About Me

Name: Roxanna M.
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Obama's Disdain for America

 
It's been said that the fish stinks from the head down.  That's certainly true in this administration:  it stinks from Obama down. 
 
*  On April 6, 2010, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the FCC does not have authority to enforce internet neutrality. 
 
On December 21, 2010, the FCC officially adopted net neutrality rules. 
 
The three individuals at the FCC wh9 voted this way are now in contempt of court. 
 
*  In May 2010, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar issued a moratorium in response to the BP oil spill. 
 
On June 22, 2010, the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, struck down that moratorium saying that Mr. himalazar had acted "arbitrarily," "capriciously," "heavy-handed," and "overbearing."  Mr. Salazar did himself no favors when it was shown that he had, in seeking the moratorium, altered a report from experts. 
 
On July 12, 2010, Mr. Salazar issued a new moratorium and said on September 30, 2010, that it will stay in place until he feels "comfortable we have significantly reduced the risks" of drilling. 
 
In October 2010, Mr. Salazar claimed that the moratorium had been lifted.  However, no permits have been issued, effectively continuing the moratorium. 
 
On February 2, 2011, Judge Martin Feldman of the aforementioned court found Mr. Salazar in civil contempt, saying:  "Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this Court with clear and convincing evidence of the government's contempt of this Court's preliminary injunction Order.  To the extent the plaintiffs' motion asserts civil contempt based on the government's determined disregard of this Court's Order of preliminary injunction, it is GRANTED." 
 
*  On January 31, 2011, Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida, ruled in a lawsuit filed by 26 states against the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, that Obamacare was unconstitutional.  Unless he issues a stay pending review by the U.S. Supreme Court - which he should not do - that ruling is binding on those 26 states and neither they nor Kathleen Sebelius can enforce any provision of Obamacare in those states.  (Whether the ruling is binding on the entire United States is a subject of debate.)
 
Will Ms. Sebelius, egged on by the likes of Richard Durbin (D-IL), ignore that order and proceed?  If so, then she will be the third member of this administration in contempt of a court order. 
 
To date, we have heard of no corrective action by Obama regarding the errant FCC and Department of the Interior.  Nor have we heard anything from his lapdogs in the mainstream media demanding action.  You can bet your bottom dollar we would be if this was happening in a Republican administration. 
 
Kind of ironic that the media, grounded in the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, stands so squarely behind a man who seems determined to make end runs around the very Constitution that gives them that freedom at every opportunity.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Losers of the Week

 
1.   Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) for saying, when asked if he thought the administration should stop implementing Obamacare after Judge Vinson ruled it unconstitutional, "Personally, I don't, because the judge was asked for an injunction, and he didn't rule that there would be one.  So he hasn't enjoined any conduct or activity."  He also said "There was no federal court order from Florida enjoining anyone from complying with provisions of this law.  The judge ruled that he thought it was unconstitutional." 

Really.  In his ruling, Judge Vinson said "there is a long-standing presumption 'that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court.  As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.'"  So, yes Mr. Durbin, there has been an injunction, and the ruling by Judge Winson is not just some judge expressing his thoughts. 

2.   At a dinner hosted by the Alfalfa Club (whatever that is) and attended by Washington politicians (in tuxedos and gowns) as well as military personnel (in full dress uniform), Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett asked a military officer, with stars on his shoulders and medals on his chest, to get her another glass of wine.  Ms. Jarrett was either drunk or was expressing contempt for the military.  In either event, she should have been sent home forthwith.  An apology should be forthcoming. 

3.   John McCain for saying, "I think it's pretty clear that the president has really pivoted to a much more centrist position."  No he hasn't.  He's just biding his time, hoping to get a democrat majority in 2012, in which event he will immediately repudiate everything the mean ol' Republicans made him do.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Was Right

 
Way back on October 8, 2010, I blogged about the potential consequences of Judge George Caram Steeh's ruling that the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in Obamacare was constitutional because congress' power to regulate interstate commerce covers not only "economic activity" but "economic decisions" as well. 

