Count me in on abolishing the State of the Union addresses to Congress

They're embarrassing enough anyway, on both sides, without the antics from the peanut gallery.

Dog and pony shows, trottin' out their acts. 

White supremacists stage ugly appearance at State of the Union address

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg passed out at State of the Union after drinking too much

Justice Ginsburg: Not '100% sober' at State of the Union

Maoist struggle session: So-called president shames Supreme Court surrounded by Democrat jackals who give him standing ovation

Flashback to NYT here in January 2010 and video here:

Rush Limbaugh is so stupid he thinks today's bad sales numbers were deliberately delayed until after the State of the Union address

The data release occurs on a regular schedule, which can be accessed here. There's no conspiracy to make Obama look better, as Limbaugh stated in the show opener today.

You can blame Nikki Haley, who responded to Trump not Obama, on Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell

Reported here:

". . . House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell picked Haley to deliver the GOP response to President Obama’s final State of the Union address."

Ann Coulter jokes Donald Trump should deport Republican Governor Nikki Haley who stands for open borders

Story here.

Best tweet from Coulter:

"J@s@sF-ingChr@st - even GOP response to Obama's SOTU is a paean to immigrants. And GOP can't figure out why Trump is sweeping the country."

To avoid taking God's name in vain, observant Jews similarly always spell it G-d.

Cruz to Hannity in April 2013: Citizenship is designed to be a poison pill to scuttle the whole Gang of Eight bill

The Hill reported on it here at the time:

"The part that I’ve got deep concerns about is any path to citizenship for those who are here illegally," Cruz said during an interview with Sean Hannity. "I think that is profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who have followed the rules, who have waited in line.

"I think the reason that President Obama is insisting on a path to citizenship is that it is designed to be a poison pill to scuttle the whole bill, so he can have a political issue in 2014 and 2016. I think that's really unfortunate," continued Cruz. ...

"If he actually really wanted to get something passed, he wouldn't be rolling this out as a partisan attack issue," Cruz said. "You look at the State of the Union, that was a divisive speech, that was in your face. And he knows full well that a path to citizenship won't pass the House."

"He knows that it's a partisan, divisive issue and he holds everything else hostage to that wedge issue," Cruz added. ...

"I think that it is likely that there could be some bipartisan solution to those who are here illegally if a path to citizenship were taken off the table," Cruz continued. "But as long as the president and [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)] insist on a path to citizenship they know full well it will never pass the House of Representatives and then it's just a political football rather than actually trying to fix the problem." ...

"Look, they have the votes to force something through the Senate. I think whatever mess comes out of the so-called Gang of Eight, all or virtually all of the Democrats will vote for it and it's likely they'll get a fair number of Republicans to vote for it to so they can probably get it through the Senate," Cruz added. "If it includes a path to citizenship, I don't think it'll pass the House, and I think that's exactly what the Obama White House wants."

Cruz is crazy now to characterize his amendment to the bill at the time as "the poison pill" when he was calling the citizenship provisions of the Gang of Eight bill the poison pill.

If anyone has become unhinged in this race Jeb, it's Ted Cruz. Even Mona Charen thinks Ted Cruz meant to come off as sincere in 2013. We aren't left wondering only what Marco Rubio believes about the issue, but also what Ted Cruz really believes.

Safe to say few wonder what Donald Trump really believes about illegal immigration.

Republican enthusiasm for the Line Item Veto began under Reagan and was their version of the imperial presidency

No different than Reagan's enthusiasm for federal mandates like EMTALA, which is the proximate cause of ObamaCare. But J. T. Young doesn't remember it that way, or that far back, here:

'Unmentioned in Obama's legacy is that he killed the line-item veto. While not having done so directly, Obama's presidency has ended this long-time Republican goal just as assuredly as if he had. The political and fiscal role reversals between the Congress and presidency - and between Republicans and Democrats - transpiring for twenty years, have culminated with this administration.

'Twenty years ago, Republicans, armed the Contract with America, dramatically rode to Congressional majorities for the first time in decades. Prominent within that important document was a call for a line-item veto for the president.

'The intent was to give a president power to eliminate wasteful federal spending with pinpoint accuracy. Instead of having to veto an entire bill, and risk shutting down all, or part of the government, a president would be able to stop particular provisions but leave a larger spending bill intact. This authority would reverse the "Hobson's Choice" that prevailed between Congress and a president.'

