Is Obama ignoring the will of the people?

Throughout Bush's Presidency the left argued that Bush was stubborn, would not admit he was wrong, would not be swayed by public opinion, and ignored the will of the people.

So here was a lefty arguing for Demonstrations and protests to force Bush to do what the people wanted, based on polls.

In having a president who completely ignores the will of the people, including the views of some of his most trusted allies and advisors, we are dealing with a situation of arrogance bordering on tyranny. In such situations, pretending as if conditions are normal is absurd. If the president cannot hear our concerns, then we must shake things up in such a way that even he can not longer ignore them.

Combine this information with recent polls that only 37% of Americans supported the massive stimulus package.

Does that mean Obama is ignoring the will of the people and that we should be rioting in the street, protesting his "Tyranny"?

In the recent so called controversy on whether Rush wants Obama to fail in his efforts to turn the country into a socialist state, it was pointed out that James Carville made remarks on the morning of 9/11 that he did not want Bush to succeed. Democrat Pollster Stanley Greenberg agreed and added that he had focus group data that showed people were turning against Bush and that he hoped to use the information to turn people away from the President.

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

We often hear people argue that Bush used 9/11 to make himself more popular. Some critics were claiming Bush either caused the 9/11 attacks or was hoping to "not let a good crisis go to waste". There was an argument that prior to 9/11 Bush was unpopular and he seized on 9/11 and "played on our fears" to scare people into supporting him. A Former Vice President, past opponent and symbolic head of the Democrat Party at the time, Al Gore, siad "He betrayed his country".

This notion that Bush was unpopular in his honeymoon period or in his pre-9/11 days is often cited by disgruntled liberals who point to what they consider widespread anger over Bush winning the election despite Al Gore's efforts to contest the results. This also was cited as Bush ignoring the will of the people.

In the current political atmosphere, many Democrats argue that even if there are people that are unhappy about Earmarks, Pork, paying for others mortgages, they claim that Obama is still popular and some even claim he is one of the most popular Presidents ever, so issue oriented polls are irrelevant.

Oh Really?

But the latest polls show that at this point in Bush's Presidency, he actually enjoyed more support than Obama currently does.

Bush more popular than Obama?

How can the worst President in History be more popular than the most popular President in history?

It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.

Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001.

So regarding the "loyalty oaths" of the media who ask if we want Obama to succeed? According to Carville and Greenberg, Bush's support based on polling data at the time justified a call to turn against him. According to the above poll, Obama enjoys even less support now than Bush did then, so that would make a call to "turn against" Obama even more imperative.

The Democrats that call a stubbornness in the face of polls measuring a lack of public support as ignoring the will of the people went so far as to call such stubbornness, "Tyranny".

They argued that Americans should not only wish that a stubborn and unpopular President should "fail", but attempted to compel the American public to march in the streets against such a President, to Demonstrate, and to protest until he halts his unpopular policies and submits to the "will of the people".

So if such activities were in order for Bush, who had higher approval ratings than Obama, it makes sense that they would consider it fair and appropriate that the American public should use even more extreme measures to "Halt" Obama's unpopular policies that ignore the will of the people.

So in light of the highly unpopular response to Obama's first Stimulus package, one can assume that his recent call for another Trillion dollar stimulus package will be even more unpopular.

So based on the Democrats logic it is the duty of all Americans to not only wish that Obama fails, but we should be rioting in an effort to bring about his failure.

Send a "get well" card to Barbara Bush

Former First Lady, Barbara Bush, 83, had Heart Surgery yesterday. I met Mrs. "41" many years ago, before she was first lady, and I can honestly say, she was the warmest, most genuine, friendliest woman I have ever met in politics. After reading her book, you realize that she has not lived her life as a leisure seeking socialite. She has been a gritty, hard working woman, who adapted to a rough west Texas environment in a modest home where she raised a large family on her own. She traveled the world at a young age acting as diplomatic support and personal confidante to one of the most experienced and well traveled men ever to hold the office of Vice President or President. And she still had time to raise incredible children, two of which became governors and an eventual President.

This is an incredible American hero, and in the list of impressive women in our history that have served as first lady, she is one of the greatest of them all.

If you would like to offer a "get well" message to Barbara Bush, or well wishes to the Bush family for all they have done for us, here is the address to write:

Yes, there is an "official" channel to contact former President Bush
and his Barbara. It is:

The Honorable George Bush
10000 Memorial Drive, Ste. 900
Houston TX 77024
tel: 1-713-686-1188
fax: 1-713-683-0801

sources:
US Navy:
http://www.staynavy.navy.mil/counselors_resources/content/Recognition/pres_certificate.asp

US Embasy London
http://www.usembassy.org.uk/rcpresad.html

The former first lady uses the same contact information:

Barbara Bush (and Millie)
10000 Memorial Dr., Suite 900
Houston, TX 77024

source:
Author Mailing Addresses
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/4617/authormail.html


You can use the above address with a service like Postful to use email that will be converted into a "mailed" postcard.

