He Said He Would Reach Across the Aisle … Barack Obama, the Most Polarizing President Ever During First Term as President
BARACK OBAMA, THE DIVIDER IN CHIEF … According to Gallup, Barack Obama is the most polarizing President ever during their first term in office.
In the end it was not even close. Barack Obama was the most polarizing president in the history of Gallup polling for a president during their first term in office. Obama finished his 4 years in office with a 70 point partisan average gap, the next closest was George W. Bush at 61. Barack Obama finished his fourth year as president, tied with GWB at 76. Gallup tries to explain Obama’s record polarization by saying it is just the era we live in. What they won’t tell you is that the reason for the polarization is at record levels is because Barack Obama is trying to fundamentally change the United States into a Western European socialist country. That is why so many who appose him have such a negative view of his policies. Obama once said that he would reach across the aisle and that there were no red or blue states, only the United States. What a fraud perpetrated on the American people.
Obama on Pace to Be Most Polarizing President Yet
The average party gap in ratings of President Obama during the four years of his presidency is 70 percentage points. If that average holds, it would surpass Bush’s record 61-point average polarization during his eight-year presidency by a considerable margin. Bush also finished his presidency with a significantly larger party gap in job approval ratings than the previous leader, Bill Clinton (55 points).
Hey America, how’s that “Hopey-Changey” stuff working out for you?
Some doctors saying that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s cancer is most likely terminal. What will a Venezuela without Chavez look like in the future?
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s cancer is most likely terminal given the disease’s recurrences, and while the president may bounce back for periods, his health is increasingly at risk, say several leading cancer specialists not involved in the treatment.
Mr. Chávez is recovering from surgery in Cuba this week after the president said malignant cells reappeared for a third time in his abdomen. Venezuela’s government hasn’t disclosed what type of cancer he has or what the surgery was for. But it has described the more than six-hour operation as “complex and delicate” and said Mr. Chávez might not be back in Caracas in time for his Jan. 10 inauguration for a new term after 14 years in power.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Names Nicolas Maduro His Successor as He Prepares for More Cancer Surguery
Ahead of his fourth cancer surgery in 18 months, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has named Vice President Nicolas Maduro his successor. The 50 year old Maduro is one of Chavez’s longest serving aides, having been the president of the National Assembly before becoming Foreign Minister in 2006.
Barack Obama & Chavez above in a show of solidarity, Nicolas Maduro in the background
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez named a longtime ally with close ties to Cuba his heir apparent as the cancer-stricken leader prepares for a potential departure after almost 14 years in power.
Chavez, in a nationwide address over the weekend, said he was throwing his “irrevocable, absolute” support behind Vice President Nicolas Maduro to lead his 21st century socialist revolution should he be unable to carry out his duties. Chavez made the comments as he prepared to fly to Cuba for surgery, his fourth in 18 months, to treat an undisclosed form of cancer that he said reappeared in exams after winning re-election Oct. 7.
We have reached a tipping point, welfare spending now more than medium income … what has happened to our country? America, do you still remember what the word pride means?
As reported at the Weekly Standard, the amount of money spent on welfare programs equals, when converted to cash payments, about “$168 per day for every household in poverty.” Welfare spending per day per household in poverty is $168, as opposed to the median income per day is only $137. Can you say unsustainable? People are going to begin to say, why work? And that is exactly how you crate a socialist society. At some point this has got to stop. For all the welfare spending, it has accomplished nothing except to create a dependent welfare class of people whose vote can be bought and the loss of liberty and self-respect.
According to the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee, welfare spending per day per household in poverty is $168, which is higher than the $137 median income per day. When broken down per hour, welfare spending per hour per household in poverty is $30.60, which is higher than the $25.03 median income per hour.
“Based on data from the Congressional Research Service, cumulative spending on means-tested federal welfare programs, if converted into cash, would equal $167.65 per day per household living below the poverty level,” writes the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee. “By comparison, the median household income in 2011 of $50,054 equals $137.13 per day. Additionally, spending on federal welfare benefits, if converted into cash payments, equals enough to provide $30.60 per hour, 40 hours per week, to each household living below poverty. The median household hourly wage is $25.03. After accounting for federal taxes, the median hourly wage drops to between $21.50 and $23.45, depending on a household’s deductions and filing status. State and local taxes further reduce the median household’s hourly earnings. By contrast, welfare benefits are not taxed.”
Sadly, Doug Ross may have best summed up this disastrous overspending on the welfare state, “We are headed for fiscal collapse — and the welfare state keeps growing like a cancer, incentivizing sloth, formalizing a culture of dependency, and killing self-sufficiency.”
