Video: Ted Cruz smacks down Eric Holder on usage of Drones on American soil

As Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) took to the Senate floor to filibuster the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA Director over the latter's unwillingness to unequivocally state that drones would not be used to kill Americans on American soil, Attorney General Eric Holder was in front of a Senate panel that included Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cruz wanted Holder to say it was unconstitutional to kill Americans with drones on American soil if said individuals posed no immediate threat.

Shockingly, Holder equivocates three times before ultimately giving Cruz the answer the Senator from Texas was looking for.

Amazing piece of video.

Via MediaIte:

Two No-Brainer arguments the Pro-Second Amendment crowd refuses to make

Let's get one thing straight. The left is responsible for politicizing the Sandy Hook shootings. That effort began almost immediately afterward. Rep. Jerrold Nadler even said Obama should 'exploit' the shootings and that the NRA is enabling 'mass murder'. With all that said, the pro-second amendment crowd has to fight back.

But they don't seem interested in going on offense.

There are currently two aspects to the growing gun control debate. One has to do with banning assault weapons and the other has to do with 'gun free zones'. The National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre chose to focus on the the latter and all but completely avoided the former. That was a mistake because it ignores a central component in the debate. If it can be made clear why assault weapons should be legal, it can be more easily made clear that 'gun free zones' must either cease to exist or be protected with armed security, which is what LaPierre is advocating.

The left is throwing hay makers in the gun control debate and the right is either throwing jabs or covering up. When gun control advocates question gun rights proponents about whether assault weapons should be available, the response inevitably involves something about the gun not being the problem and that the maniacs who use them irresponsibly is the problem.

The default position always seem to be tried and true platitudes: Guns don't kill people; people kill people. In the case of NRA's Wayne LaPierre, the takeaway line in his speech was:

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

It's a good line that happens to be true but it won't shift the debate or put the left on its heels, which is what needs to happen. Unless at least one of those two things happen, nothing will happen.

First up, how to shift the terms of the debate. The reason for the second amendment is either not understood or it is ignored by those who support gun control. Its purpose is not enunciated - though it is known - by those who oppose gun control.

When one takes the verbiage of the second amendment and couples it with verbiage found within the body of the Declaration of Independence, the true reason why assault weapons should not be banned is made clear.

AMENDMENT II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The reason for the second amendment can be found in the Declaration:

...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Our founding fathers wanted the citizenry to be armed so that it could defend itself from a tyrannical government. LaPierre knows this and so do gun rights advocates but they seem to be either incapable or unwilling to say it. Assault weapons aren't necessary for hunting or even for home defense but they would be necessary if the Government turned on its people. That forces want to take those weapons away at a time when corruption and wickedness in the U.S. Government is as high as its ever been, bold red flags should be raised.

Essentially, the only real argument in response to that from the gun control crowd is one that says there will never be any danger of the U.S. Government becoming tyrannical like King George was or that people who fear such a thing are being paranoid. That is a losing position. Any government can become tyrannical. In fact, most do.

Yet, the argument isn't made by the most prominent of second amendment advocates.

LaPierre focused on home protection from intruders but that is not an argument for the legality of assault weapons, which is what the other half of the debate which the left is focused on. The argument for assault weapons is the citizenry protecting itself from a repressive government. LaPierre didn't make that case.

That's how the debate could be shifted. As for putting the left on its heels, Operation Fast and Furious would do that. The Obama administration - along with the media - has stonewalled getting to the bottom of it. The ATF / DOJ didn't just send assault weapons to Mexican drug lords. The guns that were allowed to 'walk' across the border included .50 calibers, which are far more powerful than the assault weapons the left wants to see banned in the U.S.

After watching the second amendment come under attack, LaPierre gave a speech one week after the Sandy Hook shootings. What he didn't mention in that speech was the lack of media / left-wing outrage at the government-sanctioned, Fast and Furious, which is responsible for hundreds of deaths in Mexico.

Again, LaPierre knows the truth about that operation but he chose not to contrast it with what gun control advocates are doing in the wake of Sandy Hook.

