Newt Gingrich has released his response to the state of the Union. There is no video available. The transcript of his remarks is below:
Coral Gables, FL – Newt Gingrich released the following statement responding to President Obama’s State of the Union address:
We have a crisis of work in this country and tonight President Obama proposed nothing in the way of policy changes that will get us to robust job creation and dramatic economic growth.
Instead, the president described his conviction that his big government is built to last and should be paid for with higher taxes.
But bigger government and higher taxes will not lead to jobs and growth. Bigger government and higher taxes will instead lead to more people on food stamps, a situation which the President and his party defend as a fair outcome.
Here we have to confront the truth about President Obama. Economic growth and prosperity is not really at the top of his agenda. He will always prefer a food stamp economy to a paycheck economy and call it fair.
For the president and a large part of the political class, it’s about their power, their right to rule. They just want to take money from Joe the Plumber – the small business people who makes over 90 per cent of the new jobs -- and redistribute it to the government bureaucracy and their political friends and allies. That’s why so much of that nearly trillion-dollar stimulus didn’t create jobs but just went into the pockets of special interests who support President Obama and the leadership of the Democratic Party.
No better example of this exists than in the crisis of American energy. President Obama and his political allies – not of few of whom love living in energy inefficient houses or driving gas-guzzling luxury vehicles – openly admit they want gas prices to remain high so that the rest of America will learn to live more modestly. They think it’s good for rest of us. Only recently, the president canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline that would have created countless new jobs and helped America on the way to energy independence because he wanted to appease the far left of his party. And yet not a single word on the Keystone XL pipeline tonight.
To create jobs and growth in this country, we must start with dramatic tax reform that lowers taxes and maximizes capital investment and job creation. We must return to a dollar as good as gold whose purchasing power is the same in thirty years as it is today. We must dramatically expand American energy production. We must have smarter regulation at the same time we abolish destructive and costly regulatory systems beginning with Obamacare,Dodd-Franks, and Sarbanes-Oxley. And finally, unlike the current administration, we must have faith in job creators.
With these policies the state of the union will be much better. They will create an explosion in job creation and lead to robust economic growth and a return to prosperity. Furthermore, a paycheck economy will put us on a path to balanced budgets and paying down our national debt.
Republican candidate for President Mitt Romney delivered prebuttal remarks to the President's State of the union address. The transcript is below. There is no video of the delivery.
Mitt Romney today delivered prebuttal remarks to President Obama’s State of the Union Address in Tampa, Florida. The following remarks were prepared for delivery:
Thank you. It’s good to be in the Sunshine State. It breaks my heart to visit plants like this one.
In 2008, this plant closed because of the economic downturn. In a normal recovery under strong leadership, it could now be full of workers.
Here in Florida, people used to wake up and look forward to a hard day’s work and a good, honest wage. The money they earned helped support families and build communities. Today too many factory floors are silent, warehouses are deserted, corporate offices are empty, and real estate endeavors are abandoned. Floridians are struggling to find a job, keep a home, and raise a family.
As I’ve traveled across America, I’ve heard similar stories in virtually every corner of this country. High unemployment and record home foreclosures. Debt that’s too high and opportunities that are too few. This is the real state of our union. But you won’t hear stories like these in President Obama’s address tonight. The unemployed don’t get invitations to sit with the First Lady.
Instead, tonight, the President will do what he does best. He will give a nice speech with a lot of memorable phrases. But he won’t give you the hard numbers.
Like 9.9 – that’s the unemployment rate in this state.
Or 25 percent – that’s the percentage of foreclosed homes in America that are right here in Florida.
Or $15 trillion – that’s the size of our national debt.
Instead, tonight, President Obama will make the opening argument in his campaign against a “Do Nothing Congress.” But, we shouldn’t forget that for two years, this President had a Congress that could do everything he wanted.
With huge Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, President Obama was free to pursue any policy he pleased.
Did he fix the economy?
Did he tackle the housing crisis?
Did he get Americans back to work?
No.
He spent $787 billion on a stimulus bill and put us on track to borrow and spend $5 trillion in just his first term.
He forced through Obamacare – a trillion-dollar entitlement we don’t want and can’t afford.
He took over auto companies and student loans.
He stacked the National Labor Relations Board with union yes-men who, in turn, did favors for his campaign contributors and favorite friends.
When we needed stability and solvency, he gave us Solyndra.
