Sunday, May 31, 2009

Media Bias? What media bias?

I read an outrageous "news" piece from the Associated Press today. It is titled: "GOP senators sidestep harsh criticism of Sotomayor" and basically paints a picture of a bunch of mean, racist conservatives trying to stop poor, sweet Sonia Sotomayor from being confirmed because she is a Hispanic.

WASHINGTON – Leading GOP senators on Sunday offered more subtle criticism of the first Hispanic nominated to the Supreme Court, but passed up the chance to stifle racially charged critiques of Sonia Sotomayor by some fellow Republicans.

The party out of power in Washington is struggling to develop a unified political strategy to oppose the Supreme Court nominee.

Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, already faces scrutiny from conservatives over a 2001 remark that her experiences as an Hispanic woman would lead her to better decisions than those made by a white man. Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has called her a "racist" while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, saying a "Latina woman racist" is unsuitable for the court, has called for withdrawing the nomination.


This is the link from Yahoo! describing the article as GOP senators tone down racially charged criticism of Sotomayor. What is racially charged is what Judge Sonia Sotomayor said. Utterly absent in the article is the actual quote from Sonia Sotomayor in 2001 that is leading to these accusations of racism. In 2001 she said:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life"

Quite frankly, that sort of comment just eight years ago deserves harsh criticism! I cannot even begin to imagine what sort of outcry would come from the press if a white, male nominee had said something similar and implied that a Hispanic woman would come to inferior conclusions because of the life she had led.

Yet you can read this entire "news" report from the Associated Press and not once see the quote that is at the heart of the controversy. To read this article, you would think that it was the conservatives making racially charged comments when in fact it was Judge Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed and will sit on the Supreme Court, that is inevitable. What is not inevitable is that she be confirmed without a whisper of questioning about her judicial philosophy.

Media bias? What media bias?

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

It is times like these...

...that show how awful a choice America made last fall.


Set aside the fact that the administration is making things worse with it's relentless march to dismantle the economic system that made America the envy of the world and replace it with socialism. We can fix that later perhaps. What we cannot undo is a nuclear armed thug state like Iran or North Korea firing off a missle or two and causing a nuclear conflict with millions dead. That is where we are heading with the North Koreans getting even more bold in their defiance and Israel giving serious thought to preemptive strike on Iran. This morning Reuters reports a new, deadly serious threat from North Korea to use military strikes in response to any interference with its nuclear program and reports are surfacing that Russia is preparing for the possibility of a war on its borders.

The world looks to America for leadership in times like these and the leader of America looks back at the world with not a clue what to do.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

In some not so good news

No shocker that President Obama chose a leftist judge to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, but check out this commentary from Ken Blackwell on Judge Sotomayor and her radical anti-Second Amendment record. Conservatives need to hit her on that issue and especially for Democrats in gun friendly states.

Politically savvy and forward thinking?

Check out this gushing comment on Yahoo! entertainment about George Clooney re: the Proposition 8 decision:

The politically savvy, forward-thinking George Clooney gave us his exclusive thoughts on the California State Supreme Court's nasty ruling on Prop 8 earlier today. George may be pretty to look at, but unlike some of Hollywood's elite, he has brains to back up his allure:

"This just should invigorate people to get it back on the ballot in 2010 and 2012 and every two years until all people are allowed a basic civil right."

Bravo George. Are you listening, everybody?


What about that was particularly intelligent or savvy? That was hardly a political commentary that will enter the halls of American political lore. More from the mindset of "liberal" = "intelligent" and "conservative" = "hateful Neanderthal". I hate to break it to you George, but the people already went to the ballot and struck down gay marriage in California and struck a blow for the democratic process in the fight against judicial activism just like they went to the polls and rejected your dad's bid for Congress in Northern Kentucky.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Gee, why does Detroit have problems?

With leaders like Detroit City Councilwoman JoAnn Watson, it is all pretty clear. According to the Free Press, Councilwoman Watson paid a whopping $68 in property taxes on her beautiful Detroit home. In Wayne county where crack houses pay more in property taxes. She even paid them separately and just didn't think it was odd.

I especially liked this part:

Watson said she was unaware of the discrepancy until the Free Press contacted her. She said the change came before she was elected to City Council -- and without her involvement.

