Posted on 03/28/2010 10:37:37 AM PDT by American Dream 246
Also heard that ATT in the San Diego area is going to cut 5,000 jobs.
Bring it losers.
Then after November, we can have OUR show trials of all of the MSM Exec’s and how they have been institutionally lying to America so they can enable their Marxist takeover of the country!
Ping
hijack = steal,rob,force,coerce>
Seems to me we gave everything away in 2006 and 2008.
I think we got what we deserve as a country because of the voters by 52% wanted "Hope and Change".
Never asked what that "hopey, changie thing might include, even though whatshisname told us much of the changes he intended to give us.
One in particular was nationalized health care. Another was redistribute the wealth. His private civilian Army hasn't surfaced yet, but I am sure it is in the making and will be used against any citizen of this country that goes against his (whatshisname's) will.
Elections really do have consequences.
Could not AGREE MORE.
As a side note, just think about how many (maybe a million or more combined) of the retirees, now facing a huge WHACK in their benefits,are gonna WAKE THE F--K up and become dyed-in-the-wool conservatives.
BRING ON YOUR FRIGGIN' SHOW TRIALS and may GOD give these Exec's some backbone.
That is exactly what's happened. And the media keeps putting a happy face on it. God save us.
They need to take a cue from Lee Iacocca
Oh yes. American Citizens will be casting their vote, you can count on it.
These chairmen have entirely too much power.
DemoPigots don’t like being exposed as being worse than the Soviet goons.
Show trials?
Seriously?
So even more hidden info can come out about this crappy legislation?
Yeah, sure, you betcha.
What in the world, Mr. Gateway "Pundit?"
Do you refuse to believe they are intentionally demolishing our free American society, violating us, in order to foment their Marxist revolution, as they put their infrastructure in place?
Who doesn't see this, anymore?
See, Intended Consequences: Obamacare Bomb Blowing Up More American Businesses and take the links from there, Mr. Holt.
I hope you are right, and that only ‘informed citizens’ get to vote!
SWEET! Now those CEO’s can drum up a whole crapload of truth that WE can use in the bloggosphere and the internet to spread more of the honest truth about Obamacare and how unconstitutional it is.
This should yield hours of footage for NakedEmperorNews!
Always darkest before dawn
Small objects fly at night
Rot in hell Commie pigs
A new home for you
We will dig
These dems insist on debating the bill with people who have actually read it, while it appears they’ve stubbornly refused to read it.
I wonder if they’ll read it by the time they haul CEO’s back onto the carpet?
I hope those evil execs fly in on their private jets!
Only the delusional would think this monstrosity would be corporate-friendly.
Trials often get to the truth of the matter- however, thinking back to the way the 911 Commission handled those public hearings, I am not optimstic that the truth would emerge from this banana republic-type administration.
.......according to judicial analyst, and judge, Andrew P. Napolitano healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional. "The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate state governments. Nevertheless, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com............
============================================
Wall Street Journal | Jan. 2, 2010 | Orin Hatch et al
FR Posted by Military family member
The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects. (Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
======================================
States Can Check Washington's Power; by directly proposing constitutional amendments
WSJ 12/21/09 | DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
FR Posted 12/2/09 by rhema
For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the states—to a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their "police power" are now dominated by Washington.
The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.
There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to states—and through them the people—a greater role in the constitutional amendment process.
The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendments—and Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.
But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments? That has the potential to reinvigorate the states as a check on federal power. It could also return states to a more central policy-making role.
The Framers would have approved the idea of giving states a more direct role in the amendment process. They fully expected that the possibility of amendments originating with the states would deter federal aggrandizement, and provided in Article V that Congress must call a convention to consider amendments anytime two-thirds of the states demand it.(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Related Stories:
Randy Barnett: The Case for a Federalism Amendment
Clarence Thomas: How to Read the Constitution
The SEC rules require these companies to disclose material changes to their operations. A huge increase in health care costs is material. So after Enron and Worldcom the Congress pushes for more corporate transparency with Sarbanes/Oxley (another cost adding regulation with no benefit) now the Democrats wants companies to hide material changes/costs from the public and their shareholders.
If I was a CEO, I’d go and lay out the costs and then I’d announce either some or all of the following changes due to Obamacare:
1) Higher health premiums to employees
2) Reduction in employee pay to offset higher health care costs
3) Employee layoffs due to higher health care costs.
These companies need to earn a certain return on their capital based on the riskiness of their business. If costs go up, they either need to offset it with higher revenues or cut costs elsewhere. And forget about raising prices in this economy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.