Thursday, January 28, 2010

My Thoughts on the State of the Union

By now I bet you've probably read everything you wanted to hear about the State of the Union speech, but if you want my take on it, here it goes. Personally, I was a bit confused, because the TOTUS (Teleprompter Of The United States) kept switching between being an ignorant idiot, and an outright liar. So here's my play-by-play of just the SOTU's highlights:

I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children, asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.
You can just answer that it's your Administration's economic policies that discourage businesses from hiring their parents.

They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't.
It's because the Administration was more interested in bailing out Wall Street than in giving tax cuts for Main Street.

It's time the American people get a government that matches their decency, that embodies their strength.
Yes, we'll start doing this in November 2010, and finish in 2012.

And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans -- and everybody in between -- it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it.
But you voted for it.

And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today.
No, mister President, you said that if you don't bail them out, unemployment would go over 8%. Well, you had your way, and unemployment is still at 10.2%. So much for your labor market forecasts...

Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.
They already paid back, with confiscatory interests rates and fines, which almost bankrupted some smaller banks.

...and passed 25 different tax cuts. Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses.
WHAT???? Are you mocking us, Mr. President? Is the teleprompter playing a prank on you??

Now, because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed.
Really? Which ones? Last time I checked, there were about 2 million more American out of work since you took office.

And we're on track to add another 1.5 million jobs to this total by the end of the year.
And probably 1.5 million others will lose your jobs because of your policies.

But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.
Hint: The only thing Government can do to help businesses expand and hire more people is by reducing regulations and cutting taxes.

... and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient
You mean, if my neighbor wants an energy efficient appliance, I should pay for it??

And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas
What?? Is there a tax break if I outsource a job off-shore? How do I get it? Can you give me some specifics?

We can't afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from last decade, what some call the "lost decade," where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion, where the income of the average American household declined.
First of all, in the last decade we had the longest period of jobs growth in our entire history. Second, stop using "household"-related statistics, because household sizes is decreasing. Why don't you use simple reference points like "per capita"? Oh, because that income is growing and it doesn't help your populist tirade?

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China's not waiting to revamp its economy; Germany's not waiting; India's not waiting.
Yes, you're right, they're lowering business and corporate taxes. China is drilling for oil 90 miles from Florida, while you don't let us do it.

You can see the results of last year's investments in clean energy in the [...] California business that will put 1,000 people to work making solar panels.
...Which no one is buying, because if there would be a demand for that, you'll have a lot of businesses building them without any help from the Government.

But to create more of these clean-energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives, and that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.
Now he's joking again, right? Democrats have been opposing nuclear and oil refineries for DECADES. Do you have any idea when the last nuclear plant or oil refinery was built in the United States??

And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.
Now back to the previous affirmation, will you be fair and provide the exact same incentives to clean energy AND to nuclear and oil drilling businesses?

I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.
Yes, for example yourself, Mr. President, seem to disagree with the overwhelming evidence that global warming is a hoax.

So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support 2 million jobs in America.
Oh man, did I just hear that? It reminds me of communist Romania, when the Great Leader would decide that we'll double production over 5 years, and then tell us it happened after only 4 years, although there was no factual support for that?

And let's tell another 1 million students that, when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years, and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college.
Did the Obamination really say that? So taxpayers are supposed to subsidize people who want to work for the Government? As if we don't support a bureaucracy that's already way too big and expensive? Listen Obozo. People shouldn't go bankrupt because they went to college. They should go to college because they expect better opportunities (which doesn't include a dead-end do-nothing Government job). And if they think it's not worth it, then nobody's forcing them to go to college, if not going to college will make you better off financially.

And by the way, I want to acknowledge our first lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make kids healthier. Thank you, honey. She gets embarrassed.
Obesity is not a disease, therefore it's not an epidemic, and taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for other people's bad choices. And by the way, is it me, or did Michelle have the same look on her face that Hillary used to have when Bill was cheating on her?