"I pay the taxes. All I know is I had a big drop when my house got hit hard by a tornado," she said. "We had great damage."

Watson said she could not recall the specific date the tornado hit, saying it might have been 2002, or perhaps 1993.

She acknowledged, however, that she never reported the incident. National Weather Service meteorologists said the last tornadoes to hit Detroit occurred in 1996 and 1997 -- before Watson says her taxes were reduced because of what she called "the natural disaster."

I should think that your house being hit by a tornado would leave an impression on you. At least to the extent that you could pinpoint which decade it happened in.

Two things here. Either she is a liar who is content to let others foot the bill in Wayne County for the services she votes for or she is completely dense and has no clue that $68 is ridiculous to pay in property taxes. Either way she is a perfect example (as if we needed more) of how messed up Detroit is and why it will never get any better with these clowns in charge.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Well THAT'S a relief

Obama vows not to send people to war without cause

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – President Barack Obama promised graduating midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy on Friday that, as their commander in chief, he will only send them "into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary." In his first address to military graduates, Obama also pledged to invest in the men and women who defend America's liberty, not just in the weapons they would take with them into battle against 21st century threats.

"I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary, and with the strategy, the well-defined goals, the equipment and the support that you need to get the job done," the president told more than 1,000 graduates during a sun-splashed ceremony at Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium.

Good to know. After all, we have a history in our couple hundred year history of Presidents sending young men to war for no reason at all. See, our President is sooooo smart. Not like that awful George Bush.

Of course the clumsy inference is that President Bush sent troops into harms way without cause, which is both historically inaccurate and smarmy. One would think that someone as self-described as "gifted" as Obama would be able to make a more subtle point. Maybe he just assumes that regular folk are too dense to get nuance and need something simpler. Given that so many people marched like lemmings to vote for him last fall, that may not be far from the truth.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

The United States of Entitlement

The Wall Street Journal ran a very disturbing article today about Bruce Marks, a self-appointed champion of the little guy against the evil banks that have the temerity to expect people to pay back the mortgages that allow them to buy the house they live in.

Bruce Marks doesn't bother being diplomatic. A campaigner on behalf of homeowners facing foreclosure, he was on the phone one day in March to a loan executive at Bank of America Corp.

"I'm tired of borrowers being screwed!" Mr. Marks yelled into the phone. "You're incompetent!" Before hanging up, he threatened to call bank CEO Kenneth Lewis at home to complain about the loan executive.

Mr. Marks's nonprofit organization, Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America, has emerged as one of the loudest scourges of the banking industry in the post-bubble economy. It salts its Web site with photos of executives it accuses of standing in the way of helping homeowners -- emblazoning "Predator" across their photos, picturing their homes and sometimes including home phone numbers. In February, NACA, as it's called, protested at the home of a mortgage investor by scattering furniture on his lawn, to give him a taste of what it feels like to be evicted.

In the 1990s, Mr. Marks leaked details of a banker's divorce to the press and organized a protest at the school of another banker's child. He says he would use such tactics again. "We have to terrorize these bankers," Mr. Marks says.

Well that is very noble. Apparently the thought is that people who are unable to pay back a loan that they agreed to pay back for a house they are living in because of money loaned to them by a back should feel perfectly justified in having a thug harass someone else’s family and children. Takes a pretty tough guy to go after a child in some perverse crusade to “terrorize” business people. Here is a prime example:

One borrower at Columbia was Kenneth Brown, a truck driver from Richmond, Va., who had driven over 300 miles to attend. Though he said he was still current on his mortgage, Mr. Brown hoped to get his monthly payment of about $1,600 cut in half by lowering his loan's 12.5% interest rate. "I'm not leaving till I get something in my hand," he said as he sat in the arena.

So this guy is a truck driver who signed a mortgage for 12.5% and a monthly payment that is $1600. First, the bank probably never should have made that loan. Second, this guy has a responsibility to pay back what he agreed to. If he can’t pay the debt, he can’t keep the house. Somehow it is justified to go get a guy who takes pleasure in terrorizing children to try to force a bank to change the loan terms because you feel entitled to something lower. Last I checked, banks are for-profit organizations and having worked for a number of years in banking I can tell you that the last thing that a bank wants is the hassle of foreclosing and taking possession of a home. To hear this nutjob describe it, “predatory” lenders are out making loans hoping that people wouldn’t be able to pay the loan so they could foreclose on them. That makes perfect sense because banks lose money on foreclosures, so why wouldn’t they try to make as many bad loans as possible? I can’t tell if Bruce Marks is ignorant or just a demagogue.