LaPierre's speech is below; it starts shortly after the 1:00 mark. At about the 4:55 mark, some Code Pink whacko interrupts and holds a banner that says, 'NRA Killing our Kids'. Medea Benjamin, another Code Pink whacko who supported the 2010 Gaza flotilla does the same thing at around the 11:00 mark. Code Pink has been conspicuously absent over the last two years when it came to Fast and Furious.



Now for another example of a gun rights advocate in a position of power choosing not to enunciate a winning argument (relevant portion of exchange begins around the 10:00 mark). Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) was on with the Morning Joe crew and when the discussion turned to the subject of whether assault weapons should be banned, Huelskamp so twisted himself into pretzels that he ended up having to defend himself against charges from host Joe Scarborough that Huelskamp was accusing the host of politicizing the shootings. Fast forward to the 10:25 mark to watch Huelskamp tie his own hands behind his back.

At the 11:40 mark, Scarborough asks the congressman why Americans need assault weapons. Instead of explaining why the founding fathers wanted the citizenry to have the right to bear arms or throwing Fast and Furious right back into Scarborough's lap, Huelskamp - who is obviously championing a pro-Constitutional agenda - punts.

At the 12:40 mark, Scarborough even gave Huelskamp the chance to argue for the constitutionality of assault weapons being legal. Instead of saying WHY the second amendment allows for it, Huelskamp glosses over it and then argues that Sandy Hook should not be politicized. Scarborough takes offense and Huelskamp loses the argument because he didn't use the correct one.

In fact, by avoiding the argument that should have been made, Huelskamp actually made it worse for himself. As for the shootings being exploited by the left, Huelskamp should have pointed to Nadler as the perfect example. Instead, he let Scarborough control the debate.

h/t Breitbart:



Now, after watching that, have a look at this answer to a question at the Miss Universe Pageant by Miss Venezuela. She seemed to have the same problem Huelskamp did, though to a much greater and more obvious degree. The question was:

If you could make a new law, what would it be and why?

The question was potentially quite politically charged. If Miss Venezuela would have done what Carrie Prejean did and answered by giving her true beliefs on a social issue, for example, there would be a backlash she obviously didn't want - based on her response.

Instead, viewers were treated to an incoherent answer that included an obscure surfing reference.

Here's a transcript of her answer, via MediaIte:

“I think that any leys there are in Constitution or in life, are already made. I think that we should have, uh, a straight way to go in our similar, or, eh, in our lives as is this. For example, I’m a surfer, and I think that the best wave that I can take is the wave that I wait for it. So please do our only, eh, law that we can do. Thank you, Vegas!”

Enjoy.

Video: Most intellectually vacant Congressman wants Constitutional Amendment to control Freedom of Speech

In 2010, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) expressed a concern that if the island of Guam became overly populated that it might 'capsize' and 'tip over'. In 2012, he's now on record as making the charge that the private sector is taking over the government and that the private sector is "privatizing every aspect of our lives, as we know it."

Johnson's solution? A constitutional amendment that puts controls on the First amendment.

Note, too, how Johnson bemoans the racial division that exists in this country four years after Barack Obama was elected (such irony is apparently lost on people who think islands float).

Whack. Freakin'. Job.

Via MRC:



Remember this? Imagine that in Johnson's world, expressing fear that an island might capsize would be protected speech while expressing other positions would be subjected to restrictions. If ANY speech did meet the test of being right for suppression, it would be this absurdity enunciated by Johnson. Luckily, we'd like him to keep talking.



Question for Mr. Johnson: If the people on Guam have less freedom of speech rights, does that increase or decrease the chances of that island tipping over?

Tyrone Woods' father: Hillary told me they would 'prosecute' filmmaker

It didn't take long for many in the Muslim world to exploit the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi by doing what the Obama administration did - they pointed to the Innocence of Muslims video. The video was being held up as an example of why it's wrong to criticize anything Islam. We learned that before the attack, forces were already at work, plotting to call on international bodies as well as national governments to make any speech against or criticism of Islam a crime. At the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi called for restrictions on free speech.

The Obama administration pointed to the video as well. However, as the weeks have passed, a specific motive for doing so has been attributed to the administration. As the thinking goes, Obama and his team were using the video as an excuse so that the lack of security would not be exposed. It makes perfect sense. On October 19th, in a letter to Obama, Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa accused the administration of looking to "normalize" Libya despite an opposite reality on the ground. It's become widely accepted that Obama, Hillary, et. al. wanted to use the video as a distraction and as an excuse.

