OBAMA HAS LOST ALL CREDIBILITY BY MARIO MURILLO

new-york-times

OBAMA HAS LOST ALL CREDIBILITY

By Mario Murilllo

“Obama has lost all credibility.”  The New York Times said that.  Sit down, take a deep breath and consider what that means.   It is almost like a terrorist renouncing Allah.   No one and I mean no one has worshipped Obama like the New York Times.  They have bathed him in glorious immunity for even the most flagrant acts of arrogance and incompetence.

The New York Times is the proverbial she bear guarding her whelps, a she bear that viciously attacks anyone who would dare touch her love pup.  It is possible that even this bastion of protection has finally had enough of the tyranny?

Some vestiges of idol worship remain:  it seems that the original editorial read “Obama has lost all credibility.”  By morning it was softened to read “Obama has lost all credibility on this issue.”    However, that was no real comfort to the president who is used to Carte Blanc from the Gray Lady.

Here is an excerpt from their editorial:

“Within hours of the disclosure that federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.

The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers.

verizon spy blog copy

Based on an article in The Guardian published Wednesday night, we now know that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency used the Patriot Act to obtain a secret warrant to compel Verizon’s business services division to turn over data on every single call that went through its system. We know that this particular order was a routine extension of surveillance that has been going on for years, and it seems very likely that it extends beyond Verizon’s business division. 

Essentially, the administration is saying that without any individual suspicion of wrongdoing, the government is allowed to know whom Americans are calling every time they make a phone call, for how long they talk and from where.

The senior administration official quoted in The Times said the executive branch internally reviews surveillance programs to ensure that they “comply with the Constitution and laws of the United States and appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties.”

That’s no longer good enough. Mr. Obama clearly had no intention of revealing this eavesdropping, just as he would not have acknowledged the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, had it not been reported in the press.

We strongly object to using that power in this manner. It is the very sort of thing against which Mr. Obama once railed, when he said in 2007 that the surveillance policy of the George W. Bush administration “puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide.”

Even the New York Times agrees that Obama must be stopped.  How much more then should Christians wake up to this man?

As mystifying and objectionable as it might seem to me, there are still Pastors and Christians who will stand by Obama.  I will not judge their heart.    However, I cannot help but say that there is not a shred of justification for supporting Obama anymore.   There is, on the other hand, an overwhelming case for praying him out of office and working to protect our God given rights in the Constitution.   Wake up, speak up before it is too late.

-Mario Murillo

Obama’s War Against the Free Press Gets Creepier

Obama’s War Against the Free Press Gets Creepier.

obama pointing

|May. 20, 2013 12:39 pm

White HousePerhaps the most chilling aspect of the U.S. Department of Justice “investigation” of Fox News chief correspondent James Rosen isn’t the intrusive tracking of his movements and contacts — although that’s disturbing enough — but the basis for the criminal charges he may ultimately face. At its heart, the allegation that Rosen broke the law “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator” is based on nothing more than meeting with and asking questions of government adviser Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, who told him the non-shocking information that North Korea could very well respond to United Nations sanctions with more nuclear tests. That’s right. Meeting an official and asking questions, which is what journalists do, is interpreted as criminal conspiracy. Taken with the already brewing scandal over the snooping of Associated Press phone records, we’re looking at a full-fledged assault on the free press.

The path that led to allegations of illegal journalism is bad enough. In search of leaks, reports the Washington Post, Justice Department officials went full spy movie:

They used security badge access records to track the reporter’s comings and goings from the State Department, according to a newly obtained court affidavit. They traced the timing of his calls with a State Department security adviser suspected of sharing the classified report. They obtained a search warrant for the reporter’s personal e-mails.

So, now we have a control-freak government that’s determined to plug every source of unauthorized information and that has already prosecuted more leakers than all of its predecessors combined. So much for transparency. But to go after journalists who receive that information and to actually accuse them of crimes for asking questions is a fresh new step. As the Post adds:

[I]t remains an open question whether it’s ever illegal, given the First Amendment’s protection of press freedom, for a reporter to solicit information. No reporter, including Rosen, has been prosecuted for doing so.

