13 Attorneys General will file a constitutionality lawsuit against the healthcare reform bill
According to this article, 13 attorneys general have written a letter to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid stating that they will file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the healthcare reform bill.
I think that the focus of this lawsuit is on the wrong clause in the healthcare reform bill; the attorneys general claim that they will challenge the constitutionality of Ben Nelson’s $100 million kickback that ensures Nebraska will never have to pay any increased costs in Medicare. If the Nebraska provision is dropped they will not go forward with their challenge.
The article never states what clause in the constitution they are going to base their case on but as far as I can tell it would probably be based on the part of Article 1 Section 8 which reads,” all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” The attorneys general would argue that Nebraska’s exemption from increased Medicare taxes would be a violation of the “uniform” clause in the constitution.
Again, this is just a guess, maybe they have something else in mind. I don’t think that there will be much of a case here, is what Ben Nelson secured for his state that much different from the other pork barrel projects that go into all bills? I don’t think so.
I think that the attorneys general should focus their attention on the healthcare mandates. That would be a better argument in my opinion. Even if they do win the case based on this issue, the rest of the healthcare reform bill will remain intact, including the mandates.
Perhaps this lawsuit would just be an opening salvo, if this challenge fails perhaps more challenges will follow, with the mandates being next on the list.
At least I hope so.
Flight 253 aftermath: Two of the plotters were former GITMO detainees released by Bush
In spite of the president’s claim that the terrorist attacker on Flight 253 was an “isolated extremist,” it is becoming more clear that this simply is not true; Al-Qaeda has taken responsibility for planning the failed attack, a man helped Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab get on the plane without a passport, Yemen claims they have three hundred more militants ready to go, and now we are learning that two former GITMO detainees– released by President Bush– were involved in planning the Christmas day attack.
The most incredulous part of this story about two of the planners being former GITMO detainees who were released, is the reason why they were released; they were not released because they are innocent– nobody being held at GITMO is innocent, they were picked up on the battlefield fighting against America– they were released so that they could enter a rehabilitation center. You read that right. They were sent to Saudi Arabia to attend a Jihad rehabilitation center where they were given paint and crayons. Isn’t that nice!
Apparently drawing pictures of dead Americans just didn’t do it for these two, they need the real thing. The rehabilitation didn’t stick.
President Bush had a liberal side to him– spending, growing government, amnesty, no child left behind, the Medicare drug expansion– but this takes the cake.
This is where we have come as a nation? In the interest of sounding like a “compassionate conservative” he allowed two known terrorists to enter a rehabilitation center because after all, everyone deserves a second chance, right? He put the image of being compassionate above the actual protection of America in this case.
Couple this with the fact that we did not allow our military to enter the Afghanistan and Iraq wars at the full of their might. If the military was allowed to fight to the utmost of their capability these wars would have been over years ago.
But President Bush tried to fight a limited politically correct war and we see where this has gotten us. In the interest of being compassionate, President Bush has hamstrung the ability of the military– and this will continue, probably worse, with Barack Obama as commander-in-chief– one has to wonder how effective the military will ever be again unless these restrictive policies are reversed.
We have seen the effects of political correctness in the military ranks recently. Just look at Fort Hood as an example of what happens when political correctness goes awry. Higher ups in the military saw all of the warning signs with Hasan and in the interest of being politically correct– and with the fear of being labeled racists– the not only did not heed the warnings, the promoted Hasan through the ranks.
This is more of the same when it comes to these GITMO detainees. Instead of being locked away securely in GITMO where they belonged, they were released into rehabilitation where they were able to scam the system and return to their Jihad planning. This is a disgrace and in this regard it falls solely on Bush and his administration.
But it does not end with President Bush– nor does it vindicate Barack Obama or his administration’s failings or Janet Napolitano for her ineptness that she did not see the need to put Abdul Mutallab on the no-fly list despite the warnings,– as I wrote here, Barack Obama was considering releasing 100 more GITMO detainees into rehab centers. In that post I asked, “What’s the worst that could happen? Do you really want to find out?” Well, it looks like we just found out.
