About Me

Name: Roxanna M.
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Losers of the Week

Posted by Roxanna M. on Saturday, April 02, 2011 11:48:33 AM

Andrea Mitchell 2003:  "It's terrible that Saddam Hussein is butchering his people, but the United States simply cannot send in the Marines to take on every dictator.  And, while the Bush administration likes to brag about the 30 nations in their coalition, it will be the United States that does most of the fighting in Iraq.  I fear this is the wrong war at the wrong time and in the wrong place."

Andrea Mitchell 2011:  "This intervention could wind up being Barack Obama's finest hour.  His intentions are pure - this is a humanitarian mission, not blood for oil.  We've got a coalition with us, the United Nations, the Arab League.  And the diplomacy has truly been masterful - future military planners will surely use Obama's Libya template as a guide." 

Bob Schieffer:  ". . . I was struck by an observation I came across from a Harvard professor.  he reminded us all that Barack Obama is really a, 'true philosopher-President whose peers include the likes of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and our last professorial President, the under-rated Woodrow Wilson.'" 

Tom Brokaw:  "Yes, Lincoln had the Civil War.  FDR faced the Great Depression, Nazi Germany, Pearl Harbor.  But look at the daunting set of challenges President Obama faces today: wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya; a runaway deficit, unemployment at record levels, a health care reform bill that special interests are trying to destroy - all of that, plus the irrational hatred of the bigots in the Tea Party who want nothing more than to see him fail.  All of that has arrived at the Oval Office at the same time.  He deserves a Nobel Prize just for showing up each day."

Brian Williams:  (interviewing Obama)  "Your wife and daughters know you ran for this office for them and their future.  But they clearly suffer when hard times cause you to overwork (sic) and clearly suffer when you're attacked despite all that effort.  As you sit here on a beautiful day in New York in April, reflect for me on how the criticism from all sides, at all times, can threaten to ruffle your legendary calm."

Jonathan Alter:  "And as his impressive basketball bracket proves" (he picked George Mason to upset Villanova) "Mr. Obama's head for hoops almost approaches his mastery of Middle East multilateralism." 





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

Winners of the Week

Posted by Roxanna M. on Saturday, March 26, 2011 10:34:49 AM

The Patriot Guard Riders, who have for years attended the funerals of our fallen soldiers and formed a living shield between the grieving family and the lower forms of life who use these funerals for their own sick purposes. 

For more information, go to www.patriotguard.org.






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

Send In the Hypocrites

Posted by Roxanna M. on Wednesday, March 23, 2011 9:12:57 AM

During the 2004 campaign, John Kerry made the disastrous decision to say that he was in favor of something before he was against it.  That pretty much summed up the position of the left on the Iraq war.  Democrats were all in favor of giving Bush the authority he needed to go into Iraq, and they supported him . . . right up until the war began polling badly.  Then the democrats hated the war and said they were tricked into supporting it.  Harry "Paleface" Reid even went so far as to say that the war was lost, which is about as despicable as a politician can get without committing outright treason.

Fast forward to today. 

Obama has gotten us into a war in Libya.  In light of the fact that our military is bombing that country, it's a war regardless of what moniker you put on it.  So, what is the left's position about Obama's war? 

"In Libya, Obama Finally Did the Right Thing" 
     The New Republic

"Why This Is America's War" 
     Daily Beast

"America Has to Drum Gaddafi From Power" 
     The New Yorker 

"Whats the purpose of being a powerful country if we are not using it to defend people?" 
     Anthony Weiner (D-NY) 

Perhaps the quote that sums it up best comes from the man at the top: 

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." 
     Barack Obama  (2007)

Except, of course, when he does.



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

Impeach Him Now!

Posted by Roxanna M. on Tuesday, March 22, 2011 6:15:41 PM

Back on July 9, 2010, I said that Obama should be impeached.  I listed the following reasons:

1.  He has posted signs on American soil saying that it isn't safe to be there, in effect ceding portions of America to hostile foreign powers.