This would necessarily mean that Islamists and the administration had adopted the same narrative but for different reasons.

Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, may have called that entire premise into question when he called in to the Lars Larson show on October 24th. In describing his visit with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when the casket of his son and three other Americans arrived in at Andrews Air Force Base three days after their deaths, Tyrone's father dropped a bit of a bombshell.

Take note of what Charles says he was told by Hillary Clinton, beginning at the 6:15 mark.

"We're going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video."

I'll explain why this is potentially so very important, after the clip.



If Hillary Clinton was willing to "prosecute" the filmmaker, this puts her in direct opposition to the Constitution she swore an oath to uphold. It also potentially calls into question the premise that the video was used solely as an excuse to cover-up the lack of security at Benghazi.

Here is Hillary speaking at Andrews on the day that four caskets containing the bodies of four dead Americans arrived. Beginning at the 6:15 mark, Hillary essentially points to the video and indignantly says the U.S. Government had "nothing to do with (making it)".



This begs a very serious question: If the administration was only using the video as an excuse to prevent the truth about what happened in Benghazi from coming to light, why would Hillary take that a step further and tell the father of Tyrone Woods that the filmmaker would be prosecuted?

Such a reality doesn't just put the Obama administration on the same page with Islamists when it comes to blaming the video (but for different reasons). It actually suggests that the reasons for pointing to the video were the same.

If Hillary told Charles Woods that the filmmaker would be prosecuted, it meant that she was interested in criminalizing criticism of Islam as well. That would be a direct attack on the first amendment, which is something even the Obama administration is not yet willing to be seen as doing. Obama himself, in a PSA for Pakistan in which he appeared with Hillary, wouldn't go that far publicly, saying there was "no justification for this senseless violence... none". Again, Hillary accentuated the assertion that the "United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video" (I have always been intrigued by how adamantly she has stated that).



It's important not to forget that Hillary's Deputy Chief of Staff and closest advisor - Huma Abedin - has extremely close and irrefutable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, Abedin's mother Saleha and Mohamed Mursi's wife are two of 63 leaders in the Muslim Sisterhood, which makes them close colleagues. Yes, that's the same Mursi who spoke at the CGI several days after the Benghazi attack and said there should be limits to free speech. Isn't it possible that the Abedins share that view? Isn't it also possible for Huma to influence Hillary to adopt it?

Islamists have been pointing to the video in order to target our first amendment rights. Was the Obama administration attempting to do the same thing?

Threatening to prosecute someone for exercising his first amendment rights makes that possibility far more plausible.

This latest development does not mean the filmmaker - Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - doesn't warrant further investigation relative to his associations and motives for making the video. Both remain highly suspect and require more sunlight.

h/t Gather

Innocence of Muslims producer arrested by the Feds

Folks, the arrest of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula for violating his parole may seem like a victory for Muslim and leftist forces who want to squash our First Amendment right of free speech but, as they say, things aren't at all what they seem. Early indications are that his arrest is indeed a victory for the good guys.

Via the Smoking Gun:

The producer of the controversial anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” has been arrested for violating terms of his probation and is set for an appearance this afternoon in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, is scheduled for an initial appearance before Judge Christina Snyder, who sentenced him in June 2010 following a bank fraud conviction.

Investigators have not yet provided details about how Nakoula allegedly violated probation, but it seems clear that his involvement in the “Innocence of Muslim” production is central to the government's new charge.

Nakoula (seen above) was sentenced to 21 months in prison to be followed by six months in a halfway house. Upon completion of the custodial term, he was placed on probation for five years.

Included in his probation terms were prohibitions on his use of the Internet, unless he secured prior approval from his probation officer. Additionally, he was not to “use, for any purpose or in any manner, any name other than his/her true legal name or names without the prior written approval of the Probation Officer.”

While producing “Innocence of Muslims,” Nakoula repeatedly used the alias “Sam Bacile” (and other variants) in communications, online postings, and dealings with cast and crew working on the film.

