Judicial Watch: Slaughter Rule Unconstitutional

Washington, DC -- March 19, 2010

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton issued the following statement today in response to plans by the House of Representatives to use the so-called Slaughter Rule to “deem” the Senate health care bill passed without an actual up-or-down vote:

A constitutional crisis is upon us. The Democratic leadership’s plan to use the “Slaughter Rule” to pass the Senate health care bill without an explicit “yea or nay” vote by the House is an absolute violation of the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 7).

Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that “(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may ‘become a law.’” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448 (1998)

Simply put, the House can’t pretend to vote on a bill and expect that the result will pass constitutional muster. No House member can keep true to his oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution” and approve the use of the Slaughter Rule to avoid a direct vote on the Senate health care bill.

And the U.S. Constitution would also seem to require that President Obama veto any resulting “bill” sent to him for signature, as the document that results from any House action under the Slaughter Rule is a constitutional nullity.

But concerned Americans should not assume that the courts will uphold the Constitution and throw out any government health care takeover because of the Slaughter Rule. The best defense against the Slaughter Rule’s usurpation of the Constitution is to stop it legislatively this weekend.

Judicial Watch Sues HHS to Obtain Documents Related to President Obama’s Closed-Door Health Care Meetings

President Broke Campaign Promise to Broadcast Health Care Meetings on C-SPAN; Held Private Health Care Discussions with Vice President Biden, HHS Secretary Sebelius, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and Union Officials
Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC -- March 18, 2010

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a lawsuit against the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to obtain documents related to President Obama’s closed-door health care meetings with Vice President Biden, HHS Secretary Sebelius, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and union officials in violation of a campaign promise to broadcast all health care discussions on C-SPAN.

According to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, filed on March 17, 2010:

At an August 21, 2008 town hall meeting in Chester Virginia, presidential candidate Barack Obama promised the nation that, to achieve health care reform, “I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies – they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-Span, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.”

In a startling breach of his campaign promise, between January 1, 2010, and January 15, 2010, President Obama, Vice President Biden, Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius, and White House Office of Health Reform Director DeParle met behind closed doors with various groups to reach accord on health care reform before a final vote occurred in the U.S. House of Representatives. One group of individuals was senior officials of major unions. A second group consisted of Senate Majority Leader Reid and House Speaker Pelosi and other members of Congress.

Because President Obama and Secretary Sebelius held closed door negotiations at the White House, the public was denied the transparency President Obama had promised as a candidate.

In order to try to restore some minimal degree of transparency to the negotiations, Judicial Watch filed its original Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on January 15, 2010. HHS acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch’s request on January 19, 2010. On January 21, 2010, and March 12, 2010, HHS indicated that two offices within the agency found no responsive requests. However, the Immediate Office of the Secretary and the Office of the Secretary Scheduling Office have thus far failed to respond. As Judicial Watch noted in its FOIA lawsuit, these are the two offices within HHS most likely to have custody of the requested records.

“First President Obama breaks his promise on making health care negotiations public and now his administration is stonewalling the release of records from his secret health care meetings. The President and liberals in Congress are on the verge of staging a government takeover of our health care system, and the American people, at this key moment, are completely in the dark. This lawsuit is designed to hold President Obama to his promises of transparency. It is shameful that the Obama administration would violate FOIA law to help ensure passage of Obamacare,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Idaho, 12 other states sue federal government over new health law

Idaho joined with 12 other states in suing the federal government Tuesday immediately after President Obama signed the new health-care bill into law.

Thirteen Republican state attorneys general sued to block the law, calling it unconstitutional. Idaho Gov. Butch Otter said the lawsuit was needed to "stop this insanity."

"The sovereignty of the state of Idaho is very important to us," Otter said in an televised interview on Fox News.

The lawsuit says the health care reform law infringes on the sovereignty of the states by imposing onerous new operating rules that they must follow, Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden said.

The law requires Idaho to spend billions of additional dollars without providing funds or resources to the state to help subsidize the cost of implementation of the law, he said. This burden comes at a time when Idaho faces severe budget cuts to offset shortfalls in an already-strained budget, Wasden said.

“Our complaint alleges the new law infringes upon the constitutional rights of Idahoans and residents of the other states by mandating all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage or pay a tax penalty,” Wasden said.

“The law exceeds the powers of the United States under Article I of the Constitution and violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution," he said. "Additionally, the tax penalty required under the law constitutes an unlawful direct tax in violation of Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution."

Under the new law, Idaho will be required to vastly broaden its Medicaid eligibility standards to accommodate upwards of 50 percent more enrollees, many of whom would be required to enroll or face a tax penalty, Wasden said.

Wasden was required to sue under the Idaho Health Freedom Act, which passed the Legislature this session and was signed into law by Otter last week.

“Legal scholars keep saying this lawsuit is futile ‘if the law is constitutional,’" the governor said in a statement. "Well, we contend the federal government has overstepped its authority with this law, and that it’s our duty to challenge it.”

The Idaho Health Freedom Act could cost the state an estimated $100,000, but the Legislature has not provided that money in the attorney general's budget. Wasden must either pay Idaho's legal expenses from his budget - $15.7 million budget for fiscal 2011, down 9 percent from this year - or tap the state's Constitutional Defense Fund for the money.

The Legislature created the constitutional fund in 1995 and gave it $1 million. The fund is overseen by a council consisting of Otter, House Speaker Lawerence Denney, Senate Pro Tem Bob Geddes and Wasden.

Today, the fund has $240,321.61. But some of that money could be allocated already. The House passed House Concurrent Resolution 58 earlier this session asking the council to investigate the feasibility of the state taking control and management of Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands. A Senate committee approved that resolution Monday, sending it to the full Senate.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Pensacola, Fla. Other states joining the lawsuit are South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington and South Dakota. The defendants are the federal departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury and Labor.

Minutemen Hit The Border!!

The President of the Minutemen, Carmen Mercer, has has enough. She says, ““The Minutemen are returning to the border – locked and loaded – to say, ‘You are wrong Obama, America comes first!’” As if that wasn’t enough to make Angry White Dude love her, Mercer also called Janet Napolitano an “unqualified buffoon who risks the lives of American citizens every day she is the head of DHS.” Couldn’t agree more!

Mercer says the Minutemen are heading to the border to stop each and every illegal invader. Immigration enforcement is the job of the federal government…one they have failed miserably! America is so out of whack we allow illegal immigrants to enter our country at will and put them on our welfare programs to boot! We also pay their health care, education for their children and incarceration for their criminals who prey on law-abiding Americans! Isn’t America great? It is if you’re a foreign moocher!

On top of years of open border policy, Obama now wants to ram through amnesty for those illegals! After his shameful passing of ObamaCare he’ll need the votes of illegal aliens for the Congressional Democrats and himself. If he thinks Americans are angry over ObamaCare, he hasn’t seen anything like the trouble he’ll start with amnesty. Trouble he will not be able to contain.

Our country and heritage are being stolen from right under our noses by corrupt politicians. Some have decided it’s time to do something about it. Maybe they’ve decided they’ve had enough with the willful breaking of our laws. Maybe they’ve had enough political correctness. How long will the rest of us wait?

Here’s the article from the excellent Sonoran News:

http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2010/100317/ftpgMinuteman.html

DHS Subpoenas Two Journalists Who Published Leaked Airline Security Changes

Transportation Security Administration officers put passengers' suitcases through an X-ray machine at Los Angeles International Airport Dec. 29. (Reuters Photo)

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Transportation Security Administration, sent federal agents to the homes of two journalists and served them with subpoenas on Tuesday night to try to identify the source of a leak about aviation security changes imposed after the failed attempt on Christmas Day to blow up Northwest Flight 253.

In separate visits, the DHS employees told Chris Elliott and Steve Frischling that their computers and all e-mail correspondence related to the leak of the security directive were being subpoenaed as part of an investigation into who leaked the document to them, which both journalists published on their Web sites.

The directive, issued within hours after 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab failed to detonate explosives that had been sewn into his underwear, restricted passenger movement and activities on all international flights. After being published by Elliott and Frischling, the restrictions were widely ridiculed by travel experts, bloggers, and news organizations, which deeply embarrassed the TSA and the homeland security agency, already under pressure for their missteps in the foiled attack.

The TSA backtracked almost immediately on the restrictions -- which had ordered airlines, among other things, not to permit passengers to go to the bathroom an hour before arrival on all international flights and to prevent them from holding pillows, blankets and personal possessions on their laps. A TSA spokesman said that the added security precautions were discretionary.

Elliott, the blogger who first published Security Directive SD-1544-09-06 and writes a travel column for The Washington Post, said he was surprised and somewhat intimidated by the TSA visit and being served with the subpoena. In his blog, Elliott wrote that he had "just put the kids in the bathtub when Special Agent Robert Flaherty knocked on my front door with a subpoena. He was very polite, and used "sir" a lot, and he said he just wanted a name: Who sent me the security directive?"
related links

*

CIA Prepared Report on Nigerian Terror Suspect Before Attempted Attack, Sources Say

Elliott said in an interview that he had declined to tell Flaherty the identity of his source or turn over his computer. He said he has referred further inquiries about his stance to Mark Holsher, an attorney, who did not return calls for comment.

Frischling, who runs a travel Web site called "Flying with Fish" and published the directive minutes after Elliott, said in an interview today that he had given his computer to the two federal agents who came to his house on Tuesday night. Frischling said he complied with their request after they asserted that he was "not a journalist" and handed him a subpoena, telling him he had now been "served." They also said they would return the next morning to confiscate his computer and other communications equipment if he failed to cooperate.

Frischling said his computer was returned this morning with several corrupted sectors and that he was running software to repair it. He said he had given the agents his computer because the directive had been sent to him anonymously, that he had deleted the original e-mails, and that it had been sent to him by someone who had undoubtedly used a phony e-mail name and address.

Francis DiScala Jr., Fischling's attorney, criticized the DHS for using "heavy-handed tactics" and "intimidating" his client. "Federal agents came and confiscated the tools of his trade at night in front of his three children," DiScala said. "When federal agents show up at your door with badges, their very presence is intimidating. The weight of the government is on you and just you. Steve was not motivated by generosity in giving up his personal computer, which he uses to earn a living."

Frischling said that the subpoena he received Tuesday, which was first reported by the Daily Kos, was almost identical to that posted by Elliott on his Web site. That subpoena, issued by the administrator of the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security, orders him to "produce and permit inspection and copying of the records" related to the inquiry to Special Agent Flaherty "no later than COB (close of business) December 31, 2009, in furtherance of an official investigation." The subpoenas order the recipients to produce "all documents, e-mails, and/or faxsimile transmissions in your control possession or control" regarding the "receipt of TSA Security Directive 1544-09, dated December 25, 2009."

The subpoena also warns that failure to comply makes the recipient "subject to fines" and "imprisonment for not more than one year," or "both."

Flaherty, who is based in a TSA office in Orlando, Florida, did not return e-mails asking him for comment on his investigation, or why he and other agents went to the journalists' homes at night.

Spokesmen for the Department of Homeland Security declined comment on the inquiry and subpoenas. The TSA, which never posted its regulations which are set to expire after Dec. 30, confirmed the existence of a leak investigation. Its statement asserted that security directives were "not for public disclosure" and that the TSA's Office of Inspections was "currently investigating how the recent SDs were acquired and published by parties who should not have been privy to this information."

Both the TSA and its parent Department of Homeland Security have been heavily criticized not only for the temporary security restrictions but for their handling of the terrorist incident more broadly. The transportation agency has been lambasted, for instance, for having allowed Abdulmutallab to board the Detroit-bound flight that originated in Nigeria with virtually no luggage and having bought a round-trip ticket in cash. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has also faced heat for having initially asserted in talk shows Sunday that the aviation security system worked well because the attack was foiled and other planes in the air were informed of the incident soon after the foiled attack took place.

Stung by the criticism, Napolitano reversed course on Monday, saying her remarks had been taken out of context, and that the incident had raised troubling security concerns. On Tuesday, three days after the incident, President Obama emerged from his vacation seclusion in Hawaii to deliver a broadside attack on the handling of the incident, saying it reflected a "systemic failure" that he considered "totally unacceptable." He has ordered a review of the incident, which he called a "catastrophe." A preliminary copy of that review is supposed to be delivered to him Thursday.

That the TSA would spend time and resources pursuing journalists about the origins of the leak of its security directive rather than focusing on finding how Abdulmutallab was able to board the plane despite intelligence indicating he was a potential security risk says much about the agency's priorities.

Elliott said he did not regret having published the directive, since he was a "consumer advocate trying to help the flying public." The TSA's security restrictions following the failed attack, he said, were "poorly thought through and didn't match up with what the TSA was telling the airlines." No one knew what was going on, he said "because the TSA did not respond" to his questions. He published it, he added, because the document did not state that it was secret or classified. "And that's what led to the knock on my door."

Lucy Dalglish, who heads the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a non-profit group which defends reporters and news organizations fighting for freedom of expression, said that the subpoenas "border on the ridiculous."

"Certainly TSA is enraged that it's order not to release this information was violated. Yet, there's nothing national security-related in the directive posted by Chris Elliott," she said.

She said it pertains more to what travelers already know: "Carry-on luggage is being searched and folks are being frisked at the gate."

Adolph Hitler Is Found Living In Massachusetts : FreedoMedium

Adolph Hitler Is Found Living In Massachusetts : FreedoMedium

Shared via AddThis

Palin plans to stay visible - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

Palin plans to stay visible - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

Shared via AddThis

Video: "Suppressed" EPA Scientist Breaks Silence!

A case of inconvenient truth that the EPA did not want released at an inconvenient time - the day before the House was to vote on a controversial energy bill destined to be the largest tax hike in American history:


Via Mark Tapscott at The Examiner:

[...] Alan Carlin, the senior EPA research analyst who authored a study critical of global warming that was suppressed by agency officials, has broken his silence and spoken on Fox News about his situation. Carlin told "Fox & Friends" Steve Ducy and Gretchen Carlson that his most important conclusion in the study was that the U.S. should not rely upon recommendations of the UN in making policy decisions regarding global warming.

"The most important conclusion, in my view, was that EPA needed to look at the science behind global warming and not depend upon reports issued by the United Nations, which is what they were thinking of doing and in fact have done," Carlin said.

Asked what happened to his study once it was completed, Carlin said "my supervisors decided not to forward it to the group within EPA who had the responsibility for preparing an overall report which would guide EPA on whether to find that the emission of global warming gases would be something that EPA should regulate."

... Carlin has been at EPA for 38 years and until the Fox interview was telling reporters seeking interviews that he was instructed by EPA officials not to speak with them. He almost certainly risks retalitation by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and other Obama appointees within the agency.

The must-read censored report that the Obama administration and the Democrats don't want you to see can be found here:

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

National Black Republican Association

National Black Republican Association

Shared via AddThis

The Illustrated Results of Obama's "Community Organizing"...Obama Was Not Even A Decent Community Organizer

If I didn't know better, I'd think this was Beirut in the nineteen seventies. But, in reality, it's the current state of the housing for which Barack Obama claims responsibility as a "community organizer." It turns out the developers enriched by his government-funded subsidies did a heck of a lot better than the folks who once lived here.

I say "once", because the Boston Globe ("Grim Proving Ground for Obama's Housing Policy") calls many of the units "uninhabitable".

As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year.

But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies - including several hundred in Obama's former district - deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.

Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama’s close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama’s constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.

In terms of concrete accomplishments, Obama and “hundreds of other organizers” were not able to transform the South Side neighborhoods or bring in new industries to provide jobs...

Obama’s most commonly cited achievement was in forcing the city to begin testing for asbestos in all city apartments.

...critics claim Obama, now 46, exaggerates his accomplishments, particularly in spearheading asbestos cleanup at a low-income housing project. He omits from his account of that fight a longtime community activist who many people say played a significant role.

And for all his emphasis on the value of grassroots organizing, Obama eventually decided he also needed a law degree to enact lasting change, attending Harvard University... Further blurring the picture are his descriptions of community organizing in his youthful memoir, "Dreams From My Father," in which he admits he disguises names, creates composite characters, switches some chronologies and uses "approximations" of dialogue.

I can see why.

Look at this beautiful playground, with all of children frolicking; they're so care-free and so delighted that Barack Obama's community-organizing has helped them at the expense of his developer friends.

The squat brick buildings of Grove Parc Plaza, in a dense neighborhood that Barack Obama represented for eight years as a state senator, hold 504 apartments subsidized by the federal government for people who can't afford to live anywhere else.

But it's not safe to live here.

About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale - a score so bad the buildings now face demolition.

Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama's close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama's constituents suffered...

As a community organizer, Obama's a hell of a public speaker.

The poor people living here have gotten the shaft from Obama and his developer buddies. And the mainstream media couldn't care less.

Drenched In Blood Of Slavery..You Guessed It..The Democratic Party Is Where It All Started

The U.S. Senate voted unanimously last week to adopt a resolution apologizing for slavery.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, lead sponsor of the resolution, said, "You wonder why we didn't do it 100 years ago. It is important to have a collective response to a collective injustice."

Only after decades of public education
ignoring and distorting U.S. history can such a huge lie be said with a straight face.

Senator, you didn't do it 100 years ago because 100 years ago you Democrats were enforcing Jim Crow segregation laws, poll taxes to keep blacks from voting, and riding around in sheets and pointy hats just in case blacks didn't get the message.

You say "It's important to have a collective response" because you want to bury the origins, purposes, and historical practices of your own party.

The worst part is, Republicans in the Senate let you get away with it.

Principled Republicans knowing their history would have authored a resolution reciting the facts that the Republican Party was formed, among other reasons, to oppose slavery and that the Republican Party and its first President Abraham Lincoln responded to Southern, Democrat-led secession with a successful war that preserved the union and freed the slaves.

After Lincoln's assassination (by a Democrat), the Republican-led Congress (over the objections of the Democratic Party minority) amended the Constitution to confirm the liberation of the slaves (13th Amendment: slavery abolished), and the 14th Amendment (freed slaves are citizens equal to all citizens) and the 15th Amendment (right to vote guaranteed to freed slaves).

Southern Democrats spent the next 100 years trying to keep freed slaves down with segregation laws, poll taxes to deny the right to vote, and lynching to enforce the social order. The KKK was formed by a Democrat; no Republican has ever been a member of the KKK. This is the heritage of the Democratic Party.

In fact, the Democratic Party was formed in the first place to defend and expand slavery.

In 1840, the very first national nominating convention of the Democratic Party adopted a platform which read in part:

Resolved, That Congress has no power ... to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states ... that all efforts by abolitionists ... made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery ... are calculated ... to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union.

Got that, Sen. Harkin? Your party was born defending slavery as necessary for the happiness of the people and threatening secession and war if slavery were challenged.

The same party platform language was used in 1844, 1848, 1852 and 1856. In 1860, the Democrat commitment to slavery took a harsher tone.

The Fugitive Slave Law was passed by Congress in 1850. This monstrous law provided that, since slaves were the personal property of their masters, runaway slaves must be returned to their owners. The law required all law enforcement officers to assist in the recapture of runaway slaves or risk a fine of $1,000 (about $100,000 in today's dollars)!

The Republican Party was formed in the 1850s in part as a political reaction to this unjust law.

In their national convention of 1860, Democrats harshly responded to certain Northern (Republican) states that were passing state laws to evade the Fugitive Slave Law by adopting a plank in the Democratic Party Platform which read:

Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.

Senator, your Democratic Party has much to be apologetic about on the slavery issue.

During the civil war, the Southern Democrats led the Confederacy out of the Union; Northern Democrats formed a separate party which opposed the war. The 1864 (Northern) Democratic Party platform adopted a "peace" plank which read in part:

... after four years of failure to restore the union by the experiment of war ... justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand ... a cessation of hostilities ... to the end that ... peace may be restored ...

Here is the origin of today's Democratic Party "Peace at any Price, Better Red than Dead, Why Can't we all just get Along" foreign policy.

The war was started by Democrat secessionists, and just as President Lincoln was on the verge of victory, the Northern Democrats wanted to save the South and slavery with "peace talks"! Voters knew better in 1864 and re-elected Lincoln.

But the Democrats weren't through. In 1868, Sen. Harkin's party condemned the Republican Party in its party platform as the "Radical Party," and condemned Reconstruction in these unforgettable words:

Instead of restoring the Union, it (the Radical Party) has dissolved it, and subjected ten states (the former Confederate states) ... to military despotism and negro supremacy.

And, senator, don't tell me this is all ancient history in a lame attempt to evade the true origins of your party.

As recently as 1964, when the Senate debated the Civil Rights Act, Southern Democrats (including Al Gore's father) voted no. While Northern Democrats voted yes, their votes were not enough. The deciding votes to pass this landmark bill were provided by Sen. Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., and the Republicans.

Republicans should be proud of their heritage of liberation of the slaves and civil rights voting record.

It's Harkin and the Democrats who should apologize and pay reparations.