RUTHFULLY YOURS

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll reveals that President Obama’s overall approval rating has cratered to 41 percent, tying the low-water mark of his presidency. Moreover, only half of those polled consider the president to be competent, a lower percentage than that accrued by George W. Bush following the pounding he and his administration took for its response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. One year later, Democrats took control of both houses of Congress. Whether the 2014 election will produce similar results remains to be seen.

Chuck Todd, Chief White House Correspondent for NBC News, minced no words assessing the results. “This poll is a disaster for the president,” Todd said. “You look at the presidency here: Lowest job rating, tied for the lowest; lowest on foreign policy. His administration is seen as less competent than the Bush administration, post-Katrina.” Todd then addressed the leadership issue. “And then the issue of do you believe he can still lead? A majority believe no. Essentially the public is saying your presidency is over,” he added.

Todd is referring to the 54 percent of respondents who said Obama is no longer able “to lead the country and get the job done” compared to only 42 percent who thought he could. That pessimism is buttressed by the 41 percent who believe his performance has gotten worse over the past year, compared to only 15 percent who thought it had improved.

The economy is another sore spot for the president, with 54 percent of the respondents disapproving his handling of it, compared to only 41 percent who think he’s doing a good job. This suggests Americans are very much aware that the current 6.3 percent unemployment rate cannot obscure the reality that more than 92 million Americans have given up looking for work, dropping the labor force participation rate to its lowest level in 36 years. That economic discontent was reinforced in an April poll conducted by the WSJ revealing that 55 percent of registered voters believe “the economic and political systems in the country are stacked against people like me,” versus only 39 percent who disagreed with that statement.

By a massive 57-37 percent margin, Americans disapprove of Obama’s foreign policy and national security decisions. Despite such a dismal spread, Obama may have actually caught a break with regard to polling on this subject. Because the nationwide telephone poll of 1,000 adults was conducted between June 11-15, it occurred largely before the consequences of his decision to prematurely withdraw from Iraq in 2011 was thrust front and center by the media.

The number of unaccompanied children from Central America into the U.S. has reached 47,000 since October, and may hit 90,000 by the end of this year. The official story is that they are fleeing drug-gang mayhem and political violence in their home countries, and so are refugees and asylum-seekers. But the Guatemalan ambassador has said they are seeking economic opportunity and the “American dream.” It’s hard, however, not to see a connection with Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Arrivals Program, which defers deportation for illegal aliens who are minors. Obama enacted by executive fiat––and just recently extended for 2 years––this open invitation to illegal minors when Congress proved unwilling to pass the Dream Act legislation.

This sudden surge of illegal immigrants couldn’t help but remind me of Jean Raspail’s 1973 dystopian novel The Camp of the Saints. In the story millions of impoverished Third World people, starting in India, highjack ships and begin sailing to the south of France. Once they land they swarm the rich Côte d’Azur while the French flee in panic to the north. Most interesting are Raspail’s descriptions of why this mass invasion happened––as the inevitable suicidal response of a people who no longer believe in their own civilization’s ideals or principles. The French consul in India, for example, chastising the Catholic bishop who approves of the mass immigration and says he is proud to be “bearing witness,” retorts, “Bearing witness to what? To your faith? Your religion? To your Christian civilization? Oh no, none of that! Bearing witness against yourselves, like the anti-Western cynics you’ve become. Do you think the poor devils that flock to your side aren’t any the wiser? Nonsense! They see right through you. For them, white skin means weak convictions. They know how weak yours are, they know you’ve given in.”

For nearly 3 decades we have undergone a slow-motion version of Raspail’s parable. In 1969 there were an estimated half a million illegal immigrants in the U.S.; today the low-end estimate is 11,500,000. There are many explanations for this increase. Perverse incentives such as the 1986 amnesty and Obama’s Deferred Action for Arrivals Program, the need for cheap workers for jobs Americans don’t want to do, and the Democrats’ hunger for political clients all explain this increase. But as always, bad policies are created by bad ideas. The problems of immigration, whether legal or illegal, are in part created, and definitely worsened, by the erosion of national and civilizational identity and pride that Raspail dramatizes in his novel.

A participant in the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll provides this amusing quote, which appears in today’s Journal story about the results: “Anita Windley, 30, who voted for [Barack] Obama in 2008 and again in 2012, doesn’t think he’s doing enough to help people in her New York City neighborhood. She complains that jobs are still hard to find and the local schools are subpar. ‘It’s time for somebody new,’ she said, ‘like Hillary.’ ”

That would be Hillary Clinton, who if she wins the presidential nomination in 2016 will be the oldest Democrat ever to do so. Lewis Cass, 66 when he lost the presidency to Whig Zachary Taylor, has held the record since 1848, 99 years before Mrs. Clinton’s birth.

