In chapter 4 of our book, The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency, we make the point that Team Obama would try to pull a fast one when it comes to Obamacare’s individual mandate that everyone reading this blog post needs to buy health insurance, or be subject to a penalty payable to your good friends at the IRS.

We first made this argument in a column we coauthored with Senator Orrin Hatch in the Wall Street Journal back in January. Now this issue has suddenly exploded back into the news.

For months, Team Obama has been saying that the individual mandate is authorized by Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce found in the Commerce Clause. We explain in the book why that argument is a loser in court, and that the White House would have to pull a bait-and-switch and suddenly argue that the mandate is a tax (violating Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K per year).

Looks like we were right. In their first filing against the multi-state lawsuit challenging Obamacare, Team Obama is now arguing that the individual mandate is… a tax.

If you read chapter 4 of our book, though, after we explain how the mandate is not authorized by the Commerce Clause, we then go on to explain how it is also unconstitutional if it’s a tax.

Evidently worried about this, Team Obama then goes on to argue that if the court doesn’t buy the tax argument either (because the argument is bogus, perhaps?), then it’s still justified under the General Welfare Clause.

Anticipating that, our next section in chapter 4 explains why the mandate is also not authorized by the General Welfare Clause.

We close that section by noting that one thing you’re taught in law school is that the General Welfare Clause doesn’t authorize the federal government to do anything. It is a limitation on federal power, not a source of additional power.

When you cite the General Welfare Clause, you’re grasping at straws. That’s exactly what Team Obama is doing. Their legal argument is desperate, because the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional.

With Elena Kagan’s confirmation vote for the Supreme Court right around the corner, this issue could not be more timely. We need federal courts that will uphold the Constitution’s limits on federal power. They can start by striking down Obamacare.

http://biggovernment.com/kenandken/2010/07/19/obamacare-the-presidents-wooden-headed-interpretation-of-our-constitution/

This Politico article says the Gulf oil spill is threatening Obama’s “reputation for competence.” The writer and I must be living on different planets.

Let’s keep in mind a partial list of Obama’s accomplishments.  The Health Care bill.  The Copenhagen climate summit.  The 2016 Olympics.  The Economic Stimulus.  10% unemployment.  Cash for Clunkers.  The auto industry bailouts.  Cash for caulkers.  Taxpayer funded abortion.  The Christmas Day bomber.  Janet Napolitano.  The attempted trial of terrorists in New York.  The attempted closure of Gitmo.  The attempted signing of FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act).  Need I go on?

This man’s election was a potential disaster for the country and the sooner the electorate ushers him and his enablers out of office, the better.

~~John Cronin~~

By GLENN THRUSH & MIKE ALLEN

The ferocious oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico is threatening President Barack Obama’s reputation for competence, just as surely as it endangers the Gulf ecosystem.

So White House aides are escalating their efforts to reassure Congress and the public in the face of a slow-motion catastrophe, even though it’s not clear they can bring it under control anytime soon.

“There is no good answer to this,” one senior administration official said. “There is no readily apparent solution besides one that could take three months. … If it doesn’t show the impotence of the government, it shows the limits of the government.”

Hope and change was Obama’s headline message in 2008, but those atop his campaign have always said that it was Obama’s cool competence — exemplified by his level-headed handling of the financial meltdown during the campaign’s waning days — that sealed the deal with independents and skeptical Democrats. The promise of rational, responsive and efficient government is Obama’s brand, his justification for bigger and bolder federal interventions and, ultimately, his rationale for a second term.

So there was a “little bit of panic,” according to one administration official, when White House aides sensed the oil spill narrative getting away from them last week. The White House was particularly alarmed by the rash of stories comparing the Obama administration’s initial response with President George W. Bush’s sluggish response in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

POLITICO Breaking News:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who had a central role in the health reform fight as the lead of anti-abortion Democrats, plans to announce Friday that he will not run for reelection, a Democratic official said. Without Stupak on the ballot, the seat becomes an immediate pickup opportunity for Republicans.

For more information…http://www.politico.com

[Editor's note: Kudos to all the grassroots activists whose principled outrage at Stupak's sell-out of the Pro Life movement caused this Obamacare enabler to throw in the towel less than three weeks after his infamous cave in on the so-called Health Care "reform" bill reconciliation vote.

One less schmuck to toss out this November.]

~~John Cronin~~

THE FACTS

WASHINGTON — Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.
Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year.

Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That’s the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.

Read Complete Article at AP