Just curious America, do you even care anyone about your country, why it was founded for Liberty?
Elections Have Consequences, Businesses Laying off Employees Due to Obamacare and Regulations … NY Applebee’s CEO Zane Tankel says He May have to Lay Off Employees because of Obamacare. (Update: Papa John to do the Same)
Exactly what did people think was going to happen when Obama was reelected and Obamacare penalties would be implemented rather than repealed? Maybe Americans would have voted differently had these policies been enacted prior to the election, but of course that was done ny design.
Elections have consequences and for those who voted for Barack Obama’s reelection might just get laid off or fired. In their infinite wisdom, or lack there of, America voted back in the most liberal/socialist President in the history of the United States. What does that mean … businesses will have to deal with the adverse effects of Obamacare on their business. The economics of Obamacare and its cost to the economy.
NY Applebee’s CEO Zane Tankel stated on the FOX business channel that he may have to let employees go or reduce their hours from full time to part time to deal with the expenses of Obamacare. Tankel went on to say that this was the most difficult business climate he has ever seen. He has not made a final decision, but what one one think some one is going to do when expenses increase and revenues do not?
Zane Tankel said that a hiring and expansion freeze might have to be implemented, much to the dismay of the LEFT. Money does not grow on trees and when the government decides to force their socialist policies on a business based in capitalism, there are consequences. What’s the answer of the ignorant and selfish LEFT, boycott those that dare take action to deal with the added expsnse of Obamacare. A note to the LEFT, guess what happens when revenues are reduced in a business, they lay even more employees off. But the ignorant LEFT does not care, they think the evil businesses make too much money. Funny how they want to tell others how to handle their money, but when it comes to their own like paying for woman’s own birth control, it’s hands off.
An Applebee’s New York area franchisee is the latest CEO to go public threatening drastic plans to avoid costs associated with the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.
“We’ve calculated it will [cost] some millions of dollars across our system. So what does that say — that says we won’t build more restaurants. We won’t hire more people,” Zane Tankel, chairman and CEO of Apple-Metro, told Fox Business Network on Thursday.
Apple-Metro, which runs 40 Applebee’s restaurants, employs from 80 to 300 people at each of its locations. Obamacare mandates that businesses with more than 50 workers must offer an approved insurance plan or pay a penalty of $2,000 for each full-time worker over 30 workers.
Most small businesses with 50 or more employees already do offer health insurance, notes John Arensmeyer, CEO and founder of Small Business Majority, a national small business advocacy organization. But restaurant chains typically are among the sliver of businesses not offering insurance to workers. Other food chains have commented publicly that they would take strong measures.
UPDATE I: John Schnatter, Papa John’s CEO, Says he will likely have to raise costs and cut employee hours because of Obamacare.
A day after Barack Obama earned a second term in the White House, Papa John’s founder and CEO John Schnatter said the president’s signature health-care reform law would increase his business costs and possibly result in employees’ hours being cut.
Schnatter, a part-time Naples resident, made the comments Wednesday night inside a small auditorium at Edison State College’s Collier County campus. In August, he made national headlines after telling shareholders the Affordable Care Act — commonly known as Obamacare — would result in a 10- to 14-cent increase for customers buying a pizza.
“I got in a bunch of trouble for this,” he told the students. “That’s what you do, is you pass on costs. Unfortunately, I don’t think people know what they’re going to pay for this.”
The UN, Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro and Vladimir Putin Endorse Obama for Four more years … UN Warns America Nor to Elect Romney
Could there be four better Presidential endorsements for Mitt Romney than the United Nations, Putin, Chavez and Castro endorsing Barack Obama for President of the United States?
As reported at Breitbart, the UN warns Americans not to elect Mitt Romney.Really, the UN is telling us to do something? Who the hell are you people to tell us to do anything? You act as if you are actually relevant. Just curious, when was the last time that the United Nation’s had America’s best interests at heart?
As stated at the Jawa Report, that is more than enough vote for Romney in itself. Why would any right minded thinking American citizen do what the un-UN wanted? But of course water-boarding had nothing to do with extracting information from 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and information from Al Qaeda operative Hassan Ghul in leading to the death of Bin Laden.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights has warned Americans not to elect Republican Mitt Romney in next month’s presidential election, saying that doing so would be “a democratic mandate for torture.”
The UN’s Ben Emmerson was referring to Romney’s refusal to rule out the use of waterboarding in interrogating terror detainees, a practice that President Barack Obama has ended.
But wait, there is more ringing endorsements for Barack Obama. Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro and Vladimir Putin all endorse Obama. So will the Obama campaign make up new bumper stickers, signs and pins, Dictators for Obama? So why would such individuals want to back Barack Obama? Could it be because he is a weak, ineffective US President who likes bowing to foreign leaders?
