I was very excited to know Michelle Bachmann would be presenting the Tea Party response to the State of the Union gag show presented by the Impostor-in-Chief. Here was a popular woman with all of Sarah Palin's outward beauty, and not so much of her baggage. I was excited about the prospect of a woman other than Palin stepping up to the plate as a voice of the Tea Party. Turns out she's just another Palin putting on a gag show of her own. This was not a Tea Party response; it was a Republican response. One reference to a Balanced Budget Amendment was all she could manage in a speech supposedly responding to what could be the most unconstitutional regime this country has ever seen. Not once did she use any of the words "unconstitutional", "illegal", "constitutionality", or even "Constitution".

While making some good points from a Republican standpoint, this was nothing more than a dog and pony show put on by what Sage appropriately calls the "controlled opposition".

* Unemployment - True words, but no useful solution such as getting the government out of the business of monitoring people's work habits. Republican talking point.
* Debt - True that the debt needs to be eliminated, but no mention whatsoever of the real need to eliminate unconstitutional spending by both parties. Republican talking point.
* Bailouts and Stimulus - Stuck to the Republican line that no one wanted this. No mention at all of its illegality under the Constitution. Yet another Republican talking point.
* Bureaucracy - Made the great point that increased bureaucracy is a bad thing, but fell far short of the real point - that there is no authorization for these bureaucracies in the Constitution. Another Republican talking point.
* Obamacare - Costs too much. Yes it does, but what about its legality under the Constitution? Not a word about it. Republican talking point.

Going on will just piss me off more. Suffice to say her speech was one long Republican talking point.

If you want to vote for Republican talking points, you are free to vote Republican. For that, we don't need a Tea Party. We don't need people who will stand up for the Constitution and then turn around and cast votes for those who can't even recognize its significance in a perfectly appropriate forum.

Paul Ryan's speech, while also decidedly Republican, came much closer to being appropriate for the objectives of the Tea Party. Not only did he mention the Constitution, but he said this:

So I'd like to share with you the principles that guide us. They are anchored in the wisdom of the founders; in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence; and in the words of the American Constitution.

They have to do with the importance of limited government; and with the blessing of self-government.

We believe government's role is both vital and limited — to defend the nation from attack and provide for the common defense ... to secure our borders ... to protect innocent life ... to uphold our laws and Constitutional rights ... to ensure domestic tranquility and equal opportunity ... and to help provide a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves.

We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility.

We believe, as our founders did, that "the pursuit of happiness" depends upon individual liberty; and individual liberty requires limited government.

Limited government also means effective government. When government takes on too many tasks, it usually doesn't do any of them very well. It's no coincidence that trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high.

Drop the hogwash about safety nets and and creating conditions, and you have a pretty good excerpt for a Tea Party speech. Yes, it was Republican, but it was infinitely more Tea Party than Bachmann's.

So which of these two speakers needs less help to become more federalist? I don't think it takes much to decide. The Republican speaker here was more Tea Party oriented than the Tea Party speaker.

In the meantime, let's all hope for the best for the Tea Party. Whoever picked Bachmann for the SOTU response choked big time.

RWR

WorldNetDaily has reported that last week, El Rushbo finally started asking questions about Mr. Obama's birth certificate.

Originally, Limbaugh said, the speculation about why Obama has not released his long-form birth certificate was that he wanted to "toy" with "birthers," to illustrate that they are a bunch of "loony tune, kook right-wingers."

In the meantime, he said, numerous lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility have been thrown out, leading to the conclusion that "he was born in Hawaii, it isn't any big deal."

But now, in the wake of Abercrombie's apparent admissions, Obama supporters, he said, still cannot produce the proof.

"This is stunning to me," Limbaugh said. "(They) still can't prove it."

Of course, the birth certificate may or may not exist.

My question is why this man is occupying the White House with so many people's blessings despite it being established and admitted fact by all involved that his father was not a US citizen, thus disqualifying him as a "natural born citizen". I suppose we need the birth certificate for that, or do we?

Rush summed it up himself pretty well:

For liberals, he said, the issue is no big deal, "It's merely a presidential, constitutional requirement."

The Constitution, as far as liberals are concerned, he said, is an "impediment to them."

There is one thing I do have to say on this, though.

Whether you think of Rush as "The Truth Detector" or just another member of the "controlled opposition", you have to give the man one thing: When he starts talking about something, people start acting on it.

I've said may times before that as Americans become more and more incensed with this man's actions (and inactions), this eligibility thing would gain ground. If enough people are dissatisfied with his "work", then you may see something happen. People even may stand up for the natural born citizen clause instead of settling for a native born citizen just to get him out.

RWR

Check out Cliff's recent statements.

Proof that loyalty still exists in the game.

Thanks, Cliff, and once again, welcome home.

RWR

Got everything set up this week to reactivate RightWingRocker.com. Set up the pointer tonight. Should be active world-wide again withing 48 hours.

Thanks for your patience everyone, and enjoy!

RWR

Over at MichelleMalkin.com, an amazing comment was left by Canadian commenter "123upnorth" regarding Canada's "amazing" healthcare system the libs keep telling us about:

On January 18th, 2011 at 8:29 pm, 123upnorth said:

I realize the constiutional argument is strong and should be fought and won. However, I want to implore Americans to fight the battle against healthcare not only on a consitutional basis, but based upon the grounds that the quality of healthcare within a publicly-mandated system will S.U.C.K. beyond explanation, whether or not the constiution allows for it.

I live in Canada and regularly have to travel to America for healthcare. In Canada, people don't have adequate quality of health services, nor do they have access to it. For example, approximately 15% of Canadians are without proper access to a family doctor. The majority of patients, once referred to a specialist, wait anywhere from 3 to 6 months to see the specialist.

After waiting for a specialist, a patient then has to go on a waiting list to get diagnostics, then wait for a follow up appointment with the specialist, at which time the patient will be instructed as to whether other tests are needed. If surgery is scheduled after the first round of tests, the wait for this too can be extensive. Because of the extensive waiting times, patients become more sick than otherwise would be the case if they were seen faster and their chances of beating their ailments is reduced.

In the end, to go through the process of seeking help and getting full treatment, the duration can often exceed one year. And that is if everything goes well. If tests are inconclusive, if a patient needs a second opinion etc., the total duration can exceed 18 to 24 months.

Even more depressing is the fact that we don't get to choose specialists for the most part because each family doctor only works with a few specialists in each field of treatment in their geographical region. Because there is such a shortage of family doctors, you can't switch between them to get access to another group of specialists. If you receive inferior treatment from the specialist you are directed to, it is much harder to go elsewhere and get the needed referral.

Lastly, because there is no incentive for doctors and specialist to invest in better medical treatment technologies, advancements that are introduced in the 'for profit' system in America and elsewhere aren’t made available to Canadians because they don't have to be made available. Think about it, why would a public system that has a monopoly ever invest in doing things better if they are the only option for patients?

A public system is a death trap and the only players in the trap that can side-step it and get adequate treatment are members of the privelaged class that have the connections to do so. You can already see evidence of this with all the wiavers that are being granted.

Can't argue with that!

RWR

With over half the country living in states that are eager to end the shenanigan known as Oblahmacare, you have to wonder. Think about this:

Libtards bitch about how we on the Right want Oblahma to fail, yet when we take action which, if successful, increases his chances of success as a president, albeit by attempting to bring about the failure of one of his biggest guarantors of failure, the "Crowning Jewel of his Administration", they fight.

The losers on the Left can't have it both ways. Either Oblahmacare and other guarantors of failure fail, or Oblahma fails. Get it? Either he fails or what he advocates fails. The question they now have to ask themselves is this:

Is it the impostor-in-chief that must succeed in order for them to be happy, or his agenda? Sadly for them, the success of their agenda guarantees failure for America and for their non-President. The only way Oblahma and America succeed is if the Libtard agenda fails.

I say, let them eat cake. HAHAHAAAHA

RWR

H/T: MichelleMalkin.

The Governor of Illinois has responded to problems created by high taxes by ...

RAISING TAXES TO NEW HIGH LEVELS!

What a dumbass.

RWR

This just in from Doug Powers at MichelleMalkin.com:

According to Harry Reid, the Tea Party will disappear when the economy fully recovers.

As if the Tea Party were some economic movement.

Mr. Reid, I have some news for you. The thrust of the Tea Party is two-fold:

1) The Tea Party is an ANTI-TAX movement. This means that it will exist for as long as taxes are too high, and continue beyond that for as long as you clowns in DC continue to threaten to put or keep them there. Furthermore, it is likely to continue to exist far beyond its current scope as a preventive measure.

2) The Tea Party is a PRO-CONSTITUTION movement. This means that it will exist as long as Americans allow anti-Constitution nutbags like yourself to take office. Again, it is likely to continue beyond its current scope as a preventive measure.

As the duly elected Senator from Nevada, sir, you have a responsibility to America, to Nevada, and quite frankly to the Tea Party (given its emphasis on the Constitution) to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution as you continue to enjoy the privilege of holding that office. Your track record is demonstrably dismal.

Wishful thinking, indeed. We may have internal issues, but the Tea Party is here to stay, Harry. Get used to it.

RWR

Well, here is a huge step in the right direction for Republicans. If this is the kind of leadership we can expect from Mr. Boehner, and he can make this reading stick, I may even endorse him as a Federalist.

Should we trust the Republicans to stick to the rules that today they are reading aloud? No, but we should give credit where it is due. Regardless of the motive, and there are many reasons they would do this that are NOT honorable (such as kissing up to us Tea Party types for show), this reading of the Constitution is something that EVERY Congress should start with. It serves as a reminder to those in its seats of the boundaries that they are expected by the People to respect.

So today, for doing the right thing, hats off to Mr. Boehner and the Republicans. As for tomorrow, we shall wait and see.

RWR