Glenn Greenwald points out in the Guardian that the idea that asking questions can be criminal is at the root of the U.S. government’s efforts against Julian Assange.

That same “solicitation” theory, as the New York Times reported back in 2011, is the one the Obama DOJ has been using to justify its ongoing criminal investigation of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange: that because Assange solicited or encouraged Manning to leak classified information, the US government can “charge [Assange] as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them.”

Having been tried out against a relative outlier like Assange, the theory that soliciting information can be criminal is apparently now ready for application against the mainstream press. We already know that the president explicitly considers freedom of the press to be only one consideration among several that have to be balanced, apparently according to the priorities of officials in his administration. He told us so just days ago, when asked about the government’s treatment of the AP:

Now, with respect to the Department of Justice, I’m not going to comment on a specific and pending case.  But I can talk broadly about the balance that we have to strike.  Leaks related to national security can put people at risk.  They can put men and women in uniform that I’ve sent into the battlefield at risk. They can put some of our intelligence officers, who are in various, dangerous situations that are easily compromised, at risk.

U.S. national security is dependent on those folks being able to operate with confidence that folks back home have their backs, so they’re not just left out there high and dry, and potentially put in even more danger than they may already be.  And so I make no apologies, and I don’t think the American people would expect me as Commander-in-Chief not to be concerned about information that might compromise their missions or might get them killed.

So, in the name of “balancing” government officials’ priorities with core individual freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights, we’re at a point now where journalists can be spied upon to find out their sources of information. And then they may actually be prosecuted for asking the “wrong” questions.

Backfire: ABC, CNN, NBC Call for White House to Release Benghazi Emails

Benghazi Massacre Blog copyBackfire: ABC, CNN, NBC Call for White House to Release Benghazi Emails

 

***UPDATE: NBC’s senior White House correspondent joined the chorus Wednesday. On his MSNBC show, “The Daily Rundown,” Chuck Todd looked into the camera and said, “Attention White House: Release all the emails.” The headline has been updated to add NBC.

Assuming they are the ones who leaked to CNN an email written by Ben Rhoades (a Deputy National Security Advisor close to the President), the White House might have been too clever by half Tuesday. An act that was obviously meant to pour water on the Benghazi fire started by an ABC News report, has only ended up being gasoline. Now both CNN and ABC have joined conservative media in calling for the White House to release all the emails surrounding the editing of the CIA talking points.

Friday, in a bombshell report that blew the long-simmering Libya scandal wide open and right into the arms of the mainstream media, ABC’s Jonathan Karl reported that an email written by Rhoades specifically mentioned the State Department’s concerns about the CIA talking points. Here is how Karl transcribed the Rhoades’ email:

We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.  We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.

Though this point wasn’t the main focus of Karl’s report, it was important because it showed that the White House was backing State in pushing inconvenient facts out of the talking points — this included the fact that terrorists were behind the attack and that State had been negligent when it came to providing security for our diplomatic mission.

In the end, as we now all now know, and apparently due to the prodding of Hillary Clinton’s right hand woman at State — Victoria Nuland, the talking points ended up being completely wrong, which resulted in the American people being misled by the Obama Administration, straight through to a speech the President gave at the United Nations almost two weeks after the attack.

Yesterday, though, CNN’s Jake Tapper received what he was told by a source is the actual transcript of Rhoades’ email, which reads this way:

All –

Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.

What is important about this version is that it does not directly mention the State Department, which gives the White House some cover when it comes to its role in shaping the talking points. And whether they leaked the email to Tapper or not, there is no question the White House was excited about the leak. White House spokesman Jay Carney made sure to mention the news of Tapper’s report in yesterday’s White House briefing.

But things aren’t exactly turning out the way the White House likely hoped.

Though he didn’t see the original Rhoades’ email and was reporting off what a source told him the email said, Karl stands by his original reporting:

I asked my original source today to explain the different wording on the Ben Rhodes e-mail, and the fact that the words “State Department” were not included in the e-mail provided to CNN’s Tapper.