There is plenty of blame to go around but Barack Obama should use this as a “teachable moment”– a term that his administration loves to use– because as we have just seen, these people cannot be rehabilitated. Barack Obama is in the process of closing down GITMO, bringing these terrorists to the United States, granting them rights, and putting them on trial in civilian courts and not in military tribunals as if they were criminals and not terrorists.
If this episode teaches us one thing, it is the fact that GITMO should remain open and these people should never again see the light of day. The only way that terrorists can be rehabilitated is to watch them dance at the end of a rope. That is the only way to ensure that they will never return to Jihad again.
Flight 253 aftermath: Chris Dodd amendment cut airport security funding by $4.5 million
The president called the attempted Flight 253 terror attack a “systematic failure” and he is exactly right, he also promised to hold those responsible accountable for their action. (or inactions)
We are now learning that Chris Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut, offered an amendment to a bill that slashed funding to airport security by $4.5 million. The money that was destined to be spent “for screening operations and the amount for explosives detection systems,” was instead sent to one of Chris Dodd’s favorite constituency groups.
With the trillions of dollars that this administration has spent, I find it odd that $4.5 million had to be stripped out of a bill in order for Chris Dodd to pay off his constituency group. What is $4.5 million when you are spending trillions? $4.5 million isn’t even a drop in the bucket to this administration, yet Chris Dodd had the appropriations removed from the bill.
It is interesting to see what spending the Democrats in congress find unneccessary. This is just another example of Democrats not taking national security and terrorism seriously enough.
For the second time in two days, Barack Obama addressed the American people about the thwarted terror attack on Flight 253. After remaining silent for three days while his administration tried to find the best way to spin the attacks, Barack Obama managed to take seven minutes out of his vacation to mention the Christmas day attack.
Today he took a few more minutes out of his busy vacation schedule to address the American people again…sort of. He released a pre-recorded audio message in which he called the ”systematic failings” unacceptable and promised to hold those who are responsible for the failings accountable. While I am glad to hear that someone will be held accountable, I find it odd that the president didn’t address the nation live in front of reporters.
This is the act of a man who does not want to be held accountable himself. Barack Obama should have faced the reporters and answered questions about the attack. If he truly believed in accountability that is what he would have done. But Barack Obama did what he did best, he gave a prepared speech without fear of reproach.
We have seen what happens to Barack Obama when he does not have the teleprompter in front of him and he was not willing to take that chance on this issue. Americans want their president to be a leader in time of crisis and if Barack Obama was a leader, he would have stood up in front of reporters and answered their questions. But he didn’t do that– he is not a leader.
He wants to hold someone else accountable but he is afraid to be held accountable himself.
When the president finally addressed the American people on the failed terrorist attack on Flight 253, the visual was as striking as the delay in his reaction was confounding. After three days of pondering the proper way to address the American people– if he thought about it at all– on the terror attack, the president finally found seven minutes to get away from his hectic vacation itinerary to talk to the American people.
As Barack Obama remained silent, his Homeland Security secretary, Janet Napolitano, made a complete ass of herself and while her remarks led many to believe that the people in this administration don’t really take the issue of terrorism seriously, the president was golfing, going to the gym, and swimming. What is that old adage? It is better to remain silent and let everyone think that you are a fool than to open up your mouth and prove it. That seems to be the philosophy that Barack Obama employed on this issue; the problem is that when you are golfing while many Americans are facing extreme travel difficulties over Christmas because of a terrorist attack on your soil, and you are out golfing, remaining silent proves that you are indeed not taking the issue of terrorism seriously. Once he opened his mouth, he proved it. Perhaps if Barack Obama had to travel in the same manner that the American people have to he wouldn’t be so casual about the issue.
And speaking of casual, back to the striking visual that I alluded to at the beginning; I find it odd that the president would hold his seven minute press conference without even bothering to throw on a tie to look a little more professional. I really think that this administration doesn’t take this issue seriously and the fact that he was so casual in his time of response and in his dress when he finally responded is problematic. If he doesn’t take the issue seriously enough to take more than seven minutes out of his vacation to address the people, I am sure that those who would do this country harm certainly don’t think that he is serious enough about the issue to give them second thoughts about trying to carry out further attacks.
