Our 6th District Congressman Andy Barr joined Matt Walsh to discuss President Obama's State of the Union and the GOP and Tea Party responses. Click below to listen:
Listen to Matt and David Adams talk about the Christian Medishare legislation moving through the Kentucky House and other issues facing the state. Click below:
I don't want to spoil it for you but I have a source inside the White House and he sent me a copy of Obama's State of the Union speech. It seems kind of short but keep in mind that every applause break will probably last about 4 and a half minutes.
Here it is:
My fellow Americans [applause],
In the last four years not a single facet of American existence has improved, but the good news is that I brought candy [throw Twix Bars into crowd, House members dog-pile]. You may hear it claimed by fringe radicals that this country is founded on the principle of freedom [uneasy grumbles], but these people don't realize that freeDOM is not nearly as awesome as freeSTUFF [standing ovation]. After all, who wants doms? What are doms? It is a mystery. But I've given you free food [applause], free housing [applause], free health care [applause], free college education [applause], free phones [applause], free birth control [applause]. All I've asked in exchange is that you turn a blind eye while I bankrupt the nation [applause] and as I steal the fruits of your brother's labor to give it to you [standing ovation]. In return for my generosity all I've required is your vote, your dignitiy, your liberty, your independence, your sovereignty, your children's financial future, and your soul [applause].
Disability enrollment has increased every month since I took office [applause]. Last year we spent 2 billion dollars giving out cell phones [applause]. And, after all this hard work, we can stand proudly as one nation and proclaim our pride in the fact that the amount of people on food stamps now exceeds the entire population of Spain [standing ovation]. We are creating an army of citizens with skills such as eating and swiping cards [applause]. I have lobbied to make Swiping an official Olympic sport [applause]. Some say my Socialist policies will inevitably lead to a collapse and future generations will be left buried in the rubble. Well I reject this claim [applause]. I reject it because, if all goes according to plan, there won't BE a future generation [standing ovation]. How can we bankrupt a generation that we already so diligently exterminated [applause]?
Speaking of me being horribly evil, I'd like to take this opportunity to announce brand new social engineering laws [applause]. Because my reign has been like something out of an Aldous Huxley acid trip, I've of course put in place many arbitrary and absurd rules and regulations meant to impose my ideology to the detriment of everyone involved [applause]. Like when I randomly decided to put a bunch of public pools out of business by requiring them all to buy extremely expensive handicap mechanical pool-chairs [applause]. Or like the time when I found in the Constitution an inherent God given right to free birth control [standing ovation]. Or like the time when my administration decided to open combat positions to females even though almost every combat veteran in the country was opposed to the idea for logical reasons -- such as the fact that it makes no sense and in no way does it enhance the military's ability to execute its mission. But, as I explained to soldiers concerned about the fact that a woman would not be physically capable of carrying them to safety should they suffer an immobilizing injury during the course of battle, my ideology is more important than their life [standing ovation].
So in keeping with these policies I'd like to announce a few more: First, in the interest of equality I declare that parents may not give their children gender specific names [applause]. Also, public facilities may not have revolving doors because fat people might get stuck [applause]. Thirdly, all elementary schools must offer free gender reassignment surgery to their students without parental notification [applause]. Fourthly, the Marine Corps must replace traditional boot camp with a rigorous three month sensitivity training course [applause]. Finally, to ensure tolerance all opinions, before being stated publicly in any forum at all, must be approved by the newly formed Opinion Approval Agency (OAA) [applause].
America, this is just the beginning [standing ovation]. Yes, after my first term you have less liberty and less money and less jobs and less prospects and less independence [applause]. But think of the things you have more of: there are more drones [applause], and more Muslim militants wielding more American weapons [applause], and most importantly you have more me [standing ovation].
May I bless you and may I bless America! [standing ovation]
You need to watch this. The Department of Homeland Security has released (another) "informational video" (complete with creepy music!) about what to do if you're caught in an "active shooter situation". First of all, thank God we have this vaguely defined and wholly redundant department of government. I mean, obviously the CIA, FBI, NSA, ATF, National Guard, state police and local police just weren't enough. We weren't safe. We still aren't. I think we need another agency. I won't be satisfied until there are literally a thousand departments running around bumping into each other every time someone leaves their suitcase unattended at a bus station.