Here is how the real world works. You find a house you want to buy at a price you agree to with the seller. You find a lender who will loan you an enormous sum of money that you agree to pay back over time. If you have great credit and a down payment, you get a favorable rate because the bank takes less risk. If your credit stinks, you are a riskier loan for a reason and thus you pay a higher rate. Virtually every bank offers payment protection in the event you lose your job, but no one ever takes it because up until last year people leveraged themselves to buy the most expensive house they could. If you can’t make the payments, the bank is protected by the collateral of your house. If you can’t pay as you agreed, you don’t get to keep the house (or car or boat). This is the world of make-believe that Mr. Marks inhabits:

"We have the opportunity to change how lending gets done in this country," says Mr. Marks, whose group is itself a mortgage broker and has 40 offices staffed with housing counselors. He favors a return to more traditional standards, with full documentation of income and the same fixed interest rate for everyone.

Instead of relying on credit scores, he thinks lenders should look into the reasons for any late payments in prospective borrowers' past and prepare renters for the responsibilities of home ownership. Then, if people are given a loan they can afford, they shouldn't be required to make a down payment, he argues.

Documenting income makes sense and banks are getting back to that. No down payment loans? Not so much. No down payment loans mean no personal equity in a house and it makes it a lot easier to walk away. The logistics of lenders investigating late payments adds enormous underwriting costs to the loan. Guess who is going to have to pay that? Think the bank is just going to throw up their hands and eat the cost. Not hardly.

It is easy to rail against the evil corporate suits and roll out people losing their home. But in order for the lending system to work so that people can buy houses without paying cash, lenders need to make a profit which means that they need to get paid back as agreed. The more expensive you make it for banks to loan money, the fewer people will be able to get a loan and the more it will cost all of us. Nothing happens in a vacuum, what impacts one area of the economy impacts it all.

Welcome to the United States of Entitlement, where everyone deserves a mortgage regardless of credit history or ability to repay and if you don’t get the deal you want, thugs and terrorists like Bruce Marks will come after you and your family until he gets what he thinks is “fair”. Little wonder the people of this country elected Barack Obama to be Enabler-in-Chief.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

The hypocrisy of the education establishment

There is a very interesting editorial today in USA Today on President Obama’s decision to phase out the voucher program in Washington D.C., a program that virtually everyone recognizes has been incredibly successful.

Few national images are more shameful than those of innocent, low-income kids milling through decrepit public schools, uncared for, unsafe and barely educated. In Washington, D.C., alone, 173 schools — 67% — fail to meet federal standards of learning.

So it was curious that when President Obama recently allowed 1,716 of Washington's neediest schoolchildren to keep, until graduation, the vouchers they use to escape their failed public schools for higher-quality private ones, he also closed the program to new applicants. All this occurred as the Education Department reported that voucher participants show superior skills in reading, safety and orderliness. The news was buried in an impenetrable study released without a news conference.

Why the ambivalence? Because teacher unions, fearing loss of jobs, have pushed most Democrats to oppose vouchers and other options that invite competition for public schools. Put another way, they oppose giving poor parents the same choice that the president himself — along with his chief of staff and some 35% of Democrats in Congress — have made in sending their children to private schools.


I rarely find myself in agreement with the editors of major newspapers. The editors of USA Today are right on this one. The issue stopped being about education a long time ago and has degenerated into a self-serving way to keep union coffers full. The message is loud and clear from the Obama administration: keeping the unions that elected him happy is more important than the education of poor, mostly minority, kids trapped in a horrific school system. For a man who has made improving education one of the centerpieces of his agenda, this step on his part exposes that

Fortunately, taking positions like this exposes the union job protecting agenda of the teachers unions and the administration. No one paying attention will mistake that the oft stated desire to improve education is a lie, a lie that is used to cover the political payback the teachers unions demand for their financial and organizational support. The tragedy is that while their hypocritical agenda is being exposed, thousands of young children are the victims, consigned to living out the cycle of poverty in order to preserve union power.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Wage Controls

Recently the President assured the American people that he has no interest in running private companies, that all of this massive government injection is merely to help tide things over. At the time I scoffed at the idea if protesting at being labeled a socialist while gobbling up private companies. Now we see another sign of the collapse of capitalism in the form of wage controls…

U.S. Eyes Bank Pay Overhaul

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money, according to people familiar with the matter.

