Read this comment by artist Jon McNaughton:

I am just one person, a citizen of this country using my first amendment rights to speak out through my art. This is my declaration that we have never had a president do more to harm our country than Barack Obama.

 

When I started I wondered if I could put everything he’s done into a single painting. I included over 60 symbols that represent his failures as our President far more than I originally anticipated.

 

All of these symbols are based on fact and linked on my website to credible new sources. To those who would scoff or trivialize this painting, I challenge you to go to my website and study the interactive map and read the sources. No American can analyze these symbols and learn about these facts and in good conscious vote for Barack Obama in 2012. Some people may say this painting is controversial and disturbing but it’s worth it if it will wake up even a single American - because this painting is a representation of Obama’s presidency.

FROM THE TEXT:

Three million more Americans are out of work than four years ago, and the national debt is $5 trillion bigger. Partisan gridlock is worse than ever: health-care reform, a genuinely impressive achievement, has become a prime source of rancour. Businessfolk are split over whether he dislikes capitalism or is merely indifferent to it. His global-warming efforts have evaporated. America’s standing in the Muslim world is no higher than it was under George W. Bush, Iran remains dangerous, Russia and China are still prickly despite the promised resets, and the prison in Guantánamo remains open. . .

 

A man who four years ago epitomised hope will arrive in Charlotte with a campaign that thus far has been about invoking fear. . .

 

But he needs to distinguish between a creditable desire to help the weak and a dangerous preference for the public over the private sector. The jobs that poor Americans need will be created by companies. Smothering firms in red tape is not the way to help them; Mr Obama should vow to stop adding to it, and to start cutting some of it away.

 

Incumbents tend to win presidential elections, but second-term presidents tend to be disappointing. Mr Obama’s first-term record suggests that, if re-elected, he could be the lamest of ducks. That’s why he needs a good answer to the big question: just what would you do with another four years?

You should read the text and not cut and paste to suit your bigotted inclinations.

Barack Obama’s economic record End-of-term report The president’s record is better than the woes of America’s economy suggests NOT since 1933 had an American president taken the oath of office in an economic climate as grim as it was when Barack Obama put his left hand on the Bible in January 2009. The banking system was near collapse, two big car manufacturers were sliding towards bankruptcy; and employment, the housing market and output were spiralling down. Hemmed in by political constraints, presidents typically have only the slightest influence over the American economy. Mr Obama, like Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 and Ronald Reagan in 1981, would be an exception. Not only would his decisions be crucial to the recovery, but he also had a chance to shape the economy that emerged. As one adviser said, the crisis should not be allowed to go to waste.

Did Mr Obama blow it? Nearly four years later, voters seem to think so: approval of his economic management is near rock-bottom, the single-biggest obstacle to his re-election. This, however, is not a fair judgment on Mr Obama’s record, which must consider not just the results but the decisions he took, the alternatives on offer and the obstacles in his way. Seen in that light, the report card is better. His handling of the crisis and recession were impressive. Unfortunately, his efforts to reshape the economy have often misfired. And America’s public finances are in a dire state.

Seven weeks before Mr Obama defeated John McCain in November 2008, Lehman Brothers collapsed. AIG was bailed out shortly afterwards. The rescues of Bank of America and Citigroup lay ahead. In the final quarter of 2008, GDP shrank at an annualised rate of 9%, the worst in nearly 50 years.

Even before Mr Obama took office, therefore, there was a risk that investor confidence would vanish in the face of a messy transition to an untested president. The political vacuum between FDR’s victory in 1932 and his inauguration the next year made those months among the worst of the Depression.

Mr Obama did what he could to ease those fears. As candidate and senator, he had backed the unpopular Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) cobbled together by Henry Paulson, George Bush’s treasury secretary. After the election he selected Tim Geithner, who had been instrumental to the Bush administration’s response to the crisis, as his own treasury secretary. The rest of his economic team—Larry Summers, who had been Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary; Peter Orszag, a fiscally conservative director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO); and Christina Romer, a highly regarded macroeconomist—were similarly reassuring.

Resolving a systemic financial crisis requires recapitalising weak financial institutions and moving their bad loans from the private to the public sector. Under Mr Bush, the government injected cash into the banks. But doubts about lenders’ ability to survive a worsening recession persisted. Mr Obama faced calls to nationalise the weakened banks and force them to lend, or to let them fail. Mr Summers and Mr Geithner reckoned either step would shatter confidence in the financial system, and instead hit upon a series of “stress tests” to determine which banks had enough capital. Those that failed could either raise more capital privately or get it from TARP.

The first reaction was one of dismay—stocks tanked. Pundits predicted Mr Geithner would soon be gone. But the tests proved tough and transparent enough to persuade investors that the banking system had nothing nasty left to hide. Banks were forced to raise hundreds of billions of dollars of equity. Bank-capital ratios now exceed pre-crisis levels and most of their TARP money has been repaid at a profit to the government. Europe’s stress tests were laxer, and some banks that passed have subsequently had to be bailed out.

General Motors and Chrysler presented a different challenge. Ordinarily a failing manufacturer would shed debts and slim down under court-supervised bankruptcy. But in 2009 no lender would provide the huge “debtor-in-possession” financing that a reorganisation of the two would require. Bankruptcy meant liquidation. That would have wiped out local economies and suppliers just as the banks were being rescued. On the other hand, simply bailing-out badly run companies would have been too generous.

Mr Obama’s solution was to force both carmakers into bankruptcy protection, then provide the financing necessary to reorganise, on condition that both eliminated unneeded capacity and workers. Both companies emerged from bankruptcy within a few months. Chrysler, now part of Italy’s Fiat, is again profitable, as is GM, which returned to the stockmarket in 2010. Nonetheless, the government will probably lose money on these two rescues..............buy the magazine to read the rest..... It is not  as this fool would want to suggest but a fair piece.

Stormy is supporting two losing party, the AFC of Guyana and the Democrats of the U.S.A. The AFC has more third class quality than the Dalits of India, and Obama who wish to serve two terms with low credits to his presidency. Do you know Obama is worst than George W? Yes, he is! What say you Stormy boy? Show me the beef!

The PPP dalit bigots on GNI are more interesting

In what areas, ABIDHA?

Any way, the president after the November 2012 election will be ...

Boy, you need to work on your etiquette.

The AFC won. They may campaign on one way to win because they had to but they had two ways to win...making the PPP a minority government.

Obama won from McCain the war hero and he will win again because the GOP is campaigning against a man only they can see...yes the one Eastwood saw in the chair.

Now that we have an end to that scripted contrived feel good blaa of a whitey convention the republican had is over...we are in for the real one in NC attended by a cross section of America.

That GW was a backward step for America is not conjecture but fact. I do not even think the question is worth considering.

I am quite certain Obama is going to win.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/fu.../fri-august-31-2012-

this is fun.

eh? . . . dalit

A BETTER FURTURE FOR AMERICA

Click and weep if you are a supporter of America first muslim born Kenyan marxist president, Odinga Hussein Obambi---he'll be evicted from the white house in 60+ days.

Rev

This is why Obama is likely to lose: the betrayal factor among lower-income Democrats who thought (in 2008) that he would stand up to Wall Street's demands (instead of dedicating his administration to serving them.) There are probably some people out there who actually support Medicare cuts, and they will cheerfully vote for Romney, who has never tried to hide the fact that he is an a$$hole.

The difference, of course, is that in 1933 we had a President who actually entered office with the intention of doing something about it. Roosevelt passed landmark legislation within months of his inauguration to stifle speculation and restart the physical economy. Obama has spent four years bailing out and otherwise perpetuating the cancerous speculation.

God bless the American saviour Romney. God bless America.

Time for a real president, time for Mr. Romney to govern America and bring back the lost dignity to a proud and powerful nation.

You prefer dem boys to get reamed by the white man eh YUJI?

Dont be a fool, speculation was not invented by Obama. The GOP stripped away the last of the restraints and do you think Romney plan to put them back in place? By the way, did Roosevelt have the Tea Party and their absolutely ridiculous demands.

With ===>

BILL CLINTON ON OBAMA: A FEW YEARS AGO THIS BOY WOULD HAVE BEEN CARRYING OUR BAGS

The New York post headline today--Labor day or Empty Chair day:

BUBBA'S O "SLUR" - HE'D HAVE CARRIED OUR BAGS

QUESTION:

Is Bill Clinton a racist for stating that America's first muslim born kenyan marxist president Odinga Hussein Obambi would have carried his bags a few years back ?

Rev

Guess what? Hillary carrying Obama's bag today. Isn't life funny?

Ronald bhaiji, something is ironic if the result is the opposite of what was intended; an ironic event is an incongruous event, one at odds with what might have been expected.

Rev is having fun by being ironic.

The Rev is a closet democrat. He adores and admires his idol Barack Obama. Rev is praying that Obama wins so he can continue using his EBT card.

I agree with you. Rev wants Obama to win but he is being provocative. You have a great day Mitwah. 

LOL.. When I read that out aloud... it sounds like he beetee card...

Have a great day too. Om Shanti!

yuji sits down in Canada with its ample welfare benefits, government controlled SINGLE PAYER health care system and its generous pension benefits (even homemakers who have never had paid employment get enough to go on vacations).

Yet he doesnt think that Americans deserve even 10% of this.

Yuji hatred of blacks is not a good thing.  One day your Canadian PM might look over the border at the Romney/Ryan lunacy (if they win) and demand that Canadians pay for their own health insurance, and see their retirement subject to the vagaries of the equity markets and watch disabled people scramble in the garbage for food.  All that we will have under the Romney/Ryan machine.

This while in true Gatsby style trust fund kids squander their grandparent's wealth on the latest drug of choice, this while paying ZERO income taxes.