Notice the "tips" they give on how to survive a mass shooting. I don't mean to spoil it but it seems to boil down to three options: 1) Run. 2) Cower in a corner behind a makeshift fort constructed of plastic trash bins and filing cabinets. Possibly paint yourself in White Out and try to blend in with the wall. Grab the Far Side desk calendar and flip through it to get a good laugh and calm your nerves. 3) This is not a joke, this is actually in the video: as a last resort defend yourself WITH SCISSORS. Yes. Attack a gun toting mad man with scissors. That is an officially sanctioned plan of action.
These cretins are so passionate about keeping you defenseless that they would sooner recommend you do battle with pointy office supplies then you actually bring a gun to a gun fight. They don't care about you. They'd rather you die in a puddle of blood then destroy their narrative by saving lives by taking down a killer with a bullet to the face. Question, government: If the possibility of being caught in an active shooter situation is serious enough to warrant this video, then isn't it real enough to warrant a concealed carry? The whole point of your PSA is that this could happen to me. Well, if it could happen to me shouldn't I come prepared with more than a pencil and a thumb tack?
I don't get it, DHS. Every day you remind me that the world is full of heavily armed bad guys. And yet you'd urge me to staple them to death before you'd suggest actually shooting back?
You first. You go equip your agents like Office Depot floor managers and then we'll talk.
From The Matt Walsh Blog
A group of senators have come up with a “bi-partisan” plan to deal with illegal immigrants. I’ve read about their plan but you don’t need to. Anytime you hear “bi-partisan” attached to anything coming out of Washington, you know it’s something horrendously dumb. If you think that’s an exaggeration you haven’t been paying attention. We all must come to the realization that we live under a tyranny of stupidity. This is an era of failed government. These morons are incompetent, arrogant, impotent and utterly self interested. They can not accomplish anything positive, they’re wrong about everything and everything they do makes everything worse.
So, with that in mind, let’s discuss their brilliant strategy for immigration “reform” (another tip: whenever you hear a politician say the word “reform”, you know he’s about to screw something up even further). There are three basic tent-poles: provide a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal aliens, give the children of illegals an immigration E-ZPass, and possibly, maybe, potentially secure the borders. A couple of thoughts.
On the issue of securing the border, my first question is: why have we made an issue of securing the border? Why is ours the only country in the history of human civilization that actually spends time ARGUING about whether it ought to enforce its boundaries? This is one of the very few legitimate functions of the federal government and it’s the one thing they don’t want to do? And every neo-liberal stooge that thinks Uncle Sam ought to come into his house, raise his children, do his laundry and pour him cereal in the morning somehow has a problem with the government performing this basic and essential duty? We’re hopeless. There’s no chance of getting anything done when someone says, “hey, all countries are distinguished from each other by this really vital concept called ‘borders’” and they next guy responds, “WAIT A MINUTE, let’s argue about that for the next 40 years.” Every country in the world enforces its borders. There’s no point in having them if you don’t secure them. Like it or not, all borders in all corners of the earth have been born and maintained through blood and war. You don’t go through all of that just to say “Oh jk, nm lol”.
In a place where things make sense and people aren’t ridiculous, the necessity for border security would be made all the more obvious by the fact that our neighbor to the south happens to be a collapsing country run by drug cartels. But unfortunately we don’t live in that place. We live in a land where people think they’re being really deep and profound when they interject themselves into an adult conversation on this topic and say something like “hey man, borders are just lines in the sand, what gives us the right to keep anyone out?” Well hey man, your house is just a structure with walls, what gives you the right to keep anyone out? Look man, you can’t, you know, like, expect society to adopt a certain philosophy in the macro if you can’t even live by it in the micro. Have the courage of your absurd convictions or shut up, man.
