Poll: Obama approval drops to 43%

CBS NEWS/ September 25, 2013, 6:30 PM

Ghost blog insert

Poll: Obama approval drops to 43%

By Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Anthony Salvanto and Fred Backus

President Obama’s job approval rating is just 43 percent now, down slightly fromearlier this month and the lowest since March 2012. Forty-nine percent disapprove, the highest it has been in two years.

His approval rating among women has dropped since earlier in September, from 49 percent to 43 percent now.

Positive assessments of the president’s handling of the economy has also dropped five points in the last two weeks, to 41 percent now. Just 40 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy, while 49 percent disapprove – the highest disapproval he has ever received on this measure.

This poll finds an uptick in evaluations of President Obama’s handling of the situation in Syria since the announcement of a plan to eradicate Syria’s chemical weapons; still, a majority disapproves of that as well.

Personal evaluations of the president are also down. Thirty percent say he cares a lot about people like themselves – the lowest level measured since he took office.

Despite the other setbacks for the president in this poll, a majority of Americans (58 percent) see him as a strong leader; those views have remained consistent for a few years, but are substantially lower than in the early years of his presidency.

Congress and the President: Strengths and Weaknesses

In his dealings with Congress in general and on key issues, the president fares better. He receives credit from about half of Americans for reaching across the aisle and trying to work with Republicans in Congress – but that represents a drop from 60 percent in January 2012.

However, far fewer Americans see Republicans in Congress reciprocating. Just 23 percent say they are trying to work with the president, and 70 percent say they are not.

And on some key issues, the President holds an advantage over the Republicans in Congress; more say they trust him to handle the economy (47-33 percent), health care (45-40 percent) and the budget deficit (44-38 percent).

Also, the policies of the Republicans in Congress are widely viewed as favoring the interests of the rich (65 percent), while a quarter of Americans say the same for those of the Obama administration. A quarter also says the administration’s policies favor the middle class.

Views of Congress

Most Americans disapprove of the job both Republicans and Democrats in Congress are doing overall, but Republicans receive more criticism. Just 21 percent now approve, down from 25 percent over the summer. Approval ratings for the Democrats in Congress are also down by five points, to 31 percent.

After an uptick earlier this month, Congress’ job approval rating is about where it has been for the last few years – just 14 percent approve, and four in five disapprove.

Reducing the Deficit

Most Americans continue to seek a balanced approach to deficit reduction – both through tax increases and spending cuts. Sixty percent advocate a combined solution, compared to the 33 percent who think the deficit should be reduced by cuts in spending alone. Just 4 percent think taxes should be raised without a cut in spending.

Most Republicans (53 percent) want the deficit reduced with spending cuts alone, while most Democrats (77 percent) and independents (58 percent) want a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.

Respondents were asked to choose what to cut from the largest items in the federal budget, and more Americans are far more willing to cut government spending in the military (49 percent), over Medicare (20 percent) or Social Security (14 percent). Cutting military spending is the top choice of Democrats (62 percent) and independents (50 percent), while Republicans slightly favor cuts in Medicare (33 percent) to cuts in the military (28 percent).

The Economy

As they have for over five years, Americans pick the economy and jobs as the most important problem facing the country today, far ahead of health care and the budget deficit.

Most Americans continue to have a negative view of the condition of the national economy. Nearly two thirds say the economy is bad, including nearly one in four who says it is very bad.

Twenty-nine percent of Americans think the economy is getting better, though nearly as many – 27 percent – think it is getting worse. Forty-four percent think it is about the same.

Direction of the Country

Amidst a struggling economy and the impending possibility of a government shutdown, the percentage of Americans who think the country is headed in the wrong direction has risen. Just 29 percent of Americans think the country is headed in the right direction – down six points since July – while the percentage who says it is off on the wrong track has risen six points, from 60 percent in July to 66 percent today. The percentage who says the country is off on the wrong track is now the highest it has been in over a year.

Views of the Affordable Care Act are reflected in views on the direction of the country as a whole. While 54 percent of those who approve of the 2010 health care law think the country is headed in the right direction, an overwhelming 86 percent of those who disapprove of that law think the country is headed off on the wrong track.

The 2008 Bailout

Next week marks five years since the federal government “bailout” of the financial industry – formally, the Troubled Asset Relief Program – was passed amid the 2008 financial collapse. Looking back on it now, a majority of Americans (59 percent) still disapproves of government money having been used to rescue banks and financial firms.

