Obama "warns" the Supreme Court of the United States
When I looked for it, it wasn't there. But I'm sure, if someone out there checked the definition of arrogence - they will most definitely find it beside a picture of Barack Husseing Obama.
President Obama talked down to the Supreme Court of the United States yesterday. It was regarding their look at Obama's monument to disaster fondly called Obama Care.
He actually had the arrogence to try ti intimidate the Supreme Court of the United States on Monday, warning the Justices not to overturn the new health care law that has 80% of the American people up in arms.
During a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada, President Obama used what he described as "the language of conservatives" who fret about judicial activism, and actually questioning how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress.
He actually said that!
According to Wikipedia, Obama "taught at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years - as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 - teaching Constitutional Law.
Obama was supposedly a Constitutional Law Professor, so why doesn't he know how our Constitution works?
I think someone put things in his resume' that simply weren't true. For him to question how, as he put it, an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress - makes me wonder if he's dumber than I think he is.
From this statement, just like his not knowing how many states we have in the United States, I've come to the conclusione that he doesn't understand the fundalmentals of America, our structure, or our system of government works. I really believe that he does not know the role of the Supreme Court of the United States in the balance of power in our system of government.
Obama said, "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will 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."
This guy is either really stupid or just playing stupid thinking that people don't know better. Either way, someone, maybe some first year political science student, should remind the former Constitutional Law Professor who is now President until next January a small fact of history.
The Supreme Court of the United States has a long history of , as Obama put it, "overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
History is a great teacher. It has no political bias. In its pure form, it just presents the facts.
In this case, it teaches us that indeed the Supreme Court of the United States has a long history of overturning a law that was passed by Congress. The first time was 209 years ago!
Yes, it's true. In 1803, the case was Marbury v. Madison. That was the very first instance in which a law passed by Congress was declared "unconstitutional." The decision greatly expanded the power of the Court by establishing its right to overturn acts of Congress.
The idea that overturning a law passed by Congress is "an unprecedented, extraordinary step" is a lie that Obama is trying to get Americans to believe as true. Again, he has been caught lying to us. But I'm sure the Liberal Media won't report it as such.
The Supreme Court spent three days hearing arguments in four separate challenges to the health care law, which stands as President Obama's signature domestic policy accomplishment.
A central challenge is over the individual mandate which is the government requirement that would force - by way of fine or possible imprisonment - that all Americans buy health insurance.
Critics say the "government mandate" is unconstitutional, and that the federal government cannot force people to purchase something they might not want.
On Monday, Obama said that without such a mandate, the law would not have a mechanism to ensure those with pre-existing conditions would get health care.
"I'm confident that this will be upheld, because it should be upheld," said an arrogant Obama.
Republican lawmakers have started to slam Obama for his Supreme Court comments. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, accused the president of misrepresenting the implications of a ruling against the law.
"It must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is 'activist,'" he said in a statement.
"Many of us have been arguing for nearly three years that the federal government does not have the power to dictate individuals' purchasing decisions. After a national debate on the subject, more than two-thirds of Americans agree that the Obamacare insurance mandate is unconstitutional."
Then, at the press conference, Obama talked about economics as if he knew something about the subject.
During the press conference on Monday, which primarily focused on economic issues between Canada, the United States, and Mexico, Obama noted that trade among the three neighbors now tops $1 trillion a year.
But notable by its absence from the post-summit news conference in the Rose Garden was the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada's oil sands in Alberta to the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.
Obama said no to the Keystone XL oil pipeline because he said that he didn't have enough time to examine it. The Keystone XL oil pipeline was to go into construction and have a dramatic effect on the price of gas at the pumps while also creating hundreds of thousands of great paying jobs across the country.
Some folks think it was only the on-site construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, but in fact it would have also included suppliers and manufactures across America.
Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper has voiced his disappointment with Obama's decision. And now, since the Obama decision to kill the Keystone XL oil pipeline, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has visited China in February to explore alternatives in their buying Canada's oil.
Canada has the world's third-largest oil reserves - more than 170 billion barrels - after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to rise to 3.7 million by 2025.
Of course, the United States has larger oil reserves. We also have oil sands estimated in the trillions of barrels. But that doesn't matter to the Obama, he is a slave to the whims of the Liberal Democrats who belong to Environmentist groups who voted heavily for him in 2008.
These days, Americans should be interested in the economic success that some states are having. It's happening in states who have expanded oil permits on private and state lands. In those states unemployment rates are well below half of the national average. Yet, the Obama administration does nothing to help Americans at the pump, finding a job, or just get on with not having to be dependant on Foreign Oil.
I sometimes wish he'd just stay on the golf course and leave the governing of America to people who understand what Americans really need - and not what Obama's arrogance thinks we need.