As far as “providing a pathway to citizenship”, I thought we already have that? If you want to come here there is a legal process by which you can accomplish that goal. You want to talk about fair? How fair is it to all the millions of immigrants who took the time and spent the capital to do it the right way if we give some version of amnesty to the folks who didn’t? Go ahead and tell those people, who apparently wasted their time abiding by the law, all about this “fairness” you speak of. Yes the process might be unnecessarily long, expensive and inefficient but hey, welcome to America. I can’t even get my license renewed without providing a wad of cash, 4 different proofs of identification, a urine sample, a DNA swab and a detailed report of every place a plan to drive in the next 2 years. If we want to discuss cutting out the bureaucracy, I’m all for it. But any plan the government comes up with always involves adding MORE bureaucracy, not less. This plan is no different.
I’ve actually heard the following argument in regards to the children of illegal immigrants, also known as “dreamers”, from many neo-liberals including Obama: “These kids didn’t choose to come here, it’s not their fault. We shouldn’t punish them for the choices their parents made!” The irony is so thick I’m choking on it. Tell you what, you apply that logic to abortion and I’ll apply it to immigration. Deal? No? Didn’t think so. Hypocrites.
To me, immigration doesn’t need to be a political issue. But who am I kidding? Everything is a political issue. Health is a political issue. Education is a political issue. Gravity is a political issue. And immigration will continue to be a political issue as long as our illustrious politicians are more concerned with “courting Latino voters” than doing their damn jobs.
I’d like to see some politician attempt to court the logical and rational voter for a change. Of course, then again, that is becoming quite the niche demographic.
Check out the USA Today article featured in Friday's national print distribution and also at USAToday.com. Link to actual story is at the bottom of this post:
Susan Wloszczyna, USA TODAY7:58p.m. EST January 24, 2013
Les Misérables is much more than just the feel-sad movie of the Oscar season.
Not that the best-picture contender, the first musical to compete in the category since 2002's Chicago, doesn't live up to its name.
Consider that much of the story based on Victor Hugo's 1862 novel is devoted to chronicling the pitiful state of the impoverished masses in 19th-century France through the redemptive actions of Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), the ex-convict who served 19 years for merely stealing a loaf of bread.
Meanwhile, four major characters die during the course of its 157 minutes, along with sundry student revolutionaries sacrificing themselves for a lost cause, all the while singing in close-up and live on camera without the artifice of lip-syncing.
But Les Mis also has earned the reputation as the feel-hate film of the year. Judging by their published vitriol, a number of notable pundits who experienced the big-screen version of Broadway's 1987 Tony winner leave the dark of the theater fairly frothing with anger, disgust, repulsion and, yes, hate.
One of the most-read expressions of post-Les Mis stress disorder on the Internet comes courtesy of Matt Walsh. At least the blog entry by the Lexington, Ky., talk-radio host — which bears the telling headline "Les Misérables taught me how to hate again" — manages to be funny while lacerating the object of his scorn.
A sampling: "Les Misérables will stand forever as the most miserable cinematic experience I've ever suffered through. And this coming from a guy who saw Christmas With the Kranks in theaters, so that should tell you something."
But the king of Les Mis-anthropy has to be David Denby of The New Yorker, whose online screed reeks of condescension in its very title: "There's still hope for people who love Les Mis."
For him, the movie is akin to a cinematic Black Plague. Having never bothered to inoculate himself against the possibility of cultural cooties by attending a stage show that more than 60 million worldwide have seen, his first exposure to an adaptation was the film version, and it apparently sickened him to his core.
"The movie is not just bad," Denby brayed. "It's terrible. It's dreadful. Overbearing, pretentious, madly repetitive. I was doubly embarrassed because all around me, in a very large theater, people were sitting rapt, awed, absolutely silent, only to burst into applause after some of the numbers."
Mind you, these scoffing scribes and their ilk do not represent a majority opinion, given that Les Mis has gathered eight Oscar nominations and three Golden Globe wins. In fact, most critics lean toward the positive, judging by the 70% thumbs-up score on the review-tracking website Rottentomatoes.com.
As for the box office, it has proven strong — $132 million domestic and $283 million worldwide — and fairly steady ever since the $61 million production opened a month ago. Even the soundtrack is a hit, now sitting at No. 6 on the Billboard chart after topping the list for three weeks.
"There is every indication that we have a lot of returning customers for repeat viewings," says Michael Moses, co-president of marketing for Universal, the studio behind Les Mis. "We have witnessed firsthand since the earliest screenings how powerfully it connects to people. There are tears, applause, even standing ovations."