This was my source’s response, via e-mail: “WH reply was after a long chain of email about State Dept concerns. So when WH emailer says, take into account all equities, he is talking about the State equities, since that is what the email chain was about.”

Karl then called for the White House to release the full transcripts of the full email chain surrounding the shaping of the CIA talking points:

The White House could still clear up this confusion by releasing the full e-mail transcripts that were provided for brief review by a select number of members of Congress earlier this year. If there’s “no ‘there’ there,” as President Obama himself claimed yesterday, a full release should help his case.

 

 

Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard, who first reported on the Rhoades’ email, has been calling for the White House to make these emails available to the media for some time, and added an important point about context Tuesday night:

We don’t know who provided the Ben Rhodes email to CNN, but the leak did not include the earlier emails in the chain among top administration officials. If it had, we would know more about a curious reference on page 20 of the House GOP report. The report describes an email we now know was written by State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who wrote to the group that earlier edits to the Benghazi talking points did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” And then, according to the House report, Nuland’s email reported “that the Department’s leadership was consulting with [national security staff].’”

Is this characterization from the House report accurate? Did the consultation happen? If so, who in the State Department leadership spoke with the White House’s national security staff? Why weren’t they satisfied with the earlier edits? What were the remaining “issues” with the talking points?

If the goal was to bail Obama out of the brewing Benghazi mess, tactically, whoever released the Rhoades’ email to Tapper, just made a huge error.

Now the media wants to see them all.

 

PROGRESSIVE GROUP: IRS GAVE US CONSERVATIVE GROUPS’ CONFIDENTIAL DOCS

PROGRESSIVE GROUP: IRS GAVE US CONSERVATIVE GROUPS’ CONFIDENTIAL DOCS

 1944
 26
 4421

Email Article

Print ArticleSend a Tip

by WYNTON HALL 14 May 2013, 7:59 AM PDT 1041POST A COMMENT

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office that targeted and harassed conservative tax-exempt groups during the 2012 election cycle gave the progressive group nine confidential applications of conservative groups whose tax-exempt status was pending.

The commendable admission lends further evidence to the lengths the IRS went during an election cycle to silence tea party and limited government voices.

ProPublica says the documents the IRS gave them were “not supposed to be made public”:

The same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups to ProPublica late last year… In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved—meaning they were not supposed to be made public. (We made six of those public, after redacting their financial information, deeming that they were newsworthy.)

The group says that “no unapproved applications from liberal groups were sent to ProPublica.”

According to Media Research Center Vice President for Business and Culture Dan Gainor, ProPublica’s financial backers include top progressive donors:

ProPublica, which recently won its second Pulitzer Prize, initially was given millions of dollars from the Sandler Foundation to “strengthen the progressive infrastructure”–“progressive” being the code word for very liberal. In 2010, it also received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from the Open Society Foundations. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF website is http://www.soros.org. It is a network of more than 30 international foundations, mostly funded by Soros, who has contributed more than $8 billion to those efforts.

On Friday, the House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to hold a formal hearing on the IRS conservative targeting scandal. IRS Commissioner Steve Miller and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George are slated to testify.

EXCLUSIVE: McConnell: IRS Revelations ‘Just The Beginning’

EXCLUSIVE: McConnell: IRS Revelations ‘Just The Beginning’

obama pointing 

On Monday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) fired back on assertions by the IRS that its efforts to target conservative groups were relegated to low-level employees. “Of course not,” he told Breitbart News. McConnell noted that he had raised the issue of IRS targeting of conservatives in 2012, and further noted that the Washington Post “dismissed it as a bunch of red herrings.”

The scandal, McConnell said, extends up the chain. “The Obama effort to shut up opponents isn’t limited to the IRS,” he stated. “It applies to the FCC [Federal Communications Commission], SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission], FEC [Federal Elections Commission], HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] …. And you remember, the Obama campaign last year published a list of eight businessmen who it believed were enemies.”