Barack Obama just doesn’t seem to take this issue or this incident very seriously at all. He is too casual and appears too clueless on the issue. Americans needed a leader in this time of crisis– and make no mistake, this was a crisis– but the president provided no leadership. Instead he gave off the air of a person who felt inconvenienced that this would happen while he was trying to enjoy himself.
After affording the American people seven minutes of his vacation time to casually address the people, he was so distraught by the attempted attack that he quickly resumed his vacation by heading to the gym for a workout. Meanwhile the incompetent people that he appointed to watch over the American people and keep us safe returned to the jobs that they have already failed at performing adequately.
When Janet Napolitano addressed the issue of the failed terror attack on Flight 253 she said that it was proof that “the system worked.” As if that ludicrous and asinine statement wasn’t enough, she later went on to say the following:
This was one individual literally of thousands that fly and thousands of flights every year,” Napolitano said. “And he was stopped before any damage could be done. I think the important thing to recognize here is that once this incident occurred, everything happened that should have
Once the incident occurred? That’s the problem, you are supposed to prevent the incident from occurring in the first place. This man should never have been allowed on a plane bound for the United States in the first place. The only reasons that this incident was stopped before any “damage could be done” is because of the actions of the passengers on board the plane coupled with the failure of the fuse.
Today Janet Napolitano must have realized how stupid and inaccurate her astounding statement sounded and she reversed herself by admitting that the system failed miserably. I find it interesting that in the immediate aftermath of an attempted terrorist attack, the first thing that Janet Napolitano felt compelled to do was to enter spin mode to protect herself and the Obama administration’s policies. Only after it became obvious, even to her, that the American people were not buying the line of bullshit she was handing down did she come out an admit what everybody already knew– that this was a failure in Homeland Security.
I am glad that she finally realized it was useless to try to pretend that there was nothing wrong in the system that allowed this man to enter the United States, but that does not change the fact that the man was allowed to enter the United States. If it was not for a faulty fuse, we would be looking at an attack that left 300 Americans dead and just because Mutallab failed in his plan it does not mean that nobody needs to be held accountable for the miserable failure in the system. Janet Napolitano, being in charge of the organization that is suppoed to keep America’s homeland safe, needs to be held accountable. She failed miserably and she needs to resign.
Janet Napolitano refuses to even use the word “terrorism”, preferring the term “man caused disaster”, and she refuses to use the term “war on terror”, preferring the term “overseas contingency operation.” She does this because she believes that those terms, used under the Bush administration, is fear mongering, and she wants to prove that this is a kinder, gentler administration.
Her kinder, gentler Homeland Security Department nearly got 300 Americans killed. Al-Qaeda is emboldened because the do not see America as a kinder, gentler nation; they see America as a weaker nation, they see a nation that is not willing to confront her enemies, they see a nation who is not even willing to name her enemies for fear of offending them, and it is becoming evident that they plan on feeding on our weakness.
When Janet Napolitano was asked about the attempted terrorist attack aboard Northwest Flight 253 being thwarted she responded,”the system worked.”
What!? Really!? The system worked? I guess the system under this administration and Homeland Security must be for a terrorist to be allowed to board a plane with a bomb and let the passengers diffuse the situation, because that is exactly what happened in this situation.
There was no marshal on board this plane and if it weren’t for a malfunction in the fusing mechanism, this bomb would have exploded and killed everyone on board. The terrorist may have still been able to set off the bomb if it weren’t for the quick actions of the heroes that were on board this plane. So don’t sit there and tell America that the system worked, the system failed and America was very lucky that the second terror attack on Barack Obama’s watch was a failure, unlike the first.
When asked how the would be terrorist was allowed to board a plane with liquid explosives she responded,”We’re asking the same questions.” That’s nice, but this attempted attack should have been foiled before the terrorist was ever allowed to board the plane.
For Janet Napolitano to go on CNN and tell the country that the fact that the passengers thwarted a terrorist attack that the system almost allowed to take place, is proof that the system works is nothing more than bullshit. There is no other way to put it, it is BULLSHIT!
While the system dictates that we cannot profile people in airport lines, and while old men in wheelchairs and young children must be screened, a terrorist was able to walk straight onto the plane with a bomb. The system is fatally flawed and we would have seen proof of that fact on Flight 253 if it weren’t for the passengers.
This could be the best news to come out of Washington DC since Barack Obama became the president; at least six Senate Democrats are urging the president to drop cap and trade from his legislative agenda… at least until after the 2010 election.
All of these Democrats who are urging the president to delay action on global warming are doing so not because they don’t believe in the cause– they do– but because they don’t think that it is a good idea to pass this legislation in such a bad economy. I find this to be very interesting because these Democrats appear to be agreeing with what the Republicans have been saying all along– that cap and trade will further hurt the economy. The president and the Democrats have been claiming just the opposite would be the case. They have been claiming that cap and trade legislation would open up all sorts of new job opportunities in a new “green” marketplace. Remember how we were told that all of these new “green” jobs would be created?
If the Democrats were telling us the truth about the job creation possibilities that would open up under cap and trade, why would they attempt to jettison the cap and trade legislation because of the economy that so desperately needs the additional jobs that cap and trade was supposed to provide? The answer is painfully obvious– they were lying! The truth is that the economy would get even weaker after cap and trade, with all of its new taxes, is passed and Democrats know this.
But the economy isn’t the real reason that the Democrats want to delay this legislation.
Democrats have also been telling us for quite some time that we can afford to delay no longer on the issue of global warming, we have been told that we have reached a tipping point and that we must act immediately or we will never be able to stop the world from being destroyed by man’s actions. Suddenly Democrats feel that it is okay to push the cap and trade legislation back one year, what about the impending crisis? I thought that immediate action was needed, wouldn’t pushing the legislation back delay the issue until the environmental damage is unrepairable? That is what they have been telling us.
Don’t be fooled, the Democrats are not afraid that the environment will suffer catastrophic consequences if their actions are delayed– the have only been fear mongering on this issue to push forward a political issue, that much is clear– and Democrats are not urging this delay because of the economy– the same economy they promised this legislation would help– they are doing it because of next year’s midterm election.
Suddenly when faced with tough reelection prospects these same Democrats are willing to punt this issue into next year, not in hopes that the economy will be better next year, but because it will be after the elections, conveniently. It seems their reelection prospects are more important to them than the prospects of saving the world and the economy– the two goals of this legislation, or at least the stated goals of the legislation.
This news does not mean that we can rest easily on this issue, while there are many Democrats who may be in trouble during the midterm elections and while they are asking the president to delay this important piece of his domestic agenda, that doesn’t mean he will listen to them. The notion that there could be many Democrats in trouble in the midterm elections could actually have the opposite effect on the president’s thinking. He may decide to push the cap and trade legislation even harder.
We have seen the president push hard and fast on every piece of legislation he has proposed– he hasn’t accomplished anything yet, but he has pushed hard. He wants everything done and done now! And cap and trade will probably be no different. Realizing that he could lose his majority in one or possibly both houses, the president may decide to push for cap and trade while he still has the majority. To wait until after the 2010 elections would kill any chance of this legislation ever passing if Republicans can manage to gain a majority in either house.
The president does not care about the Democrats in congress personally, he cares only about their vote, and his agenda. He would gladly sacrifice their seats in congress in order to get their votes on as many issues as he can before the 2010 election.
Regardless of whether or not the president takes the advice of these six Democrats, the request by these six Democrats has shown us the truth; cap and trade is not only not good for the economy it is harmful to the economy, cap and trade is not a measure that has to be passed immediately to save the world or Democrats would be willing to lose their seats in order to save the world, cap and trade amounts to nothing more than a national energy tax that will be forced upon all Americans, Democrats have been lying about the impact of man on the environment, and Republicans have been right about these issues all along.
No wonder they want to wait until after the election.
White House admits the attack on Flight 253 was a terrotist act, but still won’t admit the Fort Hood attack was terrorism
Contrary to what this administration and Homeland Security would have us believe, terrorism still exists and even changing the term “terrorism” to “man-caused disasters” has not changed that. The latest example of this can be seen here; Northwest Flight 253, flying on Christmas, was the target of an attempted terrorist attack.
A man claiming to be an al-Qaeda operative, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, attempted to blow up the airplane using some type of incendiary device. Once the passengers heard the noise, saw and smelled the smoke, several of them leapt into action and subdued this terrorist.
At the time of this writing we do not know whether this man was actually working for al-Qaeda and we do not know if he actually had the means on board to blow up the plane. We don’t know if the airplane was in any real danger, but we do know three things; firstly, the passengers aboard this plane that took action are heroes and congratulations and thank yous are in order. Because of their actions, the lives of almost 300 people were possibly saved.
Secondly, the intent was there, even if we find out that this man was nothing more than another Richard Reid, which leads us directly into the third known fact– this man is a terrorist.
Even the White House released a statement that acknowledged the fact that this attempted attack was probably terror related; something I find a little odd considering that after the Fort Hood terror attack the president– when he finally bothered to address the media, and after he did his shout outs– warned the American people about rushing to judgement.
He was not, and still is not, willing to call the Fort Hood terrorist what he is– a terrorist. The Fort Hood terrorist faces no terrorism charges, and it doesn’t look like he ever will. I have written several posts in which it can clearly be seen by the evidence that Nadal Hasan was acting as a terrorist, but the White House is unwilling to call him a terrorist. Yet the White House has no problem calling Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab a terrorist so soon after the attack? Why is he willing to rush to judgement in this case? Shouldn’t he wait until after all of the facts are in before passing judgement, just as he asked us to do after Fort Hood?
Why do you think it is that the White House is willing to use the “T” word in this case when it is so opposed to using the “T” word in regards to Fort Hood?
I have a theory. At first, in regards to the Fort Hood attack, I thought that the president was ashamed to admit that a terrorist attack happened on his watch, but I think the story goes well beyond that. I think that it is quite possible that Barack Obama is willing to call yesterday’s failed attack what it was because– in addition to the fact that the plot was stopped, unlike the Fort Hood attack– he has no fear that his policies led to the situation that made this attack possible.
But he can’t be so sure about the Fort Hood terrorist attack. There is no other reason that I can come up with for the president’s unwillingness to call Nidal Hasan a terrorist for the attack on Fort Hood, he is trying to hide something. Someone in this administration has something to hide when it comes to the Fort Hood terrorist attack.
Ben Nelson on healthcare mandates: Congress gets the constitutional authority in the “same place” that gives states the right to mandate car insurance
Senator Ben Nelson– Democrat from Nebraska, and the man whose vote for healthcare reform was secured after his state received a nice little kickback– was asked: “where in the Constitution do you think that Congress gets the authority to create an individual mandate?” Just like everyone else who was asked this question, he struggled to come with an acceptable answer.
He responded, “probably the same place that states have the authority to require, mandate if you will, compulsory auto insu–liability insurance.” This could be one of the most constitutionally ignorant answers yet, although it is hard to top Senator Burris, who made up the “general health” clause to defend the constitutionality of the issue at hand.
Senator Nelson apparently does not know the difference between state and federal laws, he should probably look it up because that “place” he vaguely mentions does not exist in the constitution.
Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution– where the infamous “general welfare” clause resides– lays out the specific enumerated powers of congress, they are as follows:
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof
I didn’t see anything in that list that said congress or the president could force the American people to buy any goods or services. That means the constitutional authority does not exist and the 10th amendment states the following: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So you see Senator Nelson, if a power is not granted to the federal government than the power belongs to the states. That is the case with the flawed argument that you and others have made about automobile insurance. While states can mandate automobile insurance, the federal government cannot. And while the individual states can mandate healthcare coverage– as does the people’s Republic of Massachusetts– the federal government cannot.
This should be a simple concept for our elected officials to understand, but sadly they either do not understand, or they do not care, what their authority is and who gives it to them– WE THE PEOPLE!
We have reached a point in this country where not only do our elected officials not care about what the constitution says they can and cannot do, many of them don’t even understand the document that they are supposed to uphold.
Senator Nelson is not alone in his ignorance, for he is not the first to confuse state laws with federal laws; Mark Warner of Virginia claimed that mandating healthcare insurance was the same as states requiring people to have driver’s licenses. Others have also used the car insurance argument to make their case, including the president.
The people who are supposed to protect and defend the constitution are destroying and perverting it. It is time to take our country back.
NH Tea Party Coalition