When we needed a climate for private investment, he gave us Cash for Clunkers.
When we needed more domestic energy to keep prices low and create jobs, he imposed bans on oil drilling and turned his EPA regulators loose to slow our development of natural gas.
He’s spearheaded one of the largest expansions of government in American history. And he’s paying for it with money borrowed from China.
Three years ago, we measured Candidate Obama by his hopeful promises and slogans.
Today, President Obama has amassed an actual record of debt, decline, and disappointment.
This President’s agenda made these troubled times last longer. He and his allies made it harder for the economy to recover.
Instead of solving the housing crisis and getting Americans back to work, President Obama has been building a European-style welfare state. He has pushed for a second stimulus and deep cuts to our national defense. He’s asking the American people for another trillion dollars – and another term in office.
He keeps telling people, “We can’t wait.” To which I say, “Yes, we can.”
Tonight, the President will deliver his State of the Union. But make no mistake: What he’s really offering are partisan planks for his re-election campaign.
The President has been telling people that his agenda will create an economy that's “built to last.”
Well, let’s talk about what has lasted.
What has lasted is unemployment above 8% for 35 straight months. What will last is almost as much debt in four years as all the prior presidents combined. What will last are home values that are too low and foreclosure rates that are too high. And a legacy of debt that will imperil future generations.
What is critical is that we make today Barack Obama’s last State of the Union.
The President’s agenda sounds less like “built to last” and more like doomed to fail. What he’s proposing is more of the same: more taxes, more spending, and more regulation. And all of his proposals involve “big” government and “big” price tags.
Tonight, we’ll also be treated to more divisive rhetoric from a desperate campaigner-in-chief. It’s shameful for a President to use the State of the Union to divide our nation. And someone ought to tell him: In order for the economy to truly “work for everyone,” everyone needs to be working.
But more than anything, I expect the President will take this opportunity to take another victory lap. In big speeches, he tends to tell tall tales about an America that’s thriving on his watch.
In 2010, he announced that “the worst of this economic storm has passed.” I know the people of Tampa don’t believe that. Today, 24 million Americans are struggling for work. 2.8 million Americans have lost their homes. But President Obama believes he ranks among the four best presidents in history.
Here in Florida, you know better. You know that this President has run out of ideas. He’s run out of excuses. And, with your help, 2012 will be the year he runs out of time.
If tonight were the first message to Congress in a Romney administration, I’d have the courage to tell the American people how it is and tell Congress what we really need to do. I wouldn’t spend my time blaming others for how we got in this mess; I’d explain how we’re going to get out of it. I’d use the State of the Union to lay out an agenda that will get our country back on track and get our fiscal house in order.
My agenda would make government simpler, smaller, and smarter.
As President, I will repeal unnecessary regulations and restore our good credit rating.
I will reduce tax rates and simplify the tax code, especially for middle-income Americans.
I will streamline regulation, ensure the prompt review of projects, and order agencies to focus on economic growth. The Keystone Pipeline is a real “shovel-ready” project that would put 20,000 Americans back to work. Three years of review is long enough. The President was wrong to reject it. I will approve it.
I will open up new markets for American goods, and open up our lands so that we can finally develop our energy resources. A revolution in drilling for natural gas has opened up new supplies that will create American jobs, provide affordable energy, and offer our manufacturers a competitive edge. My administration will support the development of these resources, not find excuses to stand in the way.
If I were speaking to Congress tonight, I’d note that it’s now been one thousand days since the Senate last passed a budget. That’s irresponsible. It’s unacceptable. And, as President, I will cut spending, cap spending, and finally balance the budget.
I would pledge to do all that a President can to get America working again. When it comes to the economy, my highest priority would be worrying about your job, not saving my own.
As President, I will reverse the Obama-era defense cuts. I believe a strong America must – and will – lead the future. I will insist on a military so powerful that no one would ever think of challenging it.
That is the State of the Union I would deliver tonight. My plans protect our freedom and preserve opportunity. They reflect common-sense solutions and conservative values. And, over the past seven months, that agenda has rallied millions of Americans to our cause.
Our campaign is about more than replacing a President; it is about saving the soul of America. This election is a choice between two very different destinies.
President Obama wants to “fundamentally transform” America. We want to restore America to the founding principles that made this country great.
This President puts his faith in government. We put our faith in the American people.