At the time, Americans were also opposed; just three in 10 in an early-October 2008 poll approved of the relief package after it was passed. Americans doubted it would be effective, though many economists have called it necessary under the circumstances.

The measures were passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President George W. Bush. Today’s Republicans and tea party supporters, in particular, disapprove in retrospect, while Democrats are more mixed.

Looking back on 2008, Americans widely believe (79 percent) that more bankers and financial executives should have been prosecuted following the collapse.

The 2008 crisis wasn’t the first in U.S. history, and Americans expect there will be yet another banking crisis someday: almost eight in 10 think this is likely.

Today, Americans voice mixed confidence in another key economic institution, the Federal Reserve, and its ability to promote growth. Just under one-third express confidence in it, 38 percent have not much or no confidence, and another three in 10 don’t know enough about it to say.

____________________________________________________

This poll was conducted by telephone from September 19-23, 2013 among 1,014 adults nationwide. Data collection was conducted on behalf of CBS News/The New York Times by Social Science Research Solutions of Media, Pa. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups may be higher. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

James Woods on Obama: He’s the ‘gift from hell’

James Woods on Obama: He’s the ‘gift from hell’

By Cheryl K. Chumley

The Washington Times

Thursday, September 12, 2013

  • James Woods copy

It’s a safe bet there’s no love lost between Hollywood actor James Woods and President Obama — the former has taken to Twitter several times over the last few months to trash the policies and politics of the latter.

The latest came this week, in response to a report from British press that revealed the National Security Agency commonly provides Israel with intelligence data — without first stripping out private and personal information on American citizens. The Guardian in London reported the item, the latest in its coverage of document leaks from Edward Snowden.

Mr. Woods unleashed his views of the matter — and of Mr. Obama’s role in allowing the practice to occur — on Twitter.

He wrote: “Report: Data on Americans shared with Israel … Obama: the gift from hell that keeps on giving.”

This is hardly the first unfavorable rating Mr. Woods has posted on his Twitter account about Mr. Obama. In July, the actor ranted over Mr. Obama’s insertion of his personal opinion into the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin trial, characterizing it as fueling racial tensions and wondering why the president would speak his mind about the death of the 17-year-old Trayvon but not worry so much about American’s soldiers and wounded warriors.

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

SPY ON EACH OTHER: Linchpin for Obama’s plan to predict future leakers unproven, isn’t likely to work, experts say.

Get them to spy on each other: Linchpin for Obama’s plan to predict future leakers unproven, isn’t likely to work, experts say

Insider Threats
By Jonathan S. Landay and Marisa Taylor | McClatchy Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — In an initiative aimed at rooting out future leakers and other security violators, President Barack Obama has ordered federal employees to report suspicious actions of their colleagues based on behavioral profiling techniques that are not scientifically proven to work, according to experts and government documents.

The techniques are a key pillar of the Insider Threat Program, an unprecedented government-wide crackdown under which millions of federal bureaucrats and contractors must watch out for “high-risk persons or behaviors” among co-workers. Those who fail to report them could face penalties, including criminal charges.

Obama mandated the program in an October 2011 executive order after Army Pfc. Bradley Manning downloaded hundreds of thousands of documents from a classified computer network and gave them to WikiLeaks, the anti-government secrecy group. The order covers virtually every federal department and agency, including the Peace Corps, the Department of Education and others not directly involved in national security.

Under the program, which is being implemented with little public attention, security investigations can be launched when government employees showing “indicators of insider threat behavior” are reported by co-workers, according to previously undisclosed administration documents obtained by McClatchy. Investigations also can be triggered when “suspicious user behavior” is detected by computer network monitoring and reported to “insider threat personnel.”

Federal employees and contractors are asked to pay particular attention to the lifestyles, attitudes and behaviors – like financial troubles, odd working hours or unexplained travel – of co-workers as a way to predict whether they might do “harm to the United States.” Managers of special insider threat offices will have “regular, timely, and, if possible, electronic, access” to employees’ personnel, payroll, disciplinary and “personal contact” files, as well as records of their use of classified and unclassified computer networks, polygraph results, travel reports and financial disclosure forms.

