Obama Border Treacheries In America And Israel

Want to know how utterly dead “comprehensive immigration reform” is? Back when everyone was so sure it was sure to pass, we declared “comprehensive immigration reform” dead and we have been proven right. The ultimate proof of the death and burial of “comprehensive immigration reform” is the arrival of the tombstone, courtesy of Scott Brown.

Scott Brown became the senator from Massachusetts when he took on the Kennedy arrogance of power and used as his tool the fight against ObamaCare. Scott won his race because of ObamaCare.

Despite the current polls, Scott Brown has a very good chance to become the next senator from New Hampshire not only due to the American revulsion with ObamaCare but because of a new tool in his tool belt. That new tool is the American revulsion with Obama lies and treachery regarding the southern border of America.



Scott Brown is a Northeast liberal Republican of the type that ordinarily would support the euphemism for amnesty, “comprehensive immigration reform”. That Brown is buying hundreds of thousands of dollars to air this type of ad tells you exactly how dead “comprehensive immigration reform” is.

Expect Scott Brown’s poll numbers to stiffen once he gets the nomination of his party. Expect also his attacks on Obama/Shaheen and their immigration treacheries to harden. It won’t be long until Scott Brown leads his party with attacks reminding the American voters that for many years Obama stated that he could not legally do what Obama treacherously intends to do after his next weeks long vacation this August. The polling on immigration has come back to bite the no-borders crowd led by treacherous Barack Obama. Today 81% of the public is alarmed by what is happening and 77% want the illegal aliens sent back.

* * * * * *

Obama treachery regarding Israel’s borders is still awaiting a champion to challenge Obama/Kerry during this election season.

Obama treachery on Israel and its borders is as clear as the ugly mole on his face:

A few hours before the press conference began, the Israeli security cabinet ministers unanimously rejected Kerry’s cease-fire plan draft. Kerry, as is his wont, seemed and sounded as if he came from a parallel universe. He claimed to have never presented Israel with a formal offer for a cease-fire, slammed the Israeli media’s “mischievous reports” and promised that Netanyahu’s office will issue a clarification.

As if that wasn’t enough, Kerry claimed he made significant progress in the cease-fire talks and said, deadpan, that the disagreements with Israel are purely on matters of terminology. Reality, of course, was completely different. If anything happened on Friday it was another deep crisis in trust between Israeli senior cabinet members and the American secretary of state.

The draft Kerry passed to Israel on Friday shocked the cabinet ministers not only because it was the opposite of what Kerry told them less than 24 hours earlier, but mostly because it might as well have been penned by Khaled Meshal. It was everything Hamas could have hoped for.

The document recognized Hamas’ position in the Gaza Strip, promised the organization billions in donation funds and demanded no dismantling of rockets, tunnels or other heavy weaponry at Hamas’ disposal. The document placed Israel and Hamas on the same level, as if the first is not a primary U.S. ally and as if the second isn’t a terror group which overtook part of the Palestinian Authority in a military coup and fired thousands of rockets at Israel.

On Saturday, the State Department distributed photos of Kerry’s meeting with Qatar and Turkey’s foreign ministers in Paris. The three appear jovial and happy-go-lucky. Other photographs show Kerry carousing romantically with the Turkish foreign minister in the pastoral grounds of the U.S. ambassador’s home in Paris, as if the Turkish official’s prime minister didn’t just say a few days ago that Israel is 10 times worse than Hitler.

Kerry is not a friend to Israel. Kerry is a friend and crony of Barack Obama and Barack Obama hates Israel and the values of the West.

Kerry cavorts with the Turkish ambassador as Turkey descends into Erodogan’s corruptions and madness. This as left of center Haaretz reports that Turkey will send another flotilla to Gaza along with Turkish military escorts.

Kerry is the Botoxed face of Barack Obama and his hatred of Israel:

It seemed inconceivable that the American secretary of state would have drafted an initiative that, as a priority, did not require the dismantling of Hamas’s rocket arsenal and network of tunnels dug under the Israeli border. Yet the reported text did not address these issues at all, nor call for the demilitarization of Gaza.

It seemed inconceivable that the secretary’s initiative would specify the need to address Hamas’s demands for a lifting of the siege of Gaza, as though Hamas were a legitimate injured party acting in the interests of the people of Gaza — rather than the terror group that violently seized control of the Strip in 2007, diverted Gaza’s resources to its war effort against Israel, and could be relied upon to exploit any lifting of the “siege” in order to import yet more devastating weaponry with which to kill Israelis.

Israel and the US are meant to be allies; the US is meant to be committed to the protection of Israel in this most ruthless of neighborhoods; together, the US and Israel are meant to be trying to marginalize the murderous Islamic extremism that threatens the free world. Yet here was the top US diplomat appearing to accommodate a vicious terrorist organization bent on Israel’s destruction, with a formula that would leave Hamas better equipped to achieve that goal.

John Kerry is the heavily Botoxed face of treacherous Barack Obama. Barack Obama is the inspiration for John Kerry’s many treacheries:

What emerges from Kerry’s self-initiated ceasefire mission — Israel had already accepted the Egyptian ceasefire proposal; and nobody asked him to come out on a trip he prefaced with sneering remarks about Israel’s attempted “pinpoint” strikes on Hamas terror targets — is that Jerusalem now regards him as duplicitous and dangerous.

Contrary to his public claim at his press conference in Cairo that his ceasefire proposal was “built on” the Egyptian initiative, it manifestly is nothing of the kind. As indicated by the unconfirmed text reported by Issacharoff, by other subsequent reports of its content, and by the cabinet’s outraged rejection, it is a proposal that, to quote an unnamed official cited by Channel 2, “tunneled under the Egyptian initiative,” a document, to quote from another of those leaked comments, that reads like it was drawn up for or even by Hamas’s Khaled Mashaal.

And Kerry didn’t let up after unleashing his dreadful proposal. Following Friday’s fiasco, he jetted off to Paris and, quite extraordinarily, convened further consultations dominated by countries that overtly wish to do Israel harm. He met with his counterparts from Turkey, whose Hamas-backing leadership has lately accused Israel of attempting genocide in Gaza and compared Netanyahu to Hitler, and with Qatar, Hamas’s funder in chief, directly accused by president Shimon Peres last week of financing Hamas’s rockets and tunnels. Staggeringly, he did not bring Israel, Egypt, or the PA to his Paris sessions.

It’s treachery pure and simple.

Hillary Clinton fought Barack Obama and his treacheries. John Kerry conspired to get Barack Obama the nomination in 2008 and now John Kerry enables the myriad treacheries of Barack Obama:

When Kerry’s predecessor, Hillary Clinton, got involved in the effort to broker terms for ending Operation Pillar of Defense in November 2012, it was self-evident, first, that a ceasefire was at hand, and, second, that the diplomatic work was being coordinated effectively with Jerusalem to ensure that Israel’s vital interests were being served. It is a testament to Kerry’s incompetence (or worse), and to the collapse of faith between him and Israel, that, when he headed ignominiously home on Saturday, neither of those assumptions held sway.

Whether through ineptitude, malice, or both, Kerry’s intervention was not a case of America’s top diplomat coming to our region to help ensure, through astute negotiation, the protection of a key ally. This was a betrayal.

According to the Associated Press, Barack Obama is now threatening Israel for telling the truth about the lies and treacheries of John Kerry and Barack Obama. The truth is always the enemy of scam artists and flim flam con men.

As we head into August this week, November can’t come soon enough.

Share

How Big??? ObamaCare Jonathan Gruber #HalBIG

The Fourth Circuit plaintiffs against ObamaCare have a new weapon if they decide to do what we think they will do and appeal directly to the Supreme Court. We’re talking HalBIG. The HalBIG we wrote thoroughly about in early July. The HalBIG we wrote about when the D.C. Circuit Court knocked ObamaCare into a death panel hospice waiting for a death certificate to be signed.

The weapon against the ObamaCare scam is none other than the “architect” of ObamaCare and what he himself said about ObamaCare.

Repeatedly and without shame pro-ObamaCare con artists repeat the lie that there was no intent to provide ObamaCare subsidies only to individuals on ObamaCare exchanges established by the states. These pro-ObamaCare liars defraud the courts and the public by insisting ObamaCare subsides were intended to go to the federal exchanges too. Now the “architect” of ObamaCare, via the magic of video, has exploded another torpedo below the waterline of the sinking S.S. ObamaCare.

Here is “architect” of ObamaCare Jonathan Gruber:

This week, an unprecedented circuit split emerged in Halbig v. Burwell and King v. Burwell over whether health insurance premium assistance is available in states that didn’t set up health insurance exchanges. Many commentators have since claimed that there’s no way Congress intended to deny premium assistance to residents of the 36 so-called “refusenik” states that have not set up their own health insurance exchanges.

But in January 2012, Jonathan Gruber—an MIT economics professor whom the The New York Times has called “Mr. Mandate” for his pivotal role in helping the Obama administration and Congress draft the Affordable Care Act—told an audience at Noblis that:

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.



Start the video at 31:25. For more on Professor Gruber’s crucial role in designing the ACA, see this 2012 profile of him in The New York Times and this release from MIT’s press office, which describes Gruber as the architect of the “three-legged stool” concept discussed at length by the Fourth Circuit opinion in King v. Burwell.

The Fourth Circuit judges who issued their convolution mess of an opinion must be hiding behind their toilets muttering epithets against Jonathan Gruber, who, because of his video, exposes them as idiots. Likewise the D.C. Circuit judges must be basking in the blessed glow of justice:

Earlier this week, a three-judge panel in the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that, contrary to the Obama administration’s implementation and an Internal Revenue Service rule, Obamacare’s subsidies for private health insurance were limited to state-run health exchanges.

The reasoning for this ruling was simple: That’s what the law says. The section dealing with the creation of state exchanges and the provision of subsidies states, quite clearly, that subsidies are only available in exchanges “established by a State,” which the law expressly
defines
as the 50 states plus the District of Columbia.

Obamacare’s defenders have responded by saying that this is obviously ridiculous. It doesn’t make any sense in the larger context of the law, and what’s more, no one who supported the law or voted for it ever talked about this. It’s a theory concocted entirely by the law’s opponents, the health law’s backers argue, and never once mentioned by people who crafted or backed the law.

It’s not. One of the law’s architects—at the same time that he was a paid consultant to states deciding whether or not to build their own exchanges—was espousing exactly this interpretation as far back in early 2012, and long before the Halbig suit—the one that was decided this week against the administration—was filed. (A related suit, Pruitt v. Sebelius, had been filed earlier, but did not challenge tax credits within the federal exchanges until an amended version which was filed in late 2012.) It was also several months before the first publication of the paper by Case Western Law Professor Jonathan Adler and Cato Institute Health Policy Director Michael Cannon which detailed the case against the IRS rule. 

ObamaCare con artists say one thing; ObamaCare scam opponents say the contrary. Who’s correct?:

And what he says is exactly what challengers to the administration’s implementation of the law have been arguing—that if a state chooses not to establish its own exchange, then residents of those states will not be able to access Obamacare’s health insurance tax credits. He says this in response to a question asking whether the federal government will step in if a state chooses not to build its own exchange. Gruber describes the possibility that states won’t enact their own exchanges as one of the potential “threats” to the law. He says this with confidence and certainty, and at no other point in the presentation does he contradict the statement in question.

One of the architects of the fight against ObamaCare exemplified by HalBIG is about to giggle himself to death as he laughs about his absolutely great good fortune:

The central issue is whether the PPACA allows the IRS to issue tax credits through health-insurance Exchanges established by the federal government. Said government argues it’s implausible that Congress intended to withhold tax credits in states that don’t establish Exchanges. On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit set off a firestorm when it ruled in Halbig that the PPACA’s language authorizing tax credits “through an Exchange established by the State” cannot be reasonably construed to authorize them in the 36 states with federal Exchanges. On the same day, the Fourth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in King. On Thursday, however, the plaintiffs’ interpretation got another boost from an architect of the PPACA named Jonathan Gruber.

The government argued in Halbig that the potential for adverse selection makes “it…untenable to suggest that Congress withheld premium tax credits from individuals who live in States with federally-run Exchanges. Congress sought to reform the non-group market, not to destroy it.” The government described as “baseless” the Halbig plaintiffs’ claim that Congress used the tax credits as an inducement to encourage states to establish and operate Exchanges.

These arguments did not fare well in court. The D.C. Circuit found that the PPACA “encourages” states to establish Exchanges. Moreover, in other parts of the statute—the “CLASS Act” and the law’s treatment of U.S. territories, to name two—Congress showed a rather high tolerance for adverse selection, so the fact that a provision created the potential for adverse selection in the Exchanges did not render it implausible. Finally, even as the Fourth Circuit found the plaintiffs’ reading of the statute “plausible,” implicitly rejecting both of the government’s implausibility claims, even as it ultimately ruled for the government.

The plaintiffs’ interpretation became even more plausible with the discovery of a January 2012 presentation by Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber. I’ll get to why Gruber is significant in a moment. For now, note how he unequivocally agrees with the plaintiffs’ interpretation: the PPACA only allows tax credits in states that establish Exchanges.

It’s like O.J. Simpson walking into court with a knife soaked in Nicole Brown’s blood. Yeah, it’s that bad.

Let’s watch that video again along with the giggly Cannon and read a bit more of the transcript:

Questioner: You mentioned the health-information Exchanges for the states, and it is my understanding that if states don’t provide them, then the federal government will provide them for the states.

Gruber: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it. I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do it. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.

Here’s the video (skip ahead to 31:25):

Gruber doesn’t just acknowledge the conditional feature of the PPACA’s tax credits. He also supplies a plausible purpose for that feature (there were people in Washington who either wanted to “squeeze the states to do it,” or saw the law as directing them to do so). He describes the mechanism by which this provision achieves that purpose (taxpayers will pressure their state officials to create Exchanges so they can receive tax credits). He acknowledges that the conditional nature of the tax credits sits perfectly well alongside the law’s requirement that the federal government establish an Exchange within states that do not (providing another refutation of the argument offered by Yale law professor Abbe Gluck that these provisions are somehow in tension). He even explains why the Obama administration might try to ignore this part of the law (the politics of the PPACA “can get ugly,” and the lure of tax credits might not be enough to induce states to cooperate).

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Gruber is now pleading amnesia and disavowing what he said in the video. Gruber has no choice but to plead a form of insanity because in many televised appearances he has angrily denied saying what he said when he says he does not remember because he does not remember what he said or didn’t say or can’t remember he said and anyway STOP QUOTING ME because I can’t remember saying what I said and I could never have said what I said because I am on with O’Tingles calling the plaintiffs and their case “screwy” “nutty” and stupid” – and yes I joined an amicus on those two court cases and I have testified before state legislatures specifically saying things contrary to what I said in the video and LEAVE ME ALONE… I’m having a nervous breakdown and hope no one checks to see if I said anything under oath or wrote anything under oath knowing full well well I was lying, and perjury, and OMG… leave me alone… and anyway it was only one time I said it… leave me alone….

One time?:

“I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake,” he claims. He added, “My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo.” A typo is usually a simple slip of the finger on the keyboard, i.e. a misspelling or missed bit of punctuation. Gruber’s statement is nearly a minute long.

Also, it turns out it was not the only time he made such a statement. An audio clip from a public appearance Gruber made at the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on January 10, 2012 reveals he made the same connection between subsidies and state-based exchanges on at least one other occasion (hat tip to MorgenR).



It wasn’t a bug. It was a feature.



The architect of ObamaCare built ObamaCare on sand, not on a solid foundation. Now ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber is one of the biggest threats to ObamaCare. Justice.

Share

How Big??? #HalBig – Halbig Court Decision On ObamaCare

Update II: Well that was quick. Two hours after the Halbig decision the Fourth Circuit issued its decision on ObamaCare. As predicted below, the Fourth Circuit upheld ObamaCare’s subsidy scheme as twisted into existence by Obama. This means a split in appellate court decisions and Supreme Court review.

More importantly, the plaintiffs that lost in the Fourth Circuit now can immediately appeal to the Supreme Court and not bother with an appeal to the full panel of the Fourth Circuit.

———————————————————————————————————-

Update: We already have a question in the comments about why Josh Earnest is saying that the subsidies will continue to flow.

Earnest is joshing. Presidents better obey the courts. If the ruling is stayed – by the courts – pending appeal then there is no problem. But what this is really about is Obama trying to thug the Supreme Court by warning them that he might disregard a ruling by them he does not like. This is Obama trying to intimidate the high court with the threat of a constitutional crisis.

———————————————————————————————————-

We wrote about Halbig HERE. It’s a big, big, big, decision which almost surely forces an an Obama appeal to a full panel of the appellate court. Obama will win that fight because he packed the court when Harry Reid ended the Senate filibusters on judges to courts other than the Supreme Court. But then the case will go to the Supreme Court and we’re walking on the sunny side of the street and believe the Supreme Court will ratify today’s three judge panel decision.

It might be an update kind of day but we’ll start with the basic news on Halbig.

If you thought the worldwide path of destruction by Obama – a soft invasion on the American southern border, Russian adventurism and Russian allies destroying passenger aircraft as Obama whimpers, Obama and face-lift Kerry hatin’ on Israel, Midas-in-reverse Obama economics, Obama still voting “present” by ceaseless fundraisers-vacations-golf outings with the boys – made the scam called ObamaCare any less relevant — read it and weep tears of laughter:

President Obama’s healthcare law was dealt a new blow Tuesday as a U.S. appeals court ruled that due to a wording glitch in the Affordable Care Act, some low- and middle-income residents are not entitled to receive government assistance to subsidize their insurance.

In a 2-1 vote, a panel of judges on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia judges rejected the Obama administration’s argument that the problem was triggered by imprecise language in the complex law and that Congress had always intended to offer the subsidies nationwide to low-and middle-income people who bought insurance through one of the state or federal health exchanges created under the law.

But as written, the law states that subsidies should be paid to those who purchase insurance through an “exchange established by the state.”

That would seem to leave out the 36 states in which the exchanges are operated by the federal government.

The appeals court wrote in its decision:

“Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states,” wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph in his majority opinion, where he was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith “We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly.” [snip]

If upheld, the ruling could lead many, if not most of those subsidized customers to abandon their health plans sold on HealthCare.gov because they no longer would find them affordable without the often-lucrative tax credits. And if that coverage then is not affordable for them as defined by the Obamacare law, those people will no longer be bound by the law’s mandate to have health insurance by this year or pay a fine next year.

If there were to be a large exodus of subsidized customers from the HealthCare.gov plans, it would in turn likely lead to much higher premium rates for non-subsidized people who would remain in those plans, who are apt as a group to be in worse health than all original enrollees.

The ruling also threatens, in the same 36 states, to gut the Obamacare rule starting next year that all employers with 50 or more full-time workers offer affordable insurance to them or face fines. That’s because the rule only kicks in if one of such an employers’ workers buy subsidized covered on HealthCare.gov.

Here’s a complication: There is another case on the same issues in the Fourth Circuit. It is likely the Fourth Circuit appeals court will rule in favor of ObamaCare. The losers in that case will then be able to appeal directly to the Supreme Court if they so choose and force the issue faster than anyone expects but still after the November 2014 elections.

As we wrote in an update to our earlier Halbig article, Obama’s law professor thought the ObamaCare scam was likely to lose today:

“I don’t have a crystal ball,” Tribe told the Fiscal Times. “But I wouldn’t bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare.” [snip]

The problem for the IRS, though, is that the subsidies language is not ambiguous. Even Tribe acknowledged that the language is clear, according to the Fiscal Times.

“Yet in drafting the law, Tribe said the administration ‘assumed that state exchanges would be the norm and federal exchanges would be a marginal, fallback position’ — though it didn’t work out that way for a plethora of legal, administrative and political reasons,” the Fiscal Times writes.

The ObamaCare law was and is a mess. The ObamaCare law was not read by those that passed it. They voted for the ObamaCare scam more as Obama idolatry than good policy. Now, the illiterate chickens are coming home to roost. The law was badly written and Obama tried to write new law using agencies and departments of the federal government. But in our system of government only the legislature, the Congress, can write laws.

Because we are a nation of laws and the words in our laws matter this happened:

Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to health law

A federal appeals court panel in the District struck down a major part of the 2010 health-care law Tuesday, ruling that the tax subsidies that are central to the program may not be provided in at least half of the states.

As Barack Obama flits out to his latest fundraising tour week ObamaCare comes back and slaps him in the face.

The problem is the law as written and even as not implemented by Obama and even as will eventually have to be implemented. That’s why the appeals court acted with such courage. GARBAGE IN – GARBAGE OUT.

The problem is Obama. GARBAGE IN – GARBAGE OUT.

Share

Why Won’t Republicans Use The Illegal Immigration Crisis As A Wedge Issue And Speak To Black Americans?

“Never let a crisis go to waste” is a concept Republicans have forgotten. There are a lot of legal options for Republicans in the current illegal immigration crisis – but that is an article for another day. Today we want to focus on what Republicans should do politically.

Consider, Barack Obama plotted to use illegal immigration as an issue to win the crucial November 2014 elections. Obama’s goal was to use illegal immigration (as well as race-baiting) to incite his base vote of young white liberals and black voters as well as Latinos to the ballot box and thereby forestall disaster. Instead, the illegal immigration crisis at the southern border has focused attention on the illegal immigration issue as never before and Barack Obama and his political henchmen are on defense on the illegal immigration issue.

But the damage to Obama politically could be even greater if Republicans took advantage of the crisis swarm at the southern border.

If Republicans took a refresher course in politics the damage to the Barack Obama coalition could be even greater than to Barack Obama himself.

Consider these two videos:

Republicans, if they were smart, would approach black Americans and remind them of the dangers illegal immigration poses to the black community in particular.

The goal of a Republican approach like we suggest would not be to win the votes of black voters. The goal is to inform black voters of the dangers to them of illegal immigration and thereby checkmate Barack Obama’s political aim of flooding the November elections with his base vote.

If Republicans do not fail to take advantage of a crisis they can split the pro-Obama vote on the issue of illegal immigration while at the same time flooding the polls with their own voter base.

Barack Obama’s counter-move to any Republican outreach to the black community would be race-baiting. Obama would race-bait any Republican who speaks to the black community. Obama will also use Republican opposition to illegal amnesty to attempt to bring out the Latino vote. But the Republican riposte would be graceful.

Republicans can quote Hillary Clinton and Paul Rodriguez to counter Barack Obama race-baiting on illegal immigration:

Republicans can use the illegal immigration crisis to drive a wedge that splits the Obama coalition at its most elemental root, black voters. Republicans at the same time will build on their coalition of white working class voters.

The white working class fears lower wages and that alone explains resistance to amnesty for illegal immigrants. The white working class knows that Orwellian tags like “comprehensive immigration reform” are code words for amnesty.

Black Americans are against amnesty for illegal immigrants too even as black “leadership” supports Barack Obama’s failed policies. Republicans should take advantage of the current illegal immigration crisis and use it as a wedge issue to inform black voters that Barack Obama has stabbed them in the back. A stab in the back. That is the Barack Obama way. Ask Alice Palmer.

Obama cannot be trusted… neither by friend nor foe….

As we predicted long ago “comprehensive immigration reform” is dead. For Republicans the benefits are clear:

Immigration reform fizzles as campaign issue for Democrats

Immigration reform has fizzled as an issue for Democrats, who are barely mentioning it on the campaign trail despite making the issue their top domestic priority in 2013 and 2014.

Latino voters, who are the most energized about overhauling the nation’s immigration laws, will have little impact on the battle for control of the Senate, with the possible exception of Sen. Mark Udall’s (D) race in Colorado.

White working-class voters will play a more important role in the midterm election compared to the 2012 presidential election. They are not energized by immigration reform. Instead, they are concerned about downward pressure on wages, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has linked to higher immigration levels.

Coincidently, President Obama’s support among white voters without college degrees has steadily eroded.

Democratic strategists admit their party’s record on immigration reform will do little to help candidates this year, although they predict it could be a potent weapon in the 2016 presidential election.

“In light of turnout models it’s probably not as strong an issue as it would be in presidential years,” said Steve Jarding, a Democratic strategist and former advisor to several senators from conservative leaning states such as former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.). [snip]

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has led the effort in Congress to link high immigration flows to stagnant wages but many Republican lawmakers have not joined in because the business community wants more guest workers and visas for high-skilled employees.

Despite the lack of concerted effort by GOP leaders in Washington to used immigration reform as a weapon against Democrats, the issue could hurt them among white working-class voters who are slipping away from Obama.

Polling by Rasmussen, a GOP survey group, showed working and middle-class Americans oppose large expansions of immigration flows.

Republicans should tell the black community that this illegal immigration crisis will not abate until their communities are destroyed by joblessness. Republicans can cite Ruben Navarrette Jr.:

Recently, my sources in Texas who have been close to the border kids story since the start — and have batted 1.000 in terms of the accuracy of their reports — have been giving me a dire warning. It’s the equivalent of: “You ain’t seen nothing yet.”

Many Americans are angry and frustrated over the government’s handling of the border kids calamity. The Obama administration — which, according to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, was warned by state officials in the Lone Star State that this was happening as early as 2012 and obviously didn’t do enough to prepare — estimates that by the end of this year, as many as 90,000 young people will have crossed the border into the American Southwest.

Then there are the tag-alongs. Looking for jobs, and seizing on the opportunity presented by the fact that so many border patrol agents are preoccupied caring for the children, an unknown number of adults from Mexico are riding the kids’ coattails right into the United States.

It’s a total mess. But what if what we’re witnessing now is just the beginning? What if the real wave is yet to come?

My sources tell me that it is well-known that in the Rio Grande Valley, there are tens or even hundreds of thousands of people from Central America — mostly women and children — in northern Mexico right now, waiting for their chance to cross into the United States.

We should stop looking for an endpoint. This story has no end in sight.

The illegal immigration crisis caused by Barack Obama will not abate. The illegal immigration crisis created by Barack Obama’s policies and weakness will not end nor be restricted to border states and communities. Already Massachusetts is alarmed at the “spikes in detainees coming up from Texas“.

As Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson declared “We’re all becoming border sheriffs now with these people being carted all over the country.” “The blame goes all the way up. It’s a travesty and people ought to be upset.” “This is un-American and has raised the stakes to the public health and public safety threat.”

Barack Obama is to blame. Republicans would be wise to clue black voters about how and why Obama has stabbed them in the back.

Black Americans once were the elemental base of the new abomination called the Barack Obama coalition. We called it the “situation comedy” coalition because it so resembled what television programers want for their silly programs. But a “situation comedy” coalition is not a way to organize a political party nor govern a nation.

Barack Obama’s silly “situation comedy” coalition replaced the FDR coalition of seniors and the white working class as the Democratic party base vote. That upending led to disaster in 2010 even though the new travesty coalition helped Barack Obama personally get elected and reelected.

Republicans should tell black Americans that they are about to get the Obama stab in the back. Black voters are next in line to be dumped in favor of Latino voters from the latest incarnation of the Obama coalition.

In 2014 the failures and fissures of the new Obama “situation comedy” coalition will lead to new disaster in the November elections. If Republicans take advantage of the crisis Barack Obama created for his political benefit, Republicans can win in a rout never before seen in this countries electoral history – but first Republicans have to learn to not let a crisis go to waste.

Share

Rock Bottom Obama

Notice how more and more the truth we wrote long ago is conventional wisdom even on the left – when they are not drunk but sober? We wrote the truth. Then the attacks on us for being “batsh*t crazy” or not very bright, or Republicans, or disgruntled Japanese soldiers fighting a lost war on a deserted island, or racists, or dinosaurs, or whatever the Obama cult could dream up to excuse their own stupidity, began. We get the last laugh.

Here’s leftist loon and Barack Obama apologist Bill Maher forced to admit the truth we wrote about so long ago:



BILL MAHER: There was a study done that found out online conversations that were intercepted and stored by the NSA — nine out of ten were not from foreigners, they are from ordinary citizens, and I want to read this: Many files, it says, described as useless by the analysts had a startlingly intimate, even voyeuristic quality. Stories of love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental health crises and disappointed hopes. Move over, Taxicab Confessions, we have a new —

This is exactly what they said they weren’t going to do. Just, you know, be nosy and look into the lives of private people for their own shits and giggles. And I just want to say, if this were happening under Bush, liberals would be apoplectic. I’m sorry, but liberals are just sometimes useless Obama hacks without a shred of intellectual honesty. (HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, July 11, 2014)

If Bush did it the Obama cult would explode in anger. But the Obama cult, of which liberals comprise a large segment, are hypocritical liars concerned not with issues but with enabling the cult leader. Maher says “liberals are just sometimes useless Obama hacks without a shred of intellectual honesty.” Condemned by his own words.

Instead of an endless article of other hypocritical liars beginning to regurgitate what we wrote years ago, here’s Republican pollster, Alex Castellanos, assessing Barack Obama with words and language we wrote for years but words even the Republicans/conservatives have until now been too scared to use:

Obama hasn’t hit rock bottom yet

(CNN) — Ordinarily, being ranked as the worst modern president of the United States would be considered unfortunate. For you Mr. President, that’s the good news.

As painful as it is to note, your presidency has not yet hit bottom. You’ve got a long way to go in your descent.

Everywhere you walk, Mr. President, the world unravels. Americans are whispering that each political missile you fire seems to hit not its target but our own house.

You have undone the core idea you’ve advanced, that a larger public sector can save us. You are becoming the one-man Keystone Cops of an experiment in weakness and incompetent government.

Your Veterans Administration is a dysfunctional mess. Some veterans who have lived through war have not survived contact with your VA.

Your immigration agents are changing diapers and crying for fresh underwear for detained immigrants awaiting deportation. Your IRS has been accused of targeting political opponents, and your best defense is their ineptitude: They lose their e-mails and files.

Your own signature initiative, the Affordable Care Act, has turned on you. You’ve repeatedly delayed and altered the law, gluing and taping together, on the fly, the health care of an anxious nation.

Your Supreme Court is telling you to read the manual that came with your office: You are not allowed to run a Nixonian presidency. In three years, you’ve suffered numerous humiliating and unanimous reversals of your executive authority.

You are protected by the thinly manned barricades of an attorney general who refuses to investigate misconduct in your executive offices. Four out of five Americans believe the government you would like to expand is corrupt, a view that is a 7-point increase from the last year of the Bush administration.

You are fortunate you cannot be impeached because of the cost to our exhausted, divided country. If you were a car manufactured by GM, not the president who bailed it out, you would be recalled for your defects.

Nicely done, even if it is years late and two presidential campaigns short. It does succinctly summarize some of the rock bottom Obama presidency. Rock bottom Obama has not hit rock bottom and blockhead Barack Obama supporters, like Google executives cavorting with heroin hooker killers, have not hit rock bottom either:

In foreign affairs, you have undone one of the great accomplishments of the 20th century: You have resuscitated the Soviet Union. A two-bit KGB thug named Putin has been kicking sand in the face of your country. In the absence of American leadership, the Middle East has devolved into chaos, and you are reduced to unpalatable choices: Either you negotiate with our Iranian enemies or abandon our allies, if we still have any, to jihadist wildfires that threaten Israel’s borders and set desert sands aflame.

Young people who voted for you to earn a better life than their parents are now living with their parents. Our nation has the lost the hope you promised us. We fear our freedom is in decline: A 48% plurality feel our best days are in the past.

Even the one thing you have been good at, Mr. President — politics — has abandoned you. You have now been reduced to pathetically small political “listening tours.” Even on such an inconsequential stage, you are tone-deaf, incapable of striking the right chords: You tell your audiences you are there to tell them that you are listening.

Alex Castellanos, like almost all other Republican consultants and pollsters, like Mitt Romney who stupidly praised Obama as nice instead of telling the truth about how “nasty” Obama is, adds a sentence about Obama’s “bright smile” but finally joins us in denouncing the narcissist as a narcissist.

But now, we are beginning to notice; you laugh too hard at your own jokes.

Behind the smile, we see an ego inflated beyond merit. Your intellectual detachment, we now find, was merely cluelessness. The distance between what you’ve promised and done has grown too large for us to blame anyone else.

Is this as bad as it can get? Actually, no, Mr. President. The road ahead is worse for you.

Even your supporters will soon say publicly what we are all thinking privately. In days to come, it will become increasingly cool to snicker and then laugh at your presidency.

Disagreement is not the cruelest cut in politics; it is ridicule.

Politicians who have survived everything else are done in ultimately by laughter. The gristliest moment for an incumbent is not when voters express their anger. There is respect, even in those dark days. What an incumbent never wants to hear from a voter is pity. Your worst day will be when a voter says, “Poor President Obama. He’s done the best he can.”

When that day comes, Mr. President, your favorable rating will crash another 10 points into the basement. Democratic candidates will not only ignore you, as they now do, they will turn on you.

Hillary Clinton will betray you. That will start a war within your party as candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Jerry Brown rush to defend you. If they depose the Clintons, mere anarchy will be loosed upon the Democratic world.

At this moment, our emperor is naked, but no one has yet said it publicly. That will change soon.

When it is too sad to cry about our presidents, America laughs. That’s what will really hurt.

In April 2009 we began to mock the “Obama is doing the best he can” defense. Contrary to what Castellanos writes there were voices from long ago saying and writing what Castellanos has only now had the courage to write. In February of 2010 we wrote:

The “he’s doing the best he can” ploy has not worked because of the inherent truthfulness of that statement. Obama is doing the best he can for his friends and himself, but for the American people Obama is doing nothing. Also, Americans understand that if this is the best Obama can do – boy oh boy are we all in trouble. The “he’s doing the best he can ploy” was abandoned.

The “he needs more time” ploy has collapsed under the weight of time. With every passing minute the ploy limps, weaker and weaker. The “he needs more time” ploy also demonstrates the truthfulness of what Hillary and Hillary supporters have said since early 2007 – Obama is not ready. Obama was not ready on Day 1, Obama was not ready on Day 2; Obama was not ready on Day 3; Obama was not ready on Day 365, ad infinitum. The “he needs more time” ploy was abandoned too.

Hillary betray Obama? No, as we have written Hillary Clinton will either tell the truth about Obama or Hillary Clinton 2016 will be as strong as Obama’s shriveled raisin-y testicles. We are and have been Hillary Clinton supporters and we have been and maybe still are some sort of liberals, but we will never be hacks for anybody and when Hillary says perfunctorily silly things such as on Hobby Lobby or that we should ever vote or support Barack Obama – uh, no.

“The emperor has no clothes” – we and a few brave others have written that so many times it is a cliche by now.

Castellanos is right that ridicule is a potent weapon against government officialdom. That is especially true against a pompous clod like boob Obama who is more a full time golfer/part time government perks official. We’ve been mocking treacherous boob Barack Obama for a long time. As treacherous boob Barack Obama hits rock bottom, we are not the only ones laughing at the clown.


Chicago Clown

Share

ObamaCare Halbig Court Decision

Update II: Well at least one person agrees with us – Obama’s law professor: There’s a “very high risk” that a federal court is going to gut ObamaCare. How big is Halbig? Big, big, big, says Lawrence Tribe from his feathery perch at Harvard:

Obamacare could take another spin in front of the Supreme Court – with vastly uncertain consequences.

Harvard legal scholar Laurence H. Tribe warned Tuesday of a “very high risk” that a crucial aspect of Obamacare – its government subsidies provision – could fall victim to a major legal challenge being mounted by conservatives. That is why, he also said, that the Supreme Court will almost certainly get “a second bite of the apple” in determining the fate of President Obama’s signature health law, with uncertain consequences.

Tribe, 72, a prominent proponent of the Affordable Care Act – who taught both Obama and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as constitutional law students at Harvard Law School years ago – warned of the ACA’s prospects for surviving intact during an exclusive, hour-long interview in New York with editors of The Fiscal Times. [snip]

“It looks like the panel is quite divided over what to do with what might [have been] an inadvertent error in the legislation or might have been quite deliberate,” Tribe said. “But it’s very specific that only people that go onto a state exchange are eligible for the subsidies. And if that becomes the ultimate holding of the U.S. Supreme Court, where this is likely to end up – that’s going to have massive practical implications for the administrability of Obamacare.”

“I don’t have a crystal ball,” Tribe said in discussing the law’s chances should it reach the Supreme Court for yet another critical review. “But I wouldn’t bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare.

Tribe, whose new book, Uncertain Justice, takes a deep dive into the Roberts court, said the plaintiffs make a strong argument. The legislative language is clear, he said, that the subsidies apply to exchanges established by states. Yet in drafting the law, Tribe said the administration “assumed that state exchanges would be the norm and federal exchanges would be a marginal, fallback position” – though it didn’t work out that way for a plethora of legal, administrative and political reasons.

Holy Kalamazoo Batman! Tribe guessed right in the earlier ObamaCare case about his former law student upholding ObamaCare but now Tribe is um, like Elizabeth Warren in other ways, off the reservation by saying the law is “very specific” and possibly trying to open a shut door for Roberts to walk through:

Tribe suggested that the case will, like the individual mandate challenge before it, hinge on Chief Justice John Roberts’s decision. “He would be asking himself the hard question: ‘Is it so clear under existing law that it has to be construed in this literal and somewhat bizarre way . . . that subsidies or tax credits cannot be provided on the federal exchanges, or is it sufficiently ambiguous that it gives me the necessary legal wiggle room’ [to side with the administration once again?]” Tribe said.

Forbes contributor Jeffrey Dorman notes that a recent ruling in a case involving the Environmental Protection Agency could make it harder for Roberts to conclude that he has that wiggle room.

“The power of executing the laws necessarily includes both authority and responsibility to resolve some questions left open by Congress that arise during the law’s administration. But it does not include a power to revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in an opinion that Roberts joined in full.

So Tribe thinks the law is “very specific” and also thinks the question for Roberts is “Is it so clear under existing law” – it’s almost as if Tribe is answering himself and making the case for Roberts – shutting, opening, then shutting the door again.

As Halbig goes big time, Judge Walton hit the IRS over the head today as he prepares to crush the IRS soon:

A federal judge Friday gave the IRS one week to hand over details on Lois Lerner’s crashed hard drive and how to track it, the second federal judge in as many days to seek more information about the elusive emails.

Judge Reggie Walton of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia ordered the the tax agency to find out by July 18 what happened to the crashed hard drive responsible for erasing two years worth of the former IRS official’s emails, including whether it’s traceable through a serial number.

If such information is gone, the judge wants an affidavit written under penalty of perjury by an IRS IT professional with “firsthand knowledge” of the situation. [snip]

Walton did not rule on the request for expedited discovery or injunction relief — both of which the government argued were not necessary.

Instead he ordered more information due by next Friday, including a rundown of TIGTA’s qualifications for the probe, a date when it will be completed and the qualifications of individuals who “previously conducted forensic examinations or otherwise attempted to recover information” from Lerner’s computer.

I still would want to know the expertise of the individuals doing the investigation, and also why the hard drive can’t be identified,” Walton said.

It is unclear when Walton will rule on the potential of appointing an outside forensic specialist.”

“Now we’re cooking with peanut oil” as the Duck man says. For now, we’re staying on the sunny side of the street with galoshes on and an umbrella handy.

————————————————————————–

Update: Maybe our idea of a judicial branch/legislative branch coalition against the gangster executive branch will come to pass. Thus far there is no Halbig decision but there is much pertinent news. Consider – Public opinion of the Supreme Court has improved in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision, particularly among independents. If the courts are afraid of a public backlash against taking on Obama gangster government they can feel a bit more at ease.

With an eye towards justice, not the polls, another court joins the fight. Federal judge to IRS: Explain these “lost” e-mails, please … under oath.

Later on Friday we will hear from yet another judge. Judge Reggie Walton will soon issue another decision/assault against the gangster government iron triangle – the Obama White House, the Holder Justice Department, and Obama congressional henchmen/hemchwoman (all aided by a corrupt Big Media).

Oh, and before any Obama race-baiters start spewing “lynch mob” or “raists!” against these potential John Sirica’s, both Judge Sullivan and Judge Walton are African-Americans.

——————————————————————

So many Barack Obama caused disasters are raging through this land and the world it is quaint of us to focus on the Frankenstein monster still pillaging the nation – ObamaCare. Pardon us for not focusing today on the Obama gangster government disasters at the southern border of this country, Obama’s pals attacking Israel with rockets and commandos, VA illegalities and Va whistle-blower suppression, the Marine held in a Mexican prison, and the many other high crimes and misdemeanors, as well as the usual day-to-day treacheries and booberies of King Boob Obama I.

Today we take another walk on the sunny side of the street.

We are way overdue for a court decision on an ObamaCare case Halbig v. Sebelius that if successful would be equivalent to sawing through the axles of a covered wagon. The rickety contraption known as ObamaCare – thus far kept from collapse only by the gangster lawlessness of Barack Obama and his henchmen, might find itself without an axle to grind as early as this Thursday if and when the Federal District Appeals Court issues its decision.

Halbig v. Sebelius can be explained simply. In brief and in plain English, the printed letter of the ObamaCare law specified that subsides for individuals buying ObamaCare insurance must do so “through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311”. Obama and his henchmen and henchwoman ignored that wording and declared that everyone, whether on the federal or state exchanges, would qualify for government subsidies.

If the Federal Appeals Court says that the letter of the law applies, that Obama cannot rewrite laws though rules and regulations, ObamaCare is deader than dead. Yes, Obama and his lawless henchmen will appeal that decision to a full panel of the appeals court and they will likely win in the full panel. But then the case would go to the Supreme Court with a victory notch in the belt.

Many will scoff that the Supreme Court will not rule against ObamaCare and their sturdy evidence is the contortions Chief Justice John Roberts underwent to pronounce the law “constitutional”. Without delving into whether it was Obama thuggery, or that ObamaCare really is not a mandate but a tax (a political argument Mitt Romney failed to exploit), or gay blackmail against Roberts, we/ve espoused a much more generous attitude towards the Chief Justice which many do not share but which leads us to believe that the Supreme Court will eventually send ObamaCare to a death panel.

Why do we think the above? A small part of our confidence is based on the post ObamaCare case decisions. Chief Justice Roberts has mustered unanimous decisions for more than half the decisions issued in the last term. Some of those unanimous decisions, such as the recess appointments opinion, have been disastrous for Obama’s lawless rule. When necessary, Roberts and the conservatives on the court have proven they will issue tough opinions. The Hobby Lobby ObamaCare decision is an example of the lessened temerity of the court’s conservative wing.

The main reason for our belief that the Supreme Court might cut the axles on the ObamaCare Conestoga is the strategic landscape on Halbig.

The strategic benefits of Halig v. Sebelius are that the ObamaCare collapse would be in slow motion not in one fell chop. In the big ObamaCare case which rescued ObamaCare by declaring it a tax Chief Justice Roberts was aware that a declaration by the Supreme Court that ObamaCare was unconstitutional would have meant the immediate sudden death of ObamaCare. The Supreme Court would have been the central issue in the 2012 presidential campaign and no doubt charges of racism and other lies would have been spat out by Obama and his thugs.

With Halig v. Sebelius the political trap is avoided. A slow death of ObamaCare after the November elections will deprive Obama of a new politically useful distraction from his myriad other catastrophes and prevent Obama from denouncing the Supreme Court for his nefarious political schemes.

There is also a matter of complexity. On the big ObamaCare case there were legal issues aplenty to consider such as the Anti-Injunction Act and Commerce Clause jurisprudence which to most American are difficult to understand. Not so with Halbig v. Sebelius:

Obamacare may have its problems, including more bugs than you can find in the cornfields of Nebraska, but its legal worries were meant to end after the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, the heart of the Affordable Care Act. [snip]

“This is literally the simplest case I’ve ever had in 30 years of practicing law,” Carvin said at a Cato event this summer. “No one but a lawyer could seriously stand up here and tell you that north means south, black means white and state means federal. And all you need to do is read the statute and know that that is what the law is.” [snip]

Defenders of the law argue that the phrase “established by the State under section 1311” does not exclude federally-run marketplaces. Their legal argument is simple: the law defines an “Exchange” as established by the state, then orders the federal government to establish the exact same exchange, denoted as “such Exchange,” if a state fails to act. In other words, it authorizes the government to act as the state and set up an exchange as it is defined in section 1311. Whether a particular section of the law references an “Exchange” or an “Exchange established by the state” is the same thing as referring to the law variously as the “Affordable Care Act” and “Obamacare,” two terms with identical meaning, because a federally-run exchange is, for the purposes of the law, the same as a state-run exchange.

While it is true that the Supreme Court provides great leeway for agencies to implement laws as they see fit the question remains as to whether the subsidies are meant only for state exchanges. The plaintiffs in Halbig should easily demonstrate that Congress meant to induce the states to establish ObamaCare exchanges with the sweetener of subsidies denied to the federal exchange. The implications are enormous:

In a nutshell, plaintiffs in the case Halbig v. Sebelius claim those often-valuable subsidies are illegal because the Affordable Care Act only authorized such tax credits for people who bought insurance through one of the exchanges originally set up by an individual state or the District of Columbia—not the federal exchange. Nearly 90 percent of the people who enrolled in plans via the federal exchange qualified for those subsides because they had low or moderate incomes.

Take away those subsidies and many, if not most, of the enrollees on HealthCare.gov might not buy insurance next year because they will find it unaffordable at the full premium price. That, in turn, could create a much-feared “death spiral,” where insurance pools have too many sick enrollees and not enough young healthy ones, and premium rates skyrocket. [snip]

And if those subsidies are not available to individuals in the states served by HealthCare.gov, it would also mean that businesses in those states could not be mandated starting next year to offer affordable health insurance to their workers or pay a fine. That’s because the so-called employer mandate is linked to the availability of those subsidies for workers who opt to buy individual insurance.

Thirty-four states have refused to foist the ObamaCare scam on their citizens so an adverse decision on Halbig will have massive impact. No matter how much ObamaCare supporters deride Halbig, it is a serious lawsuit which most Americans can understand:

So, the IRS rode to the rescue. It wrote a regulation that, despite the provisions in the ACA itself, provided a subsidy for all income-qualified purchasers, even those on federally-run exchanges. A result is that an employer could face a substantial new tax if just one employee receives a federal subsidy, even if the employer’s state has chosen not to set up an exchange. And the states would no longer have an incentive to run an exchange since residents would receive federal subsidy on federally-run exchanges.

This seems pretty straightforward: There are two types of exchanges under the ACA, one established by states, and another established by the federal government. The statute only authorizes subsidy on state-run exchanges.

The piano players in the ObamaCare whorehouse are worried about an adverse ruling:

If the legislation is just stupid, I don’t see that it’s up to the court to save it,” Judge A. Raymond Randolph said during oral arguments in March.

Randolph, a George H.W. Bush appointee, said the text of the statute “seems perfectly clear on its face” that the subsidies are confined to state-run exchanges. Carter-appointed Judge Harry T. Edwards slammed the challengers’ claims as “preposterous.” So the deciding vote appears to be with George W. Bush-appointed Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who wasn’t resolute but sounded unconvinced of the Obama administration’s defense, saying it had a “special burden” to show that the language “doesn’t mean what it appears to mean.”

Turley said, “If this case were decided on the basis of the statutory language, the advantage goes to the challengers. If the court is willing to broaden its interpretation then the administration may have an edge. It depends entirely on how the panel structures its analysis.”

If the three judge panel decides based on the language of the law and thereby guts ObamaCare, ObamaCare defenders will go to the full appeals panel (7 Democrats, 4 Republicans). Barack Obama has appointed four of the eleven judges on this panel during his second term – which demonstrates he is worried about this decision and that is why he instructed Harry Reid to destroy the Senate rules on the filibuster.

For now the ball is with the three judges. Oral argument was a fearsome maw for ObamaCare defenders. But Halbig is not the only ObamaCare injury in the emergency room:

Most state health insurance rates for 2015 are scheduled to be approved by early fall, and most are likely to rise, timing that couldn’t be worse for Democrats already on defense in the midterms.

ObamaCare is in a death spiral already but Halbig might be the pillow over the face that finishes it off. And Halbig is about much more than just ObamaCare. Remember all that stuff in our first paragraph we said we weren’t writing about today? Halbig is about all of them in a way. Jonathan Turley sees it that way too:

In crafting the act, Congress created incentives for states to set up health insurance exchanges and disincentives for them to opt out. The law, for example, made the subsidies available only to those enrolled in insurance plans through exchanges “established by the state.” [snip]

The administration attempted to solve the problem by simply declaring that even residents of states without their own exchanges were eligible for subsidies, even though the law seemed to specifically say they were not. [snip]

But the D.C. Circuit Court may see things quite differently, especially in light of recent Supreme Court opinions holding that the Obama administration has exceeded its authority and violated separation of powers.

In Michigan vs. Bay Mills Indian Community, for example, Justice Elena Kagan noted that “this court does not revise legislation … just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly as to some subject it does not address.” In Utility Air Regulatory Group vs. EPA, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stressed that “an agency has no power to tailor legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms.” And a third strike came last week in National Labor Relations Board vs. Canning, when the Supreme Court unanimously found that President Obama had violated the Constitution in circumventing Congress through his use of recess appointments.

The D.C. Circuit Court is expected to rule any day now on the Halbig case, and supporters of the Affordable Care Act are growing nervous. In January, an Obamacare advocate described the Halbig case to a reporter for the Hill as “probably the most significant existential threat to the Affordable Care Act. All the other lawsuits that have been filed really don’t go to the heart of the ACA, and this one would have.” And in a fraught oral argument before the D.C. Circuit Court, the administration seemed to struggle to defend its interpretation.

Halbig is an opportunity for the courts and the judicial branch to lock arms with Congress, the legislative branch in opposition to Barack Obama and the Chicago gangster lawlessness he represents and imported to the nation’s capital.

Share