Ours is the party of free enterprise, free markets, and consumer choice. The Republican Party stands for personal responsibility and equal opportunity. We don’t demonize prosperity. We celebrate success.
That’s the difference between our party and this President. He leads the party of big government. He believes in ever-expanding entitlement.
He’s wrong. We’re right. And this is a battle we cannot lose.
During my 25 years in business, I helped companies like Staples and the Sports Authority grow from start-ups to international enterprises. I turned around companies, a state government, and an Olympics. And I am passionate about our economic liberty because I have seen it reward the hard work of many – and create prosperity for all.
I have the experience to get America back to work. I have the judgment we need in the White House. And I will offer a real choice in the coming campaign.
Tonight will mark another chapter in the misguided policies of the last three years – and the failed leadership of one man. But Americans know that our future is brighter and better than these troubled times.
We still believe in the hope, the promise, and the dream of America. We still believe in that shining city on a hill.
A year from now a President will be giving another State of the Union address. The choice before us is clear.
Do we want a president who will try to explain again why his policies haven’t worked?
Do we want a president who will keep promising that this time he will get it right?
Do we want a president who keep telling us why he’s right and why we’re wrong?
Or do we want the sense of excitement that comes with a new beginning?
We are Americans and Americans don’t have to settle for a president who argues that things could be worse. We know that things can – and must – be better.
If you want to make this election about restoring American greatness, then I hope you will join us.
If you believe the disappointments of the last few years are a detour, not our destiny, then I am asking for your support.
If you share my belief that we need to scale back government so that we can expand prosperity, then I need your vote.
Thank you. And God bless the United States of America.
Or a homeless family could have been fed for a month, or an African family fed and clothed for a year.
Seriously, though...champagne at 4 in the afternoon? Is there something we should know about Michelle?
So, are Barack and Michelle really just middle class people? Caviar? Perhaps Michelle would tell us that we can eat cake while she has caviar in the Waldorf-Astoria.
McCain and Romney, no story there. Huckabee, Giuliani, and Paul...now THERE is a story. All had less than expected, with the Ron Paul numbers more interesting to me because I had expected them to be two-thirds higher than they were. Does this signal the end of the Ron Paul revolution? The Presidential win was never a possibility, my concern lies with whether or not the revolutionaries will be dependable Republicans, or will they push their anrchic agendas.
Now the Dems:
Clinton 39% or 110,550
Obama 36% or 102,883
Edwards 17% or 47,803
Richardson 5% or 12,987
Kucinich 1% or 3,845
Write-ins 1% or 2,351
Wow. Just wow. I didn't see that one coming. Hillary by three points, or nearly 8,000 people, and Edwards begins a slide into oblivion.
Mike Huckabee....34% Mitt Romney.......25% Fred Thompson...13% John McCain.......13% Ron Paul...........10%
Winners
Barack Obama
He succeeded in getting out the youth vote, and energizing support for him. Just watch this victory speech below...
Mike Huckabee
He also got the youths, as well as the Evangelicals, and a lot of other people. His speech...
Fred Thompson
He was late to the game, and raised less money than Tancredo, and still show in 3rd, a hair's whisker ahead of John McCain. His speech...
Losers
Hillary Clinton
What can I say? She was going to skip Iowa, then she wasn't. This removes the feeling of inevitability for her assumed nomination.
Mitt Romney
He spent millions for second place. This video shows the result...
Ron Paul
A fourth place finish exposes the lie that the scientific polls were wrong, and the internet polls were right. His rabid supporters have been playing a very childish game of gaming the results of polls on the internet, calling for people to come vote on websites they would never ordinarily visit so that Ron Paul could win in the poll.
11, 598 Iowans voted for Ron Paul last night. Over 100,000 voted for someone else. That should be the end of the story...
...it won't be. Allow me to let Ronald Reagan address the problem...
This kind of scandal would ruin any Republican Candidate, as would the multiple shenanigans in the Clinton Chinese Cash Machine:
Elrick Williams's toddler niece Carlyn may be one of the youngest contributors to this year's presidential campaign. The 2-year-old gave $2,300 to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
So did her sister and brother, Imara, 13, and Ishmael, 9, and her cousins Chan and Alexis, both 13. Altogether, according to newly released campaign finance reports, the extended family of Williams, a wealthy Chicago financier, handed over nearly a dozen checks in March for the maximum allowed under federal law to Obama.