I said "What if congress decreed that you had to purchase a new refrigerator one year, a new washer and dryer the next, a new dishwasher the next, and on and on it goes.  What if congress decreed that you had to completely replace your wardrobe every 3 years and buy a new car every 5 years." 

Well, I was just vindicated by Judge Roger Vinson in his recent opinion, wherein he said: 

"It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause.  If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting - as was done in the Act - that compelling the actual transaction is itself 'commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce [see Act Section 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted." 

"If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be 'difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power' [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only." 

"In Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 after stating that, if the statute were to be upheld, 'we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate." 

"Instead of attempting to control wheat supply by regulating the acreage and amount of wheat a farmer could grow as in Wickard, under this logic, Congress could more directly raise too-low wheat prices merely by increasing demand through mandating that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily, rationalized on the grounds that because everyone must participate in the market for food, non-consumers of wheat bread adversely affect prices in the wheat market.  Or, as was discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals, not only because the required purchases will positively impact interest commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system.  Similarly, because virtually no one can be divorced from the transportation market, Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile - now partially government-owned - because those who did not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business." 

"In alluding to these same general concerns, another court has observed that requiring advance purchase of health insurance based on a future contingency that will substantially affect commerce could also 'apply to transportation, housing, or nutritional decisions.  This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported by Commerce Clause jurisprudence." 

"There is quite literally no decision that, in the natural course of events, does not have an economic impact of some sort.  The decisions of whether and when (or not) to buy a house, a car, a television, a dinner, or even a morning cup of coffee also have a financial impact that - when aggregated with similar economic decisions - affect the price of that particular product or service and have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.   To be sure, it is not difficult to identify an economic decision that has a cumulatively substantial effect on interstate commerce; rather, the difficult task is to find a decision that does not." 

"The important distinction is that 'economic decisions' are a much broader and far-reaching category than are 'activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.'  While the latter necessarily encompasses the first, the reverse is not true.  'Economic' cannot be equated to 'commerce.'  And 'decisions' cannot be equated to 'activities.'  Every person throughout the course of his or her life makes hundreds or even thousands of life decisions that involve the same general sort of thought process that the defendants maintain is 'economic activity.'  There will be no stopping point if that should be deemed the equivalent of activity for Commerce Clause purposes." 

"To now hold that Congress may regulate the so-called 'economic decision' to not purchase a product or service in anticipation of future consumption is a 'bridge too far.'  It is without logical limitation and far exceeds the existing legal boundaries established by Supreme Court precedent." 

". . . the individual mandate is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution.  To uphold that provision via application of the Necessary and Proper Clause would authorize Congress to reach and regulate far beyond the currently established 'outer limits' of the Commerce Clause and effectively remove all limits on federal power." 

"If Congress is allowed to define the scope of its power merely by arguing that a provision is 'necessary' to avoid the negative consequences that will potentially flow from its own statutory enactments, the Necessary and Proper Clause runs the risk of ceasing to be the 'perfectly harmless' part of the Constitution that Hamilton assured us it was, and moves that much closer to becoming the 'hideous monster [with] devouring jaws' that he assured us it was not." 

"The individual mandate is outside Congress' Commerce Clause power, and it cannot be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and Propery Clause.  It is not Constitutional." 

"The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case . . . Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution.  Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation.  It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government." 

Of course, the left is raging about this judicial activism because in the world of the left, any judge who doesn't let the left do whatever it wants is a judicial activist.  Limbaugh is reporting that Sen. Durbin (D-IL) is going to hold hearings about this. 

Unlike the left members of congress, whose sole response to questions regarding the constitutionality of Obamacare was a shrug of the shoulders and, in the case of Nancy Pelosi, "Are you serious?", Judge Vinson refers to the Constitution often in his opinion. 