Over the years, numerous studies of public and private workers who’ve been caught spying, leaking classified information, stealing corporate secrets or engaging in sabotage have identified psychological profiles that could offer clues to possible threats. Administration officials want government workers trained to look for such indicators and report them so the next violation can be stopped before it happens.

“In past espionage cases, we find people saw things that may have helped identify a spy, but never reported it,” said Gene Barlow, a spokesman for the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, which oversees government efforts to detect threats like spies and computer hackers and is helping implement the Insider Threat Program. “That is why the awareness effort of the program is to teach people not only what types of activity to report, but how to report it and why it is so important to report it.”

But even the government’s top scientific advisers have questioned these techniques. Those experts say that trying to predict future acts through behavioral monitoring is unproven and could result in illegal ethnic and racial profiling and privacy violations.

“There is no consensus in the relevant scientific community nor on the committee regarding whether any behavioral surveillance or physiological monitoring techniques are ready for use at all,” concluded a 2008 National Research Council report on detecting terrorists.

TSA officers watch for suspicious behavior at airports (Carey Wagner/Sun Sentinel/MCT)

“Doing something similar about predicting future leakers seems even more speculative,” Stephen Fienberg, a professor of statistics and social science at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and a member of the committee that wrote the report, told McClatchy.

The emphasis on individual lifestyles, attitudes and behaviors comes at a time when growing numbers of Americans must submit to extensive background checks, polygraph tests and security investigations to be hired or to keep government or federal contracting jobs. The U.S. government is one of the world’s largest employers, overseeing an ever-expanding ocean of information.

While the Insider Threat Program mandates that the nearly 5 million federal workers and contractors with clearances undergo training in recognizing suspicious behavior indicators, it allows individual departments and agencies to extend the requirement to their entire workforces, something the Army already has done.

Training should address “current and potential threats in the work and personal environment” and focus on “the importance of detecting potential insider threats by cleared employees and reporting suspected activity to insider threat personnel and other designated officials,” says one of the documents obtained by McClatchy.

The White House, the Justice Department, the Peace Corps and the departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and Education refused to answer questions about the program’s implementation. Instead, they issued virtually identical email statements directing inquiries to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, declined to comment or didn’t respond.

Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, said in her statement that the Insider Threat Program includes extra safeguards for “civil rights, civil liberties and privacy,” but she didn’t elaborate. Manning’s leaks to WikiLeaks, she added, showed that at the time protections of classified materials were “inadequate and put our nation’s security at risk.”

 

Even so, the new effort failed to prevent former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden from taking top-secret documents detailing the agency’s domestic and international communications monitoring programs and leaking them to The Guardian and The Washington Post newspapers.

The initiative goes beyond classified information leaks. It includes as insider threats “damage to the United States through espionage, terrorism, unauthorized disclosure of national security information or through the loss or degradation of departmental resources or capabilities,” according to a document setting “Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs.”

McClatchy obtained a copy of the document, which was produced by an Insider Threat Task Force that was set up under Obama’s order and is headed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Attorney General Eric Holder. McClatchy also obtained the group’s final policy guidance. The White House, the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined requests for both documents, neither of which is classified.

Although agencies and departments are still setting up their programs, some employees already are being urged to watch co-workers for “indicators” that include stress, divorce and financial problems.

When asked about the ineffectiveness of behavior profiling, Barlow said the policy “does not mandate” that employees report behavior indicators.

“It simply educates employees about basic activities or behavior that might suggest a person is up to improper activity,” he said.

“These do not require special talents. If you see someone reading classified documents they should not be reading, especially if this happens multiple times and the person appears nervous that you saw him, that is activity that is suspicious and should be reported,” Barlow said. “The insider threat team then looks at the surrounding facts and draws the conclusions about the activity.”

Departments and agencies, however, are given leeway to go beyond the White House’s basic requirements, prompting the Defense Department in its strategy to mandate that workers with clearances “must recognize the potential harm caused by unauthorized disclosures and be aware of the penalties they could face.” It equates unauthorized disclosures of classified information to “aiding the enemies of the United States.”

All departments and agencies involved in the program must closely track their employees’ online activities. The information gathered by monitoring, the administration documents say, “could be used against them in criminal, security, or administrative proceedings.” Experts who research such efforts say suspicious behaviors include accessing information that someone doesn’t need or isn’t authorized to see or downloading materials onto removable storage devices like thumb drives when such devices are restricted or prohibited.