Tiger Woods and His Porn Star Girlfriends
It seems that just as Tiger Woods is only now getting back into his swing of things for the Masters after almost 3 years of not winning a game, his three former porn star girlfriends are now releasing a new X-rated movie based on their bedroom romps with the sex-crazed professional golfer.
His girlfriends Devon James, Holly Sampson and Joslyn James are starring in the X-rated film "3 Mistresses: Notorious Tales of the World's Greatest Golfer."
Catchy title huh! Yup, this film is going to be released today, April 3rd - and yes, yesterday Tiger Woods showed up to tee off in the Masters which he hasn't won since way back in 2005.
In the movie, besides the nudity and such, the women get together for a lot of things - including an in-depth Question & Answer session about Tiger Woods.
Since all three of these women also happen to be adult porn stars that have sex for a living, their discussion will include explicit facts about Tiger's sexual tastes and actual on-screen demonstrations of what Tiger Woods, the Golf Legend, is like in the sack.
Though this all sounds like a "How To Video" for the next women in Woods' life, according to the film's director, B. Skow, "Any time three women get together to talk about the same guy, the results are going to be more than interesting."
I checked all over the internet and I couldn't find any word as to whether or not the film will debut at the clubhouse in Augusta, or if Tiger Woods actually shows up in the film to talk about his short comings.
NBC admitts to editing George Zimmerman 911 Call
NBC's "Today" show ran the edited audio of George Zimmerman's phone call to a police dispatcher in which Zimmerman says: "'This guy looks like he's up to no good … he looks black."
But the audio recording in its entirety reveals that Zimmerman did not volunteer the information that Martin was black. Instead, Zimmerman was answering a question from a police dispatcher about the race of the "suspicious person" whom Zimmerman was speaking about.
A transcript of the complete 911 call shows that Zimmerman said, "This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."
The 911 officer responded saying, "OK, and this guy - is he black, white or Hispanic?"
"He looks black," Zimmerman said.
The abridged conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher that NBC ran on March 27 has been blasted by media watchdog groups as misleading. Critics have said the edited version was made to suggest that Zimmerman targeted Martin because he was black -- an accusation by many that is still under investigation.
NBC has now launched an internal probe regarding running the edited version of the 911 call from George Zimmerman - which made Zimmerman sound like a racist.
"We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story," the network said in a statement to the Washington Post on Monday.
On February 26th, Trayvon Martin, 17, was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, 28, a neighborhood watch volunteer who feared for his life after Martin attacked the shorter Zimmerman by punching him in his face and slammed his head into the pavement.
The Liberal Media and Black activist determined to re-write what took place at the event have stirred up a national focus on race and the laws of self-defense.
Zimmerman, whose father is Caucasian and mother is Hispanic, told police the teen attacked him before he shot in self-defense. He has not been charged in the case, despite repeated calls by Liberal Political leaders and zealous protesters out for blood.
NBC has also come under fire by some critics for allowing MSNBC personality, the Rev. Al Sharpton, to lead protests in Florida calling for Zimmerman's arrest. Sharpton is scheduled to speak Monday in Sanford, Florida, at a march of about a thousand people carrying signs and wearing T-shirts with the teen's image.
Is this a conflict of interest? Well, I think it would normally be considered a conflict of interest if there actually were a conflict betweem what a liberal black activist like Sharpton and NBC want. I see them as having the same goal in mind.
Their goal is to change America into a Socialist country based on Liberal idealogy that says the government is superior to the will of the people. One way of attacking what they precieve as a problem is to attack America conservatism and assault our heritage, traditions, and ideals.
Justice and Due Process being one. By working the crowd, whether using phony 911 calls or provoking rhetoric, both NBC and their liberal biased commentators do the very some thing.
They appear to encourage the lynch-mob mentality that has been running rambid since the attack on Zimmerman first took place. To re-write the event to make the assailant the victim, yes, George Zimmerman is their target.
Mom sues hospital after nurse cuts off baby's finger!
|Veronica Olguin's daughter Selena|
When a nurse went to remove the tape that attached the baby's IV with scissors, she severed part of the child's finger. Imagine that!
"There was blood everywhere. It was all over her shirt, it was on my shirt. It was on my face. I held her face close to my chest. She was red, she was screaming," Veronica Olguin said when asked what happened.
Olguin's attorney Lou Pendas says both the nurse and the hospital were negligent. "The nurse threw the scissors used to sever the pinky in a panic. She rushed out of the room, screaming, and that's when the doctors rushed back into the room," Pendas said.
About half of Selena's finger was found on the floor, but the veins were too small to reattach it. Pendas claims that while attorneys for the hospital were responsive to him at first, they stopped responding, forcing him to file the lawsuit.
The hospital released a statement through their attorneys, saying, "We deeply regret the harm to the child and want to reiterate our compassion and concern for her and her family. We reached out right away to the child's family and their attorney, but have not been able to reach a mutually agreeable resolution. We want to reiterate our compassion and concern for the child and her family."
Richards Ford with Wicker Smith out of Orlando, which represents the hospital, told FOX News in Tampa Bay, that the nurse is back at the hospital - but he couldn't say whether she was working with patients or not.
Olguin says she still has nightmares about the incident, and she believes Selena does too. "I saw everything. And it's really hard what I went through. And I can't imagine what she went through," she said.
Olguin claims Selena wakes up crying often in the night, and she worries for her child's future in sports and school without a finger. "It's really hard that she, she was born so perfect.," she said.
My mom once told me that one of the worse things that can happen to a mom is seeing their child hurt in some way. We go to hospitals to get well, not incur severe injuries or the lost of a limb.
I'm sure it had to be crushing for Veronica Olguin to see Selena in that kind of pain. I can't even imagine it, nor would I ever want to go through it.
May God Bless Veronica Olguin and give her strength for the court battle ahead of her. Fact is that she'll need it since hospitals have a lot more money for legal expenses than any of us do.
Honolulu Police issue 400 Citations in One Community in 3 Days
Believe it or not, the Honolulu Police issued a total of 400 citations in the community of Wahiawa over the 3 day "Kuhio Day" weekend.
The police crack down on the Wahiawa residents was part of the Honolulu Police Department’s "Safer Streets" Operation.
According to the News account, out of the 400 citations issued, 228 were for speeding, 82 were for moving violations which I always thought was speeding , 5 for mobile device violations, and the remainder 85 violations are being described as being "miscellaneous type violations" - whatever that is!
Since there were 8 arrests made for driving under the influence, I assume that's what the Honolulu Police Department considers part of the "miscellaneous type violations."
Wahiawa, on the island of Oahu in Hawaii, is where my father is from. My dad passed away almost 7 years ago, but if he were alive to hear that that small community in comparison to other parts of Oahu, had 400 citations in only 3 days - like me, he would think that that is pretty fishy.
I can't help but think 400 citations in just that community alone seems sort of odd because it reeks of targeting. Targeting is done when someone or a group makes a thing or group of things a target. They select it, not out of random occurrence but by predetermination, to be acted upon.
According to Honolulu County statistics, the population of Wahiawa in July 2007 was 16,587 residents. I can't help but wonder how many traffic violations were handed out in the city of Honolulu during this same time?
The bigger question here, how come 400 citations in one 3 day weekend? I don't know, but if I were a skeptic I'd ay that it seems that tourism may be moving to second place behind traffic tickets in making the money for the State of Hawaii these days.
California woman blames McDonald's for forcing her to become a Hooker
A California woman has reportedly filed a federal lawsuit against McDonald's, claiming the fast-food franchise had a role in her becoming a Prostitute two decades ago.
Shelley Lynn claims in the lawsuit that she was "economically and psychologically" coerced into prostitution by her ex-husband and former manager at a McDonald's in Arroyo Grande, California, the Courthouse News Service reported this week.
Lynn, who was hired by the restaurant to work behind the counter in 1982, claims in the complaint that her former boss and ex-husband, Keith Handley, pushed her into prostitution in Nevada and also "engaged in pimping operations out of the McDonald's franchises he owned."
The lawsuit places blame on the restaurant giant, claiming it "does not insure employee policies are in place to protect against unscrupulous and criminal individuals like Handley."
The complaint also reportedly states, "It [McDonald's] has an active, notorious, and hostile campaign to keep unions out. It offers an inferior health care plan and no pension benefits. Most employees are paid minimum wages as was Lynn. There is no affirmative action to encourage women employees and other women to purchase franchises,"
Lynn is suing Handley, who still runs the franchise, as well as his company Ivernia and McDonald's USA.
OK, what can I say about this story that hasn't been said about frivolous lawsuits. What does McDonald's have to do with some woman that decides to turn tricks as a Hooker? Nothing!
It amazes me that there are people out there that think that the courts are there as their personal banker, and that bullshit lawsuits and backroom deals are their way to boost their personal bank accounts. It is a form of extortion, and honestly, I really believe that these types of lawsuits would come to a complete halt if the lawyer and their client plaintiff who submitts this sort of lawsuit is held responsible for the court's cost if they cannot prove their case.
I've never sued anyone, but if I did sue someone then folks can be assured that I would have all of my evidence to back up my case and win. It seems some of the folks who bring cases like this "McDonald's made me a Hooker" lawsuit don't have much of a case, and are just looking to settle out of court because they know that McDonald's is a big corporation and can afford to do so.
In a Civil Lawsuit like this, I say prove it - or pay for the court costs of not being able to. And, don't allow them to settle out of court. If that happens then they will win and do it again later.
As for this woman who says that McDonald's made her a hooker, I guess she figured why not go with it since the hot coffee on the lap lawsuit was already done once!
The secret of life is not to do what you like, but to like what you do.
Story by Tom Correa