And according to the Congressional Budget Office, the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress, our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.
So this will cost us $1 trillion per year, but will save us $50 billions every year? Is that what you're saying?

Still, this is a complex issue. And the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people.
Now he's telling us we're stupid.

As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. What??? Did global warming just stop??

But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.
OK, there you go:
- bring down premiums: allow competition across state lines
- bring down the deficit: the deficit is a Government thing, so just jeep the Government out of this altogether
- cover the uninsured: which ones? Poor people: they're covered by Medicaid; Illegals: send them home; People who choose not to get insurance: well, I thought you're pro-choice
- stop insurance company abuses: Reduce regulations so companies don't need to find ways to go around them

So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion.

By -- by the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.
So why $8 trillions over 10 years? Meaning $800 billions per year? With two wars, two tax cuts and the expensive prescription drug program, Bush kept the deficit around $3-400 billions. I understand you'll stop the wars, increase taxes and kill the elderly, so why is your deficit doubling or even tripling?

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will not be affected, but all other discretionary government programs will. We will continue to go through the budget line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year.
Now he's mocking us again. So he'll keep spending trillion after trillion on his pet projects but thank God he's saving us $20 billions! Can you believe him?? It's like ordering 2 supersize double cheeseburgers with large fries - and a diet coke.

That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why, for the first time in history, my administration posts our White House visitors online.
Yes, I've seen those two visitors online - on YouTube mocking your White House security.

That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.
Are you lying in our face? Your Administration is filled with lobbyists! From the Attorney General to almost everybody in the Treasury Department, the Secretary of Agriculture, and tons of czars and other jobs!

Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there's a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.
Would it be the same website which showed thousands of jobs created in districts that don't exist?

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day.
You're dam' right! So please stop acting like you're still campaigning! Mr. President, you gave 400 speeches in your first year, don't you think it's a tad too much??

The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators.
Are you referring to months of filibustering of Judge Sam Alito? Or to the dozen federal judgeships that were open for 8 years because they couldn't get to an up-or-down vote in the Senate?

I'd like to begin monthly meetings with both Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can't wait.
Ah! Now you have to do it! For one year you never had at least ONE meeting with the Republican leadership, because you didn't think it necessary, with a large majority in the House and supermajority in the Senate. But now that Scott Brown won, you'll have to do it!

I know that all of us love this country.
No kidding. "Us"? YOU really love this country? Then why do you keep apologizing for it everywhere you go. It's like saying you love your wife, but everytime you'd meet a stranger you'd say sorry that she's fat, sorry that she speaks too much, sorry that she doesn't clean the house. That's not love, Mr. President!

As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as president.
What exactly do you mean by "end this war"? In my view, you "win" a war, or "lose" a war, that's how it ends. So, can you clarify? Because sorry, but I don't understand this concept of "ending a war".

I've embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan [...]

And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C., behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists.
So let's hear, what's the plan on getting Iran ad North Korea on this deal?

And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise.
Yo yo yo. What did you say? Is that a threat? Whatchu gonna do, huh? Will you post something on their Facebook? Will you throw Michelle's purse at Ahmadinejad next time you see him at the UN?

Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country.
Harry Reid is yawning. Janet Napolitano is dozing off.

I campaigned on the promise of change, change we can believe in, the slogan went.
I was playing Modern Warfare 2 the other day and I was imagining a secret operation with a commando unit that would infiltrate the White House basement and neutralize the teleprompter' power generator. Can you imagine that? I can see the President remaining limp like a zombie... or like those drones from Attack of the Clones.

Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions -- our corporations, our media
Oh, that's how you explain the tanking ratings of CNN, or the fact that MSNBC has fewer viewers than the fishing shows on Versus?

We don't quit. I don't quit.
No worries. We'll vote you out.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Local Conservatives on FoxNews

Today, Mark Falzon of the Jersey Shore Tea Party was invited on Fox News to discuss the Rush Holt townhall from 2 days ago. You can see here the entire clip. Pay attention to the beginning, which features Rhoda Chodosh fighting for the microphone with the Congressman.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

More from Rush Holt's Townhall - Video and Images

First, you should read my detailed account of the townhall.