McConnell further noted reports that the Department of Health and Human Services had been contacting businesses “skeptical about the implementation of Obamacare and asking them to contribute money to sell the program to the American people. That’s absolutely improper if not illegal. This administration will stop at nothing to get its way. It will do anything it can to silence its critics.”

McConnell said would not trust any Democrat-led investigation into the IRS scandal. He added with regard to a House investigation of the IRS’ activities, “I’m confident they will do it in the way in which it ought to be conducted, with a high level of skepticism about an agency trying to silence the critics of the Obama administration.”

He also added that the recent IRS revelations were “just the beginning of the story. This is no little thing. This is a big thing. The good news about it is they finally got caught. They finally messed with an agency everybody fully understands. When they try to quiet the critics through other agencies, it doesn’t get attention. This does. Everybody understands the IRS and how powerful they are. This is just one example of an administration-wide effort to silence critics.”

 

 

A Jury has found that fraud put Obama on 2008 ballot meaning that he likely did not qualify.

bo shhh don't tell anybody_thumb[1]

Jury: Fraud put Obama on ’08 ballot

Democrat officials convicted of making up names for qualifying petition

Two Democrats in Indiana have been found guilty of submitting unauthorized names on the petition that placed then-Sen. Barack Obama on the 2008 presidential election primary ballot, meaning he likely did not qualify.

Fox News reports the jury in South Bend found guilty on all counts former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic Party chairman Butch Morgan Jr. and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe.

Ads by Google

Asian Production CostsChina Cost Advantage Is Diminishing While Other Asian Markets Grow. http://www.ftijournal.com

Do You Hate Democrats?Find out what the democrats don’t want you to know. Read this now. OnePoliticalPlaza.com

The two faced accusations of petition fraud and forgery, as well as falsely making a petition.

The verdicts raise anew questions about election fraud by Democrats, a subject that was analyzed after the 2012 election.

The report found vote fraud occurred in the 2012 presidential election and cumulatively was likely enough to decide the outcome.

“In reality, although no single instance or aspect of vote fraud was likely enough to tip the election for Obama, the aggregate of their [Democrats] corrupt activities – including illegal campaign donations, taking advantage of states without voter ID requirements, military ballots delivered too late … may well have been,” the analysis said.

 

Fox News reported that two former Indiana elections board officials who pleaded guilty said Morgan told Democrat officials and workers to fake the names and signatures that Obama and Hillary Clinton needed to qualify for the presidential race.

Prosecutor Stan Levco told Fox, “I think this helped uphold the integrity of the electoral system. Their verdict of guilt is not a verdict against Democrats, but for honest and fair elections.”

Affidavits citing the testimony of former Board of Registration worker Lucas Burkett said the scheme was created in January 2008. Burkett reportedly was aboard the plan at first but later dropped out. Fox News reported he waited three years to reveal the scheme.

Fox News notes that if revelations about any forgeries were raised during the election, the petitions could have been challenged at that time.

A candidate who did not qualify with enough legitimate signatures at the time could have been removed from the ballot.

State law in Indiana requires candidates to have 500 signatures from each of the nine congressional districts to qualify. But in St. Joseph County, Obama qualified with only 534.

Prosecutors alleged that nine of the Obama petition pages apparently were forged, and each contained up to 10 names, bringing doubt on up to 90 names.

“If faked, [they] could have brought the Obama total below the legal limit required to qualify,” Fox News reported.

Fox reported it was told by “numerous voters” they did not sign their names, nor did they authorize their names to be used.

“That’s not my signature,” said Charity Rorie, a mother of four. “It’s scary, it’s shocking. It definitely is illegal.”

Added Robert Hunter Jr., “I did not sign for Barack Obama.”

WND’s extensive report on fraud in the 2012 race looked at claims that Obama, in some districts, got 100 percent of the vote, questions about absentee ballots and efforts by Democrats to prevent poll watchers from observing the election.

Some of the issues that were uncovered:

Seventy-five GOP vote inspectors were ordered to leave Philadelphia poll locations by Democrat poll judges. One judge was caught on audio. A court order sent them back but it’s unknown what happened when they were gone. These poll locations were all within the 59 precincts where Romney received no votes.

