The latest round in the challenge to the constitutionality of Obamacare has gone against the Obama regime, as an Atlanta appeals court has ruled by a margin of 2-1 that the healthcare mandate 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
The court upheld the rest of Obamacare, but this is a much needed victory as this issue makes its way to the Supreme Court; this is a battle won, but the war is not over for the Obama regime will appeal this decision.
While this is a victory that I am happy to write about, there is something else I wanted to look at in this decision; the dissenting opinion, because I found it to be quite worrisome.
Here is what Stanley Marcus had to say in his dissent: Read more…
At times it can be hard trying to keep up with all of the developments in the deadly Gunrunner scandal, and I missed this story when it first appeared about three weeks ago, but it is an important story so it deserves to be covered even if I am a little late. I first learned of this story through an email tip from a reader of America’s Watchtower, which is an indictment of the media’s lack of coverage if ever there was one.
In how many articles written about this scandal have we read that these “straw” purchasers were people who legally bought the guns before illegally selling them to the Mexican drug cartels? Seemingly every article explains these purchases in this manner, but in at least two cases the federal government allowed the sale of weapons to convicted felons. These were not legal sales, they were illegal sales, because it goes practically without saying that federal law prohibits the sale of firearms to convicted felons. At least I thought it went without saying; it appears as if the Obama regime didn’t know this little fact because certainly the Obama regime would never knowingly violate federal law, would they? Read more…
Gunrunner: It must have been Eric Holder
Last week Pajamas Media ran a story entitled “Gunwalker: It Must Have Been Eric Holder” which I had intended to write about before I left on my brief vacation but didn’t get to. In this article Bob Owens lays out four reasons why this was not an operation conducted by some mid level federal agent, but rather must have been authorized by Eric Holder with the cooperation of other high level Obama appointees.
- Federal law enforcement agents don’t let guns “walk.” A gun that is allowed to flow into criminal hands is a gun that could end up killing a fellow cop or citizen. As a result, all prior known operations under the long-running and successful Gunrunner program ended when a straw purchaser was allowed to make the purchase, and then arrested on the spot or shortly thereafter. Throughout the process of these stings, the suspects were under constant surveillance whenever they had firearms in their possession, and officers considered it catastrophic failure if surveillance was lost.
- Federal law enforcement agents knew that this operation would not lead to cartel kingpins. The profiling of criminal activity has become a blend of art and high science in recent decades, and when combined with the intelligence provided by informants and a history of thousands of arrests, the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and IRS agents assigned to the task force knew from the beginning that cartel leaders could not be implicated in Fast and Furious, because they simply aren’t involved. Obtaining weapons for cartel gunmen is a problem for the lower to middle ranks of a cartel’s hierarchy, no different than acquiring vehicles or safehouses. The most commonly used cartel weapons are viewed by the organizations as consumable commodities to be bought, used, and discarded. Do CEOs, company presidents, and vice presidents, or even middle managers go out shopping for paper clips and pens?
- Federal law enforcement agents knew from the outset that they could never arrest their targets, who were outside of their jurisdiction. Jurisdictional battles between federal, state, and local agencies are legendary, and sensitivity to jurisdictional issues is something every law enforcement agent learns, often with frustration. Knowing for a fact that the individuals running cartel gun acquisition would be based in Mexico, and staying in Mexico, agents would have realized from the mission planning phase — well before operational implementation — that effecting arrests of the operation’s stated targets was nearly impossible.
- Middle managers in government would never dare to try such a dangerous, high-risk operation without express orders from above. All agencies — public or private — are saddled with bureaucracy, internal politics, and institutional inertia, which forms a powerful and pervasive cultural force that significantly inhibits change. Changes that threaten the equilibrium of agencies are viewed as a threat, and the more radical the proposed change, the more resistance there is to block it from occurring. Resistance to change occurs even when change is thought to be strongly beneficial.From the ground up and at the very beginning, Fast and Furious was a radical and dangerous proposal that would threaten the very existence of the ATF.
Recently Bob Owens was interviewed by NRA News about his article and there were a few interesting tidbits in the interview; including his belief that Bill Newell’s admission that he shared information about Fast and Furious with someone in the Obama White House was a warning shot fired over the bow at the Obama regime, warning them not to make him the fall guy or he would tell the country everything that he knows about the deadly operation, and also that Bill Newell was supposed to be a special envoy to Mexico until Mexico threatened to arrest him, and everyone else connected to Fast and Furious if they crossed the border.
The article is a must read, and I have also included the video to the interview Bob Owens conducted with NRA News below.
We all remember the speech Barack Obama gave back in 2009 in front of a joint session of Congress during the Obamacare debate; this is the speech where Barack Obama tried to assure the American people that Obamacare would only cover people who were in this country legally.
