I have watched Glenn Beck's program and I don't think he has a problem with Hispanics, or even a 'cosmopolitan President' as the writer puts it, it's simply about values.

The values of middle-America are good. They are very giving - the US gives half of all world aid - not bad for one country, and an apparently greedy one at that.

Want to find rich people who don't care? The wealthy Arab states. Unless you're fighting in a jihad that is, then they'll throw money at you.

Obama is a hopeless President. His policies are ineffective banter, just like our very own Kevin Rudd - who ran the first Presidential campaign in Australian history.

Obama gets away with it because the liberal media are racist and hold him - because of his colour - to a lower standard.

Left-wing people are racist. They look the other way when coloured people make mistakes, look how paternal the left are here towards Aboriginies for example.

Obama is on the nose because he lied to the American people.
He promised post-racialism, bipartisanship and transparency.
He delivered exactly the opposite, plus an unhealthy and unwanted dose of radicalism.
The 73% vote against the Obamacare mandate in Missouri reflects the public opposition to his policies.
He was aided and abetted in his deception by the JournoListas of the mainstream media, the for-now-disbanded cabal of enablers who sanitised his past and sang his praises.
The majority of Americans are essentially conservative.
The only positive legacy of Obama is that many Americans are now beginning to recognise the lunacy of liberalism.
A seriously negative legacy of Obama is the appointment of his ideological clone Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
The only real question remaining about Obama is whether he is a hopelessly naïve and inept but well-meaning idealist or whether he is deliberately trying to destroy America.

I'm not particularly a fan of Glynn Beck, but his intended assessment of Obama's popularity is more or less spot on (though I agree his assessment of the World Cup's popularity in the US might be a bit off). The many historic examples of socialism simply not working are too prolifigate for middle Americans (read: working Americans who are not academics or journalists)to ignore. The current crisis only emphasized this fact. Those countries moving toward socialism suffered the most (the US, Greece, et al) and the ones moving away from socialism actually prospered (China, India). Whether it is true or not, Obama is percieved by middle America as a socialist, and indeed, his policies seem to point in that direction. He has also failed to keep numerous promises that have alienated the far left and the youngest of his supporters.

As for the Hispanics in America, I wonder how Australian's would react to a million plus illegal immigrants coming across their borders every year. Given recent tirades over a few hundred boat people, I'm guessing not nearly as well as the American's have. It is common for liberals to write conservative American's problems with Hispanic immigration off as prejudice, but that is, at best, an oversimplification. The costs to infrastructure (such as schools, hospitals, even roads) being used by tens of millions of illegal non tax paying immigrants, the terrorism related border security issues, and the burden on an already saturated job market point to other less nefarious reasons why American's want their borders secured. Obama, meanwhile, refuses to enforce current laws in an attempt to secure the Hispanic vote.

The liberal media painted Obama as a messiah of sorts. This might have gotten him elected, but it's a hard title to live up to, and it's no wonder that he has fallen short. He was never loved by the conservatives, and the over zealous press placed liberals expectations at a level where diappointment was inevitable. Almost certainly, we are seeing Obama's first and last term.

Obama might well be on the nose right now, but then when the
trailer park trash gets psyched up by Fox TV, we are hardly going
to land up with informed opinion.

Much of the public are still in denial, that it was their vote
for Bush not once but twice, which is responsible for the economic
calamity that Obama faced when he took over. Expectations that
Obama could fix it all overnight, were of course wrong, but that
tells us more about the average punters knowledge of economics, then
about the fact wether Obama is a good or bad president.

IHMO he is a very good one, but he was dealt a disasterous hand.
Its going to take years, not weeks or months, to turn America
around.

Blaming the president is the easy cop out for many Americans.
Its a bit like saying "God did it", to understand the world.
That does not mean that it's correct.

They say that people get the politicians that they deserve and
that people need pain to learn. Perhaps Americans haven't yet
experienced enough pain to learn and need a disaster like Palin
as Prez, to show them what a real disaster can be. She
can drag the nation down with her and go and start a few
wars somewhere.

Buttonbright,
Obama not only "refuses to enforce current laws in an attempt to secure the Hispanic vote", he hopes to create a vast new Democrat-voting bloc by granting amnesty and, ultimately, voting rights to illegal immigrants. Apart from the obvious drain on healthcare and social security that you mention, cash transfers back to families in Mexico represent that countrys second biggest source of "export income". This double-dipping by tens of millions of illegal immigrants must have profound effects on US taxpayers who rightly question why they are working and paying increasing taxes to support law-breakers from Mexico.
Obama’s answer is to allow “sanctuary cities” to deliberately flout immigration law whilst suing Arizona for attempting to enforce the immigration laws that he fails to uphold, in stark contradiction to his sworn duty to uphold the laws of the US.

