President Obama Honors Fallen at Fort Hood, Alludes to Alleged Assailant’s Faith

“46 percent. lowest approval yet. lowest at this time in all of last 10 presidents. Poor Barry. We don't like him anymore.”

mjishernameo, you really have serious problems with your Rasmussen* analyses.

46% is not the “lowest approval yet.” Rasmussen* had Obama at 45% approval on 9/1. Rasmussen* also had him at 46% on 8/31, 9/2, 10/31, 11/1, 11/2, and 11/3. Furthermore, this could not be the lowest of the last 10 presidents because Rasmussen* didn’t start polling until 1995.

Here is a reminder of what some other polling organizations have to say about Obama’s approval rating:

Approve/Disapprove
51/42 Gallup
54/43 Associated Press/GfK
51/36 Pew Research
54/45 CNN/Opinion Research
53/43 Ipsos/McClatchy
50/41 FOX News
51/42 NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl
50/46 USA Today/Gallup
57/40 ABC News/Wash Post
53/41 Marist

*Choice pollster of conservatives

"It was within the past few years that intelligence agencies in the U.S. determined right wing extremists are the biggest terrorist threats in the country."
____________________________________

It was a Homeland Security report dearie.

"It was within the past few years that intelligence agencies in the U.S. determined right wing extremists are the biggest terrorist threats in the country."
Sen. B. Frank said, the right is more dangerous then a muslim extremist.Lets not get Al Qaeda upset.
So when Grandma and Grandpa are coming on their scooters, they're dangerous run.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. Republicans have held the lead for over four months now
_____________________________________

"Republicans have held the lead for over four months now".

Strange, the Republicans just lost BOTH Congressional elections held last week. I guess your Rasmussen is just way off.

Or maybe voters are smarter than you think.

46 percent. lowest approval yet. lowest at this time in all of last 10 presidents. Poor Barry. We don't like him anymore.

'Only thing being fueled' - okay, petroleum, coal, solar, wind, do you really need me to go through this? I think you know that I'm talking about - the acceptable prejudice of the day . . . anti-Catholicism.

This isn't 'paranoia'. As a Catholic yourself, you may want to read about it: Phillip Jenkins and Mark Massa's books The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice and Anti-Catholicism in America: The Last Acceptable Prejudice. An excerpt from Jenkins book reads: "In the 1920's anti-Catholic politics again stimulated a mass movement in the form of the second Ku Klux Klan, which in the northern and western states was at least as concerned with keeping the Catholics in their place as with repressing blacks and Jews. For the Klan Catholicism represented "Alienism". . . One of the Klan's major goals was to combat "the great amount of Roman Catholic propaganda being disseminated through the medium of Press, the stage and the movies."

I don't know who John Bircher is. I don't know of him, don't follow him. I follow and pledge myself to Someone much higher.

alley

What is your definition of orthodox? You obviously have some threshold definitions that you are using a foundation. What is a devout Catholic as opposed to a moderate?

whatsgoingonhere:

It looks to me like Obama is bending over backwards this Veterans Day because of the Ft. Hood massacre. This is him performing damage control over his image in being the first Pres. after Bush to fail in protecting America from another terrorist attack. The Ft. Hood shooting is the rotten fruit of liberal political correctness. Obama appears to be scrambling to save face.

Posted by: Tom | Nov 11, 2009 12:53:01 PM

I'll give it one more stab. The group is considered not just orthodox but "highly orthodox" or "very orthodox" by many,including moderate and liberal catholics. Yes, the pope has endorsed orthodoxy as part of catholicism and not outside it-- but do you support all the statements and materials that HLI distributes, or all the rhetoric the founder has espoused? Do you not consider some of it extreme? Do you not find some of the materials and statistics representative of a very orthodox POV? Or do you really consider it mainstream within American catholicism?

The analogy to conservatism is considering the John Bircher society to represent mainstream American conservativism.

If that's where you're at, that's fine and on you. That would illustrate to me that your viewpoint is extremely right and, perhaps, somewhat given to conspiracy theories and feelings of being misunderstood and/or persecuted. When I say that about you, or particular groups, I am not saying that about catholicism or conservatism as a whole, no matter how you distort it.

As a source, I consider information from both groups-- HLI and the John Bircher society-- biased in favor of their very conservative outlook.

I think the HLI is a more biased source than a law school or an intelligence report.

I think this kind of statement-- "The only thing being fueled of late is anti-Catholicism" is ridiculous-- The ONLY thing being fueled in the world is that?

alley,

You, not me, were drawing the link and trying to draw a correlation between murderers (Salvi) and antisemitism with Catholicism. HLI is a Catholic pro-life organization and Salve or whatever this non pro-lifer's name was, claimed to be a Catholic, if I read correctly. I didn't choose these two as examples, you did.

I meant like you. sorry

Yeah I looked up John Salvi and he committed suicide in prison. Doesn't sound like he was a pro-lifer if he was capable of killing even himself. So mentioning this guy is just to score cheap political points, nothing else. And cheap they are because what percentage of pro-lifers shoot up abortion clinics. Meanwhile we turn a blind eye to radicals blowing up innocent women and children in markets around the planet because of their religion. America has a total double standard here. Absolutely astonishing.

Who is John Salvi? This name is so obscure and foreign to anything remotely connected to the pro-life movement or Catholicism that it is a massive stretch to try to lump him together with Roman Catholicism.

There seems to be insinuations that the Pope and Catholicism is fueling 'extremism'. The only thing being fueled of late is anti-Catholicism. Are we going to see ancient Rome style persecutions of the Church in the near future? Is America paving the way for intolerance of Catholicism and its subsequent persecution? This is the question we should be asking. How is radical liberalism ushering in prejudice and discrimination against Catholics?

How many Catholic religious around the world have been murdered, jailed, assaulted, and kidnapped because they represented Catholicism? Are we not far behind them? Take China for example - the Roman Catholic Church there is persecuted by the Government itself - not individuals, but by the National System. Are we far behind China?

alley

Please provide the quote with dates in which HLI did such a thing to Jews.

You may want to read Pope John Paul II's book, 'Love and Responsibility' ...

Posted by: Tom | Nov 11, 2009 11:29:11 AM

Tom, I married into a very catholic family and I'm raising my kids catholic so I know what you're trying to get at, but there are orthodox catholics and there are extremists. It might be helpful for you to do a little research on John Salvi and HLI. Tierra was talking about a particular group, one mentioned in a report issued by the Anti-Defamation League, declaring that “a strain of antisemitism” had surfaced in the extreme fringes of the right-to-life movement. Human Life International is a Virginia-based group which, according to the report, “has singled out Jews as disproportionately responsible for, even controlling the abortion rights movement.”

See also John Salvi.

"highly orthodox vision of Catholicism critical of abortion, homosexuality, sex education, and feminism"?

Uh . . . isn't that just plain Catholicism? Nothing out of the ordinary there about what is being called "orthodox". The positions of 'orthodox' Catholics are mainstream of the Church. Just read Pope John Paul II's encyclicals.

And to clarify the Church is only critical of lascivious sex education and further prefers seeing parents fill the role of educators in this area. Pope John Paul II wrote:

""Sex education, which is basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centers chosen and controlled by them." (Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (The Christian Family in the Modern World) November 22, 1981, following the 1980 Synod on the Family -- only three years after John Paul II became pope).

You may want to read Pope John Paul II's book, 'Love and Responsibility' and his encyclical 'On the Dignity and Vocation of Women' to understand in context what 'orthodox' Catholics believe before rashly judging them. The positions of 'orthodox' Catholics are in the mainstream of the Church. Pope John Paul II made that plainly clear in his writings during his pontificate.

I do not agree with President Obama's policies.

Happy Veteran's Day.

I saw a really heartwarming post mental floss blog with lots of video clips of kids and dogs welcoming soldiers home. google: "Jason English,The Late Movies: Dogs Welcoming Home Soldiers"

Warning: it could leave you feeling very sappy.

With gratitude to veterans and everyone in the military for all they do (and may you return to your families safely)

Alyson

why oh why is it okay for obama to finish closing out his confrence, give shout outs and have a laugh before addressing the fort hood incident but bad for bush to finish his story with children, so not to panic them, when 9/11 happened? Also, yes obama gave a great speech, thats what he does best but did he write it? NO! Did he actually get the stories about each soldier himself? NO! Stop acting like he did something great. He gave a speech and paid respect to the fallen just like any president would do. Too bad he had to wait until the cameras were on before he did it. Could he even take the time to call the families before the memorial? once again the answer is a resounding NO! In other words he was doing his job, nothing more, nothing amazing, nothing note worthy. If you want to praise someone praise his speech writer or his acting coach. Both deserve it!