2.  Filing a lawsuit against Arizona, seeking to deprive American citizens of the laws they need to defend themselves and their property.

3.  Signing into law an unconstitutional health care scheme.

4.  Appointing and giving real power to unelected and unaccountable czars who report only to him.

I would now add the following:

5.  Informing his Department of Justice not to enforce the laws against voter intimidation when those doing the intimidating are black, thus denying equal protection of the law to white people.

6.  Informing his Department of Justice not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law he doesn't happen to like. 

Both of the above are examples of picking and choosing which laws to enforce.  Such is the way of chaos.

7.  Sending billions to Brazil for it to develop its oil reserves, which will create jobs in Brazil, so it can sell it back to us because Obama wants America to be one of Brazil's "best customers."

In an op-ed in USA Today, Obama said, "Brazil holds recently discovered oil reserves that could be far larger than ours.  And as we seek to increase secure-energy supplies, we look forward to developing a strategic energy partnership."

This is beyond outrageous.  We have reserves that could produce jobs and income, but the President of the United States is acting contrary to the best interests of this country.  He is deliberately harming our economic and national security interests and saying so in a national newspaper.

Impeach him now!  Bill Clinton was impeached for far, far less.  What is it going to take to awaken the idiots in this country to the danger that is Barack Obama?



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

Loser of the Week

Posted by Roxanna M. on Saturday, March 19, 2011 12:24:19 PM

MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell had this to say this week concerning Republican congresswoman Michelle Bachman:

"There are many, many ignorant members of congress and many ignorant senators, but they are protected all day long from revealing most of their ignorance by staffs who are hundreds of times smarter than they are.  Perhaps all of Michelle Bachmann's staff come from her district, which may be the most ignorant congressional district in America.  In 2010, 52% of that district voted for Michelle Bachmann to represent them in congress.  Now, she had already proven time and time again to her district and to America that she is unworthy of representing any congressional district in America.  But 52%, the same percentage in that district who voted for John McCain for president, voted for Michelle Bachmann in 2010.  What makes those voters so ignorant?  Well, for starters, they are whiter than the average district, 92% white, in fact." 

Mr. O'Donnell then went on to state that the fact that her district was so overwhelmingly white could not explain its ignorance because Republican congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson's district is 91% white, and she's not as ignorant as Ms. Bachmann. 

He also went on to say that the average income in her district is $68,000.00, which is comparable to that of democrat Barney Frank's district in Massachusetts, so that can't explain the ignorance.  But in referencing Barney Frank, Mr. O'Donnell revealed his own astonishing ignorance by saying: 

"So the money explains nothing because Barney Frank's intelligence and expertise in public policy, not to mention his wit, is second to none in the House of Representatives." 

Really.  Barney Frank was one of the driving forces behind the mortgage meltdown.  His boyfriend worked at Fannie Mae (or Freddie Mac) during the time, and he steadfastly, absolutely refused to do anything to rein in the coming disaster.  And, in fact, said there was nothing wrong at Fannie Mae (or Freddie Mac) and joined in the chorus of those who claimed it was racist to say otherwise. 

If Barney Frank is an intelligent expert, what does a complete moron look like? 

Mr. O'Donnell then went on to ask 3 questions: 

(1)  "How ignorant is Michelle Bachmann and how did she get that way?  Remember, this is a graduate of Winona State University and the Oral Roberts University Coburn School of Law.  Law school graduate.  So, do not overlook her academic achievement in trying to explain this.  Doesn't make it any easier to explain."

(2)  "Where does Michelle Bachmann find her shockingly ignorant staff?"

(3)  "And three, most important of all, What explains the rank ignorance of the 52% of the voters in Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District?" 

Let's have some fun by rewording Mr. O'Donnell's questions: 

(1)  How ignorant is Barack Obama and how did he get that way?  Remember, this is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law.  Law school graduate.  So, do not overlook his academic achievement in trying to explain this.  Doesn't make it any easier to explain." 

(2)  Where does Barack Obama find his shockingly ignorant staff? 

(3)  And three, most important of all, What explains the rank ignorance of the 52% of the voters in America? 

How else do we know that Mr. O'Donnell is ignorant? 

Well, for starters, this man who slurps and burps happily at the capitalism trough actually believes that socialism is better than capitalism.  Notice that he's making no effort to live in a country that actually has the kind of government he espouses.

Secondly, and more importantly, he supports Obama. 

I mean, how much more ignorant can you get.




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

Coincidence?

Posted by Roxanna M. on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:25:03 PM

"One choice, at this transformational moment, is to say, 'We are satisfied with what we are doing.  We -- in [public] radio -- are providing 11% of America with an extraordinary service.'"  Sue Schardt, public radio executive (3/7/11)

"11% Say Communism Better Than U.S. System of Politics and Economics"  Rasmussen Reports (3/15/11)





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

God Spoke . . . and the Earth Trembled

Posted by Roxanna M. on Sunday, March 13, 2011 10:36:01 AM
 
It's being reported that the recent earthquake in Japan moved its coastline 8 feet and shifted the Earth's axis. 
 
Once again, we are reminded what nature can do without any help from man.  (I have completely discounted all reports that this event was caused by global warming.) 
 
Right now, the idiots in charge of this country are implementing the demise of the incandescent light bulb.  Why?  Because, OMG, they contribute to global warming.  Therefore, we must have compact fluorescent bulbs . . . made in China.  Here's a dirty little secret:  America can't make compact fluorescents because environmental regulations stand in the way of building the necessary plants, much as environmental regulations stand in the way of pretty much everything in this country, most specifically sanity.
 
Never mind that they are unsafe in humid environments, i.e., bathrooms, because they can catch fire when moist.  Never mind that they contain mercury, which is going to get into the ground water from all the bulbs thrown into landfills because people are not going to recycle them!  After paying $5-plus for the bulb, people are not going to pay another $5-plus to recycle it when it's worn out in a couple of years because it's not going to last as long as promised. 
 
But I digress. 
 
We have been told that we have to drive less, because fossil fuels contribute to global warming, which is killing the planet.  We can't expel methane emissions because they contribute to global warming, which is killing the planet.  We can't use one of the greatest inventions in all of human history, thank you, Mr. Edison, because they contribute to global warming, which is killing the planet.  We can't use our wood-burning stoves to keep warm.  And, apparently, we can't use our heaters either because both contribute to global warming, which is killing the planet.  Not only must we freeze in the winter, we must burn in the summer because we can't use our air conditioners because they contribute to global warming, which is killing the planet. 

We suffer rolling blackouts in the summer because despite the face that air conditioners are killing the planet, people use them, which puts a strain on the electricity grid.  And we can't build new plants to relieve that strain because they contribute to global warming, which is killing the planet.  We must put billions more money into the hands of the most unstable countries on the face of the planet to pay for oil because we refuse to harvest our own resources, because to do so is to contribute to global warming, which is killing the planet. 
 
The idiots in charge of this country are killing it slowly in the name of the biggest hoax of mankind, i.e., global warming.  We could all live the greenest lifestyles imaginable and you know what, there would still be earthquakes, there would still be drowning rains and searing droughts, hurricanes would still form in the Atlantic, etc., etc., etc. 
 
Why?  Because God is in charge.  If it is God's plan to destroy this planet by global warming, then that is exactly what will happen.  Not only will it happen, it will happen in God's time, regardless of everything we do to try and prevent it. 
 
God is in charge, and it is the supreme folly of man to believe otherwise.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Losers of the Week

Posted by Roxanna M. on Saturday, March 05, 2011 11:42:03 AM
 
Having been summoned to testify before congress regarding his failure to prosecute blacks for voter intimidation, something the democrats in congress refused to look into, Eric Holder rather boldly and baldly indicated his racial bias when he used the term "my people" . . . and was referring only to blacks.  When the Attorney General of the United States thinks that only blacks are his people, the question of racial bias has been settled.
 
