Top 7 for the Week of June 29th

This week, Ashley and I talked about:

  1. Obamacare ObamaTax
  2. Eric Holder: Attorney General Fail
  3. Another Government’Backed Solar Company Bites the Dust
  4. DC Schools Prove Money Doesn’t Fix What’s Broke
  5. NAACP: Poor People Are Too Dumb To Make Their Own Choices
  6. Google Cookies Diss Your Privacy
  7. Food Stamps Are Fun! (And Make You Pretty)

Plus we have a rant, a Dude of the Week, and a dirty joke guaranteed to make you laugh.

Happy listening!

Listen to internet radio with Top 7 on Blog Talk Radio

Verbal Vomit on Supreme Court’s Obamacare Ruling

So the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was ruled constitutional today, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with the libs on the bench. I mean, even wishy-washy Kennedy voted to strike down the individual mandate.

I was sleeping in a little this morning, because it’s summer and also because I stayed up too late watching Doctor Who on my ipad last night, when Leif came over and nudged me awake before he set off for work. He was so awesome and sweet and told me I was pretty and that he loved me. Then I realized what day it was. Obamacare Decision Day.

“Oh no! You know, don’t you?”

“Yeah.” He stroked my hair.

“It’s not good, is it?”

“Nope.” He gazed lovingly at me.

“Give it to me straight.”

“Constitutional. Roberts wrote the majority opinion.”


“I know. They’re calling it a tax, and therefore Congress has the power to levy it.”


So then I did what any chick that works in social media does and took to Twitter to voice my thoughts. Because do opinions matter if they’re not posted on a social networking site? Didn’t think so.

Here are my original tweets, with commentary added in the parentheses:

Ok. Reaction. 1-I feel like throwing up. Apparently it’s Constitutional to tax me for breathing. (It’s possible I was slightly hung over. But I did feel punched in the gut.)

2- WTF, Justice Roberts?? You are no longer my 3rd favorite. (Favorite is Scalia. Second is Thomas. Third is now up for grabs. Probably Alito.)

3- Roberts is a VERY smart man. What’s he playing? (Seriously, Justice Roberts – WTF?)

4- I think I’m going to be sick. (Again, possibly from that last glass of wine last night, but this Obamacare standing thing wasn’t helping.)

5- Well, this pretty much guarantees a President Romney, huh? (Le sigh.)

6- Aaaaaand I’m back to being sick. (Can I vote for Ann instead? I like her better. Sorry, Mitt.)

7- I’m going back to bed. *Pulls covers over her head*

Then I realized I had to get up and write and comment because if I don’t, I don’t get paid, and health care costs are about to skyrocket. And you know, personal responsibility and all that jazz.

So I officially turned in my two cents to The Stir, where I’m sure commenters will call me a racity racist for agreeing with the black man on the bench (Clarence Thomas, Second Favorite). I’m not quite sure how that works, but it seems that whenever the haters disagree with me about something I get called a racist. Get some better insults, people! Racist is so 2009.

Anyway, my friend Matt Cover (say Co-ver, not like the blanket) pointed out, “Roberts DOES NOT say that anything that looks like a tax is ok, only that this provision is a tax, and therefore ok.” Ok … I can see that. I still don’t like it.

I also read this from Erick Erickson (no relation), wherein he makes the case that, “While Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers.”

They are massive taxers. And Obama ran on that whole “no tax increases for the middle class” thing. Not looking good for him this November. Or for other politicians that supported this behemoth of a bill without even reading the frickin’ thing.

Go donate to the Romney campaign. Seriously, use that link, because I get some sort of credit for referring you. Maybe I can win a stuffed seal like I did that time I sold 200 boxes of Girl Scout cookies in third grade!

And watch Ben Howe’s latest video featuring a compilation of Obama clips insisting that this is not a tax.

Happy New Year, and Watch Out For DUI Checkpoints!

A couple of years ago, Leif went off to hang out with some guy friends to sit around a bon fire and smoke cigars, drink brandy, and talk about manly things like power tools and video games. My husband picked up a friend on the way, who happens to be married to one of my friends, so she and I had a marathon phone chat date once our respective kids were in bed or otherwise out of our hair.

Eventually, the boys texted to say they were on the way home, and my friend and I got off the phone. It took Leif way longer to get home than it should have. I was still trying to decide whether to be mad or worried at him taking so long, and mulling over that decision with (another) glass of wine when he finally walked in the door.

“What took you so long??”

“I got pulled over.”

Horrified, I gasped, “Did you get a DUI?”

“Yes, Honey. Then they let me get back in the car and drive home.”

Oh. Total blonde moment.

Anyway, we were headed home from wine tasting drinking with friends yesterday when traffic came to a standstill two blocks from our house. We had been driving for 45 minutes, I was not the least bit sober, and Thing 2 had been crying most of the way, because apparently that’s what she does now. Leif had had some wine earlier, but he was my designated driver, so he was careful to stay within his limits.

A block away from our house, the police had set up a sobriety checkpoint.

Since I’m me, I immediately notified Twitter of the atrocity, and then told Thing 1 to keep her lips absolutely zipped, and if she said one word out loud, I’d send her new bike back to the North Pole. I could just imagine, “But Daddy, you did drink wine!” and I had no desire to explain to Mr. Just-Doing-His-Unconstitutional-Job-Policeman that that had been hours ago.

She just nodded. Even Thing 2 stopped crying. It must have been a really good mom look.

We finally pulled up for our turn. Leif rolled his window down.

“Evenin’, Sir,” said the officer.

“Evenin’,” responded my sober husband. I kept my mouth shut, because if I opened it, I probably would’ve gone off on the fourth amendment and unreasonable searches and seizures.

“Have you been drinking tonight?”

Two heartbeats later, Leif answered, “Yes.”


The officer peered into my husband’s drained face, saw eyes glassy from listening to a three-year-old scream for 45 minutes straight, and I swear he was about to ask him to get out of the car and take a sobriety test, which of course he would’ve passed, but we all just really wanted to get home at that point.

I did the only thing I could do. I snorted. “I’d hardly call one glass of wine four hours ago drinking, Honey. Officer, if I were driving, you’d totally have to arrest me, but my husband is my designated driver tonight.”

The dude looked at me, and then suspiciously back to Leif. Thing 2, bless her heart, chose that minute to start screaming again. The officer looked in the back seat at the children, one of which had obviously been crying for some time, then back to us.

“Get your family home safely and have a good night.”

30 seconds later, we pulled in the driveway, threw the girls into bed, turned on How I Met Your Mother, and banished Leif’s sobriety with some more wine.

Bah humbug to illegal DUI checkpoints.

Ezra Klein Is More Confusing Than That ‘Old’ Constitution

Ezra Klein thinks conservatives are silly for trying to understand theConstitution. After all, it’s way too old to be relevant — over 100 years! In an appearance on MSNBC on Thursday morning, the Washington Post writer told host Norah O’Donnell that the Republican plan to open the 112thCongress with a reading of the Constitution was a gimmick. Furthermore, he said:

The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done.

The Constitution is not confusing — Ezra Klein is confusing. The ‘issue of the Constitution’ is not that the language is confusing; it’s that people like Klein are so readily willing to disregard the parts of the U.S. Rulebook that they don’t like (like the Second Amendment) and make up parts to suit their own purposes (like the ‘right to privacy’). The issue is that there are people that believe that the Constitution is a binding document, an agreement among a nation of people that broke from tyranny and decided to give self-government a try, and other people that believe it’s a living, breathing document open to reinterpretation whenever the wind shifts direction.

Read the rest at The Stir

Supreme Court Rules Right to Bear Arms Constitutional After All

The Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment right of all Americans to bear arms for the first time on Monday, while reviewing a restrictive handgun law in Chicago. The 5-4 ruling does not affect gun control measures outside of firearm bans.

Which means that there are four justices on the bench that would have Americans abandon the most valuable tool they possess in defending their liberty. The Second Amendment ensures that we keep all of the other amendments we’ve grown so fond of — like the freedom of speech or the right to a fair and timely trial.

After all, those in power won’t dare take away our God given, Constitution-protected rights so long as We the People have the ability to resist. What happens if the government takes away our right to vote, or our right to practice our own religions, if the law-abiding citizens have no guns? We can call the lawyers, but is anyone really afraid of lawyers?

Do you really want to have to trust the government that much? Or wouldn’t it be better to know that if a group of power-hungry people were to get in control, we’d have the ultimate ability to resist them if need be? As Americans, we get to make one last stand against tyranny, rather than submit or be killed.

Read More

Elena Kagan for SCOTUS: Not a Battle Worth Fighting

My Latest at The Stir by

On Monday, President Obama announced his nomination of Elena Kaganfor the Supreme Court of the United States. Nine players sit on the bench of the highest court in the land, and they play for life. It’s a more powerful position than behind the desk in the Oval Office when you think about it.

Those nine justices interpret our laws and our Constitution, and the buck stops with them. Because it’s the highest court we have, there’s nowhere to go for an appeal. The process for overturning a Supreme Court decision is messy and sticky and basically next to impossible.

Read More

I Feel Violated

The answer is unmistakably and resoundingly NO.  Americans do not want a health care system resembling that of Canada or the U.K.  We the people are saying no every way we know how to; in polls, at rallies, with elections.

The time for talk is over.  It is clear that the vast majority of Americans do not want this health care legislation passed.

Any sane and logical congress would say, “Ok, thanks for letting us know.  We represent you the people, and you have made your voices clear.  Let’s toss out this 2000 plus stack of paper and get started on something else.”  But nope, not our congress.  Our congress says, “We know you don’t want it, and we don’t care.  We’re going to find every loophole we can so we can slam you with the largest most unconstitutional tax ever created, all in the name of ‘helping the poor.'”

The poor will not be helped by this bill.  Just look at any other country with government run health care.  It’s the poor that suffer.  Only the rich can afford timely and reliable care.  Why does anyone think it will be different in the US?

I’m absolutely going to go bonkers if I keep hearing, “health care is a right.”  It is not a right.  It isn’t a privilege either.  It’s a service.  You are not entitled to the labor of a doctor.  Just like they are not entitled to free oil changes from the mechanic.  We all work for a living, some of us harder than others.  Call me crazy, but I believe that the people that spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on education, work 90 hour weeks, and make life and death decisions on a daily hourly basis deserve to be paid more than my mechanic, and I’m happy to pay it.  I am not happy to pay for other people to see that doctor because they spent their money elsewhere.  We all have to make sacrifices.  Deal with it.  And here’s the thing about Americans- for the most part, we are an extremely charitable group.  If someone really was in a bad situation, I bet there would be a doctor somewhere willing to treat them, or benefactors willing to pay for the treatment.

I have faith in the American people.  I have faith in every single person who wants to better their life.  I have faith in the single mom struggling to make ends meet, the newly graduated college student looking for a job, the father of two teens that just got laid off after 20 years.  I have faith in those people to do what it takes to get through these rough patches of life, and I have faith in their friends and neighbors to help them as they’re able.  I do what I can to help those in need.  I’m grateful for all the times others have been there for me.

But oh this congress.  This congress does not have faith in us.  This congress does not want us to feel the triumph of overcoming adversity, the joy of accomplishment.  This congress wants to enable us with the most massive entitlement program our country has ever seen.  We are better than that.

I want this congress to stop taking my money and giving me back a paltry sum and expecting me to jump for joy.  I know what  you took.  Don’t tell me to be grateful for the $10 check when you snuck $100 out of my back pocket.  I’m wise to your tricks.  A lot of us are.  Which is why you will be voted out this November.  This health care bill and any other crap you manage to sneak through in closed-door deals will be repealed.

Who knew that it would take a violation of Constitutional principles by our leaders for America to stand united in a way we haven’t for generations?  Wonders never cease.

Who’s the Hero? The Football Player or his Mom?


Tim Tebow is a Heisman trophy-winning quarterback for the University of Florida.  As a home-schooled kid from a Christian family, he shatters the stereotype that kids taught by their parents at the kitchen table grow up to be abnormal, socially stunted adults.  Arguably the best college football player in the country, Tebow remains centered in his faith and family.

Pam Tebow was serving as a missionary in an orphanage in the Philippines with her husband Bob and Tim’s older siblings when she was pregnant with Tim.  She suffered from a parasitic infection, and doctors predicted a still birth and advised Pam to abort the baby for her own health.  She refused, and gave birth to a healthy, full term baby boy.

Focus on the Family has sponsored a 30 second add to appear during Superbowl XLIV, which features the Tebows and include some sort of “choose life” message.  And you know how pro-women groups feel about people choosing life.  They really can’t stand it, can they?  It’s interesting to me that they get so angry about it.  I mean, if there’s nothing wrong with abortion, why do they get so upset about women choosing not to do it?

The Women’s Media Center and the National Organization for Women are going absolutely bonkers, accusing Focus on the Family of being “extremely intolerant and divisive and pushing an un-American agenda,” and pushing an “anti-abortion vitriol has resulted in escalated violence against reproductive health providers and their patients.”  Whoa, that’s harsh.

So what does Tim Tebow have to say about the ad and about his mother’s decision to choose life?

“I know some people won’t agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe…[T]hat’s the reason I’m here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it.”

Bravo to the Tebow family for standing firm in their beliefs in the face of tough opposition.  I applaud you for not being afraid to exercise your 1st amendment right to free speech.  Even if that speech is difficult for some people to hear.  And to those that would deny the Tebows, Focus on the Family, and CBS the 30 second advertisement, I have two words for you: mute button.

Another Step in the RIGHT Direction

Today the Supreme Court knocked out significant campaign finance laws, all of which had been unconstitutionally enacted in the name of “fairness.”  The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) attempted to restrict electioneering by wealthy corporations and labor unions by barring them from using general treasury funds to pay for advertisements or other broadcasts that mention a political candidate.  Just a little bit of unconstitutional censorship, that’s all.

In a 5-4 vote, the Court lifted those restrictions.  Which means that companies will be able to run ads for candidates they like.  You know what kinds of candidates companies like?  The ones that make it easier for them to actually run their businesses, instead of trying to bankrupt them with mandated health care requirements and cap and trade.  If they can successful run a company, they can expand operations… and create jobs!  Remember, it’s better to have a job and no health care than no job and no health care.

From the White House, President Obama called the ruling a “major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

This from Mr. Closed Door himself. Obama doesn’t care about everyday Americans.  We’re all just serfs to him, here only to fund his playground of policies and bailouts.  Well we’re done Mr. President.  We’re picking up our toys, packing up our trucks, and going home to the Constitution. Don’t let the sand hit you in the teeth.

The Government is Not Compassionate

Well, it looks like the Senate has its 60 votes to pass the health care bill through.  A bill so fantastic that votes had to be bought by Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), Rep. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Lord knows how many others.  There were a few whose votes couldn’t be bought.  So the Democratic leaders resorted to threatening their family members unless they supported the bill.

Not only is the health care bill so stellar that Senators had to be bribed and threatened into voting for it, but it’s going to be voted on at 1 o’clock in the morning, four days before Christmas.  Some perspective for you- no one will see any benefits from this bill until 2013 (if ever), yet it’s being rushed through in the middle of the night during a time when most Americans have turned off their TVs and put down their newspapers in the hopes of having a joyful holiday season with their friends and family.  I understand doing what we have to do, but this is NOT something that couldn’t easily wait until January.

During debate on the Senate floor today, Senator Tom Coburn made some excellent points and observations on why this health care bill is not a health care reform bill, but only an unsustainable health care coverage expansion.  Sen. Coburn is one of only two practicing physicians in the Senate (the other is Senator John Barrasso), so he speaks from the unique perspective of being both a doctor and a politician.

Sen. Coburn pointed out that there are zero guarantees that taxpayers won’t finance abortions, zero prohibitions on the rationing of health care, and zero Senators required to enroll in either Medicaid  or another government run option.  The Republicans proposed amendments to disallow the use of federal funds to finance abortions or the rationing of health care, but the Democrats voted down the measure.  Let me ask you this: If funding for abortions and rationing of care aren’t part of the plan for this bill, why wouldn’t the Democrats put those amendments in?  That’s like a bookie betting on a game to get others to bet as well, without actually putting any money into the pot.  The bookie ends up making money, and I’ve read enough crime dramas to be pretty sure that that’s highly illegal, not to mention immoral.

What does this health care bill do besides use tax payer money to provide abortions and limit care to those the government deems “unworthy” due to age or lifestyle or previous health?  It creates ten new taxes, and seventy-one new government programs.  There are 1,697 times that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will write regulations, and 15,000-20,000 new government jobs will be created to carry out this legislation.  That’s funny, I thought the idea was to create more DOCTORS to treat more patients at an affordable price, but I guess a job-is-a-job-is-a-job, right?  Maybe those four out of ten doctors that said they’d consider quitting the practice of medicine if this bill passes can apply for a job with the government.

Another thing in the bill is the word shall.  It’s in there a lot- 3,607 times at last count.  What’s significant about the word shall?  It takes away your options.  The bill does not say, “You may choose to purchase health care insurance in the event that you become ill or injured,” it says, “You shall purchase health care insurance, whether you want it or not!”

That’s the individual mandate that you’ve been hearing about.  It is the first tax in United States history that will tax you for simply existing.  It’s not based on your work or purchases or decision as to whether to take the toll road or surface streets.  It’s a tax that you can choose not to pay by choosing not to breathe.  And even though I’m not a doctor, I’m fairly certain that breathing is pretty important.

That’s not right! You may be saying to yourself.  No, it isn’t right. It’s completely unconstitutional. And more likely than not, it will be completely unenforceable in court.  Which means that no one will buy health insurance until they are sick or injured. And given that the bill will require health insurance companies to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions, and place limits on how much they may charge their customers, they will inevitably go bankrupt.  Leaving the only option the government option.  That, my friends, is called socialized health care, and it has never worked well.

The government is not compassionate. We already see rationing in government run health care systems like Medicare and Medicaid.  The government already comes between elderly and/or underprivileged patients and their doctors, deciding what treatments and procedures may be done, regardless of the patient’s personal history or the doctor’s recommendation.  Why on Earth would it be a good idea to expand government control of health care, when Medicare and Medicaid are inarguablly broken and on the verge of bankruptcy?

People are compassionate. Doctors are compassionate. Neighbors and family and benefactors are compassionate.  Let’s focus on incentivizing the prevention and treatment of chronic disease, creating transparency so that we can choose and purchase our own health care insurance based on value and quality, and assisting those facing tough times that need some extra help.  That’s true reform.  This bill is nothing but smoke and mirrors to lead our once liberty-loving country into a single-payer health care system.

In the words of Ronald Reagan during a 1961 radio interview:

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

The government is not compassionate.