Such campaign donations from young children would almost certainly run afoul of campaign finance regulations, several campaign lawyers said. But as bundlers seek to raise higher and higher sums for presidential contenders this year, the number who are turning to checks from underage givers appears to be on the rise.
"It's not difficult for a banker or a trial lawyer or a hedge fund manager to come up with $2,300, and they're often left wanting to do more," said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. "That's when they look across the dinner table at their children and see an opportunity."
Asked about the Williams family giving, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "As a policy, we don't take donations from anyone under the age of 15." After being asked by The Post about the matter, he said the children's donations will be returned.
Although campaign finance laws set a limit of $2,300 per donor per campaign, they do not explicitly bar donors based on age. And young donors abound in the fundraising reports filed by presidential contenders this year.
A supporter of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R), Susan Henken of Dover, Mass., wrote her own $2,300 check, and her 13-year-old son, Samuel, and 15-year-old daughter, Julia, each wrote $2,300 checks, for example. Samuel used money from his bar mitzvah and money he earned "dog sitting," and Julia used babysitting money to make the contributions, their mother said. "My children like to donate to a lot of causes. That's just how it is in my house," Henken said.
Just how much campaign cash is coming from children is uncertain -- the FEC does not require donors to provide their age. But the amount written by those identifying themselves as students on contribution forms has risen dramatically this year, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics. During the first six months of the 2000 presidential campaign, students gave $338,464. In 2004, that rose to $538,936.
This year, the amount has nearly quadrupled, to $1,967,111.
"What's driving it is a desire by maxed-out donors to max out on their maxing out," said Fred Wertheimer, president of campaign finance reform organization Democracy 21, who sought, unsuccessfully, to outlaw child donations five years ago. "More often than not, you're dealing with people who are simply trying to circumvent the limits of what they can give."
Congress tried to outlaw political contributions from those under age 18 as part of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002, but the Supreme Court struck down that provision as an infringement on the constitutional rights of minors. With that ruling in mind, the Federal Election Commission wrote new regulations two years ago that tried to balance what it considered a legitimate desire among some children to make political contributions against the possibility that parents would seek to pad their donations by funneling money through children.
The regulations established a three-step test to determine whether a contribution is acceptable: It must be made with the child's money, the parent cannot reimburse the child for making the donation and the contribution has to be knowing and voluntary.
That last part of the test is the one that would seem to rule out a 2-year-old, said Michael E. Toner, a former FEC chairman who helped draft the rules. "If they are 16 or 17, they're clearly old enough to know what they're doing, as compared to someone who is, say, 10 years old. . . . I don't know any 2-year-old who is capable of making that kind of decision."
To me, it is clear that most of these donations qualify as breaking the straw man donor rule, and no further laws, or rules are required. I am troubled by people too young to vote contributing to a political campaign...no matter who they (or their rich relative) support
I saw that Obama has been caught quoting the Bible via Drudge, and I had to see what's up with the Illinios Senator. I can't laugh at the guy because I've opened mouth, inserted foot more times than I care to remember...but this is too good to pass up:
"Getting ready to talk to you today, I recall what Jesus said at the end of the Sermon on the Mount," Obama said at New Orleans' First Emmanuel Baptist Church. "He said, whoever hears these sayings of mine and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on a rock."
"The rains descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house. But it did not fall, because it was founded on the rock," he continued.
That rock, he said, was a principal of brotherhood exemplified by the church during Hurricane Katrina — but not the federal government.
"Something was wrong in America. Our foundation wasn't built on the rock," he said.
Surely Obama has to realize that New Orleans has been wiped out or under water multiple times by storms [1722, 1740, 1779, 1780, 1794, 1812, 1837, 1856, 1860(twice), 1871, 1886, 1901, 1915(twice...with 275 drowing after refusing to leave low-lying areas), 1947, 1957 (Audrey), 1965(Betsy), 2005(Katrina)][Source] in the past, and will again if it is rebuilt where it is now.
If people want to rebuild, fine, but don't use federal tax dollars to do it...let them move to an area that has a more stable foundation (not to mention above sea-level!), instead of in a low-lying swamp.
The jihadists have attacked Pakistan with renewed vigor after Obama's provocative remarks earlier this week, and the media tries to come to his rescue with an old story (two years ago) from someone not even running for President at the time.