“If you normally print 20 documents a week, well, what happens if the next week or the following week you have to print 50 documents or 100 documents? That could be at variance from your normal activity that could be identified and might be investigated,” said Randy Trzeciak, acting manager of the Computer Emergency Response Team Insider Threat Center at Carnegie Mellon University’s Software Engineering Institute.

“We’ve come up with patterns that we believe organizations might be able to consider when determining when someone might be progressing down the path to harm the organization,” said Trzeciak, whose organization has analyzed more than 800 cases and works with the government and private sector on cyber security.

But research and other programs that rely on profiling show it remains unproven, could make employees more resistant to reporting violations and might lead to spurious allegations.

The Pentagon, U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of Homeland Security have spent tens of millions of dollars on an array of research projects. Yet after several decades, they still haven’t developed a list of behaviors they can use to definitively identify the tiny fraction of workers who might some day violate national security laws.

“We are back to the needle-in-a-haystack problem,” said Fienberg, the Carnegie Mellon professor.

“We have not found any silver bullets,” said Deana Caputo, the lead behavioral scientist at MITRE Corp., a nonprofit company working on insider threat efforts for U.S. defense, intelligence and law enforcement agencies. “We don’t have actually any really good profiles or pictures of a bad guy, a good guy gone bad or even the bad guy walking in to do bad things from the very beginning.”

Different agencies and departments have different lists of behavior indicators. Most have adopted the traditional red flags for espionage. They include financial stress, disregard for security practices, unexplained foreign travel, unusual work hours and unexplained or sudden wealth.

But agencies and their consultants have added their own indicators.

For instance, an FBI insider threat detection guide warns private security personnel and managers to watch for “a desire to help the ‘underdog’ or a particular cause,” a “James Bond Wannabe” and a “divided loyalty: allegiance to another person or company or to a country besides the United States.”

A report by the Deloitte consulting firm identifies “several key trends that are making all organizations particularly susceptible to insider threat today.” These trends include an increasingly disgruntled, post-Great Recession workforce and the entry of younger, “Gen Y” employees who were “raised on the Internet” and are “highly involved in social networking.”

 

Some government programs that have embraced behavioral indicators have been condemned as failures. Perhaps the most heavily criticized is the Transportation Security Administration’s Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT, program.

The program, which has cost $878 million and employs 2,800 people, uses “behavior detection officers” to identify potential terrorists by scrutinizing airline passengers for signs of “stress, fear or deception.”

DHS’ inspector general excoriated the program, saying in a May 2013 report, “TSA cannot ensure that passengers at United States airports are screened objectively, show that the program is cost-effective or reasonably justify the program’s expansion.”

Interviews and internal complaints obtained by The New York Times quoted TSA officers as saying SPOT has led to ethnic and racial profiling by emphasizing certain profiles. They include Middle Easterners, Hispanics traveling to Miami and African-Americans wearing baseball caps backward.

Another problem with having employees report co-workers’ suspicious behaviors: They aren’t sure which ones represent security threats.

“Employees in the field are not averse to reporting genuine security infractions. In fact, under appropriate conditions they are quite willing to act as eyes and ears for the government,” said a 2005 study by the Pentagon’s Defense Personnel Security Research Center. “They are simply confused about precisely what is important enough to report. Many government workers anguish over reporting gray-area behaviors.”

Even so, the Pentagon is forging ahead with training Defense Department and contractor managers and security officials to set up insider threat offices, with one company emphasizing how its course is designed for novices.

“The Establishing an Insider Threat Program for Your Organization Course will take no more than 90 minutes to complete,” says the proposal.

Officials with the Army, the only government department contacted by McClatchy that agreed to discuss the issue, acknowledged that identifying potential insider threats is more complicated than relying on a list of behaviors.

 

“What we really point out is if you’re in doubt, report, because that’s what the investigative personnel are there to do, is to get the bottom of ‘is this just noise or is this something that is really going on?’” said Larry Gillis, a senior Army counterintelligence and security official.

The Army implemented a tough program a year before Obama’s executive order after Maj. Nidal Hasan, a U.S.-born Muslim, allegedly killed 13 people in a 2009 rampage at Fort Hood, Texas. Hasan, who has not gone on trial, has said he was defending the Afghan Taliban.