We have now reached the point in time where ignoring the Constitution is considered normal, and adherence to it is considered activist.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Losers of the Week

 
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, for, yet again, defending Obamacare, even though:  (1)  she's probably never read it; (2) she's exempt from it; (3) she's handing out exemptions/waivers like candy; (4) private premiums are rising exponentially; (5) the CBO cannot decide whether it's going to save money or cost money; (6) We the People don't want it. 
 
Just another administration shill lying to the American public.
 
Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA) for saying that the November elections ". . . happened for the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States.  It happened because the southern states, the slaveholding states, didn't want to see a president who was opposed to slavery.  In this case, I believe, a lot of people in the United States don't want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is liberal, who wants to spend money and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society." 
 
Yet another clueless lefty spouting infantile nonsense.
 
A production of "The Mikado" directed by Curt Olds of the Missoula Children's Theater, which called for the "beheading" of Sarah Palin because "no one would miss her."
 
When the Right does things like this, it's hate speech.  When the left does it, it's free speech.  See the difference?
 
And, in the Shocker of the Week, the Illinois Supreme Court sided with Rahm Emanuel and said that he could run for mayor of Chicago.  Wonder how much that cost.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Excerpts

 
The following are excerpts from the State of the Union speech:
 
"It's no secret that those of us here tonight have had our differences over the last two years.  The debates have been contentious; we have fought fiercely for our beliefs.  And that's a good thing.  That's what a robust democracy demands.  That's what helps set us apart as a nation." 

". . . Tucson reminded us that no matter who we are or where we come from, each of us is a part of something greater - something more consequential than party or political preference." 

"What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow.  I believe we can.  I believe we must.  That's what the people who sent us here expect of us." 

"We will move forward together, or not at all." 

"That's the project the American people want us to work on.  Together." 

". . . I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen." 

"I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats."

" . . . I'm asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system." 

" . . . about the new health care law.  So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved.  If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you." 

". . . I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year . . ." 

". . . we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations." 

" . . . members of both parties have expressed interest in doing this, and I am prepared to join them."

"Now is the time for both sides and both houses of Congress - Democrats and Republicans - to forge a principled compromise that gets the job done."

"Tonight, let us speak with one voice . . ."

"It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past.  It is time to move forward as one nation."
 
For two long, excruciating years two words summed up what happened in Washington, D.C.:  "I won."  With those two words, Obama and the democrats treated Republicans like something to be scraped off their shoes.  They were ignored.  On one occasion, they were even shut out of the discussions.  Obama's intent was to get his agenda enacted.  Republicans and We the People be damned.   
 
Now he wants to get along?  Now he wants to work together?  If he and his party hadn't gotten "shellacked" in November, would any of these words have been in the speech?  No bloody likely.
 
Let's see how much he works with Republicans . . . how much he listens to them . . . how many of their ideas he incorporates . . . and how often he bypasses congress with executive orders and/or edicts from his czars.
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It's Prom Night in D.C.

 
. . . and all the little boys and girls are thinking about their dates for the evening's festivities.  Much has been made of the plan to have Republicans and democrats sit together rather than on their respective sides of the room. 
 
But, I wonder, have the democrats really thought about the consequences of throwing tradition to the wind and integrating instead of staying segregated? 
 
I don't know how the seating will turn out, but it could very well be that when Obama receives the inevitable standing "O's" from his party, we will see individuals standing up throughout the room rather than a solid block of people standing up on one side of the room.  Think about the hairs on your head.  Do they look better when they're all in the same place, or when they're spread out all over your head? 
 
In any event, I look forward to seeing Boehner behind Obama rather than Pelosi, who will be just another face in the crowd.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Never Mind

 
"Little Barry, that's what we called him."  So says Hawaii's new governor Neil Abercrombie (D), who claims that he "remembers seeing Obama as a child with his parents at social events." 

According to legend, Obama, Jr., was born on August 4, 1961, in Hawaii.  According to records from the University of Washington, Seattle, Ann Dunham enrolled there on August 19, 1961, and stayed for the winter and summer 1962 terms, returning to Hawaii in the summer of 1962. 

According to records, Obama, Sr., left for Harvard in June 1962.  Other than the time between August 4 and August 19, 1961, there doesn't appear to be any time when Obama, Sr., Ann, and "Little Barry" were actually in the same state at the same time (except for a visit in 1971), which makes Abercrombie pretty much the only person on the planet claiming to have seen the Obama nuclear family.

Fast forward to today.  Bothered by people who claim that Obama was not born in Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie promised to put an end to all this "birther" nonsense once and for all by releasing Obama's real birth certificate, as opposed to all those things that have popped up on the internet claiming to be his birth certificate. 

Problem is, he has been unable to do so.  Instead of being able to tell the press that he had located Obama's actual long-form birth certificate, all he has been able to do is say, "It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing.  It actually exists in the archives, written down." 

Rather than leave the new governor with egg on his face, Hawaii's Attorney General came to his rescue by pointing out that privacy laws bar him (Abercrombie) from disclosing a person's birth certificate.  So, now Abercrombie, after having roiled the waters of the Case of the Missing Birth Certificate, has simply said, "Never mind." 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Let's Review

 
Most of Obama's economic team has left the public sector to return to the public sector, i.e., they are leaving taxpayer-funded jobs to return to taxpayer-funded jobs, which could explain why we're in such a mess.  People who spend their lives slurping and burping at the public trough don't understand how things really work. 

Well, the man in charge is going to fix all that.  Obama has appointed Jeff Immelt of GE to chair the new President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, the purpose of which is to find "new ways to promote growth by investing in American business to encourage hiring, to educate and train our workers to complete globally, and to attract the best jobs and businesses to the United States." 

Let's see how well Immelt has done at GE.  When Immelt took over from Jack Welch, shares of GE were selling for $40.  In 2009, the shares were selling for $7 and are still below $20.  GE took a $139 billion government bailout and still slashed its dividend by 68% to $.10 per share and eliminated 18,000 jobs.  I'll bet he didn't eliminate his bonuses and perks. 

GE has its own political action committee (GEPAC) which is "an important tool that enables GE employees to collectively help support candidates who share the values and goals of GE . . ."  GE also supports global warming legislation, which has proven to be such a colossal waste of time, effort, and money in Spain.  And, should we remind Obama and Immelt that America is now out of the business of making lightbulbs and that henceforth, China will be supplying us with compact fluorescent bulbs. 
 
How did the greatest nation on earth come to this.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Where Are The Adults?

 
America is drowning in debt - $14 trillion by last count, and it's going to go higher when congress lifts the debt ceiling. 
 
The unemployment level is still way too high. 
 
The Obama administration steadfastly refuses to do anything about our porous southern border, thereby shirking its duty to protect Americans. 
 
The price of oil is creeping up, and word from OPEC is that it will stay up, thereby increasing the price of everything.   
 
And what are the illegitimate children in DC doing?  Talking about sitting together at the State of the Union address.  Really? 
 
America was founded on the blood of patriots, men who were willing to stand up for their ideals. 
 
It's now in the hands of children talking about what they're going to do at recess.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Be Silent

 
The left is jumping all over the tragedy in Arizona.  Paul Krugman wrote a column blaming Sarah Palin and then disabled comments. 
 
The left believes that it's perfectly okay to take a baby in the process of being born, stick a sharp instrument in the back of its head (even convicted killers get anesthesia), suck out its brains, collapse its skull, and then deliver it . . . dead. 
 
The man in the White House wanted to make this barbarism the law of the land. 
 
As long as the left believes in, demands, and condones such unspeakable violence against the most innocent and defenseless among us, they have no right whatsoever to condemn what happened in Arizona.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberalism Really Is A Mental Disorder

 
How else to explain pretty much everything that Nancy Pelosi says. 
 
