Joe Bastardi, Joseph D’Aleo, Alan Lammey, and guest Harold Ambler dissect some of the preconceived ideas being assumed by politicians such as Hillary Clinton in the cuture war of global warming, e.g., climate change. (Posted by Religio-Political Talk)
Visit:
★ http://wiseguysofweather.com/
★ http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Also, predictions made in a religious/eschatological sense that will/have fail[ed]:
“Obviously, I find the two that hold it unconstitutional more compelling, but I mean for logical reasons, Which is to say the interstate commerce clause – there’s no point in having even any limits on Congress’ authority if they can force citizens, all citizens to buy a product,…. By the way, if this is constitutional, then Republicans should turn around and mandate all citizens be forced to purchase a gun and a Bible. And, there’s a lot more evidence that owning a gun and a Bible is better for society than everyone having to own health insurance. But, if that’s what Congress has the right to do, we can have all kinds of mandates. The interstate commerce clause says Congress can regulate either something that affects interstate commerce or the instrumentalities of interstate commerce. I think the judge, Judge Vinson makes a good case as apparently the plaintiffs did that simply not buying insurance is not an activity.” ~ Classic Coulter! (video at bottom)
Scared Monkeys has this:
OBAMACARE DELT CRUSHING BLOW….
As speculated earlier today, a second judge has ruled Obamacare unconstitutional. Federal Judge Roger Vinson ruled today that President Barack Hussein Obama’s health care law is unconstitutional. To add insult to “health care” injury, the federal judge used Obama’s past words against him.
In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.
Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.Hey Barack, words do have consequences don’t they and you do not get to have it both ways. Actually, as stated by Weasel Zippers, some one just got their butt handed to them. During the Democrat primary, Hillary Clinton’s insurance plan required that purchase insurance, Obama’s did not. Since the passage of Obamacare, the president has been singing a different tune and defending the government forcing Americans to purchase a product and claiming regulation authority for inactivity. However,
During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was that Mrs. Clinton‘s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance and Mr. Obama‘s did not.
Congress eventually included the individual mandate in the bill it passed, and Mr. Obama signed that into law in March. Since then, he and his administration have defended its constitutionality, arguing the mandate is the linchpin that brings in more customers to insurance companies, which in turn allows those companies to expand the availability and lower the cost of coverage.
However, Judge Vinson did not just strike down the federal mandate, he struck down the entire health care law, Obama’s crown jewel, as unconstitutional. Judge Vinson concluded that the federal mandate insurance requirement was so “inextricably bound”to other provisions of Obamacare that its unconstitutionality required the invalidation of the entire law. OUCH! What is the LEFT to do, as they are all whine and no legal argument?
But unlike a Virginia judge in December, Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., concluded that the insurance requirement was so “inextricably bound” to other provisions of the Affordable Care Act that its unconstitutionality required the invalidation of the entire law.
“The act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker,” Judge Vinson wrote.
(“Like” Scared Monkeys on Face Book.) Here is the ruling that Scared Monkeys linked to:
This ruling may be used almost as is to go to the Supreme Court. It is also a study in original intent as it references many cases from and including the debate on this clause in the Federalist Papers. As such, Constitutional law professors are scrambling to incorporate this in some manner into their class routines. Greta Van Susteren interviewed new Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and made the point that this should go straight to the Court in about 60-days, max. Great great point!
What should be of note is that the Judge used Obama’s own words against his own health-care plan. The Washington Times notes in their story, “Judge rules against health law, cites Obama’s words,” this:
In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.
Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.
The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but rather whether it has the power to compel individual citizens to purchase insurance.
Judge Vinson cited Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could pass constitutional muster including then-candidate Obama‘s plan.
During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was that Mrs. Clinton‘s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance and Mr. Obama‘s did not.
Congress eventually included the individual mandate in the bill it passed, and Mr. Obama signed that into law in March. Since then, he and his administration have defended its constitutionality, arguing the mandate is the linchpin that brings in more customers to insurance companies, which in turn allows those companies to expand the availability and lower the cost of coverage.
Much of Judge Vinson‘s ruling was a discussion of how the Founding Fathers, including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, saw the limits on congressional power. Judge Vinson hypothesized that, under the Obama administration‘s legal theory, the government could mandate that all citizens eat broccoli. (emphasis added)
Great Stuff!!
From Caroline Glick over at BigPeace.com:
Two weeks ago, a Palestinian from Bethlehem was arrested by the US-financed and trained Palestinian Authority security forces. He was charged with “carrying out commercial transactions with residents of a hostile state.”
No, he was not buying uranium from Iran. His purported crime was purchasing wood products from an Israeli community located beyond the 1949 armistice lines.
Denied bail by the US-funded PA magistrate’s court in Bethlehem, he has been remanded to custody pending the conclusion of his trial.
This man’s arrest is part of what the unelected, US-supported Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has touted as his “National Honor Fund.” The goal of this project is to ban all economic contact between Palestinians and Jews who live and work beyond the 1949 armistice lines. As far as the supposedly moderate Fayyad is concerned, those Jews and Israel generally comprise the “hostile state,” that the Palestinians under Fayyad’s leadership are being compelled to boycott.
Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, Palestinian Labor Minister Ahmed Majdalani said the PA hopes that by the end of the year all the thousands of Palestinians who are employed in Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria will quit their jobs. What he didn’t mention is that if they don’t quit, they will be arrested.
