| Line 282: |
Line 282: |
| | :''Main article :'' [[Barack Obama approval ratings]] | | :''Main article :'' [[Barack Obama approval ratings]] |
| | President Obama’s approval rating for handling health care fell steadily after April 2009 and his overall approval ratings were lower than [[George W. Bush]] at the same point in the Bush presidency.<ref>[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jOXgdP1BoxXRqTf4yf3BSFn2sa1Q Obama popularity lower than Bush's at six-month mark: poll]</ref> Despite poll after poll showing that Americans’ main priority was jobs, President Obama focused on passing a law to require all Americans to purchase health insurance.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7043884.ece</ref> Shortly after the "Gates flap"<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073004097.html</ref> polls revealed Obama's personal popularity declined significantly across the board, on every major subject among all demographic groups<ref>http://people-press.org/report/532/obamas-ratings-slide</ref> including independents and Democrats. A poll conducted by former [[Clinton]] advisers [[James Carville]] and Stan Greenberg in July 2010 found 55% of Americans viewed Barack Obama as "a socialist."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/09/majority-likely-voters-agree-socialist-accurately-describes-obama/</ref> | | President Obama’s approval rating for handling health care fell steadily after April 2009 and his overall approval ratings were lower than [[George W. Bush]] at the same point in the Bush presidency.<ref>[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jOXgdP1BoxXRqTf4yf3BSFn2sa1Q Obama popularity lower than Bush's at six-month mark: poll]</ref> Despite poll after poll showing that Americans’ main priority was jobs, President Obama focused on passing a law to require all Americans to purchase health insurance.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7043884.ece</ref> Shortly after the "Gates flap"<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073004097.html</ref> polls revealed Obama's personal popularity declined significantly across the board, on every major subject among all demographic groups<ref>http://people-press.org/report/532/obamas-ratings-slide</ref> including independents and Democrats. A poll conducted by former [[Clinton]] advisers [[James Carville]] and Stan Greenberg in July 2010 found 55% of Americans viewed Barack Obama as "a socialist."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/09/majority-likely-voters-agree-socialist-accurately-describes-obama/</ref> |
| − |
| |
| − | ==== Obama administration and land ownership ====
| |
| − | In August of 2010, [[Hot Air]] declared:
| |
| − | {{cquote|The federal government, as the memo boasted, is the nation’s “largest land manager.” It already owns roughly [http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343 one of every three acres] in the United States. This is apparently not enough. At a “listening session” in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of [http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HGKEAG0.htm private forest land] throughout the [[New England]] region. Agriculture Secretary [[Tom Vilsack]] crusaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.”
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Property owners have every reason to be worried. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a pet project of green radicals, who want the decades-old government slush fund for buying up private lands to be freed from congressional appropriations oversight. It’s paid for primarily with receipts from the government’s offshore oil and gas leases. Both Senate and House Democrats have included $900 million in full LWCF funding, not subject to congressional approval, in their energy/BP oil spill legislative packages.<ref>http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/14/great-outdoors-initiative-a-federal-land-grab/</ref>}}
| |
| | | | |
| | === Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods === | | === Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods === |
| Line 337: |
Line 331: |
| | | | |
| | The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]].<ref>http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching</ref><ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm</ref><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch</ref> | | The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]].<ref>http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching</ref><ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm</ref><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch</ref> |
| | + | |
| | + | === Obama administration and land ownership === |
| | + | In August of 2010, [[Hot Air]] declared: |
| | + | {{cquote|The federal government, as the memo boasted, is the nation’s “largest land manager.” It already owns roughly [http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343 one of every three acres] in the United States. This is apparently not enough. At a “listening session” in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of [http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HGKEAG0.htm private forest land] throughout the [[New England]] region. Agriculture Secretary [[Tom Vilsack]] crusaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.” |
| | + | |
| | + | Property owners have every reason to be worried. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a pet project of green radicals, who want the decades-old government slush fund for buying up private lands to be freed from congressional appropriations oversight. It’s paid for primarily with receipts from the government’s offshore oil and gas leases. Both Senate and House Democrats have included $900 million in full LWCF funding, not subject to congressional approval, in their energy/BP oil spill legislative packages.<ref>http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/14/great-outdoors-initiative-a-federal-land-grab/</ref>}} |
| | | | |
| | === Barack Obama and American Conservatism backlash === | | === Barack Obama and American Conservatism backlash === |