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler, a Clinton appointee, who ruled in favor of Obamacare and said:  "It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not 'acting,' especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice.  Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something.  They are two sides of the same coin.  To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality."
 
In other words, not doing something is actually doing something and congress has the power to regulate it. 
 
It's interesting that in her opinion, she used the words "free ride," probably without a trace of irony.  Nobody in this country gets a freer ride than federal judges.  They get a lifetime appointment.  They never have to spend time or money running for office.  They are almost never answerable for the things they do.  We pay their pension.  We pay their health care benefits.  Basically, they're tyrants . . . and boy do they enjoy it.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Let the Lawsuits Begin!

Posted by Roxanna M. on Thursday, March 03, 2011 12:58:27 PM
 
The South Dakota senate has passed a bill that would require women to wait 72 hours and undergo counseling before having an abortion.  The Republican governor has not yet signed the bill, but because he's a Republican, the expectation is that he will. 
 
Of course, women's groups and probably the ACLU are not going to take this lying down.  After all, we're talking about the most sacrosanct of all constitutional rights, the holy of holies, "a woman's 'right' to choose." 
 
Despite the fact that the word abortion appears nowhere in the Constitution and there is absolutely no contemporaneous documents indicating that our Founding Fathers were even thinking about it when they wrote the document.  
 
For some reason, abortion has become the one 'right' that is not allowed to have any restrictions on it whatsoever.  There are restrictions on the First and Second Amendments.  Under Obama, the Fourth and Tenth Amendments have been pretty well gutted.  And, if the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare and agrees that The State has the right to control our economic decisions, the Thirteenth Amendment will cease to have any meaning. 
 
Yet, there are those who wail like banshees at even the suggestion of putting any kind of restriction on abortion.
 
Oddly enough, some of the people who demand a waiting period and all kinds of other restrictions on the right to bear arms - including the abolition of guns altogether - are the very same people who demand free and unfettered access to abortion, even though it is far more deadly than guns and has killed millions and millions of more people.
 
Actual numbers are hard to come by, but it is estimated that there have been 52 million legal abortions since Roe vs. Wade in 1973.  That's roughly 1.4 million a year, 3,835 a day, 159 an hour, 2.65 a minute.  
 
Gun deaths, on the other hand, account for about 30,000 deaths a year.  This means that, on average, there are about as many abortions in one year as there have been gun deaths since 1960. 
 
A billboard recently went up in NYC claiming that the most dangerous place in America for an African-American is in the womb.  And that's true.  Abortion is the Number 1 killer of blacks in America.  Though only 12% of the population, they account for 35% of abortions.  Again, the numbers are hard to come by, but it is estimated that abortion has killed one-third of the black population in America since 1973.  Kind of makes you wonder why the left is so in favor of it.
 
Perhaps the weakest argument put forth by proponents of gun control is that innocent bystanders are often the innocent victims of gun violence.  Yes, that's true. 
 
It is also true that every single victim of abortion is an innocent bystander.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Free Speech for All or Free Speech for None

Posted by Roxanna M. on Wednesday, March 02, 2011 4:28:27 PM
 
The Supreme Court just made a very unhappy decision.  It upheld the loathsome and despicable actions of some individuals who like to protest at the funerals of people who died for their right to be as loathsome and despicable as they want to be. 

While it's easy to be angry with the folks who claim to be Christians and who claim that their organization is a church, and while it's easy to be angry with the court for allowing them to continue with what they're doing, the decision was the right one. 

Except to wreak havoc and inflict pain, what purpose is served by the actions of the Westboro folk?  In fact, other than to serve as bad examples, what purpose do these people serve at all?  So, instead of hating them, we should really pity them.  After all, if they were leading happy, fulfilled lives instead of sad, pathetic ones, they would not feel the need to go to such efforts to spread their hate.  

