“This is the very reasons the 2nd Amendment was in the constitution.”

Yet another simple historical fact known to our generation, and every one preceding it, but now abandoned by many our clueless compatriots. The 2nd Amendment exists to protect us from tyranny, the kind of tyranny practiced by governments throughout history.

A gentleman I came to know had some thoughts about this after a July 4th TEA Party. He wasn’t satisfied that he had done enough. He had attended a stimulating rally and like many Americans had written endlessly to his elected representatives. They are not listening, so he felt the need to do something more. He thought, why not do something that is familiar and yet a little different.

He developed the idea of what he simply called the Corner Club. His idea was to just pay attention each week to the news of the day; pay attention to the broader issues and don’t get bogged down in little details. In all of the information that we receive, he decided to find a single message each week, stand on a busy corner during rush hour and do that every single week, different days but the same time 5:00 p.m.-7:30 p.m. and display a 2′x4′ sign with his message. The second week of his effort I joined him and we counted over 3000 vehicles passing our corner, usually with more than one person in each of them. We are now closing in on our 17 week and will continue to do so at our Freedom Corner in Bel Air, MD until this onslaught against our economic freedom and civil liberties is defeated.

The Corner Club is a timely idea. All it takes is time, some patience and a good corner. This is an easy thing to do and if done across the country millions of people would be getting a grass roots message about our government.

He decided to go on the Internet to encourage others to do what he has done; develop an outlet for his frustration over the path America is taking. Join us at http://patriotscornerclub.ning.com/ and do your part to take back our nation . . . one corner at a time.

Huh?!

Face it, Bre’r. The times they are a-changin’. Your O-buddies are going DOWN.

2010. Or not long thereafter.

PRINCETON, NJ — Since the start of his presidency, U.S. President Barack Obama’s approval rating has declined more among non-Hispanic whites than among nonwhites, and now, fewer than 4 in 10 whites approve of the job Obama is doing as president.

Barack Obama Job Approval Rating, by Racial Group

Obama last week fell below 50% approval in Gallup Daily tracking for the first time in his presidency, both in daily three-day rolling averages and in Gallup Daily tracking results aggregated weekly.

“The only subgroup showing a greater change than whites is Republicans, down 24 points since Obama’s first full week in office.”

In his first full week in office (Jan. 26-Feb. 1), an average of 66% of Americans approved of the job Obama was doing, including 61% of non-Hispanic whites and 80% of nonwhites. In the most recent week, spanning Nov. 16-22 interviewing, his approval rating averaged 49% overall, 39% among whites, and 73% among nonwhites. Thus, since the beginning of his presidency, his support has dropped 22 points among whites, compared with a 7-point loss among nonwhites.

Given the 17-point drop in his approval rating among all U.S. adults, it follows that Obama’s support has declined among all major demographic and attitudinal subgroups, with one notable exception — blacks.

Blacks’ support for Obama has averaged 93% during his time in office, and has been at or above 90% nearly every week during his presidency. Thus, part of the reason Obama’s support among nonwhites has not dropped as much as his support among other groups is because of his consistent support from blacks. (With Hispanics’ approval rating down five points, greater declines among Asians, Native Americans, and those of mixed races account for his total seven-point drop among nonwhites.)

The accompanying table shows how Obama’s approval rating has changed by subgroup from his first full week in office to the most recent week. The only subgroup showing a greater change than whites is Republicans, down 24 points during this time. Independents’ approval of Obama has declined nearly as much (down 18 points), whereas support among Democrats is down only 6 points.

Obama’s strongest support comes from blacks, Democrats, and liberals — all of whom give him approval ratings above 80%. He maintains solid support of more than 60% from nonwhites, Hispanics, and young adults.

Barack Obama Job Approval Rating, by Demographic Group, First Full Week in Office vs. Week of Nov. 16-22

A Closer Look at Race and Party

One reason Obama may have maintained support among blacks is their overwhelming affiliation with the Democratic Party. This is not a sufficient explanation, though, because Obama’s approval rating has dropped among Democrats even as it has held steady among blacks.

In fact, it appears as though Obama’s relatively small loss in support among Democrats has come exclusively from white Democrats. In late January/early February, Obama averaged 87% approval among white Democrats and 90% approval among nonwhite Democrats. Now, his approval rating among white Democrats is 76%, down 11 points, but is essentially the same (if not a little higher) at 92% among nonwhite Democrats.