Nakoula has a history of criminal behavior and has been on parole ever since he was convicted for his role in a bank fraud scheme back in 2010. That's why he was arrested, not because he made an anti-Muhammad film. The narrative being pushed by the mainstream media, in fact, has been that Nakoula is a Coptic Christian.

In reality, according to Shoebat, Nakoula gave an interview in Arabic in which he admitted that he is neither Christian nor Jew.

Moreover, the crimes he was found guilty of committing were done in conjunction with a man named Eiad Salameh, a Muslim fundamentalist who hates Christians and Jews.

In short, the arrest of Nakoula should be cheered by conservatives, Christians, and Jews. He broke the law and quite possibly scammed everyone who was even remotely involved in the production of the film.

Video: White House pushing same false narrative as Sharia law proponents

The 9/11/12 attacks on our embassy in Libya that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including our Ambassador, were coordinated and planned ahead of time. The narrative that the anti-Muhammad video was responsible is not just one that proponents of Sharia law wanted pushed after the fact. It is now obvious that it is a narrative the White House wanted to push as well. The Obama administration did so while knowing the narrative was false.

Why would it do so unless it agreed with the motivations of those Sharia law proponents, which include a usurpation of our first amendment rights?

Here is video of Catherine Herridge on Fox News explaining her find.

Via GWP:

Aren't our Generals supposed to DEFEND the Constitution?

I realize that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey is to follow the orders of his Commander-in-Chief but whether he picked up the phone and called Florida pastor Terry Jones to chill first amendment rights on his own or at the behest of the President makes little difference. Not only isn't it Dempsey's place to do so but his first priority is to defend the rights of all Americans NOT to have their rights chilled at all.

That apparently didn't stop him from picking up the phone and calling Jones.

Via Al Arabiya News:

The U.S. military’s top officer has urged a controversial Christian pastor to disavow a film that has ignited violent protests over its portrayal of the Islamic faith, a spokesman said Wednesday.

A day after a deadly assault on the U.S. consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi possibly sparked by the movie, General Martin Dempsey made a direct appeal to Pastor Terry Jones to reject the film to defuse tensions.

“In the brief call, Gen. Dempsey expressed his concerns over the nature of the film, the tensions it will inflame and the violence it will cause,” his spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan said in an email.

“He asked Mr Jones to consider withdrawing his support for the film,” he said.

What kind of message does this send to the Arab world? Note the news source that ran this story.

Moreover, apparently taking a cue from the actions of Dempsey is USA Today writer, Anthea Butler, who is actually siding with Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi by calling for the arrest of the man responsible for making the film that has allegedly so enflamed the Arab world. While doing so, Butler cites Dempsey.

Via USA Today:

My initial tweet about Bacile, the person said to be responsible for the film mocking the prophet Mohammed, was not because I am against the First Amendment. My tweets reflected my exasperation that as a religion professor, it is difficult to teach the facts when movies such as Bacile's Innocence of Muslims are taken as both truth and propaganda, and used against innocent Americans.

If there is anyone who values free speech, it is a tenured professor!

So why did I tweet that Bacile should be in jail? The "free speech" in Bacile's film is not about expressing a personal opinion about Islam. It denigrates the religion by depicting the faith's founder in several ludicrous and historically inaccurate scenes to incite and inflame viewers. Even the film's actors say they were duped.

Butler then argues that the difference between Bacile's film and The Last Temptation of Christ, which was insulting to Christianity is that Muslims reacted differently than Christians did. Therefore, Bacile should be responsible.

IT'S DELUSIONAL THINKING!

Here is where we get to the realm of unintended consequences on Dempsey's part; Butler uses his actions to attempt to make her case:

Bacile's movie does not excuse the rioting in Libya and Egypt, or the murder of Americans. That is deplorable. Unfortunately, people like Bacile and Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who provoked international controversy by burning copies of the Quran, have a tremendous impact on religious tolerance and U.S. foreign policy.

Case in point: Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Jones on Wednesday to ask him to stop promoting Bacile's film. Clearly, the military considers the film a serious threat to national security. If the military takes it seriously, there should be consequences for putting American lives at risk.

Essentially, Butler is saying Islam's problem with our freedom of speech should become our problem.

