“The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history,” Pelosi said. She added, “And nowhere did the American people make it more clear that we need a new direction than in the war in Iraq. ‘Stay the course’ has not made our country safer, has not honored our commitment to our troops and has not made the region more stable. We cannot continue down this catastrophic path.” She called on the Bush administration to work with Democrats “to find a solution to the war in Iraq.”

And I have a nice plot of swampland for you in Florida…

Is there any possibility of a court challenge to this monstrosity? Seriously. If the Left hated this bill, they could summon up the lawyers to at least make the effort. It’s worth a try, isn’t it?

I think it should be challenged for two reasons:

1) The Constitution is all about the balance of power. If one branch tries to usurp power, the other two can reign it in. This bill gives power to the Secretary of the Treasury (Executive branch) and and tries to claim that the Legislative and Judicial branches have no power to block his unilateral decisions. No balance of power? Unconstitutional.

2) This failout failed in the House and then was resurrected as a Senate ammendment to a previously passed House bill. Once passed in the Senate, it came back to the House for the final vote. When an ammendment is five times the size of the original bill, and has nothing to do with the original bill, I would say that the ammendment is not an ammendment at all, but rather it’s own entity, merely piggybacking a ride on the back of the original bill. As such, it is unconstitutional that it passed in the Senate first.

Our Legislative and Executive branches have failed us with this bill.
Our last hope is the Judicial branch, and I hope this bill is challenged.
Who will lead the challenge?

Sec 502. Provisions related to film and television productions

In an effort to keep film and television productions in the U.S, they would be eligible for a tax incentive program. Under this program, the cost of production of qualifying films would be permitted to be immediately expensed — that is, fully deducted from income for tax purposes — in the year the expenditures occur. This provision also makes permanent other favorable tax treatments for production.

Who gets to decide what a “qualifying” film is? Will Anti-American films qualify, while Pro-American films won’t? That would be my guess.

So we give tax credits to hollywood so they can make their anti-american marxist films here. And it only costs $478 billion over the next 10 years.

Why does the film industry get a tax break?

Because the Democratic Socialists want it that way.

On October 3rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm, TheOtherSide said:
All I know is that McCain apparently said yes to all of those earmarks.

You don’t know much, do you?

It’s a Reparations project in the form of handing out houses to minorities — specifically blacks. Next we’ll have to give them cars, then health care, then retirement benefits.

How did Americans allow such anti-American PsOS into power?

Time for a “Purging of the Leftists.”