Although she hasn’t even declared whether she’s a candidate, there’s a common view that Mrs. Clinton’s nomination and election are inevitable. If you’re convinced that is true, you can put money on it: According to OddsChecker.com, London bookmakers are offering slightly better than even odds on her victory in November 2016. Before risking your life savings, consider that you’re betting on three contingencies. For the bet to pay off, she has to run and win the nomination and win the election.

Mrs. Clinton is by far the favorite. No bookie is offering less than 7-to-1 odds on any other prospective candidate. That’s because, with no one else having declared a candidacy either, the Republican field is wide open, as is the field of prospective Democratic challengers to Mrs. Clinton or alternatives should she decide not to run.

The WSJ/NBC poll found Mrs. Clinton “remains the undisputed favorite for the Democratic nomination, drawing positive reviews from four out of five Democrats,” writes the Journal’s Patrick O’Connor. “But her prospects in a general election look a little less secure.” In a WSJ.com blog post, Reid Epstein elaborates:

Americans think Hillary Clinton is capable of being president, but they’re still not sure whether to trust her.

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found 55% of all voters think Mrs. Clinton is “knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency,” but more voters disagree than agree with the statement that she is “honest and straightforward.” . . .

With 2½ years left in the Obama presidency, it is at least an open question what will be left of it by December 2016. Or us.

In this week’s Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, conducted as the disintegration of Iraq began, Mr. Obama’s approval rating has fallen to 41% and his handling of foreign policy to 37%.

Respondents to this poll know what is going on in the world—Ukraine destabilized, Iraq disintegrating, their economy eternally recovering.

Mr. Obama’s world this week consisted of flying to the University of California-Irvine to give a speech about a) himself (check the text if you doubt it) and b) climate change. On Wednesday he was in New York City for a midtown fundraiser, an LGBT fundraiser and a third, $32,000 per person fundraiser at the home of Vogue editor Anna Wintour.

The Hill newspaper ran a piece earlier this week wondering if Mr. Obama is “done with Washington.” Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist, says, “He’s never really made it a secret he’s not a fan of this place.” Or Syria. Or Ukraine. Or Iraq.

The defenders of the Obama presidency—which increasingly is becoming a project separate from the person—argue that GOP obstruction thwarted the president’s agenda. If the Republicans were the rank partisans of Democratic myth, Eric Cantor would still be Majority Leader and Mississippi’s Sen. Thad Cochran would be waltzing to his seventh term.

As to the American people now pushing his approval below 40%, Barack Obama entered office with more good will than any president since John F. Kennedy. If the Obama presidency has run out of aerobic capacity 2½ years from the finish line, it is because of Mr. Obama’s own decisions. He did this to himself.

If there’s one Obama foreign-policy decision that sticks in anyone’s mind it is the “red line” in Syria. It was Mr. Obama’s decision last September, at Vladimir Putin’s invitation, to step back from his own criteria for punishing Syria’s Bashar Assad if he used chemical weapons against his own people. The voters now tanking Mr. Obama’s foreign affairs number don’t think it’s just random bad luck that Russian tanks ended up in Ukraine and some al Qaeda group they’ve never heard of took over half of Iraq in two days. The world is slipping beyond President Obama’s control, or interest. From here on out, it—and we—are in God’s hands.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH THE VA SCANDAL IS COSTING YOU IN YOUR STATE? GO TO THIS AMAZING SITE: http://www.openthebooks.com/

The Veterans Affairs scandal has exposed a failing bureaucracy, so naturally Congress’s solution is to give the same bureaucracy more money. The underreported story is that taxpayers could end up paying $50 billion each year so Congress can claim to have solved the problem.

The Senate recently whisked through with only three dissenting votes a bill cobbled together by Bernie Sanders and John McCain that authorizes $500 million to hire additional VA providers, over $200 million to lease 26 medical facilities and an unspecified amount to contract private care for veterans who live more than 40 miles from the nearest VA or experience treatment delays. Minutes before the vote, CBO issued a “preliminary” estimate that private care would cost $35 billion over the next two years and $50 billion annually thereafter. This is more than Mr. Sanders had proposed to spend when he was pitching a Democrats-only bill earlier this year.

Majority Leader Harry Reid then rushed to vote on the Senate floor before anyone might notice this future tab. As CBO notes, the “magnitude of [the bill’s] budgetary effects is highly uncertain” because it’s unclear how many more veterans will seek care once they don’t have to drive four hours or wait three months to get it. Only 8.4 million of more than 16 million veterans who qualify for VA care are enrolled.

Nor is it clear how much more care veterans will seek. The VA doesn’t charge premiums, immunizations and preventative screenings are free, and out-of-pocket costs are negligible. Even the lowest “priority group” pays a mere $10 daily co-pay for inpatient care. The upshot of this all-you-can-eat buffet has been rationed care, which is the real cause of the VA waiting-list scandal.

The truth is that many doctors won’t treat patients at Medicare reimbursement rates, which the VA started paying in 2011 to curb costs. The VA Office of Inspector General and Government Accountability Office have also reported improper payments and claim delays in non-VA “fee basis care.” A March 2012 report by the OIG reported an improper payment rate of 12.4%, which is one of the highest in federal programs.

The Senate bill would create a new private-care option called “choice cards” that allow veterans to seek care from outside providers if wait or driving times are excessive. The trouble here, as the CBO notes, is “the specific parameters of the new program would depend on regulations that would need to be developed.”

U.S. Border Patrol will put in place new policies to restrict the use of force by agents. The new rules come amid the revelation that illegal immigrants are entering the U.S. at record rates and overwhelming federal resources.

Under the new restrictions, Border Patrol agents will be required to avoid situations where deadly force may be used. “Examples include refraining from blocking moving vehicles’ paths or firing at rock-throwers unless in imminent danger, the Huffington Post reported. “Additionally, agents will be trained on how to carry and use lighter weapons, while also facing restrictions on taser use.”

Placing tight restrictions on Border Patrol agents could hinder their ability to protect the border or their own lives. Shawn Moran, Vice President of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) told Breitbart Texas that Border Patrol agents put their lives at risk every day. Leaving them few options to defend themselves could put their lives in further jeopardy. “The lives of Border Patrol agents should not be pawns in the political games of Washington, D.C. and this administration is literally risking our lives,” Moran said.

Despite this, liberal media outlets and activists wasted no time praising the new restrictive policies.

“This is a monumental victory for border communities advocating for transparency and policy reform,” Andrea Guerrero of the Southern Border Communities Coalition told the Arizona Republic.

Complaints that Border Patrol agents “abuse their power” seem to have prompted the tightened restrictions. Perhaps most influential in prompting the policies was the so-called “scathing report” obtained by the Los Angeles Times in February, which supposedly found that Border Patrol agents had “fired in frustration” at illegal immigrants throwing rocks on the Mexican side of the border.

Lightning and relentless attacks marked the German Nazi blitzkrieg, which overwhelmed European nations during the onset of World War Two.

Just as each nation fell under successive bouts of German aggression, so too America has been reeling under one scandal after another – coming so fast from the White House and in such a lightning and unrelenting manner that we have barely had time to absorb and understand the latest scandal before another one has enveloped us. Consider some of what we have endured:

As the American President knowingly smiled, while listening in the White House Rose Garden to the father of the American deserter, Bowe Bergdahl, invoking in Arabic the opening words of the Koranic phrase claiming land for Islam – in this instance, claiming the very White House itself – the Taliban warlord, Mullah Omar, gloated over the release of the five top Taliban commanders. He called it a “big victory for the entire Afghan Muslim nation.”

In the Muslim dominated Middle East, respect is only reserved for the strong. Obama is happily projecting America as weak while he abases the U.S. at the feet of the assorted mullahs, emirs, kings, imams, thugs and tyrants whose Islamic “ideology wrapped in a religion,” as Sir Winston Churchill once described it, pronounce repeatedly that, “They love death more than we love life!”

Senator John McCain, no true conservative, nevertheless correctly called the five Muslim Afghan terrorists, “the worst of the worst,” as outrage set in throughout the United States of America. McCain added: “There will be a price to pay for this exchange.”

Yes, it will inevitably be a high price in the shedding of yet more American blood and treasure and a re-energized Islamic war against Judeo-Christian civilization.

Meanwhile Obama, during his recent visit to Brussels, rejected any apology for releasing the five top Taliban terrorists from Gitmo. But then why should he? Let us not forget that on the second day in office during his first term, Obama signed an executive order directing that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed. This is all part of his “transformation of America,” or rather the destruction of this wonderful country.