That's like saying players who lose a championship game should be held to account for the angry fans rioting in the streets.

Video: Lubbock Judge warns of 'Civil War' if Obama re-elected

Prepare for your mouth to be agape at approximately the 1:15 mark.

Via My Fox Lubbock (h/t GWP):

Obama Lied... Again; Individual Mandate ruled a Tax; Chief Justice 'Judas' betrays Constitution

Barack Obama lied... again, this time about the Individual Mandate not being a tax. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, who sided with the four professed liberals on the court, has gone to absurdly extreme lengths to make sure the law was upheld. The Individual Mandate was ruled unconstitutional as a penalty or mandate but Roberts decided to rule it constitutional as a tax, something Obama insisted it was not.

Here is Obama with George Stephanopolous on September 20, 2009 telling America that the Individual Mandate was NOT a tax.



That all changed when the legal argument from the Obama administration in front of the Supreme Court was that the mandate should be upheld because it is a tax. Translation: Obama lied... again.



As for Justice John 'Judas' Roberts...

The issue of severability was at the heart of the decision of U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson last year. Quite simply, the severability clause allows a law to stand if parts of it are thrown out. Obamacare did NOT have a severability clause. Vinson found the Individual Mandate unconstitutional and consequently ruled that the entire law had to be thrown out.

Roberts twisted himself into a pretzel to arrive at his decision today. Instead of ruling the Individual Mandate unconstitutional, which would require the law to be thrown out because it has no severability clause, Roberts ruled the Mandate unconstitutional under the commerce clause but found it constitutional as a tax, which the Obama administration argued it was not.

Chief Justice Roberts has just betrayed his nation.

**UPDATE** As Weasel Zippers points out, the White House website still has a post on the site, authored by Jason Furman, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Principal Deputy Director of the National Economic Council. Note the screen shot, taken today. The White House position is that the Individual Mandate is NOT a tax, though Obama still gets what he wants despite Roberts' disagreeing with him on what the Mandate is:

Video: Marine calls Obama "Domestic Enemy"

In a bold move, an active Marine - Sgt. Gary Stein - has referred to the president as a "domestic enemy" on his facebook page.

Here's the CNN news report via Western Journalism:



Here is the link to Stein's facebook page, known as Armed Forces Tea Party:

http://www.facebook.com/ArmedForcesTeaParty

Stein is not the first one to put the two words "domestic" and "enemy" together when speaking publicly about the president. The question was posed to then Minority Whip, Rep. Eric Cantor nearly two years ago when the congressman spoke at the Heritage Foundation:

Romney told Obama to support Individual Mandate... in 2009

One of the biggest red flags here is the fact that Mitt Romney's 2009 Op-ed for the USA Today is now unavailable, except for approximately the first half of it on the Wayback Machine internet archive. Thanks to Buzzfeed, we now have access to it and it ain't kind to Governor Romney's current position about Obamacare being unconstitutional. The piece was practically written as an advice column to Barack Obama.

That advice?

Well, embrace the most unconstitutional part of Obamacare; embrace the individual mandate.

Here's the relevant excerpt of Romney's piece, h/t Red State:

Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.

Again, the single most defining issue of Barack Obama's agenda in his first term was Obamacare. Romney's debate quiver will be out of arrows on this issue. Not only was his state's health care plan the blueprint for Obamacare but whenever the issue comes up, Obama will be able to snarkily say, "Tell me again, Mitt, why is my health care law unconstitutional?" Regardless of Mitt's answer, Obama can whip out the aforementioned paragraph each time Romney attempts to say it's unconstitutional. If Mitt stands by the position, Obama will be able to assert that Romneycare is unconstitutional, save for the tenth amendment argument.

Even then, Romney advocated Obama go against the Constitution... in 2009 (assuming his position now is that Obamacare is unconstitutional).