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Ronald Reagan said to Congress in his 1986 State of the Union address, "Tonight I ask you to give me what forty-three governors have: Give me a line-item veto this year. Give me the authority to veto waste, and I'll take the responsibility, I'll make the cuts, I'll take the heat."'

WHATEVER CONSERVATISM IS, IT MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT ABOUT SEEKING TO ACQUIRE MORE POWER BUT RATHER ABOUT SEEKING TO DIFFUSE AND DISTRIBUTE IT, SOMETHING THE CONGRESS DELIBERATELY BETRAYED IN THE 1920s WHEN IT DECIDED TO STOP THE NATURAL EXPANSION OF REPRESENTATION. NO BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT MAY BE SAID SINCE THAT TIME TO BE IN ANY WAY CONSERVATIVE IN SPIRIT, EXCEPT IN THE OCCASIONAL IRRITABLE MENTAL GESTURE IN THAT DIRECTION WHICH IS USED AS A CLOAK FOR MORE SELF-AGGRANDIZEMENT. NO ONE ANYWHERE RETAINS "SELF-RESTRAINT" IN THEIR LEXICON.

Another suggested opening line for Obama's State of the Union Address

Hands up don't shoot!

Suggested opener for Obama's State of the Union Address

"My fellow Americans, the State of the Union tonight is fairly Republican."

Obama Favors A Jim Crow Law

So says Dean Kalahar, here:

The precursor to the modern minimum wage law began in 1931 with the Davis Bacon Act; which allowed whites to discriminate against blacks in the workplace because it protected the wages of unionized white construction workers from competition with black workers. Stunningly, this remnant of Jim Crow is still on the books. The first federal minimum-wage law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, passed in 1938 under FDR.

Fast forward to today where President Obama asked for the minimum wage to be increased to $9.00 hour in his State of the Union Address. Let's get this straight; the first African American President of the United States advocates a Jim Crow law that increases unemployment to the very low skilled young minorities he claims he wants to help? When did a wage of zero become more of a "fair share" than a job and opportunity? That's just a shameful irony, Machiavellian politics, or shear [sic] ignorance.

Or maybe that's Obama's white half talking.

Warren Buffett's 2010 Tax Bill Was $6.9 Million. Was That 'At Least As Much As His Secretary's'?

The details of Warren Buffett's taxes for 2010 were only partially revealed last August and became the subject of critical examination, as for example here:

Buffett also said his federal income tax bill came to $6,923,494, or 17.4% of his taxable income -- two points he revealed in a New York Times op-ed in August urging Congress to tax the wealthy more. ... [But t]he current tax system already satisfies the Buffett Rule. Americans on average pay 16% of their total income in federal income and payroll taxes, while millionaires pay an average of 20.1%, according to the Tax Policy Center.

The Tax Policy Center is a generally more liberal think tank than The Tax Foundation.

The president's statement in last night's State of the Union deliberately suggests Buffett's secretary paid more in taxes than Buffett did when you know that that is completely disingenuous as well as inconceivable:

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

Common nonsense.

National Popular Vote Virus Spreads to Vermont

The whole point of writing the constitution to allocate two senators each to the States was to reassure the smaller ones by population that the larger ones would not be able to exert unfair advantage over them in the nation's Legislative branch, and to get them thereby to join the union.

Another way of stating this principle is that population was meant to be reflected in the composition of the US House, but deflected in the Senate. The latter was originally designed to be a creature of the States, not of the people. That is why State Legislatures elected US Senators until the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, the same year that gave us the Federal Reserve and the income tax. Bad things always seem to happen in threes.

Today it is reported here that the senate of the only State of the union which has a Socialist for a US Senator, Vermont, has decided to advance the NPV measure, which should not be confused with the acronym for the Human Papilloma Virus. The National Popular Vote initiative, already passed in 6 States and DC, seeks to deny the will of the voters in a State by allocating its electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, not necessarily to the winner of that State.

In the same way that the 17th Amendment sought to weaken the power of the State governments, the National Popular Vote initiative would make it even more irrelevant. What is more, the scheme really represents a rival electoral college which seeks to make the president, like US Senators, a creature directly of the people, in this case of the whole people, and a simple majority of the whole people at that.