Gillis said the Army didn’t want a program that would “get people to snitch on each other,” nor did it want to encourage stereotyping.

“We don’t have the luxury to make up reasons to throw soldiers out,” Gillis said. “It’s a big deal to remove a soldier from service over some minor issue. We don’t want to ruin a career over some false accusation.”

But some current and former U.S. officials and experts worry that Obama’s Insider Threat Program could lead to false or retaliatory accusations across the entire government, in part because security officials are granted access to information outside their usual purview.

These current and former U.S. officials and experts also ridiculed as overly zealous and simplistic the idea of using reports of suspicious behavior to predict potential insider threats. It takes years for professional spy-hunters to learn their craft, and relying on the observations of inexperienced people could lead to baseless and discriminatory investigations, they said.

“Anyone is an amateur looking at behavior here,” said Thomas Fingar, a former State Department intelligence chief who chaired the National Intelligence Council, which prepares top-secret intelligence analyses for the president, from 2005 to 2008.

Co-workers, Fingar said, should “be attentive” to colleagues’ personal problems in order to refer them to counseling, not to report them as potential security violators. “It’s simply because they are colleagues, fellow human beings,” he said.

Eric Feldman, a former inspector general of the National Reconnaissance Office, the super-secret agency that oversees U.S. spy satellites, expressed concern that relying on workers to report colleagues’ suspicious behaviors to security officials could create “a repressive kind of culture.”

“The answer to it is not to have a Stasi-like response,” said Feldman, referring to the feared secret police of communist East Germany. “You’ve removed that firewall between employees seeking help and the threat that any employee who seeks help could be immediately retaliated against by this insider threat office.”

Obama’s Crisis of Competence

Obama’s Crisis of Competence

The White House seems more comfortable stage-managing the news than dealing with the uncomfortable crises that inevitably crop up.

By 

Updated: July 3, 2013 | 8:28 a.m.
July 3, 2013 | 7:01 a.m.

President Obama and former President George W. Bush pause for a moment of silence during a wreath-laying ceremony to honor the victims of the U.S. Embassy bombing in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

President Obama returned last night from a weeklong trip to Africa, seeking to position himself as part of ailing Nelson Mandela’s legacy and generating strategic photo-ops. On the other side of the continent, Egypt is awash in revolution, with hundreds of thousands of protesters in Tahrir Square railing against the American-backed president, with some chanting slogans against the American passivity in the face of crisisThe Washington Post editorialized Tuesday: “For months, as the Morsi government has taken steps to consolidate power, quash critics and marginalize independent civil society groups, President Obama and his top aides have been largely silent in public. No effort was made to use the leverage of U.S. aid to compel a change of policy.”

While the president was in Africa, Secretary of State John Kerry spent time in Israel, using valuable political capital trying to jump-start peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians, at a time when few serious foreign policy analysts believe it has any chance of succes—beyond garnering favorable press for trying. (The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg calls Kerry’s a “delusion of the foreignpolicy elite” in his column today.) This, while the administration appears utterly feckless in neighboring Syria, where civil war worsens, chemical weapons-wielding dictator Bashar al-Assad strengthens his hold on power, and American influence dwindles. “The military situation in Syria is slipping away as the president ponders,” Washington Post columnist Jackson Diehl wrote last week.

And on the domestic front, Obama was comfortably traveling on Air Force One when a Treasury Department functionary announced late Tuesday it would be delaying the mandate that businesses provide health care for their employee—a crucial component in the health care law that is shaping up as the president’s main legacy. Rather than give a speech explaining the delay, and informing the public about how this could affect their health care options, the administration dropped the bombshell news right before the July Fourth holiday weekend.

The administration is facing a crisis of competence. At a time when trust in government is already at an all-time low, the events of this past week illustrate the limits of this president’s power. The White House seems more comfortable stage-managing the news than dealing with the uncomfortable crises that inevitably crop up. (If there’s anything to learn from the Benghazi crisis, it was the administration’s attentiveness to detail in how to avoid blame in the aftermath of the crisis but a lack of focus in how to react as the crisis was occurring.)

The other worrying sign, is that politics is getting in the way of smart policymaking. Wary of the last war in the Middle East, Americans don’t want the United States to intervene in Syria. The White House, heeding the polls, gladly obliged, even figuring out ways to forestall proof that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people—the red line that the president famously set. Obama doesn’t want to say anything to take sides between the Egyptian president he backed and the growing throngs of protesters, and then take ownership in a crisis that’s showing no signs of abating. Politically speaking, it’s a lose-lose situation.

