Record Number of Americans Now Strongly Disapprove of Obama

March 13, 2012

Disapproval of President Obama’s handling of the economy is heading higher — alongside gasoline prices — as a record number of Americans now give the president “strongly” negative reviews on the 2012 presidential campaign’s most important issue, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Increasingly pessimistic views of Obama’s performance on the economy — and on the federal budget deficit — come despite a steadily brightening employment picture and other signs of economic improvement, and they highlight the political sensitivity of rising gas prices.

The potential political consequences are clear, with the rising public disapproval reversing some of the gains the president had made in hypothetical general-election matchups against possible Republican rivals for the White House. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) now both run about evenly with Obama. The findings come just five weeks after Obama appeared to be getting a boost from the improving economy.

Gas prices are a main culprit: Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they disapprove of the way the president is handling the situation at the pump, where rising prices have already hit hard. Just 26 percent approve of his work on the issue, his lowest rating in the poll. Most Americans say higher prices are already taking a toll on family finances, and nearly half say they think that prices will continue to rise, and stay high.

Friday’s employment report showed a gain of 227,000 jobs in the past month, continuing an upward trend and offering the White House something positive to point to. Still, the survey — conducted Wednesday through Saturday — finds 59 percent of Americans giving Obama negative ratings on the economy, up from early last month. Now, 50 percent give him intensely low marks, the most yet in a Post-ABC News poll, and a jump of nine percentage points.

The negative movement has also stalled what had been a gradual increase since the fall in the president’s overall approval rating. In the new poll, 46 percent approve of the way Obama is handling his job; 50 percent disapprove. That’s a mirror image of his 50 to 46 positive split in early February. The downshift is particularly notable among independents — 57 percent of whom now disapprove — and among white people without college degrees, with disapproval among this group now topping approval by a ratio of more than 2 to 1, at 66 versus 28 percent.

These groups are also the ones whose shifting support has re-shuffled prospective general-election matchups. Among registered voters, Obama is now on par with Romney (47 percent for the president, 49 percent for Romney) and Santorum (49 to 46 percent). Previously, Obama held significant advantages over both.

The Republican presidential race is now a contest between Romney and Santorum. Among Republicans and GOP-leaning independent voters, 33 percent favor Romney for the nomination; 29 percent prefer Santorum. This is the first Post-ABC poll after Santorum’s emergence as a top-tier candidate. Trailing the top two are former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) at 14 percent and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) at 12 percent.

From:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gas-prices-sink-obamas-ratings-on-economy-bring-parity-to-race-for-white-house/2012/03/11/gIQAuhYO6R_story.html

Advertisements

Obama Impeachment Bill Now in Congress

March 13, 2012

Let the president be duly warned.

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes.

“This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”

In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”

Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.

Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.

“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

From:  http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/obama-impeachment-bill-now-in-congress/?cat_orig=us


Obama Justice Department Blocks Texas Voter ID Law (Protecting Illegal Aliens So They Can Vote)

March 13, 2012

The Justice Department’s civil rights division on Monday objected to a new photo ID requirement for voters in Texas because many Hispanic voters lack state-issued identification.

Texas follows South Carolina as the second state in recent months to become embroiled in a court battle with the Justice Department over new photo ID requirements for voters.

Photo ID laws have become a point of contention in the 2012 elections. Liberal groups have said the requirements are the product of Republican-controlled state governments and are aimed at disenfranchising people who tend to vote Democratic — African-Americans, Hispanics, people of low-income and college students.

Proponents of such legislation say the measures are aimed at combating voter fraud. But advocacy groups for minorities and the poor dispute that and argue there is no evidence of significant voter fraud.

In regard to Texas, “I cannot conclude that the state has sustained its burden” of showing that the newly enacted law has neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect, Thomas E. Perez, the head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said in a letter to the Texas secretary of state.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot has said the Obama administration is hostile to laws like the one passed last year in Texas.

The National Conference of State Legislatures called the voter ID issue “the hottest topic of legislation in the field of elections in 2011,” with legislation introduced in 34 states.

The department had been reviewing the Texas law since last year and discussing the matter with state officials. In January, Texas officials sued U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, seeking a court judgment that the state’s recently enacted voter ID law was not discriminatory in purpose or effect.

As a state with a history of voter discrimination, Texas is required under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to get advance approval of voting changes from either the Justice Department or the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

In a letter to Texas officials that was also filed in the court case in Washington, the Justice Department said Hispanic voters in Texas are more than twice as likely than non-Hispanic voters to lack a driver’s license or personal state-issued photo ID. The department said that even the lowest estimates showed about half of Hispanic registered voters lack such identification.

The range was so broad because the state provided two sets of registered voter data.

In December, the Justice Department rejected South Carolina’s voter ID law on grounds it makes it harder for minorities to cast ballots. It was the first voter ID law to be rejected by the department in nearly 20 years.

In response, South Carolina sued Holder; the state argued that enforcement of its new law will not disenfranchise any voters. Other states have moved toward photo ID requirements in the past year.

Alabama has a photo ID law, but it does not go in effect until 2014. Mississippi voters approved a photo ID law, but the state legislature has not yet adopted enabling legislation. The Justice Department has not yet reviewed the initiatives in either state.

The Justice Department has said it is reviewing voter ID laws in other states, but has not identified which ones.

From:  http://news.yahoo.com/justice-dept-opposes-texas-voter-id-law-144238429.html


Obama Signs HR 347 “Trespass Bill” (There Goes the First Amendment!)

March 13, 2012

President Obama signed into law on March 8, 2012 HR 347, also known as the Trespass Bill, which makes it a federal offense to protest near government buildings and grounds…

…as well as any location where any politician or foreign dignitary protected by the Secret Service is visiting, or at any “special event of national significance.”

We will now face up to ten years in jail for causing a disturbance if we happen to be anywhere near one of these anointed venues. 

The headline of this story should say, “The insurgent leader Obama enacts more Soviet policies on the population of Occupied America.”

Read the full text of the bill:

`Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.

 Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

-`Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds

 `(a) Whoever– `(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so; `(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions; `(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or `(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). `(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is– `(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if– `(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or `(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and `(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case. `(c) In this section– `(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area– `(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds; `(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or `(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and `(2) the term `other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.’.

From:  http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/obama-signs-hr-347-trespass-bill/10040


Johnny Cashless Sings Obama Economic Blues

March 13, 2012

Truer words never sung…