the terrorists who continue to threaten us." The former directors re also concerned about "the serious damage" the Holder inquisitions have done to our ability to obtain the cooperation of foreign intelligence agencies. You can read the entire letter below.
In the following video, former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee tells Hannity that CIA morale has never been lower.
I'm truly fed up with Obama's political retribution dressed up as investigations of the looney left-wing's fanciful allegations of Bush administration war-crimes.
Obama tries to have it both ways with his often repeated obfuscation that "we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards." First Obama refuses to rule out the so-called investigations, then he gives Attorney General Holder the green light to start the show trials. Holder's decision to conduct this inquisition presents a clear appearance of impropriety because there is a record that his mind was made up about this issue long before he became Obama's Attorney General.
Here's the letter:
September 18, 2009
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
We have served as Directors of Central Intelligence or Directors of the CIA for Presidents reaching back over 35 years. We respectfully urge you to exercise your authority to reverse Attorney General Holder’s August 24 decision to re-open the criminal investigation of CIA interrogations that took place following the attacks of September 11.
Our reasons for making this recommendation are as follows.
The post-September 11 interrogations for which the Attorney General is opening an inquiry were investigated four years ago by career prosecutors. The CIA, at its own initiative, forwarded fewer than 20 instances where Agency officers appeared to have acted beyond their existing legal authorities. Career prosecutors under the supervision of the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia determined that one prosecution (of a CIA contractor) was warranted. A conviction was later obtained. They determined that prosecutions were not warranted in the other cases. In a number of these cases the CIA subsequently took administrative disciplinary steps against the individuals involved. Attorney General Holder’s decision to re-open the criminal investigation creates an atmosphere of continuous jeopardy for those whose cases the Department of Justice had previously declined to prosecute. Moreover, there is no reason to expect that the re-opened criminal investigation will remain narrowly focused.
If criminal investigations closed by career prosecutors during one administration can so easily be reopened at the direction of political appointees in the next, declinations of prosecution will be rendered meaningless. Those men and women who undertake difficult intelligence assignments in the aftermath of an attack such as September 11 must believe there is permanence in the legal rules that govern their actions. They must be free, as the Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, has put it: “to do their dangerous and critical jobs without worrying that years from now a future Attorney General will authorize a criminal investigation of them for behavior that a previous Attorney General concluded was authorized and legal.” Similar deference needs to be shown to fact-based decisions made by career prosecutors years ago.
Not only will some members of the intelligence community be subjected to costly financial and other burdens from what amounts to endless criminal investigations, but this approach will seriously damage the willingness of many other intelligence officers to take risks to protect the country. In our judgment such risk-taking is vital to success in the long and difficult fight against the terrorists who continue to threaten us.
Success in intelligence often depends on surprise and deception and on creating uncertainty in the mind of an enemy. As President you have the authority to make decisions restricting substantive interrogation or any other intelligence collection method, based on legal analyses and policy recommendations. But, the administration must be mindful that public disclosure about past intelligence operations can only help Al Qaeda elude US intelligence and plan future operations. Disclosures about CIA collection operations have and will continue to make it harder for intelligence officers to maintain the momentum of operations that have saved lives and helped protect America from further attacks.
Finally, another certain result of these reopened investigations is the serious damage done to our intelligence community’s ability to obtain the cooperation of foreign intelligence agencies. Foreign services are already greatly concerned about the United States’ inability to maintain any secrets. They rightly fear that, through these additional investigations and the court proceedings that could follow, terrorists may learn how other countries came to our assistance in a time of peril. The United States promised these foreign countries that their cooperation would never be disclosed. As a result of the zeal on the part of some to uncover every action taken in the post-9/11 period, many countries may decide that they can no longer safely share intelligence or cooperate with us on future counter-terrorist operations. They simply cannot rely on our promises of secrecy.
We support your stated commitment, Mr. President, to look to the future regarding these important issues. In our judgment the only way that is possible is if the criminal investigation of these interrogations that Attorney General Holder has re-opened is now re-closed.
Sincerely,
Michael Hayden
Porter Goss
George Tenet
John Deutch
R. James Woolsey
William Webster
James R. Schlesinger
Van Jones, President Obama's so-called "green jobs czar," resigned. In order to limit the news coverage, and the damage to Obama, the resignation came in the dead of night over Labor Day weekend.
In his resignation statement Jones falsely claims he was smeared:
I am resigning my post at the Council on Environmental Quality, effective today.
On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide. [Emphasis added]
It was the truth about the radical extremist things Jones himself said and did that made it necessary for him to leave Obama's administration.
In 2004 Jones signed the "9/11 truther" statement which alleges government complicity in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Jones is listed as signer number 46 -- "Van Jones, executive director, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights." Popular Mechanics has scientifically debunked this now very tired myth perpetuated by the 9/11 Truther conspiracy mongers.
After his association with 9/11 truthers came to light Jones issued an unbelievable statement in which he asserted he did not agree with the 2004 Truther petition and it "does not reflect my views now or ever."
ABC's Jake Tapper reports about another Link between Jones and 9/11 Truther movement:
On Friday a 2002 document emerged in which Jones was on the "organizing committee" of a newspaper called WAR TIMES -- "A New, Biweekly, Tabloid Newspaper Opposing the 'War on Terrorism.'"
The WAR TIMES document asserts that the "world's most powerful nation has mercilessly bombed Afghanistan and is installing a neo-colonial government of its own choosing, although that country has never attacked the U.S. Millions of Afghans have been displaced and face starvation this winter. The administration has also green-lighted massive Israeli assaults on Palestine, and it threatens to attack Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, and other countries. The agenda seems clear: to remake the world in the rightwing image with little regard for human consequences."
WAR TIMES's announcement appeared with the announcement of a protest march demanding a congressional inquiry into whether and how much the Bush administration may have played a role in the September 11, 2001 attacks.
In the New York Times, Sarah Wheaton tried to downplay the fact that Jones was an admitted communist. She writes, "Jones’s involvement in the 1990s with a group called Standing Together
to Organize a Revolutionary Movement [STORM] had prompted recent accusations by
conservative critics that he associated with Communists. In fact, on November 2, 2005 Jones was quoted in the East Bay Express admitting he was a communist:
But
in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I
mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This
is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane
ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten
years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail,
trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go
of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I
was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down
on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist." [Emphasis added]
According to the East Bay Times, STORM held study groups on
the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist
utopia. They protested police brutality and got arrested for crashing
through police barricades.
In the following video report CNN covered those issues:
Even more of Jones' vile hate filled rants have surfaced that make Jones look as outrageous as Obama's hateful former spiritual adviser Jeremiah Wright and Obama's Terrorist associate Bill Ayers, including a hate-filled record album and a video of Jones calling President Bush a crackhead.
Van Jones was not smeared. He was ousted by the things he said and did.
Recent Comments