The initiative, which is in its early stages, is part of an ambitious and likely controversial effort to broadly address the way financial companies pay employees and executives, including an attempt to more closely align pay with long-term performance.

Administration and regulatory officials are looking at various options, including using the Federal Reserve's supervisory powers, the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission and moral suasion. Officials are also looking at what could be done legislatively.

Among ideas being discussed are Fed rules that would curb banks' ability to pay employees in a way that would threaten the "safety and soundness" of the bank -- such as paying loan officers for the volume of business they do, not the quality. The administration is also discussing issuing "best practices" to guide firms in structuring pay.

At the same time, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) is working on legislation that could strengthen the government's ability both to monitor compensation and to curb incentives that threaten a company's viability or pose a systemic risk to the economy.

Who better than lifelong politician and prostitute customer Barney Frank to “monitor compensation”?!

This is one of the markers. When the government controls prices and controls wages, they are able to manipulate the markets. You tell people how much they can make and you tell companies how much they can charge, and you become a collectivist state in reality if not in name. Despite the protests to the contrary, this is nothing more than seizing the means of production…

Government officials said their effort, which is just beginning, isn't aimed at setting pay or establishing detailed rules. "This is not going to be about capping compensation or micro-management," said an administration official. "It will be about understanding what is the best way to align compensation with sound risk management and long-term value creation."

Right, because who knows better how to create value in a private sector company than “government officials”? I would rather they cap compensation, that is pretty cut and dried even if it is socialism. What they are proposing is going to add a whole new level of complexity to the hiring and compensation process because now everything is going to be heavily regulated and subject to government scrutiny and ultimately approval.

What is especially rich is that it will impact companies who didn’t take TARP money, so even if you are already healthy with your current business practices, the government feels compelled to tell you how to pay your employees. Even if they DID take TARP money, that was supposed to be a loan to get them through a rough patch. Now it has become a permanent indentured servitude that you can’t get out of or pay back. Taking TARP money, which many banks were strong armed into taking whether they wanted or needed it or not, has meant turning over more and more control of your private company into government hands. Think it is a coincidence that the “toxic assets” program is not taking off? Who wants to get Timothy Geithner in your business and eventually telling you how to run your business and how to pay your staff?

Have you ever seen a job application for a Federal job and the convoluted pay scales that they use? It is insane. So we are going to let a bunch of people, many who are lifelong bureaucrats, dictate how to have an equitable pay system in a private company? We already have that system. If you do a poor job of incentivizing growth and have out of whack pay scales, you eventually collapse and a competitor takes you business. We call that capitalism, the free market system. What the Obama administration is proposing is another step in creeping socialism. What is tragic is that so many people think they are benefiting from the government stealing from their wallet on the one hand and giving it back to them with the other.

Monday, May 11, 2009

So there IS some government spending Obama doesn't like

One agency getting a big hit in the new budget is the DOL's Office of Labor-Management Standards . What is that you may ask? Just:

The LMRDA was enacted primarily to ensure basic standards of democracy and fiscal responsibility in labor organizations representing employees in private industry.

Or as the report summarizes that I saw this initially...

OLMS is the federal agency that investigates financial crimes that occur when union officials steal from their union. OLMS also investigates cases where union officials engage in fraud and other corrupt practices in conducting union officer elections.

So a union watchdog agency is having their budget cut by 9% in a time of unprecedented government expansion. How odd that in a day when governmental watchdogs, oversight and regulation increases dramatically, the office that watches out for union corruption is getting cut. Of course there have never been any signs of corruption in unions. I am sure this is not payback to the union bosses who helped get Obama elected. I am sure this is not hampering the efforts of Obama's buddies who control union coffers exclusively for Democrats. Must just be coincidence...

