About Me

Name: Roxanna M.
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Losers of the Week


The ever smug and vastly annoying Bob Beckel who arrogantly predicted on May 23, 2011, that the price of gas would be "way down" by next year at this time.  The average price of gas on 5/23/11 was $3.85.  The average price of gas on 5/23/12 was $3.67.  Not "way down" by any objective standard.

The TV show 'The Office' for making a joke of firing a man whose wife was pregnant with twins.  There's nothing remotely funny about what's happening in America economically, and the condescension of Hollywood millionaires is really quite disgusting
.

Disneyland for raising its price of admission to $87.00.  The price for a child under 10 (Disneyland considers those 10 and above as adults) is $81.00.  Parking is $14.00.  The price for a family of four (with two kids under 10) is $350.00 - just to get in!  Food and souvenirs could bring the price to $500.00 for just one day.  Disneyland, you ain't worth it.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, the most reversed court in the world, for taking 700 people to a "judicial" conference in Hawaii at a cost to taxpayers of about $1 million.  The taxpayers should not be paying for this.  All those attending, let me repeat that, all those attending should be paying their own way and deducting it on their taxes, like us normal people out here who travel for business.  We the People should not have to pay one red cent for what amounts to a vacation. 

Barack Obama for campaigning on our dime, all the while pretending that he's actually doing his job.  Another taxpayer-funded vacation cannot be far behind.






Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Grandstanding at Gitmo


Attorney Cheryl Bormann, who is representing Walid bin Attash for his actions concerning 9/11, appeared in a hijab at the arraignment of her client and asked the court to order the other women present at the hearing to dress more modestly in the future "out of respect" for her client's muslim beliefs and so that her client would not have to avert his eyes "for fear of committing a sin under their faith." 

So, looking at a woman lustily is a sin, but murdering 3,000 people is quite okay?  Just want to make sure I understand everything. 

The first job of an attorney is to the administration of justice.  That's why it's wrong to bribe a judge or encourage a witness to lie or conceal evidence.  Ms. Bormann has forgotten that.  Or maybe she never learned. 

Her job is to represent her client to the best of her ability, not make ridiculous requests.  No party to any action has the right to request that people dress to suit him. 

If Ms. Bormann can stand out in the crowd, maybe she will get the first book contract.  And don't think for one second that these attorneys don't have visions of book contracts and dollar signs dancing in their heads.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Can't Buy Class


Here are two quotes that reflect that truth:

"The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq.  The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country.  The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force.  Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people.  Their work continues, and so do the risks.  Today, on behalf of the nation, I  thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them.

George W. Bush

And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as I continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.  Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden.  It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground.  I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan.  And finally, last week, I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.  Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan."

Barack H. Obama

In a campaign ad touting this achievement, former president Bill Clinton (after the terrorists, the man mainly responsible for 9/11) has this to say, "Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there . . .Suppose they'd been captured or killed.  The downside would have been horrible for him", i.e., Obama.  True American heroes could have been captured or killed, and all the left can think about is the downside to Obama.

Mr. Obama didn't hesitate to take credit for the painstaking work of others, started long before he was elected.  Taking out bin Laden was a hard decision.  It is the job of presidents to make the hard decisions.  In essence, Obama did his job.  Without question, any president serious about his job would have made the same decision. 

To say that only Obama would have made this decision, and that it was gutsy of him to do so, is as ridiculous as Biden's claim that it was the most audacious plan in 500 years.

Come on guys.  You have jobs to do.  Quit pretending that making hard decisions is above and beyond.




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Constitution, Ever Heard of It


The Constitution quite clearly states at Article III, Section 2:  "In all cases . . . in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction."  The original lawsuit filed by the DOJ against Arizona was entitled "United States of America v. State of Arizona, Case Number 10-16645.  Again, quite clearly, the State of Arizona was a party.  Therefore, neither the District Court in Arizona nor the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the case.

Jurisdiction is what gives a court power to act.  When you file a lawsuit, you are giving a court jurisdiction over you.  When you are served as a defendant, that act of service gives the court jurisdiction over you.  Without jurisdiction, a court has no power to act and any orders made are void.  None of the amendments to the Constitution deal with this issue, so it has not been changed.

There are, therefore, only two possibilities for what has happened.  Either the lawyers and the justices didn't know what the Constitution says.  Or, they knew and just chose to ignore it.  The former is a problem.  The latter is a much bigger problem.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for people who are called upon to decide what is or isn't constitutional to actually read the document first. 

It will be interesting to note if any one of the justices mentions this crucial tidbit.




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Losers of the Week . . . and One Winner


Michelle Obama for saying that Barack Obama has led us "out of the dark and into the light".  The dark of what and into the light of what?  Unemployment is higher.  The price of gas has doubled, raising the price of everything else.  The debt and deficit are exploding almost exponentially.  What on earth is she talking about. 

Harry Reid for saying "And when talking about seniors, seniors love getting junk mail.  It's sometimes their only way of communicating or feeling like they're part of the real world."  That's one of the most condescending statements I've ever heard.

Ed Schultz from MSNBC for saying "It's time for the democrats to step up and protect the poor from the assault of the Republicans."

Republicans need to use these statements in their campaign commercials because they definitively show who's really out of touch.

Steve Zwick, a global warmist, for saying "We know who the active denialists are, not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies.  Let's start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let's make them pay.  Let's let their houses burn.  Let's swap their safe land for submerged islands.  Let's force them to bear the cost of rising food prices.  They broke the climate.  Why should the rest of us have to pay for it."

Yea right.  Only the global warming deniers broke the climate.

Members of congress Barney Frank (D-MA), Brad Miller (D-NC), and Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) for saying that it was wrong to focus on health care.  Too little, too late.  All of these men voted in favor of Obamacare and are retiring this year, probably because they saw the handwriting on the wall.

Nancy Pelosi and other members of congress who want to amend the Constitution to take away the speech rights of corporations and such . . . but not unions.

Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) for announcing that the Obama administration "was super involved with" getting congress to pass health care.  Probably not exactly what Obama wants to hear right now.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Late Night Laugh Lines


"President Obama released his tax returns.  It turns out he made $900,000 less in 2011 than he did in 2010.  You know what that means?  Even Obama is doing worse under President Obama."

Jay Leno
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Loser of the Week


Democrat operative Hilary Rosen has created a firestorm with her comment that Ann Romney has "never worked a day in her life."  Although her words were clearly poorly chosen, what she really meant has gotten lost in the shuffle.  What she was really saying is that Ann Romney is rich and doesn't have to work outside the home.  Therefore, what does she really know about the problems facing women in America today.

If Ann Romney is ever asked by a woman interviewer what she really knows about the problems facing American women and mothers today, I would so like her to turn that question around on the interviewer.  Katie Couric has made millions through the years and clearly has no idea of the problems facing non-millionaires.  Likewise, Diane Sawyer has not only been a top TV personality for years, she's been married to award-winning Hollywood producer Mike Nichols for over two decades. It is inconceivable that any person who interviews Ann Romney has any recent knowledge of what it's like to wonder where their next meal is coming from, or what they're going to have to do without so that they can buy something else.  In short, this is simply more hypocrisy from the left. 

There was no bashing of John Kerry/John Edwards, or their wives, for their wealth.  There's no bashing of Michelle Obama for being a stay-at-home mother.  And where was the inquiry into why she surrendered her law license after practicing only 3 years and with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt?  Where was the inquiry into the make-believe job that paid her $300,000 a year?

Why is it only Republican women who deserve snide remarks and disdain for the choices they make?

Another little tidbit that has gotten lost in the shuffle is the fact that Hilary Rosen is a democrat operative, having gone to the White House some 35 times during Obama's presidency, which is roughly once a month, while also working at CNN.  Apparently, we are supposed to believe Jay Carney's comment that there are actually three Hilary Rosens, and it is unclear which of the three actually visits the White House. 

They must all look alike, or something.




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Loser


Obama cannot win regarding Obamacare, whichever way the Supreme Court rules.