As the proverbial cherry on top, check out this montage of Mitt Romney over the last few years. Stick with it though and take note of how he says during a 2008 campaign debate that he supports mandates. Then candidate Fred Thompson calls Romney on it and said, "I didn't think you'd admit that."

h/t Hot Air:

Video: Muslim Judge in Pennsylvania on CNN

Consider this guy busted. His name is Mark Martin and he is a Muslim Judge from Pennsylvania. He presided over a case in which an atheist named Ernest Perce was allegedly assaulted by a Muslim bystander during a Halloween parade. Perce was dressed as a "Muhammad Zombie" and his Muslim assailant was so offended and so nervous that he dialed 9-4-4 instead of 9-1-1 in an attempt to report Perce for doing something illegal (dressing up as a Muhammad Zombie is not illegal).

According to an article by Pamela Geller at American Thinker, Martin has denied that he's a Muslim, despite his confession to the contrary, which can be heard on the audio recording of the trial; it was released by Perce on YouTube and can be heard HERE.

Today, Martin - who is clearly on defense now - appeared on CNN and was interviewed by Soledad O'Brien about his ruling, which was for the Muslim assailant. As Martin issued his ruling, it sounded more like a defense of Islam than of the U.S. Constitution. Perce was chastised and called a "doofus" by Martin, who ultimately ruled in favor of the Muslim defendant.

Anyway, here is Martin's appearance on CNN. Pay particularly close attention at the end as Martin actually compares Perce to the KKK while making the argument that just because the Klan had the first amendment right to wear sheets didn't mean that it was right.

Uh, Mr. Muslim Judge, the KKK dressed in white sheets before they went on killing sprees that likely began with assaults. In this case, the guy you compare to the KKK wasn't looking to hurt anyone. In fact, he was the one assaulted.

Lame-O



h/t Shoebat via Hot Air

Video: Democrat says "We're not looking at the Constitution..." on Contraception Mandate

I'd say that this is unprecedented but it's really not. However, it does peel back another layer of the hidden Democratic agenda. Back in April of 2010, Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL) told Adam Sharp of Sharp Elbows that he "doesn't worry about the Constitution" during a town hall meeting at which he defended Obamacare.

Fast forward to just this week at another town hall. This time, the speaker is Rep. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) and the subject is the HHS mandate that says religious providers must offer insurance to its employees that covers contraception. While Obamacare was primarily about the Individual mandate relative to the commerce clause, this mandate has to do with the very first amendment to the constitution. When Hochul was called on it, she had the same response as Hare.

Via Freedom's Lighthouse:



For grins, here is then Rep. Phil Hare in April of 2010:

Video: Obama Blames Founding Fathers

During an interview with leftist media personality, Matt Lauer, Barack Obama, perhaps inadvertently, revealed a weakness. Said Obama, "Our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes." This admission also indicates that Obama is frustrated that he has not been able to do as much as he would like since getting elected in 2008.

Yes, it's enraging but Obama's discouragement is reason to be encouraged.



h/t Freedom's Lighthouse

Obamacare Glitch has Administration Going Around Congress Again

During the Obamacare debate last year, one of the things that got the most attention was the thousands of pages that made up the legislation. There was no possible way any good could come from it. Ironically, the Obama administration, as well as the laws proponents, may be suffering from the law's size as much as anyone. If you remember, earlier this year, Federal District Court Judge Roger Vinson struck down the entire law as unconstitutional because he found the individual mandate unconstitutional. Had the legislation included a severability clause - which allows one part of a law to be removed while keeping the rest in tact - he likely wouldn't have done that. The lack of a severability clause was indeed an oversight by the bill's crafters.

Now there appears to be another "glitch" and the Obama administration is attempting to insert it into the bill without going through Congress.

Via WSJ:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act offers "premium assistance"—tax credits and subsidies—to households purchasing coverage through new health-insurance exchanges. This assistance was designed to hide a portion of the law's cost to individuals by reducing the premium hikes that individuals will face after ObamaCare goes into effect in 2014. (If consumers face the law's full cost, support for repeal will grow.)

The law encourages states to create health-insurance exchanges, but it permits Washington to create them if states decline. So far, only 17 states have passed legislation to create an exchange.

This is where the glitch comes in: ObamaCare authorizes premium assistance in state-run exchanges (Section 1311) but not federal ones (Section 1321). In other words, states that refuse to create an exchange can block much of ObamaCare's spending and practically force Congress to reopen the law for revisions.

