BIG STORY: Lawsuit Could Potentially Undo ObamaCare!

Jared Law – the 9.12 Project – Cross-Posted at True Health Is True Wealth: This is one of the dozens (okay, thousands) of reasons that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, a horrible idea, and why it must be eliminated, rooted out completely, ASAP.

The fact that ObamaCare originated in the U.S. Senate makes it unconstitutional, independent of its thousands of alternative violations of our NATURAL LAW, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

You see, when the U.S. Supreme Court ignored the Constitution and ruled ObamaCare legitimate and Constitutional, their reasoning was that ObamaCare penalties and fees were actually taxes.

But any bill that generates revenue for the federal government through taxes MUST NECESSARILY, BY CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE, ORIGINATE IN THE U.S. House of Representatives!

This has been brought up before, but now a lawsuit is alleging the same.

This is WONDERFUL NEWS!

Here's the story from The Washington Times and The Blaze:

Lawsuit Over Health Care Tax Could Kill ‘ObamaCare’

By Valerie Richardson | Sunday, March 31, 2013

"ObamaCare" looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.

A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.
The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the act in June, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains in the majority opinion to define ObamaCare as a federal tax, not a mandate. That was when the Sacramento, Calif.-based foundation’s attorneys had their "aha" moment.

"The court there quite explicitly says, 'This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,'" foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said at a Cato Institute forum on legal challenges to the health care act. "Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.

The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the challenge in November, arguing that the high court has considered only eight Origination Clause cases in its history and "has never invalidated an act of Congress on that basis."

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to rule on the Justice Department's motion "any day now," said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Paul J. Beard.

The challenge citing the Origination Clause isn't the only lawsuit against ObamaCare, but it is the only one that has the potential to wipe out the entire act in one fell swoop. Other claims, notably the freedom-of-religion cases dealing with the birth control requirement, nibble at the fringes but would leave the law largely intact.

In their brief, attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as "gut and amend" and replaced entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Using H.R. 3590 as a "shell bill" may be inelegant, but it’s not unconstitutional, according to the government motion.

"This commonplace procedure satisfied the Origination Clause," said the brief. "It makes no difference that the Senate amendments to H.R. 3590 were expansive. The Senate may amend a House bill in any way it deems advisable, even by amending it with a total substitute, without running afoul of the Origination Clause."

The brief cites a number of cases in which courts upheld shell bills, but foundation attorneys counter that those rulings involved the Senate substitution of one revenue-raising bill for another.

"Here, by contrast, it is undisputed that H.R. 3590 was not originally a bill for raising revenue," said the Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit. "Unlike in the prior cases, the Senate’s gut-and-amend procedure made H.R. 3590 for the first time into a bill for raising revenue. The precedents the government cites are therefore inapplicable."

The Justice Department also points out that the court has allowed revenue bills to originate in the Senate if the money raised was incidental to the bill’s mission.

The Affordable Care Act's central purpose is to "improve the nation's health care system," and it fulfills that goal "through a series of interrelated provisions, many, if not most, of which have nothing to do with raising revenue," said the government brief.

Mr. Sandefur disagrees. "What kinds of taxes are not for raising revenue?" he asked.

Legal opinion on the matter is split. Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University Law Center professor, said in an article for the Volokh Conspiracy that, "[I]f any act violates the Origination Clause, it would seem to be the Affordable Care Act."

But Yale Law School professor Jack M. Balkin said the Obama administration has legal precedent on its side, although the lawsuit "may nevertheless become plausible if enough prominent people get behind it and vouch for it."

"And then, perhaps, Chief Justice Roberts, given a second chance, will change his mind — again," Mr. Balkin said in an essay for The Atlantic.

Legal scholars agree on one point: The courts haven’t seen the last of lawsuits against ObamaCare.

"The Supreme Court’s ruling last June was only the end of the beginning as far as ObamaCare litigation is concerned," Cato Institute senior fellow Ilya Shapiro said at the February forum. "The more we read and the more regulations are promulgated, the more constitutional and other defects are found."

Could This Lawsuit Really Kill ‘ObamaCare’?

Apr. 1, 2013 6:34pm Becket Adams

Although it’s widely believed that “ObamaCare” is here to stay, one lawsuit is threatening to undo President Obama’s landmark health care bill.

“A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House,” the Washington Times notes.

You may recall in June 2012 when the Supreme Court ruled on “ObamaCare” that Chief Justice John Roberts defined the bill as a tax, not a mandate. This, according to the Times, is where PFL attorneys saw their opening.

“The court there quite explicitly says, ‘This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,’” foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said recently. “Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.”

The Times explains the details:

The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the challenge in November, arguing that the high court has considered only eight Origination Clause cases in its history and “has never invalidated an act of Congress on that basis.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to rule on the Justice Department’s motion “any day now,” said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Paul J. Beard.