And for some media coverage:

- Alesha Williams Boyd talks about heckling Holt in the Asbury Park Press

- Paul Mulshine blogged about it on Star Ledger

- Fox5 was there and here is a brief news story:

And now here are some of the photos that were taken through the night:

Having some immature fun:

Quality time with my Congressman:

Rush Holt is asked about Scott Brown's win in MA:

I take the stage, asking a question, and waiting for an answer:

Funny moment of the night:

Mike Halfacre has a new fan:

Monday, January 25, 2010

An Evening with Rush Holt

You can now read my follow up, with news clips, video and photos.

Tonight I attended Congressman's Rush Holt townhall in Marlboro. I was really wondering whether people are still sensitive to these liberals and the policies they're forcing on us, and yes, they are. When I got there 45 minutes in advance, there were just a handful of people in the room (all friendlies), but eventually there were about a 100 and I should say no more than 5 were Holt supporters. I have to admit it must be depressing for a guy like Rush Holt to keep facing the electorate only to find out that a large majority of his constituents don't like him.

The "uniqueness" of Rush Holt so far has been that he doesn't like dialogue. At all his townhalls last year, he'd have people write questions on pieces of paper, put them in a box, he'd pick them "at random", and if he'd like them he'd read them and give a response. No matter if he wasn't even responding to the question, there was no kind of dialogue. And they choose this format for today too.

At the start, Rush Holt came to me, as I was standing in the front row, and asked if he can sit next to me. Well, next to me was Rhoda's seat, and there were all kind of anti-Holt signs. So he mvoed one seat over. Pictures of him next to "Fire Holt" signs will be posted later. After a short introduction by Marlboro's Democratic Mayor Jon Hornik, Holt began his ultra-boring speech. He kept reading from his folder, and people got irritated, start shouting at him, asking questions, trying to get him to justify his positions, but Holt was totally unphased. No emotion, no reaction, just like a radio show you can ignore. At one point, someone shouted that it's like a "breathing robocall", to which even the Mayor (who was very cool through the evening) couldn't help laughing.

And then, the Q&A started. Meaning, Hornik would pick a question, would "evaluate" it, pass it to Holt, he'd read it, and give a lecture. People were getting angrier and angrier because he was avoiding direct answers, would say lots of lies, and again, would refuse to clarify his answers or stay on point. There was a lot of shouting back and forth. And then it was Rebel Rhoda's turn. She's Canadian-born, so her question was related to Canadian healthcare. Besides saying that "Canadian healthcare is not good", Holt avoided a clear answer. Rhoda got up, went to him, grabbed his microphone, and Holt wrestled it back from her. Holt whined that there's not a civil climate for discussion, and people yelled that HE doesn't want a discussion. Mayhem erupted, Holt's goons came in, and finally Mayor Hornik found a compromise solution: The writer of that question would come forward, read his question, and be allowed to follow up. Which meant, turning this into a real town hall! Something Holt has never done before! Following this change, spirits calmed, and it was a real dialogue with Holt.

So here are a few brief comments from the townhall:
One real gem from Rush Holt, answering a question on illegal immigration:
"How do you distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants?"
(You can check for their ID's. Or ask them something in English, to break the ice)

Asked how to fix the bankrupt Social Security system, he said:
"Social security... err... needs a... err... financial tune-up"
(Really? Just a tune-up?)

Someone asked how does he feel about Scott Brown's victory. Holt was confused, then smiled and said:
"I'm glad I live in New Jersey"
Of course, people shouted "not for long" at him.

Then the mayor picked my question... Actually one of my 5 questions, because I filled up multiple forms, and it was the worst of them (last one I wrote). I was asking him if he'd vote for the healthcare bill in the version that passed the Senate. I was curious, because unless the House votes for the Senate bill without modifications, it would have to go back to the Senate where the Dems don't have enough votes to pass it. Holt said he wouldn't vote for it because it doesn't go far enough, and it needs to be amended.

Holt repeatedly said that he's not worried about the way the Administration's spending is increasing deficits. He even said:
"Sometimes, it's not bad to borrow."
But then, a constituent questioned his votes in 2001-2002 against tax breaks and tax incentives. Holt's response was that it would've increased the deficit. The Bush 3-400 billions deficit bad. Obama 2 trillion deficit good.

And finally, another memorable Rush Holt gem:
"America is such a great and rich country because of Government spending!"
Might I comment that if that were true, then the Weimar Republic would've become the greatest nation on Earth, and wouldn't have resulted in hyperinflation and the rise of Adolf Hitler.

The conclusion is that Rush Holt remains the same unapologetic ultra-leftist liberal. He might have a niche in his district, but recent elections are showing that people are getting tired with that. And in the two of his townhalls that I attended, I didn't really see who's supporting him. And by the way, the meeting ended with Brian getting to the microphone and saying "Let's get rid of this loser. Vote Mike Halfacre!"

Mary Pat Angelini to Run Againt Frank Pallone?

PolitickerNJ is reporting that Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini might be interested to run against Frank Pallone in NJ's 6th District. While there are plenty of candidates running in other NJ districts, so far nobody officially announced in the 6th yet.

Other names recently mentioned are Bill Barham and Diane Gooch. Former candidate Leigh Anne Bellew is also interested.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

3 Reasons to Keep Bernanke in his Position

I disagree with the GOP trying to block Ben Bernanke's reappointment as Fed chief for 3 reasons:

1) He did a pretty good job keeping the dollar stable despite the administration's disastruos policies. The dollar didn't crash and the money supply is in check despite irresponsible spending.
2) A good Fed Chairman is an unpopular one. You don't want a populist in that position.
3) You don't want Obama to appoint yet another ignorant crook (like his czars) to head the Federal Reserve

IPCC Admits It Lied About Glaciers Doomsday Forecasts

The IPCC (UN's climate change center) recently admitted that its predictions that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 were... errr.. false. But its head, Dr Rajendra Pachauri refused to resign, although he also admitted there might be other errors in the 2007 report. He also threw his team under the bus by saying it wasn't his fault, but "a collective failure by a number of people".

According to the Times:

The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.

But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.

The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.

Isn't this typical? An official UN report on which policy decision are supposed to be made was based on a media interview with one person? Isn't this like basing our energy policy on an Al Gore fictional movie? Oh wait... it is!

But there's even more. Apparently, even that glaciologist, Syed Hasnain, claims he's been erroneously quoted. He didn't say the glaciers will disappear, but they will shrink. And here's the good part. He said that glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035”. There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.

Friday, January 22, 2010

Quote of the Day: On Kennedy and Brown

Since the dean of conservative bloggers picked it as the Quote of the Day, here it is, as published on Facebook (although I won't take full credit, I paraphrased something I read):

If Ted Kennedy would see his Senate seat taken over by a Republican, he'd probably drive off a bridge.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Scott Sipprelle: Democrat or Republican?

Self-proclaimed Wall Street insider was donating to House Dems only months ago

Tom Fitzsimmons, campaign manager for 12th District Republican Congressional candidate Mike Halfacre, today questioned why self-proclaimed Wall Street insider Scott Sipprelle was making donations to five Congressional Democrats just seven months ago, in June of 2009.

"Last June was the height of the battle for Congressional Republicans," said Fitzsimmons. "The Democrats had rammed through the stimulus, cap and trade was being debated, government-run health care was on the table- and in the middle of all that, Scott Sipprelle made donations to not one, not two, but five separate Democrats."