Three years before Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki would be forced out of his job because of the veterans who had died under him, he visited the Massachusetts National Cemetery. He wasn’t there to see the men and women who had died because of him.

While vets were dying, Obama and Shinseki had turned their attention to something truly important; seeing to it that all the cemeteries where they were being buried had wind or solar power.

The Massachusetts National Cemetery was getting a wind turbine so that the dead veterans would have all the sustainable energy they needed.

A VA press release about the cemetery turbine boasted that “under the leadership of Secretary Eric K. Shinseki… VA is transitioning into a 21st century organization that better serves America’s Veterans.”

Shinseki arrived in person at the dedication ceremony to flip the switch on the cemetery wind turbine.

“Nationally, VA continues to expand its investment in renewable sources of energy to promote our Nation’s energy independence, save taxpayer dollars, and improve care for our Veterans and their families,” he said.

The cemetery turbine had cost $533,000. Veterans were dying to save the VA a few hundred dollars. Shinseki had made his order of priorities clear. Green energy boondoggles came first. Improving veteran care came last.

Acting Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs Steve Muro told the crowd, “With one of VA’s first wind turbine projects, the Massachusetts National Cemetery is leading the way in the use of renewable energy while providing the burial benefits that New England Veterans and their families have earned.”

Muro had made the entire macabre spectacle worthy of a Joseph Heller novel. Obama’s people had not only killed veterans, they had killed satire.

When the VA wasn’t installing a wind turbine at a cemetery, it was installing solar panels at cemeteries to better serve the dead veterans that it was killing.

FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE TOMORROW- C-FACT

TO DONATE: http://www.cfact.org/about/

Did you hear about President Obama’s rude and outrageous graduation speech this past weekend at the University of California, Irvine?

While most people expect commencement addresses to be upbeat and inspiring, Obama used the special day to treat the proud graduates and their families to a toxic dose of global warming indoctrination.

Unbelievably, he urged the students to close their minds – to become like PC robots and not entertain any skepticism of alarmist claims.

He even ridiculed those who would dare question his global warming orthodoxy as believing the moon is made of “cheese.”

Obama’s attention to climate is politically shrewd. After all, what better way to shift attention from the President’s myriad controversies and failures at home and abroad (Iraq, Obamacare, etc.) then to try and build a legacy based on the slippery notion of “climate change?”

But this shameless sort of propagandizing cannot be allowed to stand — particularly when its aim is to indoctrinate the young.

The real lesson President Obama taught on Saturday was just how dangerously out of touch with reality his administration is and how solidly he is captive to the ideological Left.

I have no interest in sports. Never had any. I don’t care who wins the world soccer championship, or comes out on top during the football, hockey or baseball seasons, or which team wins the pennant or trophy. It’s not that I’m anti-sports. I am consummately indifferent. I guess I was born without a “sports” organ. When work colleagues asked me if I’d watched “the game” last night, my traditional response was: “When they schedule the Pittsburgh Pirates versus the Green Bay Packers, then I’ll take an interest.” That friendly retort usually drove home the idea that they shouldn’t invite me to join a football pool. I’m not likely, either, to go wild in the streets, trashing shops and burning cars and being maced by riot police, if the Lakers lose to the Chicago Cubs, the Oshkosh Bears, or the Winnipeg Penguins.

However, the recent decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to de-register the name of the Washington Redskins is a serious matter, fraught with dangers not only to trademarks and trademark owners, but to patents and patent holders, in addition to copyrights and copyright owners, as well. Theresa Vargas in her June 18th Washington Post article, “Federal Agency cancels Redskins trademark registration, says name is disparaging,” reported:

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has canceled the Washington Redskins trademark registration, calling the football team’s name “disparaging to Native Americans.”

The landmark case, which appeared before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, was filed on behalf of five Native Americans. It was the second time such a case was filed….

Federal trademark law does not permit registration of trademarks that “may disparage” individuals or groups or “bring them into contempt or disrepute.” The ruling pertains to six different trademarks associated with the team, each containing the word “Redskin.”

Commercially, what the ruling means is that while the team’s owners won’t be forced to change the team’s name to something more saccharine (or politically correct, e.g., “The Big Hulking Guys Who Chase Obloids”), it has lost the right to control the usage of the team’s name in its logos and merchandising endeavors. That is, the name is up for grabs to whoever wants to sell T-shirts, mugs, glasses and apparel under that name. The team’s owners would not be able to even license the team name to other parties.