Rule number one of personality cults,..State Equals Leader

Rule number one of personality cults is the brave leader equals the state and the state equals the leader.

If the Leader has desires and wants, then it is the desire of the state.

So if you disagree with an opinion of the leader, you oppose the state.

I have never in my lifetime heard a new President come in to office and as a rite of passage, the Media roams the city asking for a loyalty oath of the populace.

The fact that when a dissenter is found and he is hoisted from the flagpole, only proves the extent to how twisted this paranoid way of thinking has become.

This has become a loyalty oath meant to provide cover for a cult leader.

I challenge anyone to find this tradition of "Do you want our leader to fail"?

"Outside the Butt bubble" will now be known as the crosswalk

We have seen how Obama throws his friends and allies under the bus, so how do we describe the rest of the world that has not been thrown under the bus?



Read here about Gibbs new assault on private citizens, as well as the Politico article.

There are those that are on the sidewalk, which is people that wrongly think they are safely out of the path of the steel wheels of the Obama bus.

There are those, especially in the media that know that anybody can be in the path of the bus, so they buy a ticket to get in the back of the bus.

There is the gang that is helping to drive the bus, in the front of the bus, like Rahm Emanuel, and his kitchen cabinet, James Carville, Stan Greenberg, Paul Begala, George Stephanopolous, and Robert Gibbs.

Then there is the Driver of the Bus, Obama himself.

So if you are a current or soon to be target of the Bus, like Rush Limbaugh, Jim Cramer, or Rick Santelli, who have already been targeted or those soon to be Lou Dobbs or Jake Tapper, then you are officially in the "Crosswalk".

The phrase "butt bubble" is Rush's description of the "butt boys" in the media who have chucked all pretense of impartiality and are hopping on the back of the bus begging to be let in.


Thus begins the era of bipartisanship ushered in by the great unifier.


Here is what Obama sees:




Here is what the people see:

Obama plays George Wallace, Blocks Poor Black students from entering DC's best schools

In the fall, I posted a thread that Obama would play the part of George Wallace and block poor Black kids from attending the better private schools of DC by catering to his union thugs and destroying School Choice in DC.


Well, it only took him a month and nestled in the ginormous budget yesterday was a poison pill that followed through on what Obama had been hinting at last year, the end of the popular school choice program that helped poor Black kids to escape from the hellish schools they attend and rub shoulders with the children of the wealthier folks that run Obama's government.

The night before this passed he drew rousing applause from Democrats when he promised funding for Charter Schools, that are run by the Unions of course, where attendance is by government consent. Not Free choice for parents and not the same as vouchers to go to Private schools like Sidwell where Obama's privileged little girls go.

Voucher Subterfuge Hoping no one notices, congressional Democrats step between 1,800 D.C. children and a good education.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009; A18

CONGRESSIONAL Democrats want to mandate that the District's unique school voucher program be reauthorized before more federal money can be allocated for it. It is a seemingly innocuous requirement. In truth it is an ill-disguised bid to kill a program that gives some poor parents a choice regarding where their children go to school. Many of the Democrats have never liked vouchers, and it seems they won't let fairness or the interests of low-income, minority children stand in the way of their politics. But it also seems they're too ashamed -- and with good reason -- to admit to what they're doing.

At issue is a provision in the 2009 omnibus spending bill making its way through Congress. The $410 billion package provides funds for the 2009-10 school year to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, a pioneering effort that awards scholarships of up to $7,500 a year for low-income students to attend private schools. But language inserted by Democrats into the bill stipulates that any future appropriations will require the reauthorization of the program by Congress and approval from the D.C. Council.

We have no problem with Congress taking a careful look at this initiative and weighing its benefits. After all, it was approved in 2004 as a pilot program, subject to study. In fact, this is the rare experimental program that has been carefully designed to produce comparative results. But the proposed Democratic provision would short-circuit this study. Results are not due until June, and an additional year of testing is planned. Operators of the program need to accept applications this fall for the 2010-11 school year, and reauthorizations are complicated, time-consuming affairs. Indeed, staff members on various House and Senate committees scoffed yesterday when we asked about the chances of getting such a program reauthorized in less than a year. Legislation seeking reauthorization has not even been introduced.

If the Democratic leadership is so worried about process, it might want to review a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office listing the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been appropriated to programs whose authorizations have expired. Many of these programs get far more than the $14 million allocated to the Opportunity Scholarships. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) was right to call out the Democrats for this back-door attempt to kill the voucher program. The attention should embarrass congressional Democrats into doing the right thing. If not, city leaders, including D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D), need to let President Obama know that some 1,800 poor children are likely to have their educations disrupted.

In my mind I'm picturing the happy singing White children at the liberal private school in west LA, singing the "Obama's gonna do it" song...and then these poor black kids in the following video whose Public school probably receives as much in funds as the LA school charges per child, but as you can see the black kids are basically begging not to be sent back to a prison they do not deserve.

So much for separate but equal.

How is this different than George Wallace or Little Rock of the 1950s?

Republicans liberated them in 2004, Obama is putting their shackles back on.

Contact Rep. John Boehner.