DROPPING LIKE A STONE...

...Obama's Presidential Approval Index rating that is (the Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve).

Right after his Inauguration it was +29...last week it was +21...now it is +11.

H/T: POWERLINE

It's no mystery why this is happening. Instead of the fantasy he spun (in order to get a lot of fools to vote for him) about how he will govern in a bi-partisan way (as Peggy Noonan recently said, that will never happen and is a stupid idea anyway) he did the exact opposite and is trying to jam the biggest, fattest, pork sandwich (made by Nancy Pelosi because Obama doesn't have any experience) down everyone's throat.

Mr. Obama is now endorsing a sort of reductionist Keynesianism that argues that any government spending is an economic stimulus. This is so manifestly false that we doubt Mr. Obama really believes it.

Contact your representative (scroll down and click on CONTACT THE U.S. CONGRESS and WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE underneath the Government & Policy category) and tell them NOT to support this lunacy...please, there is still one more day you can speak out!

Reagans beats Obama!

Nearly 37.8 million Americans watching at home viewed President Barack Obama’s oath of office and inaugural speech between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET on January 20, 2009. This is the most viewed inauguration since the record of 41.8 million viewers who watched Ronald Reagan’s 1981 inauguration.

This is the first inaugural since Nielsen began tracking time-shifted viewing, and this year’s data is based on Live + Same Day, meaning incremental viewing during the same broadcast day is included.

See chart here...Oh, and PS

African-American man says: "I thought the speech was shit."

As soon as the applause had died down, an African American standing man near me on the Mall said to his friend: "I thought the speech was shit." Another woman said, correctly, that "we had heard it all before at other events".

Suicide you can believe in

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

100,000 Iranian Students Sign Up for Suicide Operations

Iranian Regime All Fired Up With Hope & Change (not)

10 Reasons Why We Fight Against Obama

Let's get it straight. This isn't sour grapes and it isn't business as usual. We're not opposed to Obama because he's a Democrat or a Liberal. If our disagreements with him were just political, we could join the others in wishing him well and hoping he steers the ship right.

We can't. Because this isn't a matter of political disagreement, this is a national catastrophe, a threat to the lives of millions and the survival of America itself.

Here is why

Obama's Inaugural Address was...

...well...

Here’s the thing: Obama’s main speech writer is a twenty-something who thinks it’s both funny and appropriate to pose for vulgar photos with himself, another man, and a cardboard cutout of a United States Senator. We have no idea if Jon Favreau wrote the Inaugural Address, but it sure sounds like his special brand of nebulous, cliche-driven newspeak. More hope and change, whatever that means, more storms on the horizon and quagmires at the edge of the briar patch. All delivered in that trademarked Sunday morning oration Obama favors, learned deliberately off cassette tapes Jeremiah Wright sent him at Harvard Law school.

Like with any of Obama’s speeches, we ask people talking about the Inaugural Address today what was their favorite line, and they’re instantly stumped. They can’t think of one. No turn of phrase they’d carve into marble with their own blood, sweat, and tears to be sure.

That “seminal speech on race” Chris Matthews’ lauded as “the new Gettysburg address”? Does anyone remember a line from that?

What about any of his campaign speeches? Are any of Favreau’s bon mots marble-worthy from those?

Obama is a showman who appeals to a large part of the country who has either never set foot in a black church (so they are mesmerized by something we can see done much better any given Sunday here in Chicago) or who loves listening to preachers regularly. For those of us not so inclined, it’s an act we’ve seen before, done better. His oration has never impressed us because he never says anything particularly memorable — it’s just that a large number of people love hearing his voice.

And not only that

Obama’s “Great Address” was anemic, at best, and pedestrian at worst.

And that’s coming from people who don’t like him, and aren’t going to suddenly magically start liking him today, but who truly — REALLY AND TRULY — wanted him to just knock this out of the park and give us some reason, SOMETHING, ANYTHING, to warrant the most expensive party this nation has ever thrown, at a time when collectively we barely have a pot to, uh, stew in.

With all of our economic troubles.

With all those cliche clouds hanging.

With all of the storm clouds massing on lazily-written uncharted horizons.

And he phoned in that forgettable speech?

Followed by a poorly-written and amateurishly delivered poem?

On the day Obama was supposed to start showing us what he’s got, and giving us some clue as to what all the fuss about him is about?

We’re still waiting. We’ll let you know if we ever see it — and honestly promise to be fair to the new president, the way we tried to be fair to former president George W. Bush. And we truly want Obama to succeed, and definitely want to be blown away by brilliance on an epic scale.

We were waiting for that for eight years…and it looks like we could be waiting for four more, if things continue at this level, on Day One, Year One, of The Golden Age of Obama.

Where were the 5 million people?

Mr. Cool Goes To Washington

How could the failure of Chief Justice Roberts to lead Barack Obama accurately in his oath of office be more poignant? He skipped the word "faithfully," only remembering to insert it at the end of its phrase -- and President not "of," but "to the United States of America." Before that, he appeared to want to rush through the oath, not hesitating after "I, Barack Hussein Obama," for that man to state his name only, in that turn, and let it hang for a moment in the air, before proceeding with "do solemnly swear."

What can your country do for you?

In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country."

It is a striking sign of the temper of our times that the controversy about this passage centered on its origin and not on its content.

Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic "what your country can do for you" implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, "what you can do for your country" implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.

From "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman, pages 1-2