If you thought the States have not mattered much in recent years, under the NPV they will mean even less than they already do. Large urban population centers, Democrat bastions, will increasingly replace States not just as campaign stops, but as constituencies. And it is they to whom presidents will become increasingly responsive, at the expense of State capitals.

The States are not dead yet, as people who live in the 26 which have successfully challenged Obamacare in court will tell you. But it is a sign of their weakened sense of themselves that so many are staking everything on their appeals in the courts instead of passing counter legislation and forcing the Federals to sue them. Arizona is a striking exception in this regard in the immigration area, and should be imitated more widely and more often, which prospect the recent and deep Republican resurgence in the States may portend.

When pestilences like the National Popular Vote initiative stop getting traction in the Legislatures, we'll have more reason to be sanguine about the future of the Republic. 

    

Sarah Palin Jumps Down in the Gutter with the Rest of Them

What a disappointment, in a string of disappointments:

His theme last night in the State of the Union was the "WTF," you know, "Winning the Future." And I thought, "OK, that acronym, spot on." There were a lot of "WTF" moments throughout that speech, namely, when he made the statement, Greta, that he believed that we can't allow ourselves to, I guess, eventually become buried under a mountain of debt. ...

That was another one of those WTF moments, when he so often repeated this Sputnik moment that he would aspire [sic] Americans to celebrate. ...

-- Sarah Palin, January 26, 2011, quoted here

Leadership seeks to elevate the discourse, to model the good that people may follow it. And this isn't it.

Remembering When Obamacare Wasn't Some Bolshevik Plot

When Obamacare looked impossible at the end of January 2010 because its two versions looked irreconcilable and a 41st vote against it suddenly appeared in the Senate, within days Obama quickly resorted to Alinsky's rule #5, marginalizing dissent by ridiculing it.

With the help of those at the top of the hierarchy in the House, especially Speaker Pelosi, and the propaganda arms of the government, union, academic and media establishments, he succeeded and shoved the Senate's version down the throats of the rest of the House and the American people.

Almost a year ago Obama said to the House Republican Retreat:

"Now, you may not agree with Bob Dole and Howard Baker, and, certainly you don't agree with Tom Daschle on much, but that's not a radical bunch. But if you were to listen to the debate and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot. No, I mean, that's how you guys -- (applause) -- that's how you guys presented it."

-- President Obama at the House Republican Retreat, January 29, 2010, here.

As with so many such denials, he was telegraphing not just the ends, but also the means, as students of Bolshevism know well.

The good news is that the House has more clappers now, but the country is still in great danger. The ridicule offensive must be joined and counterrevolution pressed in order to have the hope of success.

Republican fellow travelers sitting among the opponents for the State of the Union is not the way to begin. Party leadership should immediately enforce discipline, and require the caucus to sit apart.

They might even withhold all applause, to teach Obama what a real memorial service looks like. Real Americans, after all, are still in mourning for their country.

The Biggest Lie in Obama's State of the Union Address

The Lie: "And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, it's that we all hated the bank bailout."

The Truth: In the House and the Senate they loved it so much that 63% of them voted for it (212 Democrats and 125 Republicans). But only 72 Democrats in the House and the Senate voted against the bailout. Which means 75% of Democrats were for the bailouts! The Republicans were nearly split: 123 against, and 125 for, the bailout.

As of tonight, I count 10 Democrats in the House and the Senate who were present at the bailout vote who will not stand for re-election, 9 of whom voted FOR the bailout: Baird of Washington, Berry of Arkansas, Gordon of Tennessee, Moore of Kansas, Snyder of Arkansas, Tanner of Tennessee, Watson of California, Dodd of Connecticut, and Abercrombie of Hawaii.

Just a coincidence?

I also count 9 Republicans in the House and the Senate who were present at the bailout vote who will not stand for re-election, 7 of whom voted FOR the bailout: Brown of South Carolina, Ehlers of Michigan, Radanovich of California, Shadegg of Arizona, Bond of Missouri, Gregg of New Hampshire, and Voinovich of Ohio.

If there's one thing that's unifying the country right now, it's the desire to throw the bailout bums out, and it's President Obama's biggest problem, according to progressive.org:

But Obama voted for the bailout when he was a Senator, and then expanded it when he was President.

It is a cement block tied around his ankles.

Time for a swim.