Obama’s Zombie Approval Rating: 4%!

Like the walking dead shambling at the necromancer’s call, so now has the Obama Approval rating risen from the grave to prey on the living. What’s the occasion, you ask? Some pressing matter of national urgency? Perhaps the spirit of St. Ronald miraculously possessed our POTUS and turned him into a small government capitalist? No, my friends. Nothing but the most weighty of national, nay, Galactic! matters would suffice to pull this corpse from death’s embrace. I am speaking, of course, of September 15th, 2009.

Obama to Kanye: You’re such a jackass. As you are no doubt aware Kanye West charged the stage during the VMA awards when Taylor Swift won. He proceeded to take the mic and proclaim that Biance (No, I didn’t have to google the spelling!…I just checked it after.) was the best artist EVAH and should have won instead. Later on when Biance was making her remarks on stage, in an outstanding display of grace and class, turned the mic over to Taylor Swift so that she could have her time in the spotlight. (Side note: Biance Approval Rating: 58%, up from yesterday’s “Biance? Isn’t she that singer? You know, the one with the song?”)

From the Politico: “ABC's Terry Moran set the Twitter-sphere all aflutter when he wrote [on Twitter]: ‘Pres. Obama just called Kanye West a “jackass” for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won. Now THAT’S presidential.’

"In the process of reporting on remarks by President Obama that were made during a CNBC interview, ABC News employees prematurely tweeted a portion of those remarks that turned out to be from an off-the-record portion of the interview. This was done before our editorial process had been completed. That was wrong. We apologize to the White House and CNBC and are taking steps to ensure that it will not happen again."
I want to go on the record right now and say Good on Ya, Mr. President. Kanye is a jackass and deserves to be called out on it. I appreciate a politician who can tell it like it is. More points would have been given if this had been on-the-record, and even more if you had called a special press conference to say it, because that would have been friggin’ hilarious.

So, Obama’s Undead Approval rating now stands at 4%! [Sure, I could instantly negate all this by taking into account certain other things. For example, the outlawing of private insurance attempt to make a public health care option. Or perhaps how he has completely thrown the Polish right under the Comrade Bus on the missile defense shield, and completely bent over to Russia while shouting “Take me now!”. I could, but I’m not going to because: 1) That would also negate the five minutes of careful research that went into this post, and 2) I don’t feel like it. So there.]

Obama Approval Rating: ?

Day 115 of 1461, or 7.8% through his term, Obama's approval rating hovers at 5%. Will this be the week?

#1: O Admin ponders how to force banks to cut pay. I went over this in detail in this blog, but here's the reader's digest version: They want to control how banks can pay their employees, including non-executives. This includes banks who did not take one thin dime of TARP funds. To top it off, they haven't even found a legal way to do it yet and already there are rumblings about expanding this to the mortgage industry, and further. Disgraceful. For take the next step towards a nationalized economy, he drops 6%.

#2: Silly Chrysler. You don't really need those commercials. The folks at the Chrysler arm of Government Motors (Commonly known as GM) attempted someone radical the other day. They actually tried to determine their own budget on marketing! Poppycock, I say! Fortunately, the Obama Auto Task Force came to the rescue.

"Chrysler wanted to spend $134 million in advertising over the nine weeks it's expected to be in bankruptcy -- the U.S. Treasury's auto-industry task force gave it half that.

So if GM, which is wrestling with the possibility of a Chapter 11 filing itself, is wondering how much influence the task force will have over marketing, the answer is: plenty."

That was close. We almost had a private business making decisions for itself. What a disaster that would've been!

Here's the bottom line. How a private business spends its own money is its own business, and the business of no one else, especially the government, so long as it is not breaking any laws. Last I checked, advertising was in fact legal. If Chrysler wanted to spent $1 million on trained chimpanzees in armor with swords, that would be their own business (and it would be really cool). This is why getting public funds involved in private business is a bad idea. When you do that, you give the government authority to do things it should not be doing. Answer: Let Chrysler fail! For demonstrating his complete lack of regard for personal freedoms, Obama loses 4%.

#3: Businesses are exporting jobs? Let's raise taxes! Here's the link to the blog I wrote on this earlier in the week. Here goes the quick & dirty. Fact: America has the third highest tax rate in the industrialized world for businesses (as of 2003), behind Japan and Germany. Fact: Higher taxes give an incentive for a company to leave town. Fact: I love cheese. Put all these together, and you get bad news for high tax areas, especially if you try to close loopholes that let the company defray the cost of these high taxes. For scaring businesses better than the bogeyman, Obama loses 4%.

#4: Sike! No torture photos, and tribunals are a great idea after all! In a "complete 180" from an earlier position, Obama has decided to fight releasing the 44 photos depicting "torture" perpetrated on prisoners, saying that to do so would "inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger". Obama was intent on allowing the photos to be released as late as April 23rd, but the Magic O has determined that it might not be a great idea after all.

In related news, remember how keeping detainees forever without due process was completely wrong, and Bush was blasted for it during the campaign? Remember how these prisoners deserved the rights of citizens? Yeah, not so much.

"The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

Let me start by saying I agree with both of these decisions. Prisoners of war are not citizens. If they were American citizens, I would say they deserve due process as such. Since they aren't, they don't. Military tribunals are what they ought to get, because that is how we deal with dangerous enemy combatants. The photos should never have been taken, and now that they are, they ought to be destroyed. If misconduct was done (and I'm not convinced that it was misconduct, but whatever) then it ought to be investigated and dealt with appropriately. Appropriately means quietly, privately, and judiciously. Not splashed on every newspaper with detailed instructions to our enemies about exactly how far we will push them if they are captured.

The only troubling thing is such a complete reversal of opinion with little explanation. I suspect that perhaps the world is not the comfy, cozy place it appeared on the campaign trail. The more Obama learns this the more he realizes that perhaps his predecessor wasn't the great Satan he thought he was, at least not when it came to national security. For flopping, Obama loses 2%. For ending up on the right side, he gains 4%.

Let's add up the totals. It appears that our President is at negative 7% Wait! It's the magical point fairy! She has come to drop off a gift, special for the President. The direct intervention of a magical creature gives the President 7 approval points! (cue the Final Fantasy victory music.)

The approval rating now sits at a nice, round 0%. It's almost like I planned that...

Since we have now hit rock bottom, it would appear that our weekly feature is at a close. If you have any ideas on what you might like to see replace it, or how it could continue, leave them in the comments!

Obama Rating: 5%

Here it is, the weekly report on our Beloved Leader. Can he hold on to his double digit approval rating?

#1:No bailout of newspapers: This might seem a little small. After all, it seems we're bailing out just about everybody these days. Auto makers, banks, lemonade stands...Apparently, though, newspapers don't make the grade. While the White House expressed "concern" and "sadness" over the newspapers going the way of the dino, they refuse to push for any act to stop it. Good on them, I say, for a few reasons.