Fitzsimmons continued "It begs the question: why? Why, in the heat of the battle against the unprecedented Pelosi/Reid/Obama agenda of government expansion, would he give money to the enemy if he opposes that agenda? And more importantly, why should voters in a Republican primary support a Wall Street insider who, seven months ago, was hedging his bets by donating to Democrats? Scott Sipprelle has a lot of explaining to do."

Fitzsimmons pointed out that of the five- Allen Boyd Jr., FL-2; Charles Melancon, LA-3; Heath Shuler, NC-11; Barron Hill, IN-9; Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, SD-1:

  • three voted for cap and trade (which passed by two votes)
  • three voted for the bloated stimulus package
  • four voted to increase national debt limit (which passed by one vote)
  • one voted for the healthcare bill

Fitzsimmons also noted that Sipprelle made the donations after Governor Chris Christie had emerged as the winner of the Republican gubernatorial primary.

"At the time we had an historic opportunity to elect a Republican Governor in New Jersey, one who needed to raise money to defeat the Corzine attack machine, and Scott Sipprelle gives more money to Democrats in Congress than he does to Chris Christie. I think that speaks volumes about what kind of "Republican" Scott Sipprelle really is."

Fitzsimmons concluded by saying "Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts on Tuesday showed once again that voters want someone with the courage of their convictions to go to Washington and oppose the Pelosi/Reid/Obama agenda. Mike Halfacre will go to Washington and oppose that agenda at every turn; Scott Sipprelle was supporting it just seven months ago. The choice for District 12 voters, in June and in November, is now clear.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Scott Brown Wins The “People’s Senate Seat”

Bayshore Tea Party Press Release
January 19, 2010

Another Bayshore Tea Party Group’s victory in our battle to
Take Back America

The Bayshore Tea Party Group, and other National and NJ Tea Party groups, have been working with Scott Brown’s team for nearly 2 months, long before the media or national GOP knew his name. The Tea Parties have sent Patriots by car, bus and train to Massachusetts to work for Scott and the American people. We have been calling Massachusetts voters with Scott’s web based calling system. We have been donating money via the internet donation system. He has been getting over a $1,000,000 in donations per day. These systems will be used in our next elections battles.

We have been working with national groups who share the same goals as the Bayshore Tea Party Group, such as the NRA-ILA, GOA-PVF and RTL. We all wanted to win the People’s Seat. It feels like 1992-93 all over again, but as a National Coalition this time. It is widely acknowledged that the Tea Parties won back the People’s Seat, not the Republican Party.

Just like King George, The Political Ruling Class must recognize that there is a Revolution against Obama’s Socialist policies, closed door legislative creation, and outright bribes for votes. We never thought Obama could make the GOP viable again in less than a year. But the GOP must have Tea Party approved candidates. RINOs will not be allowed anymore. We had enough RINO lies.

We don’t know if the GOP understands the message. Half of the MA and NJ voters are
independents – not Democrats and not Republicans…. all the polling shows that these voters are Tea Party folks … so wake up GOP or face a Third Party. If we have to form a Third Party, the GOP will become another Whig Party.

The 2009 Tea Party Revolt has turned into a 2010 Tea Party Revolution. The NJ Democrats Socialists and RINOs better start their job search – it takes a long time to find a job in the Obama Economy.

A Special Note to Comrades Rush Holt and Frank Pallone: YOU ARE NEXT!

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Stop Worrying about a Double-Dip Recession

We simply never had a double-dip recession. Ever. People who threaten us with the specter of a double-dip recession (mostly the ignorants in the media) are refusing to look at any historical facts. Never in our economic history have we had such a thing. In every case they're invoking, there were actually two separate recessions:
- In the 30's, we had a recession a few years after the Great Depression, which was caused by the prior heavy government intervention into the way business worked. It was separate from the Depression.
- Early 80's: The 1980 recession was followed by a new one in 1981, which was caused by a combination of skyrocketing fuel prices and the government's efforts to control inflation

So as you can see, it's was either Government, or external factors, that caused a close, new recession. But by the way the economic cycle is working, there is absolutely no reason to fear a double-dip recession.