Venezuelan Socialist President Hugo Chavez Says He Would Vote for Barack Hussein Obama in the 2012 Presidential Election
File this one under, birds of a feather flock together and water seeks its on level …
Here is a ringing endorsement that undecided and Independent voters should take notice of when casting a ballot this November for President. The socialist leader of Venezuelan, Hugo Chavez, stated that if he was an American, he’d vote for Barack Obama. With the ‘big” government, Nanny state, cradle to grave dependency agenda of Barack Obama, is it any reason why a socialist would vote for Obama.
“If I were American, I’d vote for Obama,” Chavez said in a televised interview that aired Sunday.
The Venezuelan leader called Obama “a good guy” and said if the U.S. president were a Venezuelan, “I think … he’d vote for Chavez.”
Check out this comment from Chavez viaReuters.
“Obama is a good guy … I think that if Obama was from Barlovento or some Caracas neighborhood, he’d vote for Chavez,” the president told state TV, referring to a poor coastal town known for the African roots of its population.
“After our triumph and the supposed, probable triumph of President Obama, with the extreme right defeated here and there, I hope we could start a new period of normal relations with the United States,” he said.
“Obama recently said something very rational and fair … that Venezuela is no threat to the interests of the United States,” he added.
“REDISTRIBUTION” … GOP Ad Bashing Barack Obama on His Socialist Beliefs “I actually believe in Redistribution”
Barack Obama believes in redistribution, actually the only mystery is whether the MSM will ever play the VIDEO.
The Republican party reminds America that you have a choice this November in the 2012 Presidential election. Mitt Romney who believes in capitalism and growing wealth, jobs and the economy and Barack Obama, who believes in redistribution. The frightening thing is Obama just does not believe in redistribution for Americans … Obama is a global redistributor.
Mitt Romney Nails Barack Obama Over Eye Popping, Socialist Video Tape … “He Wants Redistribution – I Disagree!”
Romney and Obama … Two Different Views of America.
GOP Presidential candidate goes on Fox News, ‘Your World with Neil Cavuto’ to defend and discuss the differences between himself and Barack Obama when it comes to the economy. Romney defended his “47%” comments and went after Barack Obama for his stunning admission from 1998, “I actually believe in redistribution”.
Romney’s vision of America is much different from Obama’s big government, cradle to grave nanny state where a majority of Americans are dependent and beholden to government. Romney said when questioned about Obama’s redistribution, ” I disagree … I believe the right course for America is one where government steps in to help those who are in need. We’re a compassionate people. But then we let people build their own lives”.
Partial transcript of Mitt Romney on Barack Obama from the Gateway Pundit:
“Frankly we have two very different views about America. The president’s view is one of a larger government. There’s a tape that just came out today where the president is saying he likes redistribution. I disagree. I think a society based upon a government-centered nation where government plays a larger and larger role, redistributes money, that’s the wrong course for America. That will not build a strong America or help people out of poverty. I believe the right course for America is one where government steps in to help those who are in need. We’re a compassionate people. But then we let people build their own lives… We believe in free people and free enterprises.”
In the end America, it is up to you. Do you want an America where you have the opportunity to succeed and fail or do you want to be a kept, obedient society, dependent and beholden to the federal government forever. The choice is yours. However, I hardly think this is why Our Founding Fathers fought a War of Independence to be dependent.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
The Lonely Conservative brings up yet another example of Media bias. While the corrupt liberal media complex has no issue playing the Romney fund raising “47%” VIDEO, we hear crickets when it comes to Obama 1998 socialist “I like redistribution” video. Why are we not surprised? The shameful media is all in for Obama.
Direct from Barack Obama, the Socialist in Chief Admits … “I Actually Believe in Redistribution” … Was there Ever Any Doubt?
Hey Mother Jones … How do you like this tape of Barack Obama circa 1998?
From 1998 comes the following VIDEO to see exactly what our Socialist in Chief’s mind set and philosophy was and is. From Obama’s mouth to your ears comes the following … “I actually believe in Redistribution”. The then Illinois State Senator said exactly what his mindset was and the thought process and agenda he has brought into the White House. Make no mistake about it America, if it walks like a socialist and talks like a socialist … its a Barack Obama.
“I actually believe in Redistribution”
Hat Tip: The Drudge Report
At an October 19, 1998 conference at Loyola University, Barack Obama spoke against “propaganda” that said government doesn’t work and the need to “pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution.”
Is there really any doubt that President Barack Obama is a socialist? When one all but admits that they actually believe in the redistribution of wealth
, Houston, America, we have a problem.