The challenge citing the Origination Clause isn’t the only lawsuit against ObamaCare, but it is the only one that has the potential to wipe out the entire act in one fell swoop. Other claims, notably the freedom-of-religion cases dealing with the birth control requirement, nibble at the fringes but would leave the law largely intact.

In their brief, attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as “gut and amend” and replaced entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Though unorthodox, the government motion argues that using H.R. 3590 as a “shell bill” is not unconstitutional.

“This commonplace procedure satisfied the Origination Clause,” said the brief. “It makes no difference that the Senate amendments to H.R. 3590 were expansive. The Senate may amend a House bill in any way it deems advisable, even by amending it with a total substitute, without running afoul of the Origination Clause.”
The brief notes several cases where shell bills have been upheld by courts.

“[B]ut foundation attorneys counter that those rulings involved the Senate substitution of one revenue-raising bill for another,” the Times notes.

The DOJ also points out that the court has allowed revenue bills to originate in the Senate provided “the money raised was incidental to the bill’s mission.”

“Here, by contrast, it is undisputed that H.R. 3590 was not originally a bill for raising revenue,” said the Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit. “Unlike in the prior cases, the Senate’s gut-and-amend procedure made H.R. 3590 for the first time into a bill for raising revenue. The precedents the government cites are therefore inapplicable.”

The point of “ObamaCare” is to “improve the nation’s health care system,” and it does that “through a series of interrelated provisions, many, if not most, of which have nothing to do with raising revenue,” said the government brief.
But Sandefur disagrees.

“What kinds of taxes are not for raising revenue?” he asked.
Although it’s unclear whether PFL’s lawsuit will scuttle the president’s health care law, one thing is certain: “ObamaCare” has at least one more hurdle to clear before final implementation.

Click here to read the full report.

Related:

Fun with ObamaCare

A Healthier Alternative to ObamaCare

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaTax,taxes,defund ObamaCare,Affordable Care Act,ObamaCare UnConstitutional

Obama: The G8, uranium & arms to Saudi Arabia: Israel must say no!

WASHINGTON, May 30, 2011 — Israel is the land of my dreams. The first time I visited Israel, I knelt and kissed the Holy Land.

I touched the stones of Jerusalem, thinking that King David, King Solomon and so many others had walked those paths, and I admired the beauty, the miracle that the Israelis had managed to build, right there in the middle of the desert.

Israel

And I admired the Israeli Jews, my tough brothers and sisters, and I kept smiling, thinking, "it’s okay, be patient, they are fighting for survival in the middle of those barbarians."

Last week, during a speech in Congress, most of us felt the force of leadership of a man whose country’s safety and existence were at stake. We heard his voice resonate through Congress like a roar, strong and decisive.

He was one of King David’s successors, Benyamin Netanyahu. The Lion of Judah had been awakened. 

A few days earlier, President Obama had unexpectedly asked flat out that Israel go back to its pre-1967 borders, a veiled maneuver to achieve the destruction of America’s best ally. He asked them to surrender territory that is strategically crucial to their defense from the usual, yet ever more ferocious enemies of the State of Israel.

But what, really, are Obama’s objectives? Let’s look his track record:

URANIUM

On December 2, 2010, the Obama administration approved passing control of two uranium mines in Wyoming to a Russian company, Uranium One, after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved transferring the mines’ licenses.

Thus Russia gained control of half of US Uranium production at the same time that it has been supplying uranium to Iran’s nuclear program.

On January 1, 2011, Ukraine sent a shipment of highly enriched Uranium to Russia for secure disposal, a move Obama lauded, saying it "advances a top priority for my administration and for global security."

The shipment adds, with Obama's approval, more weapons grade material to the Russian stockpile, again at the same time that Russia supplies uranium to Iran's nuclear program.

ARMS SALES

In February, 2010, Obama banned weapons sales to Israel, and at the same time authorized $10 billions in arms to Arab-Muslim states belonging to  Arab League, including Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

In September that year, Obama authorized the largest arms sale ever to Saudi Arabia, worth $67 billion. The package included 84 new F-15 fighters, as well as upgrades to 70 fighters already in the Saudi arsenal. It included three types of helicopters: 70 Apaches, 72 Black Hawks and 36 Little Birds.  The sale also included $30 billion in ships and hardware to upgrade the kingdom’s naval forces.

GROUND ZERO MOSQUE, AKA PARK 51

Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy reported,  “At a White House celebration of Ramadan tonight in the company of representatives of several of the Nation’s most prominent Muslim Brotherhood front organizations, President Obama announced his strong support for one of their most immediate objectives: the construction of a mega-mosque and “cultural center” at Ground Zero [area].  In so doing, he publicly embraced the greatest tar-baby of his presidency.”

Naturally, the President has been accused by relatives of 9/11 victims of “abandoning America” over support for Islamic cultural centre.

ITAMAR, ISRAEL

You might wonder, why bring up Itamar at this point?

We all remember the horrible massacre on Shabbat, when beasts murdered five members of the Fogel family while they were sleeping.

The Muslim Palestinian terrorists slit the throats even of the children, among them tiny three-month old Hadassah.

Slitting throats, Muslim-terrorist-style, is done slightly, so as to make the victim die slowly, in the most horrible pain while the blood runs out their bodies.

Why did this happen?

My friend, Leah Goldsmith, the wife of Itamar’s mayor, stated at a rally of support we hosted in NYC: “We are at war when people come on Shabbat to slaughter men, women, and children. President Obama has asked the Israeli government to remove the soldiers from the Tapuach junction near us, which protected the Jerusalem-Shechem road. [The Israeli government accepted Obama’s demands.] So you got the butchering of a family, then a bombing at a bus stop because the White House thinks that soldiers checking Arabs is a human rights violation.

"Itamar is on a mountain. To the west we can see the skyscrapers of Tel Aviv, and to the east, we see the Jordan Valley. Do you want us, or Hamas, on that mountain?” (Arutz Sheva, March 27, 2011)

G8 FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR SO-CALLED “ARAB SPRING”

In the same vein, Obama last week attended, in Deauville, France, the G8 summit of the leaders of some of the world's most powerful economies. They retain this status even though America is quasi-bankrupt and the other members, except Germany, are in dire straits as well.

At the G8 summit in Deauville, France rich countries and international lenders are aiming to provide $40 billion in funding for Arab nations trying to establish free democracies. The overall message from President Barack Obama and the other G-8 leaders appeared to be warning autocratic regimes in the Arab world that they will be shut out of rich-country aid and investment, while new democracies are encouraged to open their economies. (Image: Associated Press)

During the summit, despite America's near bankruptcy and despite the fact that Joplin, Missouri had been ravaged and hundreds of Americans killed by devastating tornadoes, the President of the United States decided that his top priority should be the financial support of Muslim countries by the G8. He claimed this would advance the cause of democracy in what his administration has taken to calling the "Arab Spring."

Obama succeeded in getting $40 billion committed to advance the “Arab Spring,” rather than trying to get it from the wealthiest Muslim countries, which should and could create that fund to help their own.

Notwithstanding America’s bankruptcy, Obama could have been presidential enough to get some of that money for the people of Texas and Missouri, ravaged by fires and tornadoes, respectively. He might even have suggested that the money go to Japan, a nation devastated by earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster.

Obama's priorities are not surprising from a man who, in his “Middle East” speech on May 19 said that, “we are connected to that region by forces of faith.”  Muslim faith, that is.

Each item in this list might seem small, but taken together, the picture they paint of Obama's priorities is damning. And the full list is much, much longer.

When Obama demands bluntly that Israel go back to its pre-1967 borders, it is a veiled way for him to set up Israel’s destruction.

Sadly, the suicidal collective viewpoint that has been developing in Israel since its inception is moving the likes of Ehud Olmert to speak up, in spite of the fact that Olmert’s moral corruption strips him of any kind of moral authority to speak up on any grounds.

Israel should only be burdened with one enemy, the enemy without.

Israel is at war, and this critical fact is ignored when it allows the enemy within, emboldened by Israel's most important ally, to become vocal and express opinions that are detrimental to the country’s security. 

Whoever speaks of giving up the strategic zones that are historically and forever connected to the heartland of the Jewish people should be incarcerated. These verbal attacks are even worse than exploding a grenade in the middle of innocent civilians.

The effect of a grenade stops with the victims.

The impact of any verbal and ideological attack by Israelis who are unaware and unwilling to identify themselves as Jews is such that those attacks can be repeated, retransmitted, copied, distributed and manipulated ad nauseam in this internet era.

Obama’s greatest victory would be to get Jews to harm other Jews, G-d forbid.

That should never happen.

Land for peace has never worked.  Any mathematician can easily say there is no chance, such a formula is doomed.

Peace for Peace. That’s a possibility.

Israel has only ONE possible answer to Obama.

ISRAEL, JUST SAY, FIRMLY, UNHESITATINGLY, “NO” TO OBAMA!

Goodwill Ambassador Eliana Benador is US Representative of the Shomron Liaison Office, Samaria, Israel, former President of Benador Associates, and a national and international political analyst and global strategist.

You can follow Eliani here at the Communities at the Washington Times, the Goodwill Amabassador , or her website The World As I See It.  Follow Eliani on Twitter  @ElianaBenador

An example as to how powerful Islam has become in America?????

H'mm! Washington Times & Too Hot To Handle?

• Posted by Rick Buggy on June 24, 2011 at 3:24pm in Tea Party Nation Forum
• Send Message View Discussions

Well, it would appear that my friend, @ElianaBenador has been classified, too hot to handle by the Washington Times. Her blog, "In The Eye of The Storm", which focuses on Islamic Terror activity has been shut down. Here's the link http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/eye-storm/ where you'll see that it has been closed.

So it would appear that Ms. Benador has stuck an Islamic nerve and the will of a few loud Muslim voices WIN! Who is next? Or do you write in and DEMAND that her blog is reinstated! Here's a link to the last entry at the Washington Times. It's all about PRINCIPLE people! Demand this CHANGE! United we stand!

Please contact Jacqie Kubin at the Washington Times and demand Eliana Benador's blog be reinstated. Thanks everyone.

jkubin@washingtontimes.com

You can bet that this will not be the last, but rather one of the first of many, blogs that will be censored and closed down!!

Rep. Conyers' Probe of ACORN Blocked by 'Powers That Be'

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. has backed off his plan to investigate purported wrongdoing by the liberal activist group ACORN, saying "powers that be" put the kibosh on the idea.

Mr. Conyers, Michigan Democrat, earlier bucked his party leaders by calling for hearings on accusations the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) has committed crimes ranging from voter fraud to a mob-style "protection" racket.

"The powers that be decided against it," Mr. Conyers told The Washington Times as he left the House chambers Wednesday.

The chairman declined to elaborate, shrugging off questions about who told him how to run his committee and give the Democrat-allied group a pass.

Conyers spokesman Jonathan Godfrey said late Thursday, several hours after the first request for comment, that the chairman had been referring to himself as "the powers that be."

Pittsburgh lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh, whose testimony about ACORN at a March 19 hearing on voting issues prompted Mr. Conyers to call for a probe, said she was perplexed by Mr. Conyers' explanation for his change of heart.

"If the chair of the Judiciary Committee cannot hold a hearing if he wants to, [then] who are the powers that he is beholden to?" she said. "Is it the leadership, is it the White House, is it contributors? Who is 'the power'?"

The comment spurred similar questions by House Republicans, who asked whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was involved in blocking the probe.

"Chairman Conyers has a responsibility to explain who is blocking this investigation, and why. Is it Speaker Pelosi? Others in the Democratic leadership? Who in Congress is covering up ACORN's corruption?" said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, ranking Republican on the Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights and civil liberties, said the chairman should be calling the shots.

Mr. Conyers, who heard the allegations against ACORN, was sufficiently impressed to realize a future hearing was needed to thoroughly investigate the matter," he said. "It's unfortunate that people who didn't hear the testimony are making the decisions. The Democratic leadership should step up to disclose who instructed Mr. Conyers to drop his plan."

The office of Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, did not respond to questions about Mr. Conyers' comments.

Capitol Hill had bristled at the prospect of hearings because it threatened to rekindle criticism of the financial ties and close cooperation between President Obama's campaign and ACORN and its sister organizations Citizens Services Inc. and Project Vote.

The groups came under fire during the campaign after probes into suspected voter fraud in a series of presidential battleground states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Mexico and Nevada.

ACORN and its affiliates are currently the target of at least 14 lawsuits related to voter fraud in the 2008 election and a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act complaint filed by former ACORN members.

The group's leaders have consistently denied any wrongdoing and previously said they welcomed a congressional probe.

The group did not respond to questions about Mr. Conyers being convinced to drop those plans.

Ms. Heidelbaugh, who spearheaded an unsuccessful lawsuit last year to stop ACORN's Pennsylvania voter-registration drive, testified in March that the nonprofit group was violating tax, campaign-finance and other laws by, among other things, sharing with the Barack Obama campaign a list of the Democrat's maxed-out campaign donors so ACORN could use it to solicit them for a get-out-the-vote drive.

ACORN also provided liberal causes with protest-for-hire services and coerced donations from targets of demonstrations through a shakedown it called the "muscle for the money" program, said Ms. Heidelbaugh, a member of the executive board of the Republican National Lawyers Association.

Mr. Conyers, a fierce partisan known for his drive to continue investigating President George W. Bush's administration, had been an unlikely champion for opponents of ACORN.

Before calling for the probe, he frequently defended ACORN. In October, he condemned an FBI voter-fraud investigation targeting the group, questioning whether it was politically motivated to hamper a voter-registration likely to turn out supporters for Mr. Obama's candidacy.

But in March, Mr. Conyers dismissed the argument made by fellow Democrats that accusations of voter fraud and other crimes should be explored by prosecutors and decided in court, not by lawmakers in Congress.

"That's our jurisdiction, the Department of Justice," Mr. Conyers said in March. "That's