State of the Union

I survived the State of the Union, though I did hear someone say he almost hit 100 counts of self mentioning. I watched Bob McDonnell's rebuttal and plenty of analysis of both speeches. All of it has had my wheels turning for a few days.

Obama's speech was unnerving in many ways. For starters, much of what he said was a repeat of past speeches. He threw a couple of crumbs to Republicans in the form of energy, tax breaks for small businesses, and a few other token items. He also omitted terrorism all together, which he had to because he is failing miserably on terrorism.

That goes to my point: watch what he does. He can't even talk about terrorism because his actions have been reprehensible and there is no amount of glittery speech making that can cover it up. I think it is great that Americans tuned in on Wednesday. They are trying to be informed. The more difficult task is ahead though. It is so hard to really pay attention enough to know what is happening.

Did any of you know that a $154 billion jobs bill went through in mid-December? I sure didn't I was busy celebrating the Christmas season with my family as were you, and they knew it. That bill simply refills some areas that have gone empty since the bogus $787 billion spent last February, but there is a favorite newbie:

The bill also allows very poor people with as little as no income to claim a $1,000-per-child tax credit in what Republicans charged was simply a welfare payment to 16 million poor families.

Excellent. See what I mean? WATCH and learn. Speeches are great for boredom, and the analysis may be oddly entertaining to weirdos like me, but the real proof is in the pudding. I have a feeling Congress will still try in various ways to get all of their liberal initiatives passed, even if just in small bits and pieces attached to other benign sounding bills. They're crooks.

To clarify on why my mean selfish self does not like the government sending $1000 checks per baby to the poor:

1. This sort of policy is widely abused and the encourages people to have babies for a check when they have no intention of loving them, teaching them, or caring for their many needs. That further burdens the system and further devalues the miracle of life.
2. It is unconstitutional for the government to take my money to give to someone else.
3. I believe we should all help the poor and if we don't we will be held accountable before our Maker after this life for not showing charity to those who need it most. That's just it though - it's my job, not the government's. Sometimes I wish you were required to pay a fee for voting for a Democrat. I mean, everyone who voted these jokers into action in effect voted for the government to take my money to "give to the poor" and if I don't comply, I go to jail. Put your money where your mouth is, get out there, and give your own money away.
4. Unconstitutional!

132 Reasons I Don't Want to Watch

The President's State of the Union address is tonight. I feel like I should watch, but it's always so hard to stomach it! This clip from Breitbart TV embodies one of the major reasons I can't stand to listen to him. He referred to himself 132 times in a jobs speech last week. I guess the thinking goes with the fact that he was elected purely on likability. So if people like him and he only talks about himself then what's not to like about the speech?

We'll see if I can actually get through the speech. If I make it that far, I may not be smart enough to make an intelligible post. The other thing I'm always interested in is whether the Republicans can actually deliver an applicable resonating message. Game on!

Barney Frank: ‘God Didn’t Create the Filibuster’

Breitbart.tv » Barney Frank: ‘God Didn’t Create the Filibuster’

Hallelujah!

I hope you all enjoyed the news tonight as much as I did. I sat in a chair "reading" an audio book for my book club this week as I watched the votes come in and occasionally hit pause to listen to a commentator, concession speech, or victory speech. A Republican took the Senate seat held by Democrat Ted Kennedy for over 50 years tonight. In a Democratic state. There are twice as many Democrats in Massachusetts than there are Republicans.

Brown won tonight because the supporters he had were passionate. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid government that is shoving policies we can't afford in our faces, all the while reducing our individual liberties, is evoking a depth of emotion I don't think has even come full swing. If they're not sure how Americans feel, they'll know after they try some foolish antic like resolution on the health care bill. People are going to go nuts, and I think I may just join them.

It's gone beyond policy or political affiliation. I've heard Democrats all week talking about reconciliation. When asked if they would do it, knowing that the majority of Americans oppose the bill, they say yes. Their reason - they know what we need better than we do. At this point I think they could introduce the most conservative sensible legislation possible and nobody would pay attention because they have sold their credibility. The mere fact that they are willing to go against the will of the people means they are unfit to run the country.

I hope the Democrats are smarter than all of this. I really hope they wise up and listen to Americans. We're so forgiving, really. Just say you were wrong and change your ways. Transparency, bi-partisanship...you know, some of those fancy words you threw around during the campaign?

