Last night, Barack Hussein Obama gave one of the most blatant campaign speeches I have ever seen. Don’t get me wrong; the State of the Union Address is usually a political animal, especially in an election year. But most politicians are able to at least keep up the farce that it’s a formal, meaningful “pulse check” of the nation. Obama couldn’t even do that. From his whiny, petulant-child language about how unemployment and the economy (still) aren’t his fault; it was all Bush and it all happened before he got elected (bull…still waiting to see any tangible results from the stimulus bill that don’t end up getting “revised down” by the administration a couple weeks later) to his divisive, class warfare rhetoric (“We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules” or the epic “the rich must ante up”), Obama’s speech was less about how we as a country are doing and more about creating dissention between Americans to get himself reelected. Class warfare. “Rich” vs. “Poor.” Wasn’t that the same language the Bolsheviks used? (read those history books, boys and girls) Why doesn’t he just come right out and say “bourgeoisie” and “proletariat?” That’s what he means, with all this 99% and 1% garbage.  Well, I’ve got a few divisions for him:

97%. That’s how many Americans pay taxes at an effective rate lower than Mitt Romney’s 14% (for which he took seven shades of you-know-what, because it was “too low” in the estimation of some). In case you were wondering, the remaining 3% aren’t the janitors or plumbers (or secretaries, Mr. Buffet) or other people who make this country work. They are the Bill Gateses, the Warren Buffets, the Donald Trumps, people who worked their tails off to amass the wealth they have, and pay handsomely for it. Obama is trying to get us to hate these people, because they succeeded. Question, Mr. President: If you succeed in America and become wealthy (as you have with your books), do you want us to hate you as well? (PS- I don’t hate Obama. I just strenuously disagree with his policies and the path to socialism he’s trying to lead us down is, frankly, terrifying)

48.3%. That’s how many Americans think you’re doing a horrible job as the leader of the free world, while 46.1% are still drinking the Kool-Aid. I don’t know how you plan on getting reelected. The same way you got elected in the first place? Lofty rhetoric, all fluff and no substance, and allowing the New Black Panthers to intimidate voters? Chicago-style politics? Yep. I’ve got your number, buddy.

36.73%. That’s the percentage of federal income taxes that are paid by the richest 1% of people in America. The bottom 50% pays 2.25% of all federal income taxes. And as for corporate taxes, I guarantee you that those bottom 50% aren’t the ones investing in new companies and creating jobs (if the bottom 50% pays 2.25%, I wonder where the cutoff is for “the bottom X percent pay zero taxes…” I’d be willing to guess that X=46.1). The top 1% is defined by National Taxpayers’ Union as those Americans with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of more that about $360,000 per year. They’re really not paying their share?

This travesty of a speech only serves to show what a hypocrite Obama is. For being the post-racial president, his supporters sure pull out the race card a lot. He spoke of weaning America from foreign oil, but doesn’t think twice about pulling the plug on Keystone XL, which (by the way) would have created between 6,000 and 20,000 American jobs, which was something else he was supposed to be supporting, wasn’t it? (note: his reason for denying TransCanada’s application was the “Republicans forced me into too small a timeframe with their deadline.” The deadline was February 21. Notice how that’s not mentioned?). He can BS all he wants, but any American with a semi-functioning brain realizes that he’s a liar and a hypocrite, and he’s only trying to divide this nation. “Divide and conquer.” “A house divided against itself will not stand.” These are the phrases he’s living by, although he takes Lincoln’s comment at a polar opposite of its intent. Lincoln used those words to unite a nation; Obama uses them to tear it asunder. I just hope this country realizes the danger we’re in if we don’t get rid of this tool. If they don’t, and they give him four more years, I have the new slogan for our currency (which will feature Obama, be totally worthless, and once it’s spent there will be no change): United States of Obamerica. Hope you didn’t want your money.

For the record, I chose the title State of the Onion based on the following criteria:

Crunchy, but very little substance, thinly veiled layers, sour, and makes everyone cry.

Obama, playing motivational speaker. (via shortformblog)

WHY WON’T HE STOP APOLOGIZING FOR AMERICA

—> Right on! Obviously has no clue what he’s talking about. And he wonders why we think he’s out of touch with the populace?

(via ilyagerner)

(via ilyagerner)

So, Mitt Romney isn’t the be-all-and-end-all choice for the GOP nomination.

Thank. Goodness.

Newt Gingrich won the SC primary, in a pretty dramatic fashion. Glad to see the conservative wing of the party is making their voices heard.

Not that I’m a Newt-head. I’d prefer Rick Santorum, and I’ll be voting for him in our local primary coming up. But I’d rather have Newt than Romney. Newt understands that whole “no pale pastels, but bold colors” mantra of Reagan’s, and he understands that the country needs a strong conservative leader who, while able to compromise with the Dems, won’t give them whatever they want. I’m not convinced that Romney will do that. However, Newt has a big strike against him, that *could* make him unelectable. He handled that whole open-marriage thing well, so that should be a nonissue. What I’m referring to is his so-called ethics “violation.” Most people have heard that he pleaded guilty to an ethics violation that caused the HOR to censure him, he left in disgrace, etc. etc. ad nausaeum. The rest of the story is that after the Republican Revolution, he was constantly besieged by frivolous ethics complaints filed under FOIA (Freedom of Info Act) by pissant liberal whiners. Not a single one of these ethics complaints had any basis in fact. They were, to a one, political calculations designed to destroy him personally. He ended up copping to one charge just to stem the tide, but they turn it around and make him look corrupt.

Now that you know the rest of the story, you’d think (as do I) that it’s also a nonissue, wouldn’t you? It should be. But the rest of the story never gets told by the left-wing media, and so all that most of the electorate will hear was that he was convicted (bull hockey) of an ethics violation. This might make him unelectable.

Regardless, Santorum (to me) has the youthful energy and sound conservatism we need in this day and age. You can make up your own mind, but as for mine, it’s set on Ricky S.

Game on.

FOX News reports poll shows most small businesses fear healthcare law

razzledazzy:

Tumblr this is a different poll on the same site. Come on guys we can fix this, it’s a disgrace. 

Vote here.

If it makes you feel any better, Shae, these polls are notorious for being skewed one way or the other, because only people who feel strongly tend to vote, so most of those gray votes are pretty much worthless…

BTW, yes, although I don’t support forcing people who don’t want to perform a ceremony to do so.

(via shaethegay)

(via ageofperil)

YES! The way Americans are afraid of the Obama Administration?

Attention, conservative right-minded people everywhere: BRING THE FEAR!!!!!!

(via shaethegay)

I think you’re absolutely right, it’s not so controversial anymore. There are a lot of conservatives that don’t have a problem with it. Meghan McCain identified these types last year, the young people that are fiscally and governmentally conservative, but more or less socially moderate or even liberal. Personally, I don’t have any issue giving gay people a civil union with all the benefits of marriage. My only problem comes when laws like that in the state of Maine contain language intended to force preachers to perform same-sex union ceremonies that are contrary to that individual’s religious beliefs. To me, language like that is a clear infringement on that preacher’s 1st Amendment rights, in that it prohibits the free exercise of his/her religion. However, older voters are neither senile nor dogmatic; they merely have a different set of beliefs that were shaped during a different cultural time in this society, and you know what they say about old habits dying hard.