But now, in the last few days, as Europe's economy and the single currency stand on the precipice, these same leaders have begun to eat their words.

On Tuesday, German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble called for the second time in a week for changes to the treaties. "Strengthening the eurozone's architecture ... may need profound treaty changes," he wrote in an opinion piece for the Financial Times.

According to populist daily Bild, the finance minister made the argument for a major shift in fiscal policy-making powers to Brussels, a move that would almost certainly necessitate a fresh opening of the treaties holding the bloc together. This must be done, he said, "even though we know how difficult a treaty change will be."

The outgoing head of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, for his part on Monday told participants at a Paris conference that the bloc required a European "federal government with a federal finance minister."

"We are discovering that we cannot live with this incompleteness any more."

Gerhard Schroeder, the former German chancellor on Sunday said "Countries will have to give up some of their national sovereignty." His vision involves fiscal powers being given to the commission or a European finance minister under the control of the European Parliament as "the ultimate authority". "The commission will have to be turned into a government that is controlled, in parliamentary terms, by the European Parliament. That translates into a United States of Europe."

A newly established think-tank, the Council on the Future of Europe, whose members include Schroeder, Tony Blair, former commission president Jacques Delors, former Spanish prime minister Felipe Gonzalez and economists Nouriel Roubini and Joseph Stiglitz on Monday issued a manifesto that called not just full fiscal union, but for parallel political union.

"It will be necessary to further lay out a vision of a federation that goes beyond a fiscal and economic mandate to include a common security, energy, climate, immigration and foreign policy as well as develop a common narrative about the future of the union and its place in the world," the document read. "Nation states will need to share certain dimensions of sovereignty to a central European entity that would have the capacity to source revenue at the federal level in order to provide European-wide public goods."

"Can these results be trusted?" Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, questioned in an interview with The Christian Post, "there's often a big difference between what the polls say and how people really feel, how they really vote."If you pass same sex marriage, then that places homosexuality on the same level as race. But it has a profound impact on our liberty."

The impact he describes regards forcing Christian or other religious workers to be forced to adapt their business policies to accept a pro-gay agenda. There have already been several lawsuits against Christian business owners who refuse to serve homosexual couples due to religious beliefs.

Also, many opponents of homosexual marriage claim that children do better when raised with a mother and a father. If gay marriage is legalized, the couple will more than likely be able to adopt or have children.

The poll also concludes that 48 percent of the respondents said they would favor an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. About 40 percent would strongly favor such a change, 43 percent said they would oppose such an amendment, and eight percent were neutral on the issue.

Attack Watch features hot topics that are in the news concerning Obama's policies and provides links to professional fact-checking sites such as Media Matters. However, the site also has a section where the viewer can report, "lies," "rumors," and "smears" they encounter either by word of mouth, email, articles seen in newspapers, video and other sources.

"There are a lot of folks on the other side who are chomping at the bit to distort the President's record. It's not a question of if the next big lie will come, just when - and what we're prepared to do about it," said Jim Messina, campaign manager for Obama for America in an email released Tuesday.

However, the premiere of the website might not have gone according to plan. The site is a throwback to Obama's 2008 campaign website, "Fight the Smears," which had similar motivations to combat negative statements against his campaign. It also mirrors the hotly contested email account, flagh@whitehouse.gov, in which citizens were encouraged to inform Obama of negative things said about his healthcare policies in 2009.

Many people, conservatives in particular, see this as a "tattle-tell" or an Orwellian-like website. The new campaign site also has a Twitter feed, @AttackWatch, for people to follow for updates. It is currently a trending topic on Twitter, perhaps, for very different reasons the Obama team was hoping to achieve. It has instead become a new punching bag for Republicans and conservatives who claim the president has thin skin when it comes to critiques of his policies.