The Obama administration wants to avoid that legislative debacle, so this summer it proposed an IRS rule to offer premium assistance in all exchanges "whether established under section 1311 or 1321." On Nov. 17 the IRS will hold a public hearing on that proposal. According to a Treasury Department spokeswoman, the administration is "confident" that offering premium assistance where Congress has not authorized it "is consistent with the intent of the law and our ability to interpret and implement it."

Such confidence is misplaced. The text of the law is perfectly clear. And without congressional authorization, the IRS lacks the power to dispense tax credits or spend money.

Frankly, with what I've seen from this administration, relative to issuing edicts when it should be going through Congress, I have little to no confidence that it will be unsuccessful in this case. However, if there is a takeaway here, it's that an oversight on the part of Obamacare's authors only serves to shine a brighter light on Obama himself. These antics are also not likely to go unnoticed when the Supreme Court takes up the case in the spring.

In the months since Obamacare was passed, it has continued to take significant hits. Revelations that one Supreme Court Justice - Elena Kagan - cheered the bill's passage certainly doesn't help either.

h/t Hot Air

Video: Solyndra Execs Plead the FIF

Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison and the company's CFO Bill Stover thoroughly embarrassed themselves by invoking their Fifth Amendment rights at a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing. Isn't it amazing how guys like this hide behind the Constitution when it suits them but apparently worked intimately with an administration that has demonstrated such thorough disregard for our founding documents? In this first video, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) attempts to get each man to answer questions that, on their face, should not implicate them at all. Yet, both Harrison and Stover cite the Fifth Amendment anyway.

I can't think of a time when silence has so implicated two men.

Via Fox Nation:



Kinda reminds me of this:

Texas Abortion Law: Another Federal Judge Mysteriously Does Obama's Bidding

Just yesterday, I posted that another Federal judge struck down another state's immigration law - in Alabama. The immigration laws in Arizona, Utah, Georgia, and Indiana suffered similar fates. Now, we can throw Texas into the mix as a state that has seen one of its laws struck down by a Federal judge. Though it's not an immigration law, it's just as politically charged; it's a Sonogram Law. In essence, the law required doctors (abortionists) to perform a sonogram before performing an abortion. Coincidentally, just before the law was to take effect, Judge Sam Sparks pulled the rug out.

Wait until you see the logic behind the decision; it has to do with the first amendment.

Via the AP:

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked key provisions of Texas' new law requiring a doctor to perform a sonogram before an abortion, ruling the measure violates the free speech rights of both doctors and patients.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks upheld the requirement that sonograms be performed, but struck down the provisions requiring doctors to describe the images to their patients and requiring women to hear the descriptions.

The law made exceptions for women who were willing to sign statements saying they were pregnant as a result of rape or incest or that their fetus had an irreversible abnormality. Sparks questioned whether the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature was trying to "permanently brand" women who are victims of sexual assault.

The law — one of dozens of anti-abortion measures that advanced through state capitals across the United States this year — takes effect Thursday. The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights had sued to block it.

Keep reading because Sparks even argues that forcing doctors to perform sonograms forces them to push an ideological agenda with which they may not agree.

Aside from the fact that an organization from one state (New York) can successfully sue another state (Texas) over the legality of its own laws is absurd, it's mighty interesting how Federal judges across the land continue to do the bidding of this president when it comes to state legislatures.

h/t Weasel Zippers

Appellate Court: Obamacare Unconstitutional

The rulings on Obamacare between now and its final stop at the Supreme Court are not inconsequential. SCOTUS will be looking at the rulings of the lower courts. One court ruled the entire law unconstitutional. This appellate court ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional but everything else is ok. It will be interesting to see how that pans out because the reason the earlier court ruled the entire law was unconstitutional was because the individual mandate was unconstitutional and because there was no severability clause in the law (allowing parts to be ruled illegal), the entire law was ruled unconstitutional.

Via Reuters:

An appeals court ruled Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.

The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the 2010 healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.

The case stems from a challenge by 26 U.S. states which had argued the individual mandate, set to go into effect in 2014, was unconstitutional because Congress could not force Americans to buy health insurance or face the prospect of a penalty.