In Philadelphia, the Community Voters Project, an ACORN clone that employs some former ACORN workers, shredded Republican voter registrations. It’s not the first time they have been in trouble.

The Florida AFL-CIO threatened True the Vote and Tampa Fair Vote with legal action for submitting voter registration challenges.

Maryland Representative Elijah Cummings issued a highly publicized threat against True the Vote and Election Integrity Maryland just for checking voter rolls. EIM found 11,000 questionable registrations, including 1,566 dead voters. The Maryland Board of Elections took no action.

Cummings also attacked the Ohio Voter Integrity Project with the same baseless claims.

Think Progress falsely claimed True the Vote was “under investigation” by Rep. Cummings, when in fact he has no legal authority to do so.

Despite overwhelming nonpartisan public support for voter ID laws, Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department and liberal jurists have delayed, emasculated or defeated ID laws in Texas, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Arizona and Pennsylvania.

Holder has vowed to fight voter ID laws as restricting voters’ rights.

The Obama administration “spiked investigations” of eight states that had major voter roll problems.

The Holder Justice Department conspired with Project Vote on National Voter Registration Act (aka Motor Voter) enforcement lawsuits, which force state and local agencies to become, essentially, low income voter registration drives.

In 2009 DOJ announced to its attorneys that it would not enforce voter roll maintenance laws because it wouldn’t increase voter turnout.

The report also found the election rolls nationwide in shambles. Pew Research Center published a report revealing election rolls in a shambles nationwide. It found:

24 million invalid or inaccurate voter registrations

1.8 million deceased voters

2.75 million registered in multiple states.

The WND report also focused on the mechanics of the election: voting machines.

There were a number of complaints about electronic voting machines that tallied votes for Democrats despite a Republican vote and a few instances of the opposite case.

Voters in Pueblo County, Colo., complained that their votes were being changed to Obama, reported local NBC affiliate KOAA.

Maryland congressional candidate and veteran investigative journalist Ken Timmerman reported many voters claiming this happened to them, lodging complaints with vote judges. Timmerman has requested to see voting machine records.

Maryland Delegate Kathy Afzali and Carroll County Commissioner Richard Rothschild have requested the FBI impound two electronic voting machines suspected of switching votes based on complaints from other voters, including a state official.

Robert Ashcroft, a Republican poll watcher in Allentown, Pa., reported that about 5 to 10 percent of electronic votes would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”

EVM problems were also reported to have occurred in Ohio, Nevada, North Carolina and Texas.

A 2008 Fox News report showed how electronic voting machines can be infected with a computer virus to change votes. A Princeton University study in 2006 found the same thing.

And the fraud didn’t go unnoticed. A few of the higher-profile cases:

Patrick Moran, son of longtime U.S. Rep. Jim Moran, was caught on video by James O’Keefe’s Veritas Project, telling an undercover journalist how to commit vote fraud.

Other Veritas videos showed Obama campaign officials in Texas, New Jersey and New York providing multiple forms to journalists posing as voters so that they could vote in two or more states.

On Election Day, Veritas reporters recorded poll officials on camera telling voters not to vote for Romney.

The Obama campaign continues to accept illegal donations from other countries. WND’s Aaron Klein proved it by donating to the Obama campaign twice under the name “Osama bin Laden” using a Pakistani web address.

WND has filed a complaint with the FEC demanding an investigation of overseas donations to the Obama campaign.

In 2008, the Obama campaign accepted almost $30,000 from Palestinian donors.

A Korean interpreter in Flushing, N.Y., directed Korean voters to vote Democrat. He was expelled from the poll.

Two cases of forged votes were reported in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., by Republicans who discovered their votes had already been made.

Non-citizens were charged with voting illegally in Austin, Minn.

Cases of double voting in Ohio are being investigated.

Non-citizen allegedly voted in Iowa

Double voting is being investigated in North Carolina

NBC reported dead voters voting in California

Mentally disabled were coaxed to vote for Obama in North Carolina

Widespread absentee vote fraud is being investigated in South Texas

A non-English-speaking, under-18 youth reported he was “told he can vote.”