Barack Obama Job Approval Rating, Among Democrats, by Race

Bottom Line

Obama won the Democratic nomination and the presidency with strong support from blacks and other racial minorities. In fact, according to exit polls and Gallup’s final pre-election estimates, he won the election despite losing by double digits to John McCain among white voters.

Those patterns of support seem to have persisted into his presidency, with his support among whites starting out lower and dropping faster than his support among nonwhites. And though he maintains widespread loyalty among Democrats, the small loss in support he has seen from his fellow partisans seems to be exclusively from white Democrats.

It is important to note that this pattern is not unique to Obama. For example, Bill Clinton averaged 55% job approval during his presidency, including 52% among whites but a much higher 76% among nonwhites and 82% among blacks.

Sign up for Gallup e-mail alerts or RSS feeds

Get Gallup news on Facebook and Twitter

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 3,611 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Nov. 16-22, 2009, as part of Gallup Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of error is ±2 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 2,879 non-Hispanic whites, the maximum margin of error is ±2 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 732 nonwhites, the maximum margin of error is ±5 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones and cellular phones.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Now aint dat a surprise …………NOT

The federal government spent $3.5 trillion during President Obama’s first year in office. This far exceeds the spending for any other first-year president.

President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents — spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.

In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion — $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush’s term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama’s.

That price tag came with a $1.4 trillion deficit, nearly $1 trillion more than last year. The overall budget was about a half-trillion more than Bush’s for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office.

Click here to read FOXBusiness.com’s Elizabeth MacDonald describe what the interest on the debt can buy.

That’s a big increase. But compared with other presidents’ first years in office, Obama is running circles around them.

Bush spent $1.8 trillion in 2001, according to government budget figures that have been adjusted for inflation based on 2000 dollars. Using the same formula, former President Bill Clinton spent $1.6 trillion in 1993.

The last president to clock in under $1 trillion was Gerald Ford, who logged a $982 billion budget in 1975. Post-war Dwight Eisenhower even brought Uncle Sam’s tab down to $556 billion in his first year, 1953.

Obama’s first-year budget, adjusted for inflation, is about five times that. His 2009 budget is also close to 21 percent of that for Clinton’s eight years in office — Clinton’s spending added up to $13.5 trillion over his two full terms. Bush spent $16.8 trillion from 2001-2008.

Ditto 172: mgk: Hanson for president.

I object to describing BHO as not any more partisan than Bush, or Nixon. It shows a lack of understanding yet still in your thinking that BHO is simply about partisan politics.

This is about a Destruction of American and a bloodless Revolution by subversion that changes everything about what America is and and how it was made.

This is the very reasons the 2nd Amendment was in the constitution. We have been dumbed down to call it simply partisan politics. That was the dumbest statement vdh has made.

1. The community reinvestment act was created in 1977. 2/3rds of all Subprime loans were lent by private lenders under NO pressure from government.

2. Speaking of country wide, take a look at what happened to Anthony Mozillo and why he and other private lending companies responsible for the majority of the sub-prime mess are not being held accountable for the ridiculously lax standards used to write these loans.

3. Fannie and Freddie simply did not cause the subprime nor were they the largest participants. In fact, Fannie and Freddy lost market share in the subprime market due to federal guidelines about credit quality. Freddy and Fannie have proven themselves to be inept in their own way, but they were not the biggest problem.

4. Why would someone running a PRIVATE company write loans for someone without verifying basic risk info like, oh say A SALARY for crying out loud. Probably because a lot of white middle class Mortgage Brokers were booking commission on the loan. Heck, when you get paid by the number and amount of loans you make and heck, everything gets passed to some big institutional mortgage blender that suddenly shoots out rainbows from excrement. Well, it becomes a lot clearer what was going on.

However you slice it, I’m sure there were a lot of people who took mortgages out who made either bad or outright fraudulent dealings. But what kind of idiot would lend to these people on such a large scale?

It’s really just about greed, and everyone not wanting to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

And that is capitalism at it’s worst.

“The President earns approval from 97% of African-American voters and disapproval from 61% of white voters. ”

Quite clearly BLACKS are stuck in their RACIST groove.