If the Supreme Court upholds the law, Obama cannot campaign on it because it's so unpopular.  Bragging about the court's action would be a thumb in the eye of a lot of voters, some of whom might have actually been inclined to vote for him.

If the Supreme Court goes the other way, it goes without saying that Obama cannot campaign on the fact that his signature "achievement" has been declared unconstitutional.  Republicans can, though.





Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Losers of the Week


Reuters for writing an article on Elena Kagan and saying that she "defended" Obamacare "with a vigor", without also saying that defending it was not her job, thereby saying that Kagan should have recused herself.

Ronald Dworkin for saying that "only a comprehensive national program can even begin to repair it" (healthcare) and for saying that Obamacare was "the only politically possible national program" and that our Constitution is "antique".  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he exercising his rights under the First Amendment to that "antique" document?

Three hundred employees of the General Services Administration, and some family members, for racking up a $823,000 tab for a week long vacation in Las Vegas.  The GSA began soliciting bids for this orgy the very same month that Obama said "You can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers' dime." 

On the bright side, the head of the GSA fired her top deputies and then quit herself just as this was about to go public.

The socialized health care monster in England which told an 83-year old lady to find a closer medical facility in order to reduce her carbon footprint.  How far away was the facility that told her to do this:  1 mile.

Barack Obama for saying what he said about the Supreme Court.  He can't really threaten the Supreme Court, after all they have lifetime tenure and will most likely still be sitting on the bench when Chicago's premier thug is returned to his old stomping grounds, but it was indelicate, not to mention demonstrably false, and showed a crack in the facade of "No drama Obama".


Now for a little good news.  The Chevy Volt will pay for itself in just . . . 27 years, less if it was operated solely on battery power, which according to one test driver is only 25 miles per charge.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Health Care Is Not Unique


Liberals are in full defense mode for Obamacare, and most if not all don't want John Q. Public to grasp what is really at stake.  The question is whether government can force you into commerce, i.e., force you to buy a private, but government-approved, product.  (That last part is a kicker. Part of Obamacare is that all health insurance must be approved by the government.) 

Government has tried to justify this coercion by saying that the health care market is "unique" in that at some point everyone will participate in it and that those who don't pay raise the cost for everybody else.  I have stated that everyone will at some point in time also use the food, clothing, shelter, and transportation markets.  Let me point out how each of these markets is identical to health care with regard to those who don't pay.

Let's talk shoplifting.  People go into stores selling food and clothing and steal things, either because they can't or won't pay for them.  It is estimated that shoplifting is a $15 billion a year problem.  So, these business are then forced to raise the price of their merchandise to make up for what has been stolen.  These increases are then passed on to those who do pay.

People rent homes and apartments and then don't pay their rent, resulting in legal fees and costs and loss of rental income, all of which cause rental prices to go up and be passed on to those who do pay.

People steal cars.  It is estimated that this is a $6 billion a year problem.  Insurance companies reimburse their insureds, then premiums are raised and passed on to the consumer, i.e., those who do pay.

Health care is no different.  The food, clothing, shelter, and transportation markets are just as necessary as the health care market and those who don't pay raise the cost for those who do. 


Nor is health care the only market in which people can die if they are not allowed to participate in it.  You can die if you don't get enough food.  You can die if you don't have the appropriate clothing and/or shelter.  You can die if you don't have the appropriate transportation to get you to a health care provider.

The food, clothing, shelter, and transportation markets are identical to the health care market in that everyone will at some point participate in them and that the lack of ability or refusal to pay for participation in them not only leads to increased costs for others, but can also lead to death.  (I would at this time point out that the health care profession kills nearly 4,000 people a week, and that participation in the health care market, regardless of whether you can pay for it, can also lead to death.)


Therefore, if the government can force you to participate in one necessary market in a certain way, what's to stop it from forcing you to participate in other necessary markets in a certain way.

It is a given that if the Supreme Court gives congress this awesome power, at some point in time, congress will abuse that power. 

That's what liberals don't want you to know.  That Obamacare, disguised as health care for all, is at it's core really all about extending government control over us, up to and including our very lives.






Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Poking the Bear


The late Jim Croce sang a song with this refrain:  "You don't tug on Superman's cape.  You don't spit into the wind.  You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger, and you don't mess around with Jim."  The idea is that you don't do these things because something bad will happen if you do.

Well, Obama didn't do any of the foregoing, but he certainly tugged on the black robes of justice by saying that he was "confident" that the Supreme Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."  Let's look at that.

First, it would not be "an unprecedented, extraordinary step" for the Supreme Court to overturn a law that it deemed unconstitutional.  Between 1789 and 2002 (the last year for which data is available), the Supreme Court overturned 158 acts of congress as being unconstitutional.  During that time, the Supreme Court overturned 1,539 (state, local, and federal) laws that it deemed unconstitutional.

Secondly, "passed by a strong majority".  Really.  The margin in the House was 7.  The margin in the Senate was 21.  Hardly a "strong majority" in either body.

Obama also referred to the justices as "unelected", as though that was a bad thing.  If our Constitution is followed, those justices will still be sitting on the bench long after the community organizer from Chicago has been returned to his old stomping grounds.


I think that what Obama was really saying was "Don't cross me."  I have long been of the belief that Obama thought he could get through the presidency without breaking a sweat.  He'd propose something.  People would swoon.  Congress would pass the necessary legislation.  And he would sign it, all without interfering with tee time or his weekly parties.  Funny how real life gets in the way, huh.

Well, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas, also currently hearing a case against Obamacare, has taken umbrage at Obama's remarks and has ordered the Department of Justice to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter addressing whether the Executive Branch believes that federal courts have the power to strike down laws they believe are unconstitutional and has given them until tomorrow to do so. 


Since there is no question that federal courts have this power, what these justices have done is force the Department of Justice, which is part of the Executive Branch, to write a letter that will disparage Obama's comments and, thus, Obama himself for making them.  It's kind of like a schoolteacher forcing a student to write "I will not say stupid things" on the blackboard 100 times.

In the bigger picture, though, Obama's comments are far more sinister, especially if taken together with his comment "When Congress refuses to act, Joe and I are going to act."  In other words, Obama is saying "I want my way."  These comments form a picture of a man chafing against our constitutional system, a man who would be much more comfortable being a dictator, with a compliant congress and judiciary implementing his will.


These latest comments also seem to indicate that not only does Obama believe that the Supreme Court just might throw out his signature "achievement," but that he might be starting to unravel a bit.  Are cracks beginning to form in the facade of "No Drama Obama"?

Obama has never really had to work for anything.  He has no idea how to behave when someone says "no" or when people regard him with less than complete adoration.  When this happens, he goes off script and lashes out, saying stupid things in the process.

This order from the Fifth Circuit is a good comeuppance to someone who has come to believe in his own omnipotence.







Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Losers of the Week


Spike Lee for tweeting what he thought was the address of George Zimmerman's parents in Florida, which turned out to be the address of an older couple who were no relation to the George Zimmerman that the left, especially blacks, have already tried and convicted for the murder of Trayvon Martin in Florida.

Roseanne Barr for tweeting the correct address for George Zimmerman's parents in Florida.

To his credit, Mr. Lee apologized to the couple that fled their home after receiving threatening messages and promised to compensate them.  However, neither of these people should have tweeted the address of Mr. Zimmerman's parents, who had nothing to do with the death of young Mr. Martin
.

The New Black Panther Party for offering $1 million for the capture of Mr. Zimmerman, even though no arrest warrant has been issued.

Al Sharpton who intends to move things "to the next level" if Mr. Zimmerman is not arrested.  Jesse Jackson for also participating.  Both of these men put "Reverend" in front of their names.  There is nothing at all Christian about what they're doing in this regard
.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It's Really Quite Simple


Which is why liberals get it wrong, and the Supreme Court probably will as well.

Obamacare is not constitutional.  Everyone acknowledges that we are in uncharted territory, and the government is trying to strain the Commerce Clause in a way never seen before. 

Congress, the most freely functioning criminal organization in the world, already thinks there are no limits to its power.  If the Supreme Court upholds the provision that forces Americans to purchase a product from the private sector, and not just any product, but a product that Congress says must meet minimum conditions, Congress will not hesitate to exploit and abuse this awesome power.  As a consequence, we will become nothing but slaves to a government that was supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people.

Our Founding Fathers designed the Constitution to be a limit on the powers of the federal government, not a tool to be used for its neverending expansion.

The government's argument that health care is "unique" in that everyone will eventually need health care is so incredibly weak, and false, that it's a downright embarrassment to an administration top heavy with people overly impressed with their so-called intellect.

Food, clothing, shelter, and transportation are also "unique" in that everyone will eventually need all of them.  If the government can force us to participate in a certain way regarding health care, then it can also force us to participate in a certain way with these other "unique" situations. 


Justice Kennedy has this to say:  "Here, the government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases."  This "changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in the very fundamental way."

Elena Kagan's refusal to recuse herself from this case is already a stain on the Court, even though we all know that she was put there for just this purpose.  If Kennedy votes to uphold Obamacare after making this statement, then the Supreme Court will be entitled to every bit of contempt and disrespect coming its way.

A Supreme Court ruling becomes the law of the land, but that doesn't mean that that ruling is right.  The Supreme Court was wrong in Dred Scott v. Sandford (blacks are not citizens entitled to constitutional rights), Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal), Roe v. Wade (no explanation needed), and Kelo v. City of New London (the state can take your property if it has a better use for it than you do.)

Dred Scott (1857) was rendered moot with the passage of the 14th Amendment (1868).  Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was law until the Supreme Court reversed it in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education, a period of 58 years.

It seems that the Supreme Court always gets the big ones wrong the first time around.  If it takes nearly 60 years for the Supreme Court to right its wrongs, I might live to see the reversal of Roe v. Wade, but I won't be around for the reversal, should it be necessary, of this unconstitutional monster.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Does Art Imitate Life?


I watched Criminal Minds last night.  If you've ever watched the show, you know that Penelope "Baby Girl" Garcia is a computer whiz who seems to be able to find whatever is asked of her . . . in an instant.

In one scene, she pulled up the medical history of a person who wasn't even a suspect in the case.  In fact, it was this person who put them on to the real killer.

Are there really Penelope Garcias in the employ of Uncle Sam who can pull up our confidential medical records at any time, without our knowledge or consent, or is this just a TV show and nothing else.

A worrisome thought.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They Ought To Be Ashamed Of Themselves


The Editorial Board of The Washington Post recently published a column saying "This cost-cutting reform deserves a chance."  They were referring to the Independent Payment Advisory Board or IPAB, which is, in their terms, "One of the most promising cost-control measures of the new health-care law."

In a nutshell, this is what The Washington Post says is a good idea:  If the growth in health-care costs exceeds a certain target, then IPAB has the authority to "recommend changes to the Medicare program."

Did you catch that?  Regardless of where the excess health-care costs are coming from, Medicare is going to get dinged.  In fact, IPAB is limited to Medicare.  It cannot make suggestions or cuts anywhere else.


The Editorial Board goes on to denounce those who refer to IPAB as "an unaccountable board to ration care for today's seniors" by saying "that the law creating IPBA specifically prohibits it from making any recommendation to ration health care." 

As the Editorial Board itself says, this is a "cost-cutting" measure.  How do you cut costs?  Either by lowering payments to health care providers or rationing care.  Doctors are already refusing to take Medicare patients because of the low rate of reimbursement.  Continued lowering of reimbursement rates will cause more and more doctors to get off the USS Medicare.  This leads to rationing of care or, worse yet, no care at all.
  Anyone with a brain, which apparently does not include this Editorial Board, knows that.  Do these people never plan to get old?  Do they not have parents?

Medicare is for the elderly, infirm, and disabled.  For anyone to say that it is okay to take money from them to prop up the system elsewhere is simply despicable. 

It also shows the lengths to which the left is willing to go to shill for Obama's signature "achievement," which is also despicable. 

They ought to be ashamed of themselves but, obviously, they are not.  Another hallmark of the left.




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456789107576Next »