• To have the government step in, and treat the papers like they've treated the auto industry, would be an egregious violation of the first amendment (government controlled media, anybody?)
• Newspapers are still a business, and deserve to rise and fall on their own merits without interference.
• Most importantly, news isn't going away. It's just the paper version of it. Times change.

One must wonder if the Communist News Network (CNN) or the New Barack Channel (NBC) were to go bankrupt, would his attitude be the same? I can hope so. He goes up 1% for not trying to fight the inevitable.

#2: Air Force One looks SO cool near the Statue of Liberty. I can just imagine how this went down. He's thinking to himself about how Air Force One needs some new pics to show off just how cool it is. Then it hits him. What is the only thing cooler than having the Statue of Liberty in the background? Having the Statue of Liberty and the terrified populace of New York running for their lives! That's the ticket.

In case you couldn't hear the screams and didn't know what was going on Air Force one did a very low fly over of downtown New York. What the people on the ground saw, though, was a 747 being "chased" by fighter jets. I know what your thinking: "Who could have predicted that having a jet fly really low over New York could make people nervous? I mean, it's not like jets have hit buildings there before killing thousands of Americans or something!"

Well, actually, it appears the FAA could, and did, predict just such a reaction. They released a memo prior to the flight. "[The] Federal Aviation Administration's James Johnston said the agency was aware of "the possibility of public concern regarding DOD (Department of Defense) aircraft flying at low altitudes" in an around New York City. But they demanded total secrecy from the NYPD, the Secret Service, the FBI and even the mayor's office and threatened federal sanctions if the secret got out."

According to the US News, "The photo shoot staged by a jet from the Air Force One fleet and an F16 fighter plane flying low near the Statue of Liberty cost taxpayers $328,835, according to a Pentagon estimate, and frightened witnesses into thinking they were watching another 9/11 attack.

The White House Military Office wanted the picture of the President's plane for promotional purposes. The director of that office, Louis Caldera, has taken responsibility for the incident and apologized."

So, Louis Caldera takes the hit for the team. Personally, I don't buy it. It is Air Force One. There are only two of them. They are his personal jets. He doesn't know where they are? No one tells him? Louis just calls up, all by himself, and takes one of the President's personal jets and no one tells Obama? Barack has to know this is happening, because if it is, he can't use it that day. The scheduling alone would be a nightmare. For scaring the bajeezas out of NYC on the taxpayer dime, he drops 3%. Plus another 1% for throwing poor Louis under the bus.

#3: Super CEO Obama "stress tests" the banking system. Who knows more about banking than banking CEOs? Why, Barack Obama of course! Fresh from displaying his wealth of knowledge about the auto-industry by firing GM's CEO, it appears a few more heads might go on the chopping block, this time from banks who didn't pass the so called "stress test" (I'm looking at you, Bank of America and Citigroup). Though the story has been leaked since early this week, the report just came out last night. Banks now have 30 days to announce a plan. What should that plan include? If you read this press release from the Fed & gang:

"...firms will need to review their existing management and Board in order to assure that the leadership of the firm has sufficient expertise and ability to manage the risks presented by the current economic environment".

Allow me to translate: Hope you got that golden parachute ready, boys, because you're going to need it. Once upon a time, the hirings and firings of private enterprise would have been of no concern to the Federal government. It seems that those times are come and gone. Of course, this isn't statism or socialism, no no no! This is just the President directly interfering with the employment and compensation agreements between private citizens and private companies, that's all. He loses 3% for readying the noose.

Tally up the scores, and you'll find a net 6 point loss, bringing el Presidente down to 5%. Can we stay above zero? YES WE CAN!

Obama Approval Rating, Special 102 Day Edition!

Our President has now reached the landmark 102nd day in office. Don't be fooled by the "First 100 days" crowd, the 102nd day is where it's at. I can virtually guarantee you will not get this kind of in depth analysis of the 102nd day anywhere but at Just Another Capitalist.

What has our President done in his first few months? Let's run it down:

#1: Your money is going out of style...: Or at least that's how it's being spent. Check out the summary page of the Obama budget, straight from the Whitehouse website. Spending for 2010: $3.552 Trillion. Deficit: 1.171 Trillion. To give you some reference, take it as a percentage of GDP: 24.1% & 8% respectively. Now look at possibly the worst number of all, the national debt: $9.509 Trillion, or 64.6% of the GDP. Just in case that wasn't enough to floor you, consider this: The budget doesn't include many of the most recent stimulus and bailout packages. Still on your feet? Check out the National Debt Clock: $11.16 Trillion as of 1 May 09.

#2: The best foreign diplomat EVER: The world loves us now, haven't you heard? Showing his countless minutes of foreign relations experience, he has managed to:

• Snub the leader of one of our closest allies, the Brits.
• Bow to the Saudi King, showing we aren't as powerful as you might think.
• Hug/grope the Venezuelan dictator Chavez, who pays him back by strengthening ties with our buddies, the Iranians.
• Explain to the world how we are "arrogant" and "dismissive".
• Much, much more!

What's not to love?

#3: Throw private enterprise under the bus...: Or at least under the Hummer. It all started with bailouts for the auto industry, who we are told are too big to fail. Then he fired GM's CEO. Fired a private employee of a private business. Then he decided the government would take a "key role" in naming the new Board of Directors. Next it was rejecting business plans. The plans of a private enterprise. He also told the bankers who wanted to repay the government loans that they needed to "take their medicine" (in other words, no).

#4: Tell private citizens he doesn't like your AK-47: Sure, he's not seeking a ban on assault rifles. Too bad the only reason he's not seeking it is because he knows that such a move would fail. Meaning: He would love to take those weapons away from the citizenry, and would do it if he thought he could. It is only a matter of time. Then again, at least he's consistent. He wants the government to disarm, too, and cut our nuclear arsenal. A world without nuclear weapons! Presumably said world would be populated exclusively by unicorns and puppies, and trees would grow lollipops and rainbow sherbet.

#5: Put those no good veterans right where they belong...: Alongside neo-Nazis and racists! They are in good company with a host of malcontents, including:

• 2nd amendment activists
• Gun-owners
• Those who fear the rise of unfriendly nations
• Those against illegal immigration
• Pro-lifers

What a crowd of ne'er do wells! Those rotten veterans will fit right in. Remember: Just because you fought on a foreign battlefield for the security of your nation does not mean you care one bit about it once you get back. (Read the report here)

Phew! What a busy time it has been. Tallying up the points, I'd say our President gets an A+ for effort, and a F for execution. But hey, look on the bright side. He's got a whole 1,461 more days to get it right!

Obama Approval Rating: 11%

Our friend in the White House is surely feeling pretty good right about now. Just Another Capitalist moved him up 7 points in just one week. Things are turning around! Let's see how he springboards off his major gains...

#1: Chavez and Obama, Totally BFF! What do you do when you meet an openly socialist dictator benevolent leader who is extraordinarily anti-America during the Latin America Summit? Call him out on his oppression of his people, you say? Chastise him for any one of a plethora of statements he has made about your country, you say? Maybe just give him the cold shoulder? Perhaps you simply make a stern stand for liberty, justice, and the American way?

You right wing hatemonger! You don't do those things. You shake his hand, pat him on the back, and then accept his gift of a book of truth. That book, titled "The Open Veins of Latin America" is written by a a Uruguayan journalist named Eduardo Galeano. The subject?

"How Europe, and later the United States, plundered Latin America's resources and helped create a perpetual state of widespread poverty and wealth disparity. From the obliteration of indigenous people by Spanish conquistadors to the destructive cycles of foreign debt, investment and capitalism, Galeano lays out the Latin American saga from 1492 to the 20th century."

Just a little light reading. Really, this is disgraceful. I can forgive the President for accepting the book in the first place, perhaps, if he didn't know the subject matter. I don't expect him to have an encyclopedic knowledge of every published work. What I do expect from him is to discard it, publicly, once he finds out what it is about. How can our President accept with a grin a book that trashes America and the West and blames us for every problem of Central America? For cuddling up to yet another dictator, he loses 3%.

#2: Yeah, the no prosecution thing is SO last week! "So, like, when I said that there wouldn't be any prosecutions on the whole waterboarding thing, what I meant was there totally were going to be." This according to the Guardian who reports "Senior members of the Bush administration who approved the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation measures could face prosecution, President Obama disclosed today" and that the practice reflected America "losing our moral bearings".

For those of you who are living comfortably under a rock (I didn't know you could get internet access there!), here's an explanation of what waterboarding is:

"Water boarding as it is currently described involves strapping a person to an inclined board, with his feet raised and his head lowered. The interrogators bind the person's arms and legs so he can't move at all, and they cover his face. In some descriptions, the person is gagged, and some sort of cloth covers his nose and mouth; in others, his face is wrapped in cellophane. The interrogator then repeatedly pours water onto the person's face. Depending on the exact setup, the water may or may not actually get into the person's mouth and nose; but the physical experience of being underneath a wave of water seems to be secondary to the psychological experience. The person's mind believes he is drowning, and his gag reflex kicks in as if he were choking on all that water falling on his face."

I personally don't consider this to be torture. It is terrifying, but the fact remains it is all in the person's head. They are not actually drowning. I put this in the same place I put sleep deprivation, loud music or babies crying, and other psychological techniques. But I digress.

Just last week the President got kudos from me for not prosecuting those who carried out their duties. I can disagree with him on the policy, but I can respect the restraint and the desire to move forward. What I cannot believe is that he is still able to walk after making such an abrupt about face. We're not talking about people authorizing public executions, or dismemberment. This is a grey area, and officials made a judgement call. To go back and play Monday morning quarterback is not only wrong, it damages the ability of officials to make similar calls later on. The "play it safe" mentality is one we cannot always afford to have.

Not to mention the fact that members of Congress knew that the technique was being used at the time and said nothing (whether Obama is included in this group is unclear). Should they be prosecuted as well? How many people are we going to hang?

In his defense, he still says that the actual operatives will not be prosecuted, presumably because they were just following orders. This is certainly better than nothing, but still leaves me wanting.

Rather than wasting time tracking down each and every person who knew this was happening and did nothing about it, why don't we just get along with our plan from last week. You know, simply outlawing it, thereby emboldening our enemies, threatening our national security, and showing the world that we're going to play nice. The administration loses 3% for flopping around harder than a newly caught bass.

#3: You dirty, no good, right-wing extremist veterans! I debated with myself about putting this here. After all, Obama himself didn't say anything about the report. I eventually decided to include it at the end because it was the action of his administration, for which he is responsible. As usual, I don't expect him to be superhuman and know what every department is doing at every moment. He is kinda busy, leader of the free world and all. Still, this is kind of a big deal. I went over the DHS report in detail here. It does deserve note that Napolitano has since apologized for implying that veterans were a threat to national security.

As for the rest of you anti-abortion, gun clinging, small government whackjobs who were lumped in the report: We've got our eyes on you.

The administration loses 5% for equating me and mine with neo-Nazis. They gain 1% for apologizing for it after the fact. Net loss: 4%

So, the tally for today is a downward shift of 10 points, leaving the President at 11%. Drive on, Mr. President, don't you let go of that second digit for nobody!

Obama Rating: 21%

My apologies for the late post. Drill weekend pushed this back a few days. However, I did have plenty of time where less than half of my brain was engaged to think of what our fearless leader has accomplished. So, without further ado...

#1: Three pirates with severe lead poisoning...First, the major credit goes to the crazy awesome Navy SEAL snipers who took the shots against said pirates, in the rescue of Captain Richard Philips. From a moving platform, to a moving platform, simultaneously with no missed shots. Three shots, three kills. Outstanding. The commander of the USS Bainbridge saw that the Captain was in "imminent danger" when one of the pirates pointed an AK-47 at his back and ordered the shoot.

Personally, I believe that the only terms we should allow in "talks" with hostage takers is the hostage taker's life, like the Israeli's do. You release the hostages immediately, you live. You don't, you die. If, for any reason, our man is hurt in any way, we will kill you. We then sink your ship and sink your mother ship. We then find your flyspeck port. We tell everyone inside that because of your actions, they have one hour to vacate the premises. We then burn the place to the ground. I'm not for playing around with these punks.

Back to the story. According to the AP, Obama twice authorized the use of lethal force against the captors. I've not been able to determine exactly how the decision was made, what were the parameters set, etc. What is for certain is that, despite the risk, lethal force was authorized by the President. If things had gone poorly, I'd still praise him, but he would have gotten flak for it. As it is, he put his neck out, he deserves the credit. He gains 4% for be willing to speak in the only language we share with these barbarians: Firepower.

(As an aside, the Reverend Sharpton prefers the term "Volunteer Coast Guard" for these despicable scumbags. Brilliant. Hear the audio here.)

#2: Waterboarders will not be prosecuted...According to a statement released with a set of memos describing waterboarding, the administration said that "it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice, that they will not be subject to prosecution" (though no mention of policymakers was made, so presumably they are still fair game). Chief of Staff Emanuel further said that the President believes that they "should not be prosecuted either and that's not the place that we go."

Whether or not you agree with the morality of using the technique it is difficult to fault the agents who were following orders. They used methods that were authorized at the time, and did so in good faith. To do otherwise would be akin to prosecuting soldiers who used flamethrowers on the Nazis at D-Day, because it is not considered to be inhumane. In both counts I think outlawing the technique was wrong, but either way you cannot fault the Joes who executed the order.

For showing a little legal restraint and respect for the foot soldiers of intel, he gains 3%.

#3: Assault weapon are here to stay, but I don't have to like it. I've gone over my beliefs on the assault weapon ban here. Click the link if you want to be enlightened. For the rest of you, I'll sum it up: Gun control doesn't work, assault weapons are cool, and I'd like one for Christmas.

In a new statement the President has said that he has not backed "off at all from my belief that the assault weapons ban made sense...Having said that, none of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy." Allow me to translate here: Yes, I'd like to take your guns, but I know I can't do it...Yet.

This is disturbing to me, and shouldn't be taken as good news. He has publicly proclaimed his opposition to you and I owning assault rifles. The only reason he isn't trying to take them away is because he doesn't think he could do it. The gun-rights lobby is very powerful, and many Americans don't take kindly to the government disarming them.

So, he gains points for not attempting to actually go through with a ban. He also loses points for doing so wistfully. This leaves him with a net impact of 0%.

Totalling up the scores, all this puts him up 7 points to 21%! Excellent week for the POTUS. Can he keep it up, or is this simply a bear rally?

Obama Rating: 14%

Once again, this time on time, I present to you my own personal rating for el Presidente. It has been a rocky week for our Great Leader, but let's see if he can put together another two week rally. First up...

#1: The great "America Sucks, I should know, I'm president!" tour: The president has spent the last few weeks going around the world, making sure everyone knows that America sucks. It's an important job. Of course, the rest of the world has been saying that for a while, so it shouldn't be news to them. According to our President (addressing a crowd in Strasbourg):

"Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

You know, you guys were right all along. We ARE arrogant! We ARE nosy and interfering. The most astounding thing about this is that he said these things (and has said many other similar comments) on foreign soil. He's the President for goodness sakes. It'd be like Bill Gates trotting over to Apple and saying how mean and terrible Microsoft is. They just don't do that. If anyone ought to be pro-America, you'd think it would be our President.

Then again, I might be mistaken about the role of the President. After all, he apparently owes fealty to the muslim King of Saudi Arabia. I'm talking of course of the full waist bow he gave to King Abdullah at the G20 summit in London. No American needs to bow to royalty. We don't recognize them. It is part of being American, that we do not submit to monarchs. Of course, the Drive-bys and the White house are busy saying he didn't bow after all. He was...Picking up trash! That's it! No, no, he's just so gosh darned tall! Lies, all lies! See for yourself:



Huh...Looks like a bow to me. He loses 3% for "playing janitor" and trashing his own nation.

#2: Just because you do something silly like die doesn't mean we still don't get your money! (Kudos to Kris for giving me this one) Obama's budget resurrects the death tax faster than a level 18 Cleric of Lathander. The taxes were set to be eliminated this year, thanks to President Dubya. Obama put a stop to THAT nonsense though. Now they will remain at the low low rate of 45%! What a deal. Of course,

"Democrats contend that keeping the tax rate at 45 percent in 2010 is still a break from the 55 percent and insist the federal coffers would take too much of a hit if Congress completely repealed the tax."

Gee, thanks. You're so generous, ONLY taking 45% of our money. Now, it is true that this tax only affects estates "valued over $3.5 million dollars or $7 million for a couple." Opponents argue it catches small businesses and farmers, as well as the wealthy. I argue that it's their money, which they are leaving to their children. More importantly, it has already been taxed. That money was taxed when they received it. To quote the Seinfeld episode: You can't double dip the chip. Obama loses 4% for reaching into our pockets with both hands.

Another rough week. These two together drop him to 14%. But hey, look on the bright side. At least he's still in double digits!

Overdue Obama Rating: 21%

I promised week before last to do these posts on Fridays. Apparently I lied. Actually, I was in DC most of the day on Friday. So, here's the belated ratings.

#1: Ultra-CEO Obama fires GM CEO: That's right folks. As I described in detail in another blog, the federal government has now moved into the Human Resources department and has actually fired the CEO of GM...Can they even do that? I mean, they obviously did, I'm just saying. Geithner has also said he has no problems firing other CEOs too. It's not just CEOs either. They also will play a "significant role" in choosing the new Board of Directors. It's not all bad though. Freddie and Fannie were managed by the government, and look how well that turned out! We've got nothing to worry about. They lose 7% for giving out the pink slip.

#2: Making an offer they can't refuse: Around the same time Obama was violating the rights of private citizens making sound employment decisions for GM, he also had a meeting with a variety of banking execs who had taken TARP funds. Remember the TARP? That bill that was like $800 billion, and we thought that was a big deal? *laugh* Yeah, those were the good ol' days.

Anyhow, the CEOs tried to explain to the President why they pay their employees so much (possibly because of bonus concerns, like the ones paid to AIG execs). Obama responded by saying "Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that...My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.” *Cues the Godfather Music*

The banking execs (specifically JP Morgan’s Dimon) then expressed their desire to repay the TARP funds as soon as possible, and "asked the president to streamline the process."

Lovely! They want to pay the government back. Obama of course graciously accepted rejected their offer immediately, saying "This is like a patient who’s on antibiotics. Maybe the patient starts feeling better after a couple of days, but you don’t stop taking the medicine until you’ve finished the bottle."

From the Politico article: "Several CEOs disagreed, arguing instead that returning TARP money was their patriotic duty, that they didn’t need it anymore, and that publicity surrounding the return would send a positive signal of confidence to the markets."

No dice. Allow me to paraphrase the article for you:

Bank Exec: "Thanks for the loan, Mr. President. We'd like to repay you now."
Ultra-CEO Obama: "Nope. You'll take my money and you'll like it."
Bank Exec: "But Mr. President, I really think we ought to --"
*BANG* *Body hits floor, Secret Service drags it away*
Ultra-CEO Obama: "Anyone else got objections?"

Obama loses 7% for refusing to loosen the talons.

#3: This just in from our flying pig squad: A nuclear free world! In Prague President Obama declared that he had a "vision for a world free of nuclear weapons, vowing to involve all states with atomic weapons in the process of reducing arsenals." From ABC News:

Mr Obama pledged that the US would lead the quest, and denounced "fatalism" over nuclear weapons proliferation.

"As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act," he said. "We cannot succeed in this endeavour alone, but we can lead it."

"So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment and desire to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."

"I am not naive this goal will not be reached quickly, perhaps not in my lifetime."

Let us step into the Way Back Machine, back to when my rating of the magic O was 85%. I wrote a blog then when he spoke to Russia. He was a little less firm about it then, but he did say he wanted a world free of nukes. I will now narcissistically use myself a source. I had this to say:

"Instead, Obama has the lofty goal of removing nuclear weapons from the face of the planet. I have the lofty goal of stopping time like Hiro. Both of our goals have approximately the same chance of success.

Let's have a pop quiz: Better weapon leads to
A) Defense against such weapon, rendering it obsolete
B) Even better weapon, rendering the first obsolete.
C) Everyone deciding to get along, destroying said weapon, and cooking s'mores while singing Kumbaya.

If you answered A or B, congratulations. If you answered C, please remove yourself from the gene pool.

Never, in the history of humans killing humans, has the knowledge of a weapon simply disappeared because people wished it to. Once it is digested into general knowledge, you can't get rid of it. We just love killing each other too much."

Wow! Good job, self! You really hit the nail on the head!

Obama loses 2% for removing any doubt that he has no concept of human history.

Busy week for our man. Tally up the scores, and that puts him at 21%. *sigh* And he was doing so well.

Weekly approval rating: 37%

It seems that, despite my best efforts, a pattern has emerged with these rating posts. Since they are naturally gravitating towards Fridays, I'm going to cave in and start making that the day of the post from here on out...Until I forget. Or get busy. Or bored. Or whatever.

So, on to the rating! Let's start things off positive...

#1: Obama comes out against 90% executive tax. During a 60 minutes interview the President was asked if he believed the House Bill (which I discussed in a previous blog) was constitutional. (Side note: Here's an interesting WSJ article about this very question.) His response:

"Well, I think that as a general proposition, you don't wanna be passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals. You wanna pass laws that have some broad applicability. And as a general proposition, I think you certainly don't wanna use the tax code to punish people. I think that you've got an pretty egregious situation here that people are understandably upset about. And so let's see if there are ways of doing this that are both legal, that are constitutional, that upholds our basic principles of fairness, but don't hamper us from getting the banking system back on track." (emphasis mine)

While the statement against was not terribly strong, it was definitely against it. Okay, so he did tell Secretary Geithner to take the bonus money out of the next installment of bailouts to go to AIG. Okay, so he still thinks the situation is 'egregious'. Nevertheless, he does realize that in this one instance the tax code should not be used as a bludgeon (belief in the other facets of our punitive tax code notwithstanding). For this tentative position, he will go up 2% in my book. (If the House bill should ever make it to his desk, which I doubt, he stands to gain a bit more if he veto's it.)

#2: Hey you! It's not a GWOT anymore! It appears the administration is trying to move away from the label "Global War on Terror", and instead prefers the term "Overseas Contingency Operation", according to Fox news. Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly in love with GWOT. Really, it wouldn't have mattered to me what they called it (Though OCO doesn't roll off the toungue so well). Its been fine till now, what's the big deal?

But if you have to change it, if you absolutely must move away from that term, can you go with something a bit more manly? "Overseas Contingency" sounds less like "Let's go overseas and blow those bastards up!" and more like "If we happen to be traveling overseas, and we lose our man purse, what's our contingency plan?" Why don't we go ahead and make our mascot a bunch of frolicking kittens while we're at it?

Come on, fellas. Let's at least try to pretend we've got some cajones. He loses 1% for not being able to cowboy up.

So, these two things leave Obama with a net gain of 1%, leaving him at 37% for the week. Not a big news week for the guy, but hey, apparently laying low works well for him.

At this rate, he'll be back at 100% in no time!

Obama backs down, & a new rating (36%)

The Washington Post reports that Obama has agreed to drop the issue of Veteran's paying for their own combat related injuries with private insurance. This is a story that has caused a tremendous amount of anger among the people I know, yet has made almost no ripple in the mass media that I can find.

I'm glad that our Commander in Chief has decided that forcing veterans to pay for injuries sustained in combat would be bad. What I'm not glad about is that it took this much effort to make him see that. Here's a few facts that I would have thought would've been obvious from the get go.

1) It would destroy retention. As it stands now, if you walk into MEPs and raise your right hand you are essentially agreeing to be sent into combat. That is the reality as it stands now. Thanks to the mistreatment of the armed forces that has been going on for years, recruitment and retention is very low. How many people will be lining up to join if they know that when they get sent to combat they could come back with healthcare costs that will haunt them for the rest of their lives?

2) Morale and order in the forces would be destroyed. If this measure had passed it would have caused chaos, both here and abroad. You'd have troops refusing to serve when called to deploy. You would have deployed soldiers refusing to leave the wire, not confident they will be taken care of if they were hurt. My mind cannot even begin to grasp the damage this would do to our fighting capabilities.

3) It's a political NIGHTMARE. Even if you don't care one bit about troop welfare or our ability to win a war. Even if you think the money we'd save would be totally worth it, how could you as a politician not see that this would've been political suicide? It's a complete no brainer. There are tons of people willing to decry the war(s), but very few Americans, much less politicians, are willing to come out against the military itself. Thankfully we learned a little bit from Vietnam here.

Obama did eventually come to his senses. For that, he'll get a +3% rating boost. That still leaves him net -7% for the whole affair, but I'm leaving that in place because this position should never have made it past an inner-office conference call, much less the newspapers. That it didn't shows either a tremendous lack of respect and concern for the American fighting man, or an even more ginormous lack of foresight and judgement. That puts his rating at 36% for now.

Update: Obama rating 33%

In my last blog I told you about Secretary Shinseki's statement that wounded veteran's should pay for their wounds with their own insurance. I gave Obama a 4% hit, and said that he'd get more if he actually went through with it. Then I happily submitted the rating, secure in the knowledge that not even Obama could possibly be reckless enough to actually support that. Having wrapped myself in said security blanket, I drifted blissfully to sleep.

Then Obama ripped my security blanket out of my hands, and used it to strangle a kitten. Read about it here. I'm dumbfounded. He plans to "generate $540-million by this method". Really? $540 million? Are you serious!? This administration has endorsed spending $1 billion an hour since they got into office, and yet they are apparently so concerned about the budget that they absolutely must screw our wounded warriors for 30 minutes worth of spending.

Think about that: If congress stopped spending money for 30 minutes, just took a quick lunch break, they'd save the same amount of money. In the time it takes to watch an episode of Samurai Jack, they could save the same amount of cash if they would just stop spending.

Re-enlistment bonuses in the National Guard have been eliminated due to budget cuts. Retention is down, recruitment is down, troop commitments in Afghanistan are going up. Now we're telling the American Fighting Man that if he engages the enemy and is unfortunate enough to be wounded, tough luck? This isn't exactly the Hope and Change we bargained for.

I apologize for the lack of my usual caustic wit. I'm trying, but it's really hard when I have massive quantities of blood shooting out of my eyes. Comrade Obama loses 6% for this outrageous continuation of his position. (He already lost 4% in the last post, and I've committed to a 10% up or down limit.)

Obama to Veterans: You're on your own.

Obama Approval Rating: 39%

Here we stand at day 52 of the Obama Presidency. My, it seems like just yesterday when $1 trillion seemed like a large amount of cash. How naive we all were! But I digress from the reason you are all here. On to the ratings:

The appetizer: Giving the Brits a collective slap in the face. Remember that we are told this President is the One. He will establish a new golden age of foreign policy. Everyone will love us, now, because we'll treat them with dignity and respect. Now, the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is visiting him for the first time. They are one of our strongest allies in all the world. How could you possibly humiliate them in just three easy steps? Let's find out. (Read about it at the Washington Post or the Cleveland Leader)

Step 1: Return symbolic gifts. After 9/11 the Brits sent a bust of Winston Churchill to President Bush as a show of solidarity. It would be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds were it to be sold on the open market. It was displayed in the Oval Office prominantly throughout Bush's first term. At the end of the first term, the Brits offered to extend the loan, and Bush accepted. The Brits told Obama that they would be happy to continue the loan through his term. His answer: "Thanks but no thanks." A bust of Lincoln now sits in it's place.

Step 2: Break the traditional greeting. Usually when foreign heads of state visit with the President you see them sitting, side by side, each one in front of his own nation's flag. Everyone's seen these sort of photo ops. They usually say a few words to eachother, greetings and pleasantries and then field some questions from reporters. What does our White House do? No flag for the PM, to start with, which is a not-too-subtle slap in the face for the leader of another nation. Then Obama skips all the greetings and goes straight to questions. In fact, PM Brown doesn't get to say a word for nearly six minutes. On top of this the joint Press Conference that was planned was canceled.

Step 3: Receive thoughtful gifts, give gifts from White House gift shop. Despite having been snubbed on the greeting, despite having been insulted by having the bust sent back unceremoniously, PM Brown still came through. First, a bit of history. The President's desk is made of wood from the HMS Resolute, a ship that was saved by Americans and returned to England as a gift. In return, Queen Victoria ordered the desk to be made of the wood of the Resolute once it was decommissioned. Nearly every President since Hayes (1880) has used this desk. It is a unique piece of history, and a very symbolic part of the White house.

Brown brought to the President a pen holder "carved from the timbers of the HMS Gannet, sister ship of the HMS Resolute, the wood of which was used to make the Oval Office desk". Not to be outdone with this very thoughtful and historic gift, Obama gives the PM...a gift basket of 25 Classic American DVDs. I hope Brown likes movies.


The wives exchanged gifts too. Brown's wife Sarah "picked out dresses and matching necklaces from the trendy UK store Top Shop for Obama's girls, Sasha and Malia, as well as a selection of books by British authors." Michelle's response? Two toy models of the Marine One helicopter. Wow, that's amazing. You couldn't get that anywhere...Except maybe every gift shop in DC.


Three easy steps to a diplomatic disaster. So simple a caveman could do it. The President loses 4% for this horribly inept reception.


Now on the the main event, the reason this post is done today: Considering have combat-wounded veterans pay for their own service-related injuries. (Thanks to Hotair) According to CNN:

"Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance...Asked about the proposal, Shinseki said it was under 'consideration.' "

If you're like me, you are currently picking your jawbone off the ground. Sure, it's not an official position yet. Sure, they haven't issued any piece of paper or supported legislation to get it done. Sure, if they were to put it to a vote, it would be "dead on arrival" (that from Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington).

The fact remains, however, that it is being "considered" at all! That means that someone brought it up, and someone else thought it was a GOOD IDEA! This is how that conversation should have gone.

Person A: "Hey, I've got an idea to save money."
Person B: "Excellent! We always want to save the taxpayers money! That's the responsible thing to do, and our sacred duty to the American people."
Person A: "We should have veterans who get wounded in combat pay for their own service-related injuries with private insurance! We'll save LOADS of cash!"
Person B: "...." (Pulls out gun, shoots Person A in the face)

Normally this is where I would explain why the above action is wrong, and perhaps add some witty commentary. I don't think I can do that this time, though. In fact, there are really only two words that I can say to describe this: EPIC FAIL.

As much as I want to take him down the 10 Bajillion points he deserves, for now he loses 4% for not instantly condemning this position, and possibly firing Shinseki. Should it go on to be an official White House statement, more dramatic rating falls will follow.

This leaves Obama with a 39% approval rating. A 61% drop in just 52 days. How does he do it?

Obama approval rating: 47%

Here we are again, with another round of ratings. I'm sticking hard to my schedule of completely random updates, in order to keep the enemy guessing.

First up: Yet another Obama nominee with tax problems. Really, stuff like this is just getting old. The first time around, it was outrageous. The second time, it was surprising. I mean, could they be burned twice? When they were burned a third time I rolled my eyes. Now I can only shrug wearily. This one only owes an estimated $10k to the IRS, so I guess it's not that bad. Of course, he won't be penalized for paying the taxes late. I mean, the IRS is just famous for working with people who are delinquent. It's not like he's getting special treatment. 2% drop in rating, because four times is just too much.

Next: Obama's reckless assault of Rushbo. The Politico reports that the Administration chose to target Rush because among Republicans he has the highest negative rating. They don't mention, of course, that he has this rating because he's a real conservative, and the party is full of spineless RINOs who we'd rather get rid of anyway. Regardless, this move is childish and unbecoming of the office of the President. Aside from that, by singling out a single personality here, and mobilizing the Left against him, he only increases the visibility that Limbaugh has, keeping him in the headlines. From start to finish, a poor move, in poor taste. O loses 1% for throwing down the glove.

Finally: Obama's Secretary of the Treasury, Geitner, attacks Oil. We recently had record high oil prices...Our dependence on foreign oil is terribly high...The weak economy guarantees everyone has more money...What to do...I know! Let's cut taxes reward innovation demonize Big Oil! He starts out by saying that Oil should not get any more subsidies from the government. So far, I agree with him. The government shouldn't be giving money to businesses in any way. Then he veers off course, saying the reason isn't any sort of free market principle. Oh no, it's because they "contribute to global warming". Are you freaking serious!?

So, he make a 13% tax increase. "The Obama administration's budget would levy an excise tax on oil and natural gas produced in the Gulf of Mexico, raising $5.3 billion in revenue from 2011 to 2019." He loses 4% for punishing homegrown energy (It would be more, but I do agree with the no subsidy policy...Just not for the same reasons).

The grand total: 47%, making this a landmark day. Today, March 6th, Obama slipped below 50%.

Well, that didn't take long. Obama approval rating: 54%

Usually, this close to the last approval rating note I'd simply add a new development to the old one as another EDIT. When I read this, though, I nearly ruined the plans on my desk because of the large quantities of blood that shot out of my eyes. I simply cannot in good conscience tack this piece onto another note. It deserves it's own spot.