Remember that the next time you see these nothings holding up signs at the funeral of a person who was their superior in every respect.






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

Defending the Indefensible

Posted by Roxanna M. on Tuesday, March 01, 2011 9:28:19 AM
 
The New Republic, stalwart defender of all that's left, said that Obama's decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is "nothing less than bold." 
 
In a recent interview, Newt Gingrich said that ". . . having a president personally suspend a law is clearly unconstitutional."  Obama didn't suspend the law, he just said that he's not going to enforce it.  TNR, of course, thinks this is great because the left wants gay marriage. 
 
But the President instructing his Department of Justice not to defend a law he doesn't like has deeper consequences. 
 
What if the next Republican president decides that affirmative action is unconstitutional - because it denies equal protection to all people - and instructs his DOJ not to defend it in the courts? 
 
Would TNR think that that was "nothing less than bold" and that the president would be "justified in announcing a unilateral decision that he will not comply with a law he believes to be unconstitutional."  Would TNR say that such an action was "justified here" and "driven by the unacceptability of the arguments that the government would otherwise have to make."   
 
What if the next Republican president decides that abortion is not a constitutional right and instructs his DOJ not to defend it in the courts? 
 
Would TNR think that that was "nothing less than bold" and that the president would be "justified in announcing a unilateral decision that he will not comply with a law he believes to be unconstitutional." 
 
Would TNR say, "I don't believe that any administration is obliged to urge a court to accept propositions that the president believes are fundamentally wrong . . . The far better course was to make this one of those rare instances in which the government gives the court its honest view on fundamental questions, even if those views could lead to the law being invalidated." 
 
Would TNR, on either of these issues, cheer on a Republican president's decision to "issue a brief setting out its view that" affirmative action/abortion "is unconstitutional." 
 
Would TNR say that the president's "decision was honest, transparent, and respectful of the rule of law.  The briefs the administration will file on this issue going forward will give the court the benefit of the Justice Department's best thinking.  At the same time, the government will not be 'pretending' or 'purporting' to support the law - and, thus, the judges will know to look elsewhere for the most all-out, ho-holds-barred defense of the law in question." 
 
Regarding affirmative action, would TNR say that the decision has "placed the executive branch of the government of the United States firmly behind the proposition that discrimination based on" race and/or gender "is wrong." 
 
Regarding abortion, would TNR say that the decision has "placed the executive branch of the government of the United States firmly behind the proposition that" killing unborn babies "is wrong." 
 
Would TNR say that "History will be kind" to either of these decisions?
 
No, of course it wouldn't.  It would scream at the top of its lungs about an arrogant president and his disrespect for the law.  In short, the article by TNR is just more leftist, hypocritical drivel.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It's Good to be the King

Posted by Roxanna M. on Thursday, February 24, 2011 5:01:20 PM
 
This is a statement to the press from Attorney General Eric Holder: 

"After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation . . . The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional.  Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases.  I fully concur with the President's determination." 

Doesn't sound like anarchy, but it is. 

DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, decrees that marriage, for purposes of all federal laws, is between one man and one woman.  It is, therefore, the duty of both Obama and the DOJ to defend that law until such time as it has been overturned by congress or the courts.  Attempting to mend fences with the gay wing of his party, however, Obama has taken it upon himself to declare the law unconstitutional and instruct the DOJ not to defend it. 

Deciding whether or not a law is constitutional or un is the exclusive right of the judiciary, at least according to the Constitution, which seems to be of no interest to this administration. 

Without so much as batting an eye, the Executive Branch (of which both Obama and Holder are members) have usurped the power of the judiciary because they don't like a law.  They don't like it, and they're not going to enforce it. 

This is only the latest example of the Obama administration's contempt for the law:

(1)  The FCC after being told by a federal court that it had no power over the internet, voted to control the internet.  Those members of the FCC who voted to do should be cited for contempt of court. 

(2)  Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is in contempt of court. 

(3)  HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, if she continues to enforce Obamacare, will be in contempt of court.  Judge Roger Vinson specifically did not issue an injunction because he expected the administration to honor his ruling, a mighty big presumption considering the adolescents running amok in DC. 

(4)  Unable to get a cap-and-tax bill through congress, Obama has instructed the EPA (also a part of the Executive Branch) to issue such laws.

No one, up to and including the President, is above the law.  Clinton tested this regularly during his administration and was repeatedly slapped down. 

Yet here we are, with a president who thinks he can pick and choose what laws he will or will not obey . . . thinks nothing of both ignoring and trampling all over a separate but co-equal branch of government . . . and knows that he won't pay any price for it because the media is in his pocket. 

We need an adult in the White House, and we don't have one.  We have an arrogant, spoiled child who doesn't believe in limits and doesn't believe there are no checks on his desires. 

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  The more power Obama takes, the more he will want.  Such is the way of children and dictators.  
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Here We Are . . . Again

Posted by Roxanna M. on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 9:17:35 AM
 
Well, there's unrest in the mid-east, as though that hasn't been the norm for decades.  This time, though, it's got nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with people getting fed up with the dictators who live high on the hog (pun intended) while they suffer.   

The latest man-on-the-bubble is Libya's Qaddafi, who in response to the uprising is ordering sabotage of the oil fields, Libya's only real source of revenue.  Oil prices spiked 9% in one day.  And we Americans, already struggling with a weak economy, are once again going to pay the price at the pump. 

Because of the feckless leadership in this country and the absolutely idiotic refusal to harvest our own resources - and put our people to work - we are going to continue to suffer economically. 

And what is Obama doing about this?  Well, as usual, he's playing President of the United States on TV.  His wife and children have just come back from yet another taxpayer-funded vacation.  He's siding with the strikers in Wisconsin.  He's denouncing Israel at the U.N.  He's not working with Republicans in congress and fully intends to shut down government, regardless of the consequences to you and me, in an effort to breathe some life into a re-election campaign that has not one accomplishment to run on.  He's not serious about fixing our economic problems.  He's never been serious about anything except satisfying his own adolescent wants.

His Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is in contempt of court over the moratorium in the Gulf after the BP spill.  Salazar's foot dragging has sent one company into bankruptcy and another elsewhere in search of jobs.  And people who could be working are drawing unemployment while an asset goes fallow.

America, the greatest nation on the planet, is being brought to its knees needlessly.  We have oil in this country.  We could get it, refine it, sell it.  We could put our people back to work.  We could revive our country.  We could show the useless tinpot dictators of the world that they don't have a stranglehold on the world. 

But, America does nothing.  The people who are supposed to be looking out for us have, in effect, sold us out.  They sit there with their government salaries and bonuses and perks and don't give a rat's rear end what's going on with us.  Congress gives itself a 5% raise every year, while denying Social Security COLAs for 2 years.  They don't care.  Higher gas prices don't bother them.  After all, they're not paying for their gas, we are.  

Higher gas prices will increase the price of absolutely everything else.  Our already precarious economy could be sent into another tailspin. 

Meanwhile, the Neros in DC fiddle while America burns . . . all the while thinking that we're too stupid to know what's going on. 

They learned nothing from November and if this country is ever to return to greatness, November 2010 must be only the beginning.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Three Down . . . And More to Go?

Posted by Roxanna M. on Thursday, February 10, 2011 11:24:00 AM
 
Come 2012, democrats will have to defend 23 seats in the senate.  While most of these seats are in safe blue states, 7 are in red or swing states.  

Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, a democrat turned Independent who voted with democrats, despite the appalling way they treated him, is retiring.  His seat will likely stay on the left side of the aisle. 

Kent Conrad of North Dakota is also retiring, and his seat is looked at as a Republican pick up, especially after the November elections.  (Sen. Byron Dorgan (D) "retired" and was replaced by a Republican.  Earl Pomeroy (D), first elected in 1993 and the state's lone member of the House, was defeated, probably because he thought it was a good campaign strategy to tout his vote in favor of Obamacare.  All in all, democrats in North Dakota were thoroughly trounced in November.) 

Finally, Jim Webb of Virginia has announced his retirement.  In November, Republicans won 8 of 11 congressional races.  In the 2009 elections, voters elected a Republican governor 59%-41%, a Republican Lt. Governor 57%-43%, a Republican Attorney General 58%-42%, and Republicans in 10 of 15 legislative seats, with a winning average of 56%-43%.
 
Meanwhile, Republicans have to defend only 10 seats, almost all of which are in red states. 

Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Jon Kyl of Arizona are retiring, and their seats will likely remain on the right side of the aisle. 
 
Vulnerable Republicans include Scott Brown of Massachusetts and John Ensign of Nevada. 
 
Republicans need to keep their 10 seats and pick up 4 to gain the majority.  It's early yet, but 2 of those 4 are already in peril. 
 
Add to this the fact that 3 other senate democrats - Claire McCaskill (Missouri), Jon Tester (Montana) and Joe Manchin (West Virginia) - have already begun their re-election campaigns by saying that they're open to suggestions about how to "fix" Obamacare like, say, getting rid of the individual mandate.  Obama lost these states in 2008.
 
Columns and opinions are popping up all over the place about Obama's re-election chances.  The economy is still bad.  Unemployment is higher than when he took office.  And, his signature achievement - health care "reform" - has just been declared unconstitutional.  As of right now, he has absolutely nothing to run on, nothing to convince voters that they were better off in 2012 than they were in 2008. 
 
Of course, 2012 is a long ways away and anything can happen.  The Supreme Court could uphold Obamacare.  But, that won't make the people like it, so it won't be a "win" for Obama. 
 
And, nobody is expecting good unemployment numbers for several more years.  Social Security began to run in the red last year.  Neither the states nor We the People can afford the mandates of Obamacare. 
 
Fundamentalists could grab control of Egypt and shut down the Suez Canal - through which the oil tankers travel.  Some experts are already predicting that gas will be $5.00 a gallon by 2012.  A shut down of the Suez Canal could drive prices even higher, thus raising the price of everything else. 
 
Meanwhile, Wonder Boy in the White House steadfastly and stubbornly refuses to allow our own resources to be harvested, not only keeping up the price of oil, but also not creating thousands of desperately needed jobs.
 
Like I said, Obama currently has no accomplishments to run on and 2012 is a long ways away . . . things could be even worse for him then.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I'm So Embarrassed

Posted by Roxanna M. on Wednesday, February 09, 2011 12:42:03 PM
 
During the B.O.  v.  B.O.  interview (Bill O'Reilly v. Barack Obama), O'Reilly asked Obama what is the "absolute worst part of being president?"  Here is what he said: 

"Worst part of the job is, first of all, I've got a jacket on Super Bowl Sunday.  If I wasn't president, that would not be happening.  The biggest problem for me is being in the bubble.  It's very hard to escape.  You know, you can't go to the corner . . . (O'Reilly:  Everybody watching every move you make.) . . . Every move you make.  And you - over time, you know, what happens is you feel like - that you're not able to just have a spontaneous conversation with folks.  And that's a loss.  That's big loss." 

You have so got to be kidding me.  The job of the President of the United States is to keep this country safe and doing so sometimes entails sending young men and women into harm's way, to be wounded, disabled, and killed.  And this joke of a man says that the hardest part of his job is wearing a jacket on Super Bowl Sunday?  Not being able to have a spontaneous conversation with folks." 

Even the most ardent Obama fan should be embarrassed at this shallow, immature, narcissistic, and completely clueless response.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910…7374Next »