2,000 tribesmen rally against troops
MIRANSHAH: Around 2,000 tribesmen rallied in North Waziristan on Friday calling on the government to withdraw troops from the region, Reuters reported. Holding black flags and wearing black armbands, the protesters chanted “Down with America” and demanded the government stop what they called unnecessary military operations in the region. “The government says it has sent troops to Waziristan to maintain peace and order but in fact the peace of the region has deteriorated since the army was deployed here,” Qari Mohammad Roman, an imam of a major mosque of Miranshah, North Wazirista’s main town, told protesters.
MIRANSHAH, Pakistan (Reuters) - At least 22 people were killed on Saturday in spiraling violence in northwestern Pakistan as international concern grew over the deteriorating security situation and al Qaeda threat along the Afghan border. Soldiers repulsed an attack by pro-Taliban militants in North Waziristan, and a suicide car bomber struck in another tribal area bordering Afghanistan.
--SNIP-- How to make Pakistan do more to eradicate al Qaeda hideouts has become a hot topic in the U.S. election campaign, with Democratic hopeful Barack Obama talking of American forces conducting operations or strikes inside Pakistani territory.
During a telephone call to President Pervez Musharraf, U.S. President George W. Bush said this kind of talk was "unsavory," and assured the Pakistani leader Washington respected its ally's sovereignty, the Pakistani Foreign Ministry said on Friday.
On the ground, in a pre-dawn attack on Saturday, militants bombarded a check post in the Dosali area, some 40 km (25 miles) south of Miranshah, North Waziristan's main town.
Troops repulsed the guerrillas when they launched a direct assault on the post.
"Militants fired about 50 rockets on a check post complex at around 0300 hours (6:00 p.m. EDT Friday) and then they carried out a physical attack on the check post," military spokesman Major-General Waheed Arshad said.
Pakistan on Friday criticised US presidential hopeful Barack Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists.
Top Pakistan officials said Obama’s comment was irresponsible and likely made for political reasons related to the race for the Democratic nomination for next year’s US presidential election.
“It’s a very irresponsible statement, that’s all I can say,” Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri said. “As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense.”
Also on Friday, a senior Pakistani official condemned another presidential hopeful, Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, for saying best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the US would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina.
Obama triggered anger in Pakistan, a key ally of the US in its war on terror, when he said in a speech on Wednesday that as president he would order US military action against terrorists in Pakistan’s tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it.
I'd like to note for the record, that Congressman Tom Tancredo made that statement in 2005. This should show you how far back the media will go to provide cover for one of their own.
Don't believe me? Check this out:
Tancredo: If They Nuke Us, Bomb Mecca
DENVER — A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.
Rep. Tom Tancredo made his remarks Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Fla. His spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically.
Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.
"Well, what if you said something like — if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.
"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.
"Yeah," Tancredo responded.
The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."
Spokesman Will Adams said Sunday the four-term congressman doesn't support threatening holy Islamic sites but that Tancredo was grappling with the hypothetical situation of a terrorist strike deadlier than the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
For the record, I believe we should let the Radical Muslims, and Moderate Muslims know that they will trigger a Berserker Rage should they set nukes off on American Soil. The Moderate Muslims should fear our response more than they fear the jihadists.
WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
To submit releases for publication, email me here. This includes Guest Commentaries. If you have a photo that you wish me to use with your press release or article, please send it to me, otherwise I'll use whatever I feel best fits your article.
Letters to the Editor
Send Letters to the Editor to editor@MaconMedia. Limit is one submission every seven days. You may include photos, video or audio. Submissions will be edited for vulgarity or similar reasons. Limit submissions to less than 10,000 words. LOL
For a quicker response, send me a message on Twitter or add me to a circle on Google Plus and send it just to me.
If you have been sending me press releases via my private email address, that will continue to work just fine. The Twitter or Google+ account will get my attention quicker.
If you're of a mind, and can afford it, a dollar a month (or more) from enough people will make a huge difference in improving the quality of coverage of local meetings and events, as well as allowing remote weather stations and weather cams to be deployed throughout the county that you will be able to access online.
Currently, 20 people have pledged $99 a month. This is a tremendous help. Please visit www.patreon.com/MaconMedia for more information on how to contribute.
Businesses can underwrite this coverage by day sponsorships, surplus equipment donations, etc. Inquire at editor@maconmedia.com for more information.
Donations accepted for the purpose of supporting this blog and activities related to improving it's operations and my coverage of local festivals and local government meetings.
Posts