With that said, we'll take the small outrage first. Obama's earmarks in the latest $410 billion spending bill. No, I'm not talking about the Cracker-Barrel sized portions of pork in general. Here, I am specifically referring to his own personal piece of the pie. Despite having sworn off pork more fervently than an Orthodox Jew, the great Magic O has a $7.7 million dollar earmark with his name literally on it as a cosponsor. Now, in his defense, this one earmark is not his alone, and it makes up roughly .002% of the total bill. At the same time, it is a bit shameful that he cannot even go to the trouble to make sure he remains at least somewhat consistent on the pork. It's kind of like he's had his way with us, and he didn't even say he'd call us later. If he did, we'd all know it was a lie, but at least he would've made an effort. He loses 2% for this slap in our collective faces.

And now to the big one. Obama's administration has stated a goal of reinstating the assault weapons ban. Take a moment and clean the blood and/or vomit from your screens. Ready? Let's continue. His attorney general Eric Holder, according to ABC news, told reporters yesterday that "As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons."

Where to even begin? Perhaps with the fact that gun control does not work. It only takes a lazy second to find evidence for this. Great Britain, for example, has banned nearly all guns in their tiny country. Even the vast majority of their police do not carry guns. Yet, even a quick google search of "drive by shooting London" reveals page upon page of incidents where criminals used their weaponry against an unarmed populace.

Not good enough for you? Ask yourself this, then. What possible reason could they have for wanting us not to own assault rifles? As opposed to a handgun, they are difficult to conceal. You aren't going to sneak around with a M-4 in your back pocket. If you want to be generous, you could say they simply don't trust us to use our weapons responsibly. You could take them at their word when the Attorney General says that they are trying to have a "positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."

I don't think you ought to be generous, and I don't think you should take their word. I'll tell you real reason why why: When it comes to resisting your local tyrant, handguns and shotguns just don't cut it. No tyrant has ever liked his subjects to be armed. By systematically removing our ability to resist with force, they can then cut down our ability to resist with words, until our ability to resist at all is gone like a passing dream. Say what you will. You will never convince me that there is any reason a free government, intending to rule a free people, would have to restrict the reasonable armament of their populace. The Left believes they can rule your life better than you can. You aren't bright enough to see that, so it's in your best interest to remove your ability to resist, so that they can rule your life, for your own good.

Are Obama's plans for the future for tyranny and oppression? Maybe, maybe not. The fact of the matter is, though, that moves like this are paving the way for him, or another like him, to institute that very thing. For this egregious assault on our liberties, he loses a full 10% of his rating. I'll scale this back if Obama comes out and says his AG was out of line, or increase it further if he actually goes through with it.

UPDATE: Pelosi has said that she has not been approached regarding any gun ban in the works. Her reaction does make it less likely that such a thing is close to churning out. The rating hit still stands until Obama comes out against it, primarily because Pelosi is an elected official whereas the AG is appointed by the President (then confirmed by the Senate, of course.)

Want my guns? Come and take them. Sic Semper Tyrannis!

Obama's much anticipated approval rating: 66%

So, it's been a while, and I know both my loyal readers are anxious for another packet of stolen wisdom that I will shamelessly pass on as my own. I can only hope you do the same.



First on the agenda: The virtual withdrawl of US troops from Iraq by 2010. This gets a whopping 0% approval change. 0% because, well...The war is kind of over. Thanks to the surge (which Obama opposed and would still oppose, as a side note) and other military strategies, the Iraqis have come a long way. With any luck at all they will go on to be a viable state for at LEAST a couple years. It's really up to them now. Since this achievement was really an achievement of Bush's that is just a carry over, it doesn't affect my rating for the magic O at all. As an aside, he avoids negative points by not rushing it and apparently listening to commanders on the withdrawl timeline.



Second, the tentative budget as outlined in this article by the Washington post. (Thanks to Hotair for posting this story.) He has proposed to cut the Federal budget deficit in half by the end of his first term...I must point out this article is kind of like watching a beautiful olympian leave the diving board, and execute an amazing set of turns, twists, and feats in midair...Watching them stretch out to meet the water...Only to realize no one filled the pool.



The article states that "In addition to tackling a deficit swollen by the $787 billion stimulus package and other efforts to ease the nation's economic crisis, the budget blueprint will press aggressively for progress on the domestic agenda Obama outlined during the presidential campaign. This would include key changes to environmental policies and a major expansion of health coverage that he hopes to enact later this year." (emphasis mine) Wait a second...He wants to cut spending...And simultaneously provide a major expansion of health coverage? Where on earth is this money going to come from?



Wait, he tells you! The money will come from raising taxes on the wealthy. They can afford it. Their rate will go from "...35 percent to 39.6 percent, the tax on capital gains would jump to 20 percent from 15 percent for wealthy filers and the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million would be maintained at the current rate of 45 percent" I see.



Oh, and one more thing. Aside from raising taxes on the wealthy, he plans to fund this budget cut by "slashing spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan". Iraq I can see. Afghanistan? Not so much. So it turns out I was wrong. The pool actually was filled after all. With acid. And spikes. And zombies! He takes a 7% hit on this monstrosity.



EDIT: Realized I forgot one recent action. $900 million to rebuild Gaza. Sure, compared to the trillions he's spent so far, this bit of pocket change really doesn't seem like it's worth worrying about. I mean, what's another $900 mill between pals? Still, I can't get behind this act of "charity". It's weak and will get nothing accomplished. I'd be very surprised if a majority of the cash managed to stay out of Hamas' hands. Regardless, instead of trying to rebuild the place just to have it blown to smithereens again, why don't we either A) Get out of Israel's way so they can secure they own nation or B) Do something to help Israel accomplish A. Either way, this isn't the answer. He loses 2% for this superficial move.



...in the pool.

Obama's Approval Rating: 75%

The "stimulus" bill has passed the House (kudos to the House Republicans there!) and the Senate (a plague of eternal woe on the three traitors!) and now sits on our President's desk. He has praised the bill and says he will sign it into law tomorrow (being 2/17). I now feel reasonably comfortable rating him based on the bill everyone calls his. Of course, if he wakes up tomorrow and the Capitalism fairy visited him in the middle of the night, I will happily withdraw this rating.



Final amount: $787 Billion



Critique number 1: Thanks for the cash China! With all the extra spending going on, forecasters predict that our budget deficit could reach $1.6 trillion, or roughly three times what it was last year. That means that every red cent of this spending is on loan from someone else. Many of these generous lenders have interests directly conflicting with our own.



Critique number 2: Tax cuts are great, but...Only if applied in the right way, and coupled with spending decreases. You can't simply tax cut your way to success if you at the same time increase spending. This is something that the Republicans recently seem to have completely lost touch with, and the Democrats have never understood. Giving money to the poor doesn't stimulate anything. No poor person has EVER gotten a job from another poor person. You want to stimulate something? Eliminate the capital gains tax, and pay for it by slashing welfare, social security, and every pork barrel project that exists. Eliminate unnecessary federal programs and turn more responsibility over to the states. But I digress.



Critique number 3: Smoke and mirrors. Sure the thing is loaded with more pork than a Cracker Barrel breakfast. If you look past that, though, you see hints of things more insiduous. The creation of so-called "green jobs" in the government, provisions to further government intrusion into healthcare, and a horde of other things all point to this not so much being about stimulus, but about a long-term course change for our nation.



Final verdict: I don't believe any one decision or bill should be worth more than a 10% knock off on the approval rating scale (barring Armegeddon like decisions, such as nuking Israel or banning Dr. Pepper). Therefore, this massive socialist spending bill earns the max penalty, a full 10% off his approval rating from me. This leaves him at 75%.



I looked around for something positive I could use to offset his nose-dive. I couldn't find anything. If you do have anything, though, up or down just leave it in the comments.



You have the right to free speech. You also have the right to remain silent. Guess which one the government wants you to use?

Obama's approval rating: 85%

Well, it finally happened. Today, February 5th, President Obama's approval rating has dropped below 90%. Let's review.

The first drop comes from his cigarette tax increase. I don't smoke, but any tax increase is bad when American's are paying through the nose already. The biggest reason this is getting him a drop, however, is what it's for: Expanded healthcare for 4 million poor kids. Awww. Isn't that sweet. It's also redistribution of wealth. Smokers have no correlation whatsoever to those kids not having healthcare. Completely seperate issues, so why punish those who have a completely legal habit?

Face it: Healthcare is not a right. Let's look at that dirty old piece of trash called the Declaration of Independence: Life, liberty, pursuit of happyness....Hmmm...Yep, no healthcare. Don't get me wrong. I would love for people, out of the goodness of their hearts, to give and help those less fortunate than them get healthcare. That is not the government's job, and I am confident that if they would get out of the way, the private sector would take care of it. He drops 2% for this decision.

The second one comes from his talks with Russia. Our saber rattling friends have managed to cut off a major supply route into Afghanistan (through blatantly buying off Kyrgyzstan), which is only the latest in a string of aggressive actions against American interests. Obama's response? A delay of our missile shield in Poland (which is bad for the Polish, by the way. They stuck their neck out for us by defying a powerful neighbor, and we're leaving them to dry) and talks with Russia about decreasing our nuclear arsenals by 80%! We should be spending our time finding a technology that can defeat the nuclear capabilities of others.

Instead, Obama has the lofty goal of removing nuclear weapons from the face of the planet. I have the lofty goal of stopping time like Hiro. Both of our goals have approximately the same chance of success. Let's have a pop quiz:

Better weapon leads to
A) Defense against such weapon, rendering it obsolete
B) Even better weapon, rendering the first obsolete.
C) Everyone deciding to get along, destroying said weapon, and cooking s'mores while singing Kumbaya.

If you answered A or B, congratulations. If you answered C, please remove yourself from the gene pool.

Never, in the history of humans killing humans, has the knowledge of a weapon simply disappeared because people wished it to. Once it is digested into general knowledge, you can't get rid of it. We just love killing each other too much. All these talks are going to do is weaken our position, lower our street cred, and give other, crazier countries the chance to get nukes of their own before we can stop them. He drops 3% for this pipe dream.

Obama approval rating: 90%

EDIT: Rather than post a whole new note, I'm just editing this one. So, for his bumbling handling of the appointments he drops 2%. Do any of these people ACTUALLY pay taxes? For admitting he "screwed up" he gains 1%. At least, when cornered, he can admit it. Whether that'll mean he's gonna change it, or just hide it better next time, we shall see. So, he holds on to he 90% rating by a fingernail.

Obama did something today that has, tentatively, increased his rating by 1.7% (so it'll be an even number again.) He decided (for now, at least) not to cut the Defense budget, and in fact chose to propose an increase of 8% in the same. The jump here would go much farther if I felt confident he would at the same time be working to cut waste and pork, but judging by his stimulus package, that isn't the case.Since we're on the subject, he drops by 5% for his pork-ridden stimulus effort, which appears to have very little to do with actual stimulating. Throwing money around isn't the answer, especially if it's going to indebt our country for generations. To be fair, what is actually in the bill is as more Congress's fault than the President's. Still, he approves of the bill, which paints him guilty in my book. (As a side note, Sarah Palin loses some points here for not speaking out more strongly against this bill. She says she'll accept funds as governor and gives some token points against the spending, but she could be a lot more forceful about it.)

He's still treading water above 90%, if barely. I'm trying to go a little easy on him since he's new and all. You know, being President is a tough job.

Obama Approval Rating: 94.3%

EDIT: Some anarchist commentor of mine mentioned Obama's ending the wars overseas as a plus. How exactly that would stack up with his ratings here I've yet to determine. It would depend on many factors. Until he actually does something more than talk about it, though, I'm just gonna leave that alone here.

Quick update here. Obama dropped in my rating due to his decision to close Gitmo (with no other place to store the scum) and his decision to stop "torture". The torture thing is mainly because what he considers torture (i.e. waterboarding, sleep deprivation, pumping loud music, etc.) is not nearly what I consider torture. Basically, we now have to ask Hajji nicely for information, and hope he finds it in his heart to cooperate. Maybe if we gave them candy...Also, he is looking to fund the murder of children everywhere by funneling my tax dollars into Planned Parenthood. Great.

I did get informed of something that I liked...I am trusting the word of one of his supporters, but I've no reason to doubt it, so I'll roll with it. He said that his executive staff will not be getting any raises this year if they already make above $100k. A little bit less government waste is always a good thing. There was one more tiny thing he did that I liked...Can't remember what it is, but I do remember that it rated a .3% plus.

So, he loses 2% for Gitmo/Torture, 3% for Planned Parenthood, and gains 1% for the raise thing, and .3% for whatever the little thing was he did. Final total: 94.3%.

My Obama Approval Rating: 98%

Been a while since I've written anything. Since I have, Obama's gotten sworn in. He is now the President of the USSA, and my Commander-in-Chief. In the tradition of shameless idea-stealing of my notes, I've stolen an idea from Stu, producer behind Glenn Beck. He decided, in order to be completely fair, that he would start his approval rating of the big O at 100%. Based on performance, the rating will then go up, or down, from there.

Periodically I'll be updating my approval rating of President Obama, starting today. It didn't take long for him to slip, though it's only by 2%. During the swearing in, he appeared a bit nervous. Of course, I'd be nervous too if there was a good chance I was about to get shot in the head, so I'll let that all slide. I'm talking about his speech. The thing that struck me most is his apparent disregard for the size of government. He stated he had an attitude that (to paraphrase) the size of government didn't matter, as long as it works.

Stu only dropped him 1% for this, but I'm doubling that because I despise big government that much. So there.

Still, 98% approval rating isn't too horrible. Let's see if it lasts the month.