The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally
This is the same speech in which Joe Wilson yelled “you lie” at the president after Barack Obama made this claim. The outrage from the left was swift and all encompassing; one Democrat went so far as to claim that Joe Wilson’s comment would lead to a resurgence of the KKK, and eventually Joe Wilson was rebuked for his actions by the Congress even though he had called the president shortly after the speech and apologized.
But while all of the attention during this episode was focused on whether or not this was the proper place for Joe Wilson to make his statement, nobody seemed to remember to ask the question “is Joe Wilson right?” And that is a shame because it now appears as if Joe Wilson was right, even if he went about it the wrong way.
California governor signs National Popular Vote legislation
The National Popular Vote campaign is a national effort being conducted to eliminate the Electoral College by convincing enough states to change the manner in which they award their electoral votes. States that adopt this legislation will award their electoral votes to the candidate which wins the national popular vote-even if that candidate does not win the popular vote within that particular state. Once enough states sign National Popular Vote legislation it will render the Electoral College irrelevant.
California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation which brings the National Popular Vote supporters closer to their goal–California’s 55 electoral votes will now go to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of how California voters vote.
The National Popular Vote movement is now halfway toward their goal of changing the constitution without amending it. And this is where my problem with this effort lies.
My problem with the effort isn’t the attempt to change the mode of selecting the president–and in fact I believe that the individual states do have the right to award their electoral votes in this manner if they so choose–but rather the procedure which is being used to effect that change.
Short vacation
The family and I are headed up to Lake Winnipesaukee for a few days we rented a beach house with twiddy rentals, so posting–as well as making the rounds–will be light until later on in the week. If anything ultra-blog worthy pops up I am sure I will find the time to write about it. (I do get up quite a bit earlier than the rest of my family.)
Take care all.
Gunrunner: DEA admits it was involved in Fast and Furious
The Gunrunner scandal may be on the verge of expanding once again, because according to this article the DEA is admitting to playing a role in the deadly operation. The DEA is now the second government agency to admit that it knew about and participated in the Gunrunner scandal, but we know there were others and it will only be a matter of time before they come out as well.
The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration has acknowledged to congressional investigators that her agency provided a supporting role in the ill-fated Operation Fast and Furious run by the group’s counterparts at the ATF.
Michele M. Leonhart, the DEA administrator, said DEA agents primarily helped gather evidence in cases in Phoenix and El Paso, and in the program’s single indictment last January that netted just 20 defendants for illegal gun-trafficking.
Gunrunner: The Washington Post’s role in Fast and Furious
According to this article, the Washington Post had a team of reporters which was basically embedded with the ATF for nine months while working on a report on the violence at the Mexican border. And they were working pretty closely with the ATF from the sounds of it:
This team worked for months with the ATF so closely that when the article was published the paper, it had prepared maps and charts based on ATF-provided statistics. Its online presentation included a video narrated by ATF Special Agent J. Dewey Webb, and a video of an interrogation of an illegal alien picked up in a weapons case in a private room with an ATF agent, apparently without the detainee knowing he was being recorded.
On December 13th the Washington Post ran the article:
On Dec. 13, the Washington Post ran a blockbuster article in its “Secret Life of Guns” series subtitled, “As Mexico drug violence runs rampant, U.S. guns tied to crime south of border” that focused on the arms trade across the Mexican border. In the article, the Post printed a list of the top 12 gun stores responsible for selling guns traced to crimes in Mexico. On top of the list was Lone Wolf Trading in Glendale, Ariz.
The Washington Post ran an article with statistics and charts provided to them by the ATF, and judging from the title, this article was an attempt at blaming American gun shops for the violence at the Mexican border; the article went so far as to list the top 12 offending gun shops and the number one offender was listed as Lone Wolf Trading.
A response from Congressman Frank Guinta
As I wrote about here, I sent an email to my congressman, Frank Guinta, in which I informed him of my displeasure with his vote on the debt ceiling bill–and more specifically on the Super Congress which has emerged from this legislation. I promised to post his reply, so here it is in full:
Dear Steve,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding the debt ceiling agreement. As your Congressman, I value your input and appreciate you taking the time to express your opinion.
When I took office several months ago, I pledged to reduce our annual budget deficit and work with members of both parties to pay down our debt and balance our budget. As a member of the House Budget Committee, I helped craft a plan that would cut $6.2 trillion dollars, preserve Medicare and Medicaid for future generations and put us on a path to end deficit spending and pay down our debt. The House passed its budget. It has now been over 825 days since the Senate last authored, let alone passed a federal budget.
As the debt ceiling negotiations unfolded over the last few weeks, President Obama asked for two things: a blank check increase with no limits to curb out of control spending, plus tax increases. He got neither. On May 31, I voted against HR 1954, a so-called “clean bill” authorizing a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. That bill was defeated in a bi-partisan lopsided vote of 318-97.
I was adamant that any increase be accompanied by significant cuts that exceeded the debt ceiling increase, no tax increases, enforceable caps on future spending and a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment. For those reasons, I was a proud co-sponsor of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011. This bill would have made substantial cuts in spending and would have reduced the deficit next year and thereafter, put in place enforceable spending caps that would have put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget, and required the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that would have included spending limitations and a supermajority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses in exchange for future increases in the debt ceiling. This bi-partisan bill passed the House on July 19 in a 234-190 vote. The Senate immediately tabled it.
On July 29, I voted for S. 627, the Budget Control Act of 2011, otherwise known as the Boehner Plan. This was a two-step approach to hold the President accountable. It included cuts that exceeded the debt hike, caps that would have controlled future spending, a Balanced Budget Amendment with real teeth, a path toward entitlement reform and savings, and no tax hikes. This legislation had the backing of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Federation of Independent Businesses and the Club for Growth. It passed the House by a vote of 218-210 and was again immediately tabled by the Senate
Lastly came the debt ceiling agreement, S. 365, which provides for a total debt ceiling increase of $2.1 trillion-$2.4 trillion, sets ten-year caps on discretionary spending, creates a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, and requires both houses of Congress to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment. While this bill is far from perfect, it is a step in the right direction.
Let me address the provisions within this legislation. The first phase of this bill cuts nearly $1 trillion from the operating budgets of government agencies while giving the President an immediate debt ceiling increase of $900 billion. The second phase forms a Joint Committee that is tasked with identifying $1.1 – $1.5 trillion in additional spending cuts and allows the President to ask for a second increase in the debt ceiling that is lower than the proposed cuts. Altogether, this bill will cut $2.1 – $2.4 trillion and includes no tax increases!
Many Granite Staters have asked “How do we hold future Congresses accountable for these cuts?” This legislation imposes statutory caps on spending that, if breached, would trigger across-the-board cuts that can only be reversed with a supermajority vote. For years, conservatives in Congress have been fighting for controls like these to drive down discretionary spending. The last time they were in place was the 1990’s. Conservatives tried to reinstate them during the George W. Bush Administration, but failed. Look at how drastically the culture has changed in Washington.
For the first time in a long while, discretionary spending will be lower next year than this year. This bill also puts forth 66% of the discretionary spending cuts called for in our budget, the House-approved “Path to Prosperity
Now on to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. As I said, this committee is in charge of finding an additional $1.1 – $1.5 trillion in additional cuts. Members must be appointed by August 16 and must meet by September 16. Recommendations must be made by October 14. This committee follows the same purview as a conference committee. A conference committee is established to resolve disagreements between the two chambers of Congress. House rules require that conference committee meetings should be open to the public, unless the House – in open session- votes that a meeting be closed to the public. I fully support this being an open process for the American people to see.
Once a bill has been passed by a conference committee, it goes directly to the floor of both chambers for debate and a vote and is not open to further amendments. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 limits debate on conference reports on budget resolutions and budget reconciliation bills in the Senate, so Senators cannot filibuster them.
If the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction’s legislation is not enacted, triggers would kick in on January 15th, 2012 to cut $1.2 trillion in spending across the board.
One piece of this legislation I strongly support is the requirement for both the House and Senate to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment. They have until the end of this year to vote on this measure. It can play a major role in getting our fiscal house in order
While this bill caps discretionary spending, it does not directly address the major drivers of our debt: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. I supported a blue-print for the preservation of Medicare and Medicaid in the House’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget, but no bill has been passed that mandates it. These programs make up nearly 60% of our annual spending and that number continues to rise. We must put politics aside and enact measures that not only put these programs on a path to solvency for future generations, but which also saves them – and our country- from bankruptcy. Until this problem is addressed, our debt and deficit will keep growing, and the problem will be kicked down the road for future generations to resolve. I will support measures from both sides of the aisle to get our fiscal house in order.
The debt ceiling agreement passed both the House and the Senate with large majorities and was signed into law by the President.
I hope this answers your questions and concerns about this bill and the process that produced it. The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times throughout history without batting an eyelash – I am proud to be part of a Congress that finally put a stop to that. This is only one tiny step in the right direction; however, we have changed the debate in Washington from “How much are we going to spend?” to “How much we are going to cut?” In the end, I decided it was best to vote in favor of these spending cuts today and continue to fight for more tomorrow. This is only the beginning, and it is my hope that you will stand with me as this fight continues.
Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is an honor to represent you in Congress. Your suggestions are always welcome. Please feel free to contact either my Washington office at (202) 225-5456 or the district office, (603) 641-9536. Also visit my website at www.guinta.house.gov for information on legislative issues and follow me on Facebook at facebook.com/repfrankguinta and Twitter at @RepFrankGuinta.
America's Watchtower 