Ok, so how can one judge rule the entire law unconstitutional because there is no severability clause and the other only rule one portion of the law unconstitutional without a severability clause?. A commenter at Free Republic named Crawdad appears to have posted the relevant portion of the most recent ruling:

To: americanophile
We first conclude that the Act’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional.
Existing Supreme Court precedent does not establish that Congress’s inducementsare unconstitutionally coercive, especially when the federal government will bear nearly all the costs of the program’s amplified enrollments.

Next, the individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a
revenue-raising tax, and cannot be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The mandate is denominated as a penalty in the Act itself, and the legislative history and relevant case law confirm this reading of its function.

Further, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce
power and is unconstitutional. This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives. We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers. “Uniqueness” is not a constitutional principle in any antecedent Supreme Court decision. The individual mandate also finds no refuge in the aggregation doctrine, for decisions to abstain from the purchase of a product or service, whatever their cumulative effect, lack a sufficient nexus to commerce.145

The individual mandate, however, can be severed from the remainder of the
Act’s myriad reforms. The presumption of severability is rooted in notions of judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers in our constitutional system. The Act’s other provisions remain legally operative after the mandate’s excision, and the high burden needed under Supreme Court precedent to rebut the presumption of severability has not been met.
Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
145Our respected dissenting colleague says that the majority: (1) “has ignored the broad power of Congress”; (2) “has ignored the Supreme Court’s expansive reading of the Commerce Clause”; (3) “presume[s] to sit as a superlegislature”; (4) “misapprehends the role of a reviewing court”; and (5) ignores that “as nonelected judicial officers, we are not afforded the opportunity to rewrite statutes we don’t like.” See Dissenting Op. at 208–209, 243. We do not respond to these contentions, especially given (1) our extensive and exceedingly careful review of the Act, Supreme Court precedent, and the parties’ arguments, and (2) our holding that the Act, despite significant challenges to this massive and sweeping federal regulation and spending, falls within the ambit and prerogative of Congress’s broad commerce power, except for one section, §
5000A. We do, however, refuse to abdicate our constitutional duty when Congress has acted beyond its enumerated Commerce Clause power in mandating that Americans, from cradle to grave, purchase an insurance product from a private company.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

HERE is the story on Vinson's ruling this past January.

Video: White House Spokesman Jay Carney (Barker) Indicates Obama will Invoke Fourteenth Amendment

Let the impeachment talk begin. White House press secretary Jay Carney has now officially tipped the administration's hand as to what the Obama strategy will be if the debt ceiling isn't raised; this short clip seems to indicate that Obama will raise the debt ceiling by invoking the Fourteenth amendment. If that happens, be prepared to see the Tea Party freshmen in the House, those who would ultimately be responsible for refusing to raise the debt ceiling, raise Cain.

The relevant portion of the fourteenth amendment is section 4, which states:

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The argument against Obama here is that this portion of the Constitution speaks to incurred debt, not future debt. Nonetheless, Tea Party freshmen like Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) are already on record as saying such a move would be impeachable.

First up, here is Carney saying, 'we have to take action to ensure we do not default.'



Here is none other than Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) arguing in support of Obama invoking the fourteenth:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

He's not the only one. Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist - VT) says Obama should do that as well:



Here is Rep. Scott at a recent town hall:



h/t Weasel Zippers

Video: Obama Says he's 'Tempted' to Go Around Congress

While speaking in front of the very racist 'La Raza,' Obama said it was 'very tempting' to consider going around Congress to raise the debt ceiling. Though he doesn't say it here, he is referring to an interpretation of the fourteenth amendment that is so controversial that the talk of Impeachment will commence immediately after he were to pull such a stunt. Though none other than Bill Clinton has said he wouldn't hesitate to invoke Section 4 of the Amendment, such talk is cheap when you're no longer in office. If Obama goes that route, it'd be tantamount to exercising the nuclear option on the Legislative branch.

Here is the relevant section:

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obliga[p.1928]tion incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

At first glance, that may seem to give the President the right to raise the debt ceiling but the line of distinction is likely going to come down to whether the president has the right to pay debt already incurred vs. the right to authorize future debt. That distinction is quite important. While speaking in front of La Raza, Obama flashed his typical arrogance, hinting that he might just invoke the Fourteenth amendment.



h/t Weasel Zippers