On health care, with the 2014 midterms approaching and control of the Senate in play, the administration decided to buy time by delaying the employer mandate until after the elections. Former HHS spokesman Nick Papas said the delay was “about minimizing paperwork, not politics.” But it’s awfully politically convenient to delay implementation of a law that’s been growing more unpopular and whose implementation is shaping up to be a “train wreck,” in the words of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat.

Obama’s second-term legacy is shaping up to be more about avoiding crises than accomplishing big things. Salvage the core of a health care law, avoid worst-case scenarios in Egypt and Syria, and don’t get in the way of his party’s efforts to win Republican support for a landmark immigration reform plan. It’s a far cry from the idealism of his second inaugural. But at this point, the president needs to simply show that he’s paying attention to the fires burning around him.

While men Slept: How we lost our country.

hands out

How did we lose virtually everything godly, noble and brave in just 51 months?  How did so many stupid bills and silly solutions go unchecked by reason and common sense?

We can search all around us for answers but I believe that the answer lies in something that we may have never considered.

There are clues all around us.  Coffee houses are everywhere; caffeine is now in everything from soda to cough medicine.  Look at the checkout counter and you will see energy drinks, energy bars, and 5 hour energy.  The national epidemic is fatigue and exhaustion.  Not a day goes by without a news item about drowsy pilots, surgeons, and air traffic controllers.

Be honest you face fatigue.  Sleep has never been harder to get than now.  However, I am going to pinpoint the most dangerous fatigue of all.  It is the fatigue that explains how we lost our nation.

While men slept.  That phrase says so much.  Jesus said in Matthew 13: 24, 25 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;  but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.

Ever since the Twin Towers were destroyed on September 11, 2001 a shroud of heaviness has been on our nation.   The moment it looked like we were vulnerable, men from the bottom of society began to make their move.

They hatched a scheme to birth a new America.  However, their scheme was not new at all.  It was a reprocessed agenda that had been tried before and in each and every case it fails spectacularly. Obamacare, the mass distribution of wealth, amnesty for 11 million illegal immigrants, are all the current manifestations of socialism.

train tax insert

An article written in 1995 was prophetic.  It is entitled Why Socialism Failed by Mark J. Perry.  He said, “Socialism will never work in America.  Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.”

The tyranny and misery is wearing us out and Obamacare has not even kicked in yet!  What but fatigue explains how we shrug at Homeland Security buying enough bullets for a 100 year war?  Why did we watch a marital law drill in Boston and not even bat an eye?   How is that we can shrug at Benghazi?  It is fatigue.

shrug

John Boehner eyes droop and his words falter from exhaustion after trying to confront the White House.  Many times I felt he needed to fight but he was just too tired.

However, the most dangerous fatigue is the one that uniquely strikes the child of God.  The source of the believer’s exhaustion is the Immorality that vexes our soul.  2 Peter 2:7-9 says, “and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.”

How many Pastors entered Pulpits on November 4th, 2012 too weary to stand for their convictions? Godly men were too tired to confront the juggernaut of “Hope and Change.”  They stood in pulpits before their people too tired to stand for their convictions.  Knowing full well that the abortion, same sex, socialist locomotive was leaving the station and taking their values and vows to God with it.   Many Pastors still told their people to vote for Obama.  My guess is that many did it with a heavy heart and a fatigued conscience.  They robotically spouted the company line.

The disastrous outcome of this administration is out in the open now.  So much so that I will predict that not one Spirit-filled Pastor will dare respond to this blog and defend their endorsement of the current administration.  I will let you know.CIA

Yes, it is the exhaustion of the righteous that is the greatest threat.  We are too tired to stand against a state owned media, a bevy of Hollywood loud mouths, the unrelenting torrent of hate speech to anyone who dares question the regime.  A great part of the exhaustion also stems from the feeling of helplessness that says, “I know evil is on the move but what can I do about it?”

So what do we do?   We let these verses sink into our soul: Isaiah 40: 28 “Have you not known?
Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the Lord, The Creator of the ends of the earth,
Neither faints nor is weary. His understanding is unsearchable. 29 He gives power to the weak,
And to those who have no might He increases strength. 30 Even the youths shall faint and be weary,
And the young men shall utterly fall, 31 But those who wait on the Lord Shall renew their strength;
They shall mount up with wings like eagles, They shall run and not be weary, They shall walk and not faint.”