How else to explain why they are clinging tenaciously to Obamacare, the support of which is why they got "shellacked" in November. 
 
How else to explain why, after they made sure to exempt themselves from Obamacare, they have demanded that incoming Republicans who don't support Obamacare not take the insurance benefits available to them as elected members of congress.
 
How else to explain why they think they can make socialized medicine work in America (population 300 million) when it hasn't worked in England (population 51 million) and Canada (population 33 million). 
 
How else to explain why they are against the death penalty but in favor of abortion. 
 
How else to explain why it's okay to bankrupt farmers and turn once-fertile land into dustbowls in order to protect a fish that serves no purpose whatsoever.  Why, in other words, is it okay to kill babies, even those in the process of being born, but not fish.
 
How else to explain why they are in favor of profiling (racial and gender) when done in the name of affirmative action but not when done in the interests of national security. 
 
How else to explain how on earth New Yorkers could have elected Andrew Cuomo - the man who made the mortgage crisis possible - as governor. 
 
How else to explain why they forced banks to lend money for mortgages without any proof of employment or income and then blamed the banks for the meltdown.
 
How else to explain their near hysteria when the Constitution - a document they have sworn to protect and defend - was read on the floor of the House of Representatives. 
 
How else to explain why it's wrong to incarcerate detainees at Gitmo, but okay to incarcerate them in Illinois. 
 
How else to explain how they can look at us with a straight face and tell us that they're "investing" the money they forcibly take from us - under threat of arrest and imprisonment - for Social Security, when Bernie Madoff is in prison so doing the exact same thing, except on a much, much smaller scale. 
 
How else to explain why they are in favor of building the Ground Zero mosque, but not in favor of building a Wal-Mart.
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What We Have Here is a Failure of Leadership

 
In March 2006, when he was pretending to be a US senator, Barack Obama had this to say about increasing the nation's debt ceiling:
 
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.  It is a sign that the US government can't pay its own bills.  It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies . . . Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally.  Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.'  Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.  America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.  Americans deserve better."
 
He then voted against raising the debt ceiling.  He didn't bother voting on the same issue in 2007 and 2008 because by then, he was no longer even pretending that he had a day job and was running for president full time.
 
Fast forward to today.  The very same man who said that raising the debt ceiling was a "sign of leadership failure," not once but twice, has asked congress to raise the debt ceiling.
 
Therefore, by his own admission, Obama is a failed leader.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How Sweet It Is!

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

BO The Left-Wing Liberal

 
BO the left-wing liberal
never took the time to think
that all the adoration
could be over in a wink.
 
Spoiled and egocentric,
with his nose up in the air.
And for us little people,
he had not a thought to spare.
 
So, one clear November day
voters had their say:
BO, we don't like your acts.
Listen up 'cause here's the facts.
 
Though you're the one in power,
here's one thing we guarantee.
Keep dissing We the People,
and we'll make you history.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Were None of These Soldiers Americans?

 
I happened to catch a portion of the Great, Great American Panel on the Hannity show last night.  Hannity was gone and Mark Steyn (one of my favorites!) was sitting in. 

The panel was discussing a comment made by Janet Napolitano about how watching over America was a 24/7, 364-day a year job.  (No kidding.)  Of course, she simply misspoke, but the lamestream media would have crucified a Republican for a similar error. 

During the give and take, a man by the name of Jacques De Graff made the comment that not a single American had died on her watch.  Really? 

Ms. Napolitano was confirmed on January 10, 2009.  On November 5, 2009, a well-paid American soldier, whose increasing islamic militancy was getting a pass from the PC crowd in charge of things, screamed allahu akbar and murdered 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood.  Here was a perfect example of the left lying and getting away with it. 

I was flabbergasted that neither Mr. Steyn nor Tucker Carlson jumped on this
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive