Recognizing the unpopularity of the 2009 [stimulus] package, however, Democratic leaders have revised their message with less loaded language–“job creation” instead of “[CENSORED]” and “Make it in America” in lieu of “Recovery Act”–in hopes of tackling the jobs crisis. James Taranto/WSJ
The “[CENSORED]” word is stimulus. Do read the whole column. It’s very interesting and in fact, email it to friends and family. They need to read exactly what the Obama regime and his minions in Congress are trying to do to us, because we are obviously too stupid to really know what they are up to.
Just like it is no longer TAX, it’s now REVENUE, Pelosi and company have changed the words, to hide the meaning. Just change the word(ing) and they can pull the wool over our eyes.
Obama is still suffering from the Speech Illusion, the idea that he can come down from the mountain, read from a Teleprompter, cast a magic spell with his words and climb back up the mountain, while we scurry around and do what he proclaimed. Maureen Dowd
The next time you’re in the mall or on the subway, stay alert. The Jerusalem Post is reporting that our intelligence and security agencies are concerned over the rising Al-Qaeda quest in Yemen for castor beans to make ricin. (I can direct them to the beach at Santa Barbara for castor plants – they grow wild all over the place along the beach there. Beautiful plants that produce deadly seeds.)
It said the apparent intent was to pack the poison around small explosives that could be exploded to disperse the ricin, a white powdery substance so deadly that a speck can kill if inhaled or taken into the bloodstream.
The [NY] Times said the apparent intent was to detonate the explosives in enclosed spaces like a shopping mall or airport.
Last week, Eric Holder issued subpoenas to go after News Corp. – the parent company of the Wall Street Journal and Fox News. This isn’t news to anyone who reads my blog because you are well read and well educated on current events. Unlike some of the liberals I hear call Rush and Levin, we know what’s going on and we know the actors.
Holder is holder-ing out on Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R – CA) congressional investigation of the Fast and Furious/gun running fiasco.
This is a big story. There are reports of DOJ attorneys at Fast and Furious meetings with other very upper level ATF guys. But who’s covering it? Fox. Who is Holder now investigating? Fox. Connect the dots – what’s the message from Holder?
Now it seems to me that Eric Holder knew about this gun running crap and so did Obama. Remember Obama’s words regarding gun regulations, back in March, to Mrs. Jim Brady – “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
And those processes are what? More executive orders, more regulations from unelected regulatory czars and letting guns walk over the border to make a case for more gun regulations.
I’m gonna say it again – This is a big story and the MSM is not covering it – on purpose. They are choosing not to cover this because of definite harm to Holder and probable harm it will do to Obama.
But the ends justify the means to the Marxists in our government. Let no one forget – LET NO ONE FORGET – that the means was the murder of at least one (and possibly another) American law enforcement agent named Brian Terry.
When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.
The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.
In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.
I’m not a lawyer and I’ve never played one on tv, so it took me a couple days and re-reading several times to figure out how this case, Bond v. Unites States, would or could have bearing on the ObamaCare lawsuit.
Thanks to Dena for sending this to me.
In a nutshell, Carol Bond found out there her husband had impregnated her best friend. To exact revenge on her best friend, “Bond placed hazardous chemicals on the homewrecker’s mailbox, car door handles and the like, hoping to injure her now-former friend. All the ex-friend got was a minor burn.” But instead of this being tried as an assault or manslaughter case in a state court, the federal government decided to step in and “charged her with violating a law that was passed under an international treaty banning the use of chemical weapons.”
“The court of appeals ruled against her, holding that she didn’t even have the legal right (which we call “standing”) to bring the claim,because only a state could argue that Congress had infringed upon state power. At the Supreme Court, Bond got some help from an unexpected source: the federal government, which agreed with her that she had the right to challenge the law – a procedure that is known as “confessing error,” or admitting that you are wrong. So the Court appointed an attorney (in this case, as it usually does, it chose a former Supreme Court clerk) to argue that the Third Circuit had been correct.”
The Supreme Court stated that the federal government had no right to interfere with a STATE’S RIGHTS issue. ” She argued that she couldn’t be charged with federal crimes because her crimes were the kind of crimes that states should prosecute. Put into constitutional terms, her argument was that when Congress passed the law, it intruded on the rights that the Constitution, in the Tenth Amendment, leaves for the states.”
Last “Thursday, the Court unanimously agreed with Bond and the government that she did have “standing” to argue that the federal government had gone too far. The Court pointed out that the right Bond seeks to vindicate is her own, because she benefits from a federalist (states’ rights) system.”
Now how does all this relate to ObamaCare, you ask?
The SCOTUS has ruled that an INDIVIDUAL has the right to claim a violation of state’s rights because that is the system of government that we live under.
Government mandated health care can be construed as a violation of the Tenth Amendment – a subject that must be left up to the individual states and its citizens to decide – not the federal government.
This case, that the SCOTUS found in favor of Carol Bond and State’s Rights, could very well be a foreshadowing of how they will rule on the ObamaCare case when it finally comes before them.