Of course, trying is one thing – if it is given to him – there is more than one criminal in cahoots here.
The Mother of All Earmarks…
Liberal Representative Emanuel Cleaver has proposed a whopping $48 BILLION EARMARK that would redistribute wealth to the inner cities.
But Gateway Pundit has screenshots of his website and “drills down” so you can find it for everyone to see that it is there, as specified, on his website.
How about that? Fact checking doesn’t help much when you say something quite different does it, Rep. Cleaver?
Which means, their approval rating is at 13 percent.
This is according to the most recent Gallup poll published today.
What’s more, since October, the approval rating for Democrats went from 38 to 16 percent.
Down by half.
Merry Christmas, dolts. We now have the worst Congress on record, so far.
And the year isn’t even over yet.
Crank up the phone lines, folks, this is the flip the Congress is giving us for Christmas because of our rising interest and activism in our Republic Government.
It is no coincidence that this is coming on the heels of Federal Judge Henry Hudson’s ruling about individuals having to purchase insurance (when the Commerce Clause in the US Constitution does not, and never did, claim regulating commerce extends beyond the state level).
Congress wants to send us a message? Well, pick up the phone and send them one also.
Hot Air shows an update that indicates the earmark count is now near 6,500 earmarks in all totaling $8.3 billion in all, at least.
When the POTUS first bragged about Congress passing the Healthcare (Obamacare) bill, he expressed happiness that they “included no earmarks.” Okay, POTUS, now is the time to express your dissatisfaction by breaking out the veto pen from its mothball status.
From Michelle Malkin’s article:
One commenter, who picked a page at random (877), found that the bill has designated $350 million to create a new “San Francisco Bay Restoration Program.” Others have noted that $413,000 have been appropriated for peanut research in the deep South and nearly $250,000 for virus free wine grapes in Washington State…
But now that Federal Judge Hudson has ruled parts of Obamacare unconstitutional, it will have to be heard through an appellate court before, and if, getting on the SCOTUS docket.
In the meantime, here’s a healthy read from Hot Air on the subject, replete with updates (up to five about now).
UPDATE: Apparently, the White House Blog is now trying to equate healthcare insurance with auto insurance. Okay, who’s going to be the first to tell them that the auto insurance requirement is a state responsibility and not the feds?
UPDATEx2: And maybe the thought of 74% of doctors leaving their practice should pick up the pace of SCOTUS looking at this issue much, much sooner. Ya think?
It isn’t what mathematicians, or engineers, would really call “normal.”
But the Chart of the Year (as Hot Air puts it) it certainly does resemble an approximate, upside down Bell Curve.
Here’s what it really striking that I noticed (and I’m quite sure this is the point H/A was getting at). The current plot line, lowest red curve and to the right of the center vertical line, actually started to swing upwards then fell back and starts sweeping up in a different slope.
It doesn’t give the sense it will be soon, when and if it would symbolize a return to a healthy economy.
Not that I am giving any credence to Bernanke’s approach to his job. Far from it. Heaven’s no.
The amount of money pumped into the ailing economy: about $900 billion over years.
Subtract the $400 billion cost of the Bush tax cuts. Subtract another $140 billion or so, which is the cost of extending the Alternative Minimum Tax patch (and almost certainly would have happened regardless). You’re then left with more than $300 billion in net stimulus over two years.
The Federal Election Commission is investigating a complaint that Rep. Charles Rangel improperly used his National Leadership PAC to fund his legal defense on ethics charges for which he was censured Thursday, The Post has learned.
The FEC is acting on a complaint by the National Legal and Policy Center filed after The Post reported last month that Rangel paid nearly $400,000 from his PAC.
Lawmakers are only allowed to use money in their individual campaign funds for legal fees, or they can set up legal defense funds for such costs.
Daniel McAndrew 