Many other cases.

Mario’s note:

Once again a well-meaning but uninformed believer asks why I am speaking out in these blogs.  I believe Obama is deliberately trying to dismantle America and pull our nation under the thumb of government.  

It is the height of naivete to ignore the signs of a national take over.  The steps have been clearly outlined for years by experts and Obama is going by the book. Here are the official rules.

1. Seize control of healthcare and you will control the economy.

2. Bring division and distraction and demonize your opposition by creating false crisis and the people will blindly give you more power.

3. Undermine core values and discredit constitutional laws that block your takeover.

4. Disarm law abiding citizens.

Should a man of God involve himself in these matters?  Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

As a man of God I must warn those entrusted to me about anything that will harm them or bring disaster.  I must do this especially if I see that there is still hope to avert the danger. However, my greatest motivation is that I will stand before God to answer for what I did in this moment in history.

I would that my brethren who remain silent would see that last part.  To be sure there is a short term benefit to silence.  The masses may still like you, your tithers may not leave you but in the end you will be listed among those who abandoned their post in America’s darkest hour.  You will stand before God and He will ask you why you buried your prophetic gift when it was so desperately needed.

It is possible to tell the truth without love but it is impossible to love without telling the truth.

Given life under Obama, more Americans already feeling better about Bush

Given life under Obama, more Americans already feeling better about Bush

By Andrew Malcolm

Freddy Ford / AP (Bush autographs his personal pickup which he donated for charity auction. It brought $300,000 for military families.)
Freddy Ford / AP (Bush autographs his personal pickup which he donated for charity auction. It brought $300,000 for military families.)

Fifty-one months of an Obama presidency seem like an eternity of speeches, photo ops, fundraisers, soaring debt, stagnant job growth, blame games and did we mention speeches?

In historical context, however, it’s the snap of a finger. Which makes it somewhat surprising that already Americans are quietly rehabilitating President George W. Bush’s image in their own minds. This despite Bush’s virtual disappearance from the political scene since Jan. 20, 2009, save for a brief promotion tour for his book, “Decision Points.”

You’re about to hear a whole lot more about Bush, at least briefly, with Thursday’s dedication of his presidential library at Laura Bush’s alma mater, Southern Methodist University in Dallas. By custom, all former presidents will attend.

President Obama will also be there, although he’s blamed Republican Bush for just about everything that’s gone wrong during these long 1,554 days, except Obama’s miserable NCAA tournament brackets. First, of course, to make the trip worthwhile, Democrat Obama will do another political fundraiser in Dallas.

Remember those iconic billboards that went up during the great ObamaCare legislative con? A smiling Bush waving with the caption, “Miss Me Yet?” Well, apparently more people do. ABC News and the Washington Post came out early this morning with a new poll timed to the library dedication.

When Bush left office after eight tumultuous years, including 9/11 and the Iraq War, 66% of adult Americans disapproved of him, twice as many as approved. The new findings: His disapproval has dropped to just half, while his approval has increased to almost half (47%).

This essentially ties the Texan with the Chicagoan, whose public approval has plummeted from 67% on Day One, when he had yet to break a single promise. Remember Obama’s first day, the big ceremonial Executive Order signing to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center within 365 days? Well, never mind.

As Gary Langer points out, poll improvements four to five years after leaving the White House are not unprecedented. Bush’s father improved 18 points, but Bill Clinton dropped four points.

The public still thinks negatively about Bush 43 in two major areas: the economy and Iraq War. Although even there, feelings have mellowed. It’s now 53% disapproval-43% approval on the economy, versus 73% disapproval-24% approval way back when.

On the war, Bush was 65% disapproval-33% approval in 2008. Now, that’s improved to 57% disapproval-40% approval.

The poll finds Bush’s approval has gained across a broad ideological front of Americans–up 11 points among independents, 16 points among Republicans and 19 points among Democrats. That’s right, up 19 points among Obama’s Democrats.

Now, what could possibly explain that, do you suppose?