Tomorrow:  Getting the energy and the strategy to get our country back.

Your voice is weakening Obama.

crumble blog

First news from the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Friday, May 03, 2013

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama’s job performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove.

This is the lowest level of approval for the president since August of last year.

Today’s figures include 25% who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 41% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16.

Following a government report of yet another anemic quarter of economic growth, voters give President Obama even less credit for his handling of the issues of job creation and small business.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely Voters rate the president’s handling of issues related to job creation as good or excellent. Forty-three percent (43%) give him a poor rating in this area.

When it comes to issues related to small business, 35% give him a good or excellent rating.  Forty-three percent (43%) think Obama’s performance in this area is poor.  (To see survey question wording,

When tracking President Obama’s job approval on a daily basis, people sometimes get so caught up in the day-to-day fluctuations that they miss the bigger picture. To look at the longer-term trends, Rasmussen Reports compiles the numbers on a full-month basis, and the results can be seen in the graphics below.

For the month of April, the president’s Total Job Approval Rating fell another two points from 52% in March to 50%.  That’s the lowest level measured since last September.

In December, it reached 56%, the highest level since May 2009. Prior to the election, that rating had remained in the narrow range of 44% to 49% for two years straight.”

(CNSNews.com) – 9.5 million Americans have left the workforce during the presidency of Barack Obama, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In April, the total number of Americans counted as “not in the labor force” declined for the first time since December, but that number was still near a record high at 89,936,000.

Mario’s note:  In case you wonder why I keep speaking out:  Your voice is weakening Obama.  Whether it is through prayer, or speaking out to those you know,  it is important for you to realize the effect you are having on the national situation.  This is not just about Obama, it is about people sickening of the entire political correctness gone amok phenomenon.

You need to realize that a mood change is in the wind, the grass roots of this nation are disgusted and weary of the unending removal of rights and the celebration of immorality.  Obama’s last firewall, the media  is showing signs of erosion.  Keep praying, keep speaking out, keep believing.

House Panel Rips Obama Over Drilling Permits

MESSAGE1-articleLarge

 House Panel Rips Obama Over Drilling Permits

The House Natural Resources Committee has issued a statement lambasting the Obama administration for dragging its feet in issuing permits for oil and gas drilling on federal lands.

According to the committee’s statement, it takes the Bureau of Land Management an average of 307 days to process a permit to drill, nearly twice as long as the 154 days it took in 2005.

In Colorado, it takes just 27 days to approve a permit on state and private lands, and in North Dakota, just 10 days.

To put the federal delay into perspective, the committee claimed that in 307 days, a person can drive from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles 154 times, watch the movie “Die Hard” 3,349 times, or hike the entire Appalachian Trail — twice.

“President Obama has touted that U.S. oil and natural gas production is at its highest levels in years, but he’s only telling half the story,” according to the committee’s statement.

“The recent increase in U.S. oil and gas production can all be attributed to state and private lands — not federal.”

Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash., said: “The Obama administration’s federal energy policies are costing American jobs, impeding economic growth and recovery, and robbing the U.S. Treasury of much needed revenue to help us balance our budget.

“We’ve seen how energy production on state lands can create new jobs … [and] ease the pain of high gasoline prices. So why is the Obama administration refusing to take the same steps as the states to develop these resources?”

The statement was issued following an April 17 oversight hearing. One witness at the hearing, Utah Lt. Gov. Gregory S. Bell, noted that “state and federal permits require similar regulatory and engineering reviews, so it is hard to understand why a federal permit should take four times as long to be issued.”

Bell concluded: “The status quo of federal overreach is simply unacceptable.”

Texas Land Commissioner Jerry E. Patterson also appeared as a witness and said: “The states lead the way in leasing, permitting, drilling and most important, the production of oil and gas. This administration should look to the states and follow their lead if we are to become energy independent. Sadly, federal policies hamper the development of vitally needed energy.”

Back in February, President Obama said in his State of the Union address that his administration has been actively working to speed up the permitting process: “That’s why my administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits.”

The committee responded at the time: “Facts are stubborn things, and that statement simply is not true.”