(lack of ) Cooperation on Display!

I went to a regional economic club luncheon last week, featuring a panel of speakers that included the mayors of Lansing and East Lansing as well as the supervisors of several of the townships in the area to speak about “regionalism” About five minutes in they started sniping at one another. It was at points really uncomfortable sitting in the audience because of the pointed comments and veiled references to one another.

Basically what it comes down to is this: “regionalism” means that the rest of the local governments in the region need to help out my particular government unit. The city of Lansing wants the tax base that has moved to the suburbs. The suburbs want the support of the city services. No one wants to pay for anything. Everyone acts aggrieved as if they have gotten the wrong end of every deal since the Civil War. I figure most of this is political cover. With the massive budget cuts we are seeing in Michigan, all of the politicians are searching for ways to deflect blame to someone, anyone else. The only one who seemed to really have a plan was the mayor of Lansing and his plan basically is to swallow up all of the surrounding areas and despite his grandstanding pledge to not want to run the whole county, you know he is eyeing himself in charge. He is a piece of work, he got from the front on the ballroom into the hallway and in front of a camera before I got out, and I was sitting in the row of tables closest to the doors! We drove down one of the main roads in town from inner city Lansing (such as it is) to home, and you could see the change once you left Lansing and entered East Lansing. No way the residents of East Lansing, who live there for a reason and the big reason is that it is NOT Lansing, are going to want to join up with the city.

I expected it to be pretty boring, I mean you have six minor elected officials taking about “regionalism” in a panel format but it actually was very entertaining. It was also pretty sad watching grown adults, elected to represent the citizenry, squabbling over crumbs. I watched them and just imagined what it was like on a bigger scale in D.C. I can see why nothing gets done and I am glad it doesn’t!

Friday, May 8, 2009

Obama's new best buddy leads the way


In a vision of the way things are going to end up in this country, Barack Obama's new BFF (Best Friend Forever) has taken some new, innovative steps to improve the economy of Venezuela...

Chávez Moves to Seize Oil Contractors' Assets

Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez said Thursday his government will seize the local assets of some international oil-service companies starting Friday -- a response to threats by several firms to stop their work in Venezuela because of nonpayment of bills owed by state-run oil giant Petróleos de Venezuela SA.

Earlier Thursday, the National Assembly, dominated by supporters of Mr. Chávez, approved a law letting the government seize assets of oil contractors without following the usual procedures for expropriating businesses. Big oil-services firms such as Texas-based Schlumberger Ltd. and Halliburton Co. aren't expected to be affected by the move, but dozens of other firms are.

The move is the latest sign of trouble in Venezuela's oil industry. Stung by lower prices for its crude-oil exports, Petróleos de Venezuela, or PDVSA, has run up a huge backlog -- roughly $14 billion at the end of 2008 -- of unpaid bills with service companies that do much of the legwork in the oil industry, from maintaining wells to operating tugboats.

In words sure to warm the heart of the administration, Mr. Chavez rightly points out that the property of private, foreign companies who are involved in commerce in Venezuela certainly are open to seizure by the Venezuelan government at any time. That just makes sense...

"Tomorrow we'll start recovering the goods and assets that will now belong to the state -- social property as it always should have been," Mr. Chávez said in a televised speech Thursday. "Mr. Man on the moon, cover your ears because the cries of anguish from the bourgeoisie will reach all the way to the moon."

In President Obama's circle of friends "recovering" is what most people call illegal seizure of private property, i.e "stealing". I think the old commies referred to this as "liberating" stuff. I am sure that other foreign companies will line up to help Venezuelan countries with that sort of business friendly climate. Maybe our illustrous governor Jennifer Granholm can take some lesson from Chavez and President Obama on how to make Michigan even less business friendly than it already is.

Your tax dollars at work!

U.S. Government Funds $400,000 Study on Gay Sex in Argentina Bars

Government researchers are spending more than $400,000 in taxpayer money to hit the bars in Argentina.

The National Institutes of Health are paying researchers to cruise six bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk -- and just what can be done about it.

Doctors and specialists from the New York Psychiatric Institute are using the generous grant from NIH's National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to help tailor HIV prevention programs to work at bars and clubs.

I don't need $400,000 to tell you why people who are deviants act like deviants and are especially likely to act like deviants while getting drunk.

Maybe this is why the automakers are in trouble?

Swift thinking like this:

"People are concerned about bankruptcy, and that's the reason why we want to avoid it if at all possible," he (CFO Ray Young) said.

On the other hand, earlier in the article it says:

DETROIT - General Motors Corp. drew closer to bankruptcy Thursday, acknowledging that its revenue fell by nearly half as car buyers worldwide steered away from showrooms for fear that the auto giant would not be around to honor its warranties.

So they are worried about going into bankruptcy but on the other hand the fears about going into bankruptcy are killing sales which is…driving them toward bankruptcy. They don’t want to declare bankruptcy because it will hurt sales, but the fears that they will is already hurting sales. So lets keep clinging to the vain hope that bankruptcy can be avoided while the market conditions and the assumption that they are going bankrupt anyway is already leading inexorably to bankruptcy. Just file and get it over with, and lets move forward.

Tell me again why they didn’t just declare bankruptcy last fall and save the U.S. taxpayers billions in loans we aren’t going to get back?

Monday, May 4, 2009

In gratitude: Jack Kemp

Jack Kemp passed away on Saturday and the conservative movement lost one of its brightest champions. Oh how we need more sober voices today calling for fiscal restraint in a day and age when tax dollars are spent like monopoly money and the Federal government is rushing headlong to nationalize the engines of our economy.

It is safe to say that Jack Kemp was one of the intellectual champions of the Reagan revolution that turned around the Republican party after the disaster of Richard Nixon and changed the conversation in Washington. As the Wall Street Journal notes in its eulogy for Jack Kemp:

The Kemp-Reagan policy mix of lower taxes to lift incentives, sound money to break inflation, and regulatory relief to unleash entrepreneurs became the foundation for the prosperity of the 1980s and 1990s.

The secret that the media wants to keep hidden is that all of the prosperity we experienced in the 80’s and 90’s was a direct result of the policies put forth under Reagan aided by Kemp. It was only when the fiscal restraints started to fall apart and the government was allowed to grow unfettered that we saw the collapse arrive that we are living with.

We need more men like Jack Kemp in conservatism today, men with a solid and unapologetic principles that transcend the sound bytes and get to the core of conservative thought. Conservatism is the intellectually defensible position. When allowed to compete in the marketplace of ideas against liberalism, it always triumphs because liberalism is based on emotions and rhetoric, where conservatism thrives on facts and reality. Liberalism sounds great in a college classroom where middle-class kids who have never suffered listen to lifelong college profs who have never worked a real job, all insulated from the reality of mortgages and crushing tax burdens. Conservatism needs champions like Jack Kemp who will speak up for conservative values. You may not have agreed with everything that Kemp said but on the core issues he was right on. His presence, charisma and intellect will be missed.

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Not so popular after all?

The media talking heads are constantly chattering among themselves for our benefit, marvelling at how popular President Obama is. But is he really that popular in this early stage of his first term? Perhaps not. Interesting story in the Washington Times this morning and what it shows us is two-fold: First, that Obama is not nearly as popular as we have been led to think. Second, the media is so in the tank for the leftist agenda of the Administration that they will misrepresent the support that the President has. Lets look at some of the approval numbers of recent Presidents at the 100 days mark.

First, Barack Obama: 56%

Pretty respectable. Now lets look at someone else.

Bill Clinton: 55%

So he is more popular than the other media darling Bill Clinton. But what about the hated George W. Bush? 62% Huh?!

Carter? 63%

The first President Bush? 62%

RICHARD NIXON? 61%

Obama is nowhere near the greatest modern American President, Ronald Reagan who was at a staggering 67%

So in his first hundred days, the amazingly popular Barack Obama is less popular than the least effective President in modern days, Jimmy Carter and disgraced Richard Nixon. According to the Gallup polls, President Obama is showing an approval rating of 56% at the 100 days mark which is barely a majority. With the bill for his socialism starting to become apparent, Americans are quickly realizing that they have been sold a bill of goods. Lets hope that the rest of the country figures it out before it is too late.