Yabby,
Your first-sentence reference to trailer park trash is an early indicator of the level of objectivity you bring to the debate. How is it that the so-called egalitarian left is so contemptuous of those who occupy the lowest socio-economic strata?
Don’t answer, I think we’ve all worked it out.
Obama and his millionaire cronies are the good guys because they’re on the left, even though Michelle spends tens of thousands of tax-payer dollars per day playing Marie Antoinette in Spain while unemployment keeps going up.
Trailer park trash are the bad guys because they must be on the right because they watch Fox TV.

The Democrats have had majorities in both the congress and senate since 2006, making George W. Bush almost a lame-duck president for his last two years.
For how many more years will the Democrats and their ignorant apologists continue to blame Bush?
Furthermore, Obama’s deficit-spending makes Bush look positively tight-fisted.
Your “humble opinion” that Obama is a very good president is becoming an increasingly minority view, as the American people begin to realise that they were duped by Mr Hopey Changey and his fourth estate.

*is an early indicator of the level of objectivity you bring to the debate*

Not so Proxy, its about the level of objectivity shown by Fox TV
and the gullibility of the poor, when Rupert pushes their
emotional buttons, rather then provide high quality information.

In other words, even if millions of Americans are duped by
Fox TV and similar, that does not make Obama a bad president.

*Obama and his millionaire cronies are the good guys because they’re on the left*

They are hardly of the left. They just show a hint of balance between
some social justice and economic progress. Being on the left of
Sarah Palin, hardly makes them socialists.

*Furthermore, Obama’s deficit-spending makes Bush look positively tight-fisted*

When Clinton left office, the budget was balanced, there was
a surplus, the economy was doing ok. Eight years later, the
economy was in the gutter, the trillion $ deficit was already
there, the nation was on the verge of dragging us all into
a global depression.

Watch a bit of Bloomberg TV and you'll find that many of America's
brightest minds agree that a global depression would have been
a disaster not just for the US, but for all of us. Obama was
left a choice between a rock and a hard place.

To now criticise the fact that his administration took steps
to avoid that global depression and a complete collapse of the
global economy, is pure igorance on your part and shows
your political bias. A bit of reasoned thinking would help.

Yabby,

You can’t have it both ways:
"Barack Obama on Thursday laid much of the blame for America's unfolding credit crisis on the financial deregulation of the 1990s in his hardest hitting attack so far on the economic legacy of Bill Clinton's administration."
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto032720081349315803

What do you suppose Obama was referring to Yabby?
Do you think it might have been Clinton’s repeal of the Glass Steagall Act, which many believe “exacerbat(ed) the damage caused by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market that led to the Financial crisis of 2007–2010”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

I don’t suppose that Obama, as a former ACORN agitator, would be referring to Clinton’s reforms which “establishe(d) the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Hmmm…

Remove the safeguards which stop banks speculating in mortage investments (ie repeal Glass Steagall) while simultaneously mandating increased home lending to minorities (ie expand the CRA) irrespective of their credit risk.
What could go wrong, as long as housing prices continue to increase?

Disturbingly, $180 billion of taxpayer bailout later, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are back in the loans for drones game with their new, no cash down, 100% of valuation “Affordable Advantage” loans.

What could go wrong?

Ah Proxy, you seem to conviently forget the role of the SEC
in regulation of the US financial system. George and Dick
decided that the financial system could regulate itself, the
SEC was turned into a toothless tiger, even FBI officials working
on corporate crime were diverted by their hundreds into
searching for Osama bin Laden under the beds, the rest is
history!

Had enforcement of available regulations taken place, the GFC
would not have happened. George had 8 years to change the
Glass Steagel act, he did nothing, apart from ask God to
advise him. Clearly god didn't give him very good advice!

Had Obama let AIF sink, let the major banks sink, let GM, Ford
and Chrysler sink, what do you think would have happened?
How many dominoes would have fallen until it ended?

Oh Yabby.. self destruction is not a good look mate. (yours)

Your chain of self immolation in your few posts there is a site to be seen.

Attributing 'trailer trash' to the 20 million americans who are glued to fox (Hannity alone) and the 15million clinging to Beck is just vacuous nonsense.

Proxy brought you back into line with his "Obama plan for Hispanic voting block" expose' but you seem to need some more 'attention'. (err like a rubber hose liberally applied to your brain ? :)

BECK and FOX and OBJECTIVITY.

You miss the mark by so much you would not even be accepted into a 'special school' mate.

Beck has traced back in great detail using well informed experts (yes.. real experts) -the history of America from 'Genesis to Revelation' and Americans are waking up. Do you see people clambering to join up with say Rush Limbaugh ? nope.. he is strong on rhetoric but weak on substance.

Yes..Bush needed to go, but Obama came in by default rather than good policy.

Now..Obama, drunk as a skunk on the rush of power, has been exposed as the Socialist power monger that he really is.