Industry professionals aren't immune to the emotional tsunami that is Les Mis. Reports of tears and applause at their screenings are common as well. That includes special showings for the Directors Guild of America (Tom Hooper, who was snubbed by Oscar voters for his direction, is in the running for the DGA's top honor on Feb. 2). The Screen Actors Guild, whose ceremony is Sunday, has the cast competing for its biggest prize, best ensemble.
Scores of celebrities, some with still-damp eyes, have taken to Twitter to express their rapturous seals of approval, including Katie Couric, Ellen Page, Jon Favreau, Larry King and Zach Braff (who wrote, "If crying 3 times during a movie musical is wrong, I don't wanna be right").
Such widespread acceptance serves only to inflame the Les Mis detractors. The harder the public embraces the movie, the louder they bellow. Much like Russell Crowe's uncompromising Inspector Javert, the self-righteous pursuer of Jackman's parole-breaking Valjean, they have railed against the movie with such intense loathing that you might think it was more torturous than the waterboarding depicted in Zero Dark Thirty.
The wails took awhile to build to a full crescendo. Less harsh though still disparaging reviews, including those in The Hollywood Reporter("a battle against musical diarrhea") and New York magazine ("tasteless bombardment"), appeared before the movie arrived on Christmas. It had the audacity to lead the box-office tallies that day with a gross of $18 million — the best opening ever for a musical.
The New York Times initially ran an evenhanded though mixed review by Manohla Dargis, who mostly kept unbridled contempt at bay while joining the chorus of praise for Anne Hathaway's performance as tragic prostitute Fantine. But then theater critic Charles Isherwood felt compelled to chime in with a column in which he confessed to falling asleep during his first attempt to see the film, forcing him to go back again.
The second go-round only worsened his mood. "Should you, too, find yourself drifting off to dreamland at some point, rest assured that upon waking, you will find that someone is singing, and someone is suffering. Usually it's the same person, with a tear- or sweat-stained face stretched across the screen so that no nuance of misery will go unrecorded."
But the real fun began as The New Yorker suddenly decided to become Ground Zero for Les Mis abuse. Besides killjoy Denby, fellow critic Anthony Lane was his usual waggish self as he let loose with his slams in the magazine's print edition: "Fans of the original production, no doubt, will eat the movie up, and good luck to them. I screamed a scream as time went by."
Cameron Mackintosh, one of the most successful theatrical impresarios in history and proudly guilty of exposing the world to Cats and The Phantom of the Opera, has heard this type of nasty naysaying before as producer of Les Mis both on stage and screen.
"The French critics hated the novel 150 years ago when it was first published in Belgium," he notes, "but Parisians bought it in wheelbarrow loads." When the stage version premiered in London's West End in 1985, "the critics didn't get it early. But the public did. It's always been the 'people's musical.' The subject is about them, not the intellectuals who think they know better and can't cope with the fact that the great Victor Hugo is talking directly to and in support of ordinary people against the social structure of its time."
What is it about Les Mis, whose emblem should apparently be a bull's-eye instead of that doll-faced child of constant sorrow, that incites such intense negativity?
"Film criticism is so heavily dominated by men that it is sometimes plagued by a flood of testosterone," says Tom O'Neil, editor of awards website GoldDerby.com and an unabashed supporter of Les Mis. "In the case of musicals, they often emerge from the bushes like playground bullies to beat up the glee club. They can't just say they don't like Les Mis for this or that reason. They have to hurl nuclear weapons at it."
Says Adam Feldman, theater critic for Time Out New York and president of the New York Drama Critics Circle: "The film version of Les Misérables is unabashed about its musicality, sincerity and sentiment. There is nothing in quotation marks. While it is very risky to go with that, it also can be very moving. It tells its story in a form that is very dramatically and musically direct, and it can make some people uncomfortable."
It could just be that the dissenters sneer all the harder because the public doesn't give a sniff about their disdain. The only thing that critics hate more than Les Mis? Being ignored.
"People like being moved by the generosity that the suffering of others invokes in them," says Feldman. "And Les Misérables does do that. It's not Wagner. But Wagner wouldn't sell a ticket."
Senator Paul joined Matt to talk gun contol and foreign policy. Listen below: