Archive for the ‘Hoplophobia’ Category

DOJ Inspector General Proposes Multiple Sales Reports On Long Guns

November 17, 2010

More waste for pure political correctness and infringement of the rights of Americans.

As we noted in the Sept. 24, 2010 Grassroots Alert, a draft report prepared by the Justice Department Inspector General had called into question the BATFE’s mega-million-dollar Project Gunrunner program.  Established in 2007, this program sought to expand the agency’s firearm tracing operation, relative to the still uncertain amount of smuggling of firearms from the United States to Mexico. This week, the report appeared in final form.

 

Like the draft, the final report notes that despite Project Gunrunner’s lavish funding, the program suffers because the BATFE fails to coordinate with its own people, with those of the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, and with Mexican officials.

 

“We also found no routine sharing of firearms trafficking-related information and techniques between ATF intelligence personnel in Southwest border locations and in the ATF Mexico Country Office,” the report says. “ATF and ICE do not work together effectively on investigations of firearms trafficking to Mexico. . . . ATF does not systematically and consistently exchange intelligence with its Mexican and some U.S. partner agencies.”

SOURCE

D.C. Smackdown: Heller II, and more…

November 10, 2010

Coming off some huge Election Day victories in the Congress, Gun Owners of America is now setting its sights on the courts.

A big battle will be taking place next week on Monday, November 15, at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Both Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation are involved in challenging an extremely restrictive gun control law in a case known as Heller II.

After the District of Columbia lost its 2008 case in Heller I, the city council enacted a firearms registration scheme that was nearly as draconian as the original law, which the Supreme Court had struck down.

The Heller I decision in 2008 was monumental, as it paved the way for the Chicago verdict earlier this year — which made clear that our Second Amendment rights apply throughout the entire country (not just in Washington, DC).

Gun Owners was also actively involved in the Chicago case, known as McDonald v. Chicago. This case is paying dividends, as recently as last month when a Wisconsin judge used the McDonald case to rule their ban on concealed carry unconstitutional!

The court said it “agrees with Justice Clarence Thomas’s McDonald concurrence and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to this matter. In essence, no State shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. As Justice Thomas demonstrates, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, not created by the Second Amendment, but secured or recognized by it.”

This appeal to the “privileges and immunities” of American citizens is exactly the argument that Gun Owners made in its amicus brief before the McDonald court.

It was worth every penny that was spent on the Heller I and McDonald cases.

In Heller II, we are challenging the new DC gun law. After all, what good does it do if the Court says you have an “individual right” to own a gun, but the city in which you live is still allowed to impose draconian restrictions which will cost you hundreds of dollars just so you can exercise that right.’/

That’s why GOA is helping to challenge the DC law… and why we are so excited about the oral arguments that will be delivered to the court on November 15, almost two weeks after the election.

Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation are submitting an amicus brief in this case. This is an effort that you can help us with — and it’s a lot easier than you might think.

In many federal offices, there are subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) pressures to give to the Combined Federal Campaign. Your boss may think his prestige depends upon getting everyone to kick in. The same thing happens in all too many corporations during the United Way fundraising drive.

You may have wanted to give but couldn”t find a group that wasn’t attacking your rights, let alone defending them, on the list of participating organizations. But that has all changed!

Federal employees now are able to designate Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) as the recipient of their gifts to the Combined Federal Campaign.

Use Agency Number 10042 for Gun Owners Foundation when you make your Combined Federal Campaign pledge or donation. Your gifts will go toward helping us win cases like the Heller II case which is coming just around the corner.

Also, if you work for a company that participates in the United Way, you too may be able to designate that your gift be to Gun Owners Foundation. Many local United Way Campaigns allow Gun Owners Foundation to participate through their Donor Choice Programs. Some, however, do not. Check with your local United Way Agency. You will not only be helping people and protecting your rights, but you will also get a tax deduction.

One additional note. If you are employed by a corporation or organization which has a Matching Gift Program, please keep GOF in mind when making your donation. Contributions to GOF are tax-deductible.

Your support for Gun Owners Foundation helps us to offer quality briefs in defense of gun owners’ rights. (You can read previous amicus briefs on the GOF site at gunowners.com.)

So please help the Second Amendment — while making a tax-deductible contribution either through the CFC or the United Way. Of course, you can always donate online at the Gun Owners Foundation site: http://www.gunowners.com/donate.htm

Thank you very much.

GOA Offering Arguments in Heller II Case
— You can help by giving to the CFC (Agency Number
10042 ) or a similar private campaign

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.com/donate.htm

“seventy-five percent of BATFE prosecutions were constitutionally improper.”

November 9, 2010

What follows is a little dated, but at the time it didn’t get the coverage needed. This is just one of the things that the new Congress takes immediate definitive action on.

The Obama Administration and dozens of politicians are pretending that they are worried that America’s loose gun laws have allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico for use in the drug wars that are plaguing that country.

President Obama is using this nonsense as an excuse to double the number of BATFE agents so he can blanket the border with agents to stop the flow of guns into Mexico.

What nonsense!  As if the drug cartels that have their own armies, huge fleet of airplanes, submarines and rocket launchers need to rely on smugglers to get guns from the U.S.!

Clearly, this is nothing other than the latest tactic from this antigun administration to add some muscle to the most reckless and corrupt branch of our government – the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

A couple of decades ago, Congress passed the FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act) to reign in this renegade agency after a Congressional investigation officially concluded that “seventy-five percent of BATFE prosecutions were constitutionally improper.”

Today, twenty-four years later, the BATFE is just as bad, if not worse, than it was back then.  Only now the White house and the Congress are filled with people who want to give them more power, more authority and more boots on the ground to continue their unconstitutional attack on gun owners.

From using paid “informants” to provide false testimony, to physically tampering with firearms to turn them into “machine guns,” to abusing and harassing mom and pop gun shops who cannot afford to legally defend themselves, this agency appears not only to have little or no regards for the rights of citizens, but is clearly willing even to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court.

As you know, over the years, Gun Owners has helped dozens of victims of BATFE abuse.  Some of these victims were literally framed by BATFE agents who actually converted semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic weapons – and then charged them with selling unregistered machine guns!

In one case that we were involved with, the Olofson Case, we discovered that the alleged “machine gun” was, in reality, one of thousands of ordinary semi-automatic rifles made by Olympic Arms.  We learned that it only became a machine gun when the BATFE, behind closed doors, mechanically tampered with the rifle to the extent that it would misfire a burst of several rounds before it jammed.

Getting guns to malfunction is a favorite technique of the BATFE as it gives them a great opportunity to rack up convictions on the possession or selling of “machine guns,” which requires a special type of license.

For some time, Gun Owners has lobbied to require the BATFE to videotape their test firings of alleged machines.  We knew that if juries could see the outrageous, even bizarre, efforts the agency uses to get a gun to fire off an extra round or two, they would throw all of these cases out of court and Congress would have the evidence it needs to take action and clean house at this agency.

Unlike all other agencies, the BATFE has no sets of standards or rules for conducting their business.  They have no manuals that set out procedures for the work they do. This gives them the latitude to do whatever they wish with total impunity.

And this is what enables them to make the rules up as they go along.  This allows them to conduct repeated “test firings” until they get the results they are looking for.

Clearly, when a test firing fails to prove that a weapon is a machine gun that should be the end

of any debate as to whether a person is selling “machine guns.”  But because the BATFE has no rules, they simply do it again and again, until they are able to force a gun to misfire.

As you can see, with a renegade agency like this trampling our gun rights, nobody is safe.  Not you, not me and not our favorite semi-automatic firearm.

That is why we are really encouraged about the Fairness in Firearms Testing Act (H.R. 1923).  Introduced by Congressman Phil Gingrey, this bill will require that an unedited video be recorded during the testing of a firearm to determine if it is a machine gun.

Had such a law been in place when David Olofson’s rifle was being “tested,” his case would have been thrown out immediately and he would be home today with his wife and three children.

Had such a law been in place, jurors, the media and the Congress would have seen the extent to which the BATFE is capable of and willing to trample the rights of citizens in their frenzy to put innocent gun owners behind bars.

Sadly, H.R. 1923 is not yet the law of the land.  And, until it is passed, there will be more innocent Americans victimized by this out-of-control agency that acts more like a subsidiary of the anti-gun lobby than an agency under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

The Fairness in Firearms Testing Act ought to be an easy bill to pass.  Who can defend an agency that tampers with evidence to make their case or who pays thugs to entrap ordinary law-abiding citizens?

But with folks like Chuck Schumer and Caroline McCarthy running the Congress, it may be a lot tougher to pass such a sensible bill than you might imagine.  That is why I am looking for all all-out effort from you and all the other members of GOA.

Over the years, GOA has fought for a wide variety of gun rights issues.  Our yardstick for which issues we choose to prioritize is based on securing the liberty of ordinary citizens.  To me, the Olofson case is a clear example of what happens to our freedoms if we let our government abuse the law for its own purposes.

David Olofson has been robbed of all his freedom, not just his right to keep and bear arms.  He has lost his liberty, his family, and his life outside of prison.

It is just a turn of fate that it is David Olofson, not you or me that is rotting away in prison.  Please think about that when I ask you to sign the postcards I have enclosed.  The first postcard is addressed to David.  I have left the message side blank so you can choose your own words to let him know that there are a lot of gun owners out there praying for his release or whatever you wish to say to him.

Of the remaining postcards, one is for you and one for a friend or neighbor.  These postcards express our outrage at the lack of oversight this out-of-control agency receives and demands that H.R. 1923 be passed immediately so that no more innocent American citizens are framed and sentenced to prison so that the BATFE can rack up big numbers in their arrest column.

I also need you to try to make a generous contribution to Gun Owners so we can ramp up our efforts to find more cosponsors for H.R. 1923; call for an investigation into BATFE abuses; and continue our efforts to get David Olofson released and returned to his family.

Please try to be as generous as you can because every day this innocent gun owner remains in jail is not just a personal tragedy for the Olofson family, it remains a threat to all law-abiding gun owners.

I know that money is tight right now.  I feel it the same as you do and, at Gun Owners, we are doing everything we can to stretch every dollar for maximum effect.

So please, even if you cannot afford to send as much as you have done in the past, please try to send what you can safely afford.

Thank you again for your loyalty and your continued support for our work.

Sincerely,

Larry Pratt

Executive Director

SOURCE

Personal independence and the citizen authority to act

November 9, 2010

By way of Gun Owners of America I was introduced to yet another Gun Rights Examiner. Be sure too read his newsletter often, as well as his Examiner page!

by John Lngenecker

My core message to non-gun owners is that the health of the second amendment is the primary indicator of the overall health of the nation.

Understanding of how the two are related is going to be the key to smaller government, where everyone benefits.
With a changing of the guard in Washington and across many state governorships, some on the road back home to smaller government are bracing us once more
for sacrifice and some pain. There is no question that the people will have to participate in how we get smaller government, but not in the way we were told.
The time for compromise and sacrifice are actually over because most of the boondoggles are about to be over. With them gone, there is lesser need for compromise on a lot of things. From now on, our only sacrifice will be the time and trouble of supervising our public servants. For some, it is this supervision instead of being supervised that unsettles, but we are the sovereign, and we put the self in self-rule, making suprervision of officials a duty of all.
Whether some are comfortable or uncomfortable with self-rule is immaterial: it is our way of life for the good of the country. The repeal of gun laws is integral to smooth running governments who operate within budget, respond to constituents and who are free from scandal.
When the republicans take office in 2011, a lot of us expect the incoming Congress to repeal a chunk of gun laws as unjust and unconstitutional.
But there is more. Republicans and the officials and constituents who share republicanism values – those who understand that we are a republic and not a democracy, for instance – will know that an armed citizenry deters and fights crime best. Get a much better handle on violent crime and you have found the unlock block to uncontrolled spending. They key to smaller government is to withdraw the keystone of nearly all boondoggles, gun control.
With conservatives in office, Americans can likely see one vital thing: that personal independence works best when the target of violence has a free hand in being their own first line of defense.
If republicans stand for this kind of independence, they will be able to reduce the size of government by unfunding tons of anti-violence programs which attempt to take the place of the armed citizen and the citizen’s authority to act. Note that where the crime is the highest – and funding is the most wasteful – is in major cities with major gun control. With no force to resist violence, crime thrives. Don’t forget that gun control and gun laws are an absentee concept in how crime is cultivated. Anti-violence programs do little when every single crime is yet another failure of the program.
The sunlight on this reveals what gun control has been hiding: personal independence and the citizen authority to act. The best evidence, of course, is in how successful that independent authority to act is elsewhere in states which do not have severe gun laws.
The correctness and the dignity of the repeal of all gun laws is in the republicanism value that not only do the officials obey the constituents and respect their rights in this republic, but that they trust them because they believe in the system of republicanism.
Hurry, 2011, hurry.
— LA Gun Rights Examiner John Longenecker publishes the Safer Streets Newsletter.

A great night for the Second Amendment: Or was it really?

November 5, 2010

The Second Amendment had a great night on Tuesday. Across the nation, the right to arms is stronger than ever, and the stage has been set for constructive reforms in 2011.

U.S. Senate: The net result of Tuesday was a gain of +6 votes on Second Amendment issues.

In not a single U.S. Senate seat did the gun control lobby gain ground. Three open seats switched from anti-gun to pro-gun: Ohio (Rob Portman replacing George Voinovich), West Virginia (Joe Manchin taking the seat of the late Robert Byrd), North Dakota (John Hoeven replacing Byron Dorgan). In Arkansas, John Boozman’s victory over Blanche Lincoln is a significant gain.

Full Story

It just so happens that I agree with Dave Kopel about 99% of the time. Now, having said that..? Just how many of these new kids on the block will take on Lautenberg and Schumer. Two men devoted to the destruction of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? How many will put forth legislation doing away with GCA 1968? Or the ex post facto law portion, if not the entire Lautenberg Domestic Violence Act? The abortion known as obamacare? With it’s hidden as well as blatant un Constitutional mandates..? I myself, am sick of hearing how this or that “D” is pro Second Amendment then all they do is pay lip service… Unless it’s election time, and that goes for RINO’s like McCain as well!

HERE is another good read that, especially if you read the comments. Shows to what extremes some people will go to for the sole purpose of “Lording it over” you and I.

Will the hoplophobia continue on. It is, after all, politically correct mental illness.

Stuck on stupid: A tale of two states…

November 3, 2010

This will be a short post, but to the point. And surly there will be follow up postings.

Colorado and California. That says it all…

President of Wyoming Family Coalition lies to gun owners about Matt Mead

November 2, 2010

Reprinted, with permission.

Director of Wyoming Gun Owners asks for Maureen Emrich to step down.

Maureen Emrich, President of Wyoming Family Coalition, has apparently become a mouthpiece for the Mead Campaign. But not on the issues one would expect. To the contrary Emrich has decided to act as if she is an expert on gun rights. To read Emrich’s letter click here

These are the same kind of insider politics that have become the norm with ineffective lobby groups, including the NRA. Instead of standing for principles, they opt to sell-out and compromise, only leading to furthering the opposition’s agenda. We call this the proverbial seat at the table.

Being a Wyoming Gun Rights Advocate, I expect attacks on my character from career politicians, but not from a conservative advocacy group’s leader. Like me, you should find it disturbing that Emrich left out the most important part – THE TRUTH.  As usual I pride myself in delivering factual information, so please listen to the following conversation with Maureen Emrich. click here

Emrich’s letter is strikingly similar to the Mead Campaigns rhetoric, however Bill Novotny from the Mead Campaign denies that they had anything to do with Emrich’s letter. My hunch is that a lower level campaign aid was involved and Maureen Emrich was foolish to take the bait!

Since she threw gun rights under the bus for political gain, it reveals that Emrich is calling plays right out of “the book of compromise”. Following are the facts that Emrich was so eager to overlook:

1. It is an undeniable fact that Matt Mead fought against gun rights and States Rights in Wyoming vs. BATF. For Brady Campaign link click here

2. Matt Mead stated he was just doing his job, but I contend he ignored the oath he took to uphold the Constitution.

3. Mead admitted that as a U.S. Attorney he had the ability to recues himself from a case, but he chose not to do so in Wyoming vs. BATF.

4. Mead has been disingenuous by reporting he never had contact with me, the truth is Mead spoke with me by phone, not just once, but twice. Mead said about Wyoming vs. BATF – quote – “I was just doing my job” and “you should see my gun collection”.

5. Mead is misleading in telling his supporters that he knows me as “some blogger from California”. Mead is fully aware of my position as a gun rights advocate in Wyoming.

MORE REVEALING INFORMATION–
6. Mead supports the Patriot Act, in his own words he stated and I quote – “You’re not going to like my answer, I support the Patriot Act”. If you don’t know what the Patriot Act is click here

By writing an editorial without verifying facts, Maureen Emrich, President of a group that says it stands for conservative principles, has seemingly become nothing more than a marionette puppet with politicians pulling her strings.  Look out – Emrich’s nose might start growing!

To put this more directly, Emrich has no business sticking her nose where it doesn’t belong!

Clearly, if Emrich can so easily attack those who have consistently defended Gun Rights, it will call into question her ability to lead a “conservative” organization in Wyoming, PERIOD.

Wyoming Conservatives, especially the “gun bearing” types, should contact the Wyoming Family Coalition and ask that Maureen Emrich immediately submits her resignation.  Not only is their credibility at stake. But it is apparent that under her leadership their organization has only become part of the problem in Wyoming politics.

For Wyoming Family Coalition contact info click here

Anthony Bouchard
Director – WyGO

SOURCE

Bloomberg follies Redux

October 30, 2010

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court indicated that a limited number of gun control restrictions are permissible under the Second Amendment — provisions such as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court said that its Heller ruling applied not just to Congress and federal enclaves, such as Washington, D.C., but nationwide as well.

Nevertheless, earlier this year, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and his police commissioner, Ray Kelly, proposed new regulations designed to give the NYPD the power to deny a firearm license to anyone, for reasons that most Americans would consider not nearly serious enough to warrant the suppression of a fundamental individual right.

These reasons — grouped under the heading “lack of good moral character or other good cause” — include an applicant’s “poor driving history,” termination from employment due to “lack of good judgment or lack of good moral character,” failure to pay debts, or having ever been arrested for anything more serious than a traffic offense, even if no charges had been filed, charges had been dropped, or the applicant had been found not guilty in court. For individuals whose license applications cannot be denied for those reasons, the proposal would also allow the police to deny a license to anyone about whom “information demonstrates an unwillingness to abide by the law [or] a lack of candor toward lawful authorities,” or when there is “other good cause.”

Insulting the intelligence of anyone who can read the proposal, the mayor and commissioner announced it in a press release which focused on how their plan would streamline the gun license application process and reduce license fees — all of which will be meaningless to people whose license applications will be denied. Only in the next to last paragraph did the release note that “NYPD will add to its regulations to offer more detailed examples of eligibility standards for a permit,” without giving examples of what those “examples” might be.

With the public comment period on the proposed regulations having ended in mid-September, and city bureaucrats working out the new regulations’ final language, on October 19th Bloomberg appeared on CNN’s “American Morning” program, saying that it is the NRA that is “totally unreasonable.”

Bloomberg’s statement is absurd; probably the kind of thing the NYPD should take into account, if he ever applies for a license to possess a gun.

SOURCE

At this moment, the future of Liberty is at stake

October 30, 2010

Rights Endowed by Whom?

What is really at stake in this election?

“The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” –George Washington

Buy this poster here

Next Tuesday’s 2010 midterm election marks the first major battle in a fired-up grassroots effort to restore constitutional integrity, one with a fervor not seen since the election of Ronald Reagan 30 years ago.

The stakes in this election and those to follow are much higher than a mere contest between competing political platforms and personas. These elections will determine who is this nation’s arbiter of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Perhaps unwittingly, Barack Hussein Obama, by way of omission in several recent speeches, has made it abundantly clear whom he and his comrades reject as the source of the rights of all men. On three separate occasions, when speaking at fundraisers for his Leftist comrades, Obama has referenced the Declaration of Independence.

Speaking at the Hispanic Caucus Institute’s Annual Awards Gala, Obama said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are … endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” When questioned about the omission of who, precisely, endowed those rights, the White House press office claimed that Obama went off script … unlikely for a man who has been glued and tattooed to his Teleprompters.

A few days later, speaking at a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Obama said, “If we believe that … everybody is endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights and we’re going to make those words live, and we’re going to give everybody opportunity, everybody a ladder into the middle class…” For the record, that utterance was not “off script.” Rather, it was precisely how the White House posted his speech.

At the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee fundraiser, he did it again, saying, “What makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men … are endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights.'”

In each instance, Obama omitted the Declaration’s clear affirmation that the rights of all people are “endowed by their Creator,” not by some potentate or government.

Our Declaration of Independence was derived from inherent common law, and in its first sentence, our Declaration establishes the rights of man as “which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them.”

When asked again about Obama’s omission, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs asserted, “I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.”

So, Obama “believes in the Declaration”? The Declaration is a piece of paper, one that expresses a self-evident Truth. Were it destroyed today, or had it never been written, the right of all people to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” among other rights, would still be endowed by our Creator.

Mr. Gibbs’ assurances notwithstanding, Obama’s subtle but telling omissions expose the underbelly of the political beast that is intent on devouring Essential Liberty and replacing it with the rule of men.

With his omissions now a matter of public interest, Obama has now tossed “our Creator” into a stump speech before Election Day. But make no mistake: That would be subterfuge. Obama believes that the rights of men are subject to the rule of men, and the terminus of the unabated rule of men is always tyranny.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama was the worst of insults to our nation’s heritage of Liberty, but in one important way, it has proven a blessing in disguise.

It has drawn millions of Americans to the frontlines of the eternal war for Liberty and Rule of Law, as enshrined in our national Constitution. Still, this midterm election cycle is different than the knee-jerk response to Bill Clinton that seated a Republican majority back in 1994.

There is a Great Awakening across our nation, one being spearheaded by Tea Party Patriots who are armed with, among other things, the right tools to articulate the difference between Rule of Law and rule of men, and who are willing to passionately fight for the former over the latter.

In the words of Thomas Paine, “I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state; up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake.”

At this moment, the future of Liberty is at stake.

Our Declaration of Independence concludes, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” (I suspect Obama would omit “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”)

I know that you have “pledged your sacred honor” for the defense of Liberty. I beseech you to help us muster millions of additional Patriots to the frontlines for the battle ahead.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post

The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ test

October 30, 2010

“Legal arguments for Obamacare’s individual mandate fail the ‘Alice in Wonderland’ test and the duck test. In two court challenges to the law in the past 11 days and a court hearing today on a third, the Obama administration’s legal position is fading faster than the Cheshire Cat. Democrats took some solace from the first case, a challenge in Michigan, because Judge George C. Steeh ultimately ruled in favor of Obamacare. Yet even though that Clinton-appointed judge refused to declare the mandate unconstitutional, he undercut the administration’s key argument that the penalty for failing to buy insurance is a ‘tax,’ and that the mandate it enforces is allowable within the broad taxing power provided by the Constitution. ‘The provisions of the Health Care Reform Act at issue here, for the most part, have nothing to do with the assessment or collection of taxes,’ Judge Steeh ruled. This is so important that the federal district judge in Florida, in Thursday’s preliminary ruling in the second case, spent 22 pages analyzing it. If the fine is a penalty rather than a tax, Congress’ power is far less extensive. Judge Roger Vinson noted Congress repeatedly called the fine a ‘penalty,’ explicitly changing its description from a ‘tax’ that earlier versions of the bill assessed by name. Citing Alice’s admonition to Humpty Dumpty that words can’t ‘mean so many different things’ as Humpty intended, Judge Vinson concluded, ‘Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing … [only to] argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely.’ Judge Vinson explained that no matter what Congress called it, the assessment was designed to act as a punishment, not a revenue measure. Hence, it’s not a tax. His 22-page analysis is an exposition of the logic that if something is called a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck — and the same goes for a penalty. The tax issue is vital because it’s the Obama administration’s fallback position if it loses on the first and biggest dispute, which is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause not only to regulate commerce, but to force individuals to engage in specific commerce.” —The Washington Times

SOURCE