Van Jones
Apollo Alliance
Al Gore
Weather Underground
-Jeff Jones
-Bernadette Dorhn
-Bill Ayers
Unions. Stern being his most frequent visitor at the whitehouse.
Refuge Cities and flagrantly neglecting his legal responsibilities to protect the border

It just goes on..and on...and on..and on.

FLATUS is on the nose too, with her tax-payer funded jaunt to Spain while the rest of the country is doing it tough.

Not so Proxy. A large share of America is still doing very well.
Just look at how they scramble for their i-phones and i-pods,
millions of them.

In fact some of America's largest corporations are sitting on
over 800 billion $ in cash, wondering how to spend it.

Yes, Michelle and her daughter took a holiday, along with a bunch
of friends. She's paying her own personal expenses. So what?

Blame your friend George for driving the American economy into
the ground, not Michelle. AFAIK she does not even work for the
American Govt, they don't pay her a wage for her services.

This is as petty and small minded as Clinton's bit of oral sex,
which fascinated and obsessed the conservative conservatives for
years! How small minded of them, and you. Never mind the disaster
created by the last bunch of republicans, we'll just focus on
some trivia and turn a molehill into a mountain

Yabby,

It's fascinating to watch how your bias subverts your ability to reason.
Is it deliberate or reflexive?

<<In fact some of America's largest corporations are sitting on
over 800 billion $ in cash, wondering how to spend it.>>
Yeah, we all know how well the economy must be doing when the smartest people liquidate their investments and stick them under the mattress.

<<This is as petty and small minded as Clinton's bit of oral sex>>
CEO soliciting oral sex from intern in boardroom, denies accusations
= sexual harassment, abuse of power and sacking.
Liberal icon president soliciting oral sex from intern in oval office, denies accusations under oath
= private issue, smutty-minded Republicans and elevation in mind of like-minded devotees.

*It's fascinating to watch how your bias subverts your ability to reason.*

Not so Proxy, I am simply better informed, with superior
reasoning skills to yours.

*Yeah, we all know how well the economy must be doing when the smartest people liquidate their investments and stick them under the mattress.*

Proxy, do you have the foggiest, remotest idea, how smart people
even make investment decisions? Fact is that the US market has
responded far too much, so many are taking profits. That makes
perfect sense in the present market. Fact is that there are huge
volumes of cash around. People will invest, when they see a bargain,
not just for the sake of it. American wages remain the highest in
the world, with most people having a job. Hardly hard times.

What Americans are doing, which is sensible, is learning to spend
a bit less then they earn and saving a bit, something which they
had largely forgotten. Yet when that new I-pad comes along,
millions have the cash to buy one.

*Liberal icon president soliciting oral sex from intern in oval office,*

Oops, Proxy, the evidence shows that she was ready,willing and able,
big difference! Office affairs are a dime a dozen. That was
really his business, not the republican party's business.
Instead, the republicans stuck a dummie in there who was battling
to think, then ruined the country. It kind of shows the priorities
of the extreme right and how foolish they are

America, you're in good hands with Obama:

"(Obama is) so driven to achieve his big-government policy goals that he and his policy people are ignoring their own economic advisers on the severe economic costs that his agenda will cause. “

“Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers … have almost no say in major policy decisions. Obama economic counselor Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman, is barely consulted at all on just about anything -- not even issues involving the banking system, of which he is among the world's leading authorities.”

At most, the economic people and their staffs get asked to do cost analyses of Obama's initiatives for the White House political people -- who then ignore their advice.”

“Obama, according to Wall Street people who regularly deal with his economic and budget officials, is acting as if he has a blank check to do what he wants, while ignoring the longterm costs of his policies.”

"As one CEO of a major financial firm told me: "The economic guys say that when they explain the costs of programs, the policy guys simply thank them for their time and then ignore what they say."
In other words, the economic people feel that they have almost no say in this administration's policy decisions.”

“The execs who had such hopes for the president are now wondering fearfully just how radical he really is.”

“The (former Wall Street executive and longtime Democrat) said he told the president that he's at a disadvantage because he's relatively inexperienced in economic matters during a time of economic crisis. "That's why I have Valerie," came Obama's reply.
"Valerie" is senior adviser Valerie Jarrett -- a Chicago real-estate attorney and one of Obama's closest friends, who has deep ties to the Windy City's Democratic political machine.
Now you know why Wall Street is so nervous.”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/burned_by_obama_CRw506e4NQv1C9IkTVM7tO

The New York Post eh Proxy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post

Voted as the least credible news source in Ney York. Another
Murdoch tabloid, I'm not sure if they have a page 3 girl,
like his similar tabloids.

If you want some credible news about what the business community
thinks, what Summers, Geithner, Volcker and others think,
they all appear regularly on Bloomberg and say what they
think. You are free to inform yourself if you wish.