*I'm too tired to make sure I have the official definition of reconciliation for you. In a nutshell, it's a loop hole procedure that allows proposed legislation to become law without the traditionally needed majority. My understanding is that it was created for times of emergency, like war, when decisions need to be made and money often needs to be spent quickly without time for discussion and voting. NOT for passing massive overhauls of the economy and fundamentally changing America.

**Correction to my first paragraph - 3 times as many Democrats in MA as Republicans. 12% of the voter population is Republican.

Brown vs. Coakley

Today, for me, is almost the equivalent of this past Sunday for Cowboys fans. Let's hope things go differently for those of us rooting for this guy than they did for the Cowboys!



Last night, even the most liberal polls were showing Scott Brown in a neck and neck race with his Democratic opponent, Martha Coakley. Other polls showed him up as much as 9 points. All of that is meaningless if the voters don't get out and vote so we'll just see what happens today. Watch the news when you get the chance!

People from all over the country have been sending his campaign money and making calls to voters from the comfort of their home. I tried to sign up to do this, but maybe I was too late because they never sent me a password to sign into the phone bank.

In any event - there is a chance a Republican could win Ted Kennedy's senate seat today. Talk about history. Could be a cool day. Could be business as usual. I'm crossing my fingers that even liberal Massachusetts would like to send a message to the growing beast of a federal government we have. Oh, and in case you are not aware, Ted Kennedy's seat is also the 60th vote needed to pass Obamacare. If Brown wins, Republicans make up 41 votes and will actually have some degree of an impact on policy between now and November. Kind of important.

Enjoy the game! :)

Scott Brown for U.S. Senate. Make a contribution.

Scott Brown for U.S. Senate. Make a contribution.

Populism

On occasion, I like to introduce word definitions to the blog. In politics, there are words out there that I think most of us know the meaning of. If we don't know the exact definition, we know enough about the English language to derive the general meaning.

Yesterday I was listening to a reporter discuss one of the latest bright ideas of the Obama administration: bank fees for 2011 totaling about $100 billion dollars. Rumor has it that reports will soon be released for 2009 boasting heavy profits and perhaps even (gasp) bonuses will go to those who are responsible. So, they must be punished! The administration is not bothering to point out that unlike other industries (GM, AIG), most of the banks have paid back their TARP money plus interest.

Multiple times in the report, the journalist used the word "populism" and something about his use made me think there was more meaning to the word than my own interpretation of the administration doing what was popular. So, thanks to dictionary.com:

pop·u·lism

1. A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.

2. The movement organized around this philosophy.

Aha...The government needs money. The banks are known for paying up. There is a widespread movement in this country against those who have money. The government plans to use this ideological movement to their political advantage to gain public support for a plan that unfairly punishes banks who have performed well under difficult circumstances. Wow. The power of a word to open your eyes.

When did Americans start this crazy "take from the top" mentality? Is this the result of watching ridiculous reality shows about lazy rich people in their ridiculously decked out homes? Does America think that is how you get rich?

Along the same rant, Obama met with unions this week to discuss health care. One of the union representatives interviewed about it touted the importance of making sure that "working people's" needs are met in this legislation. Again, the politics of words. I'm so sick of unions claiming they represent "working people." People all over the country are fending for their own benefits and salaries every day as they work to try to hang on to their job. They don't have a fat union watching over them, so I guess they are not really "working?" Nobody is at the table for them in this health care scam.

I think it is most important to realize that the government only uses this ideology to gain power. They are not ACTUALLY going to take from the "haves" and give it to the "have-nots." They just use it to sell their government expansion policies.

Cold

A friend forwarded this to me today and it made me laugh. Since it seems to be unusually cold everywhere, I think all will enjoy this today.



Now, let me give you a heads up: It will warm up in a few months. Then we will be paying unusually high prices for produce due to the damaged crops this month. While those of us willing to pay the price for fresh produce (in order to maintain our own good health) are paying the higher prices, the now-warm Democrats will be figuring out ways to send more of our money to the farmers who lost their crops. I doubt the farmers will seen a dime, but this will enable legislators to fund a global warming study and put a little cash into the pockets of the green intellectuals who vote for them. Those are, after all, some of the few jobs that have been "saved" in all of this nonsense. Saved until their grant money runs out, at least. Capitalism is really far simpler. Really!