According to PA Economics Minister Hassan Abu Libdeh, since the start of Fayyad’s campaign, the PA has confiscated $1 million worth of Israeli products including foods, cosmetics and hardware from Palestinian stores.
Fayyad’s measures come on top of previously enacted PA measures like imposing the death penalty on Palestinians who sell land to Jews. Less than two months ago, the PA reaffirmed that it will continue to execute any Palestinian who commits this “crime.”
Creeping Sharia takes note of the most recent “wealth transfer” from American taxpayers to the Palestinians:
Another $150 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars, courtesy of Hillary Clinton and Obama to the corrupt and flourishing settlement of ‘Palestine’.
Watch the C-Span video [below], to see Hillary Clinton first blast Israel for building homes on its own land prior to announcing the latest donation to the unaccountable and corrupt ‘Palestinian’ Authority.
[….]
“…the United States has transferred an additional $150 million dollars in direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority. This brings our direct budget assistance to a total of $225 million dollars for the year, and our overall support and investment to nearly $600 million dollars this year. This figure underscores the strong determination of the American people and this administration to stand with our ‘Palestinian’ friends even in difficult economic times as we have here at home.”
The following is with much thanks to Abu Wabu, to which there is much more there to read… but this is the bottom line:
More from WABU:
With all the commentary that will follow from the MSM about the splendor of Obama’s decision, let’s remember all the baseless, despicable scorn, lies, character assassination and slanders Obama and his fellow Senate Democrats heaped on General Petraeus during the hearings on the Surge, a plan they all said wouldn’t work and for which they called him a liar for even suggesting it would.
Rather than burnishing Barack Hussein Obama’s presidential cred – he has none – all this whole affair has done, at this point, is prove once again what a bunch of lying sacks of shit the Democrats were in their attacks on Petraeaus and the military at the outset of the final surge and rescue of Iraq. Obama, Durbin, Reid, Biden, Clinton, Kennedy, Dodd, Kerry, Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Levin, Schumer, Frank, all of them, from top to bottom. It had failed before it had even begun, they said; the war was lost, and only a lying Bush military lackey like Petraeus would try to suggest otherwise. And today it is proven once and for all that it was all politics, for nothing but their own benefit, regardless of the cost to the country, its military and its image around the world, all of which they were prepared to sacrifice on the altar of political power.
[….]
Remember, for Obama, even the prospect of genocide in Iraq was not enough to merit taking down Saddam, and he proudly declared in the Surge hearings that he never supported the rescue of Iraq.
So Obama has never had any use for a genuine national hero like General Petraeus. Until now.
WIKI notes:
Victor Davis Hanson via NATIONAL REVIEW:
And George Will via NEW YORK POST:
…Less than three months after the Times excoriated the court for weakening issue-ad restrictions, the paper made a huge and patently illegal contribution to MoveOn’s issue-advocacy ad. The American Conservative Union filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, noting that the purchaser of the ad, MoveOn Political Action, is a registered multicandidate political committee regulated by the mare’s nest of federal laws and rules the multiplication of which has so gladdened the Times.
The Times, a media corporation that is a fountain of detailed editorial instructions about how the rest of the world should conduct its business, seems confused about how it conducts its own. The Times now says the appropriate rate for MoveOn’s full-page ad should have been $142,000, a far cry from the $65,000 the group paid. So the discount of $77,000 constitutes a large soft-money contribution to a federally regulated political committee. The Times’ horror of such contributions was expressed in its enthusiasm for McCain-Feingold.
FEC regulations state: “The provision of any goods or services without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual and normal charge for such goods or services is a contribution.” Individuals are limited to contributing $5,000 in a calendar year; corporations such as the Times can make no contributions.
MoveOn is going to send the Times a check for $77,000. The Times has apologized, which is sweet, but normally the FEC doesn’t accept apologies in lieu of fines. And often FEC fines are levied after intrusive investigations into motives and intentions. Will there be such an investigation of the Times? The FEC is not lenient when dealing with individuals who, less lawyered-up than The New York Times Co., fall afoul of regulations much more recondite than the bright line the Times ignored.
Bob Bauer, a Democratic lawyer specializing in laws regulating political speech, notes – not approvingly – that the Times supposedly has a policy of rejecting ads involving “personal attack” speech. But the Times accepted MoveOn’s ad accusing a soldier of betraying his country. According to the Times’ public editor, a Times official said the ad was “a comment on a public official’s management of his office.”….
IRAQ HEARINGS: Sen. Clinton Questions Gen. Petraeus
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently said that “the rich are not paying their fair share” of taxes in the United States and other developed countries.
Is she right? It depends on what you consider fair. Using 2006 data, The New York Times found that the richest 20 percent of households were paying 26 percent of their income to the federal government in the form of income, payroll, corporate, and excise taxes. The average for all familes? 21 percent.
And there’s this: “In 2006, the top quintile of households earned 55.7 percent of pretax income and paid 69.3 percent of federal taxes, while the top 1 percent of households earned 18.8 percent of income and paid 28.3 percent of taxes.”
Paying in a lot more than you get out? That doesn’t seem fair.
The rich are different than you and me; they’ve got more money. And they pay more taxes.
Politicians are different too–they rarely say what they really mean. Perhaps what Secretary Clinton means is that the rich can always pay more than they’re already paying.
That would explain why she and the president are lobbying to let the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year, a policy that would raise all sorts of taxes on all sorts of people.
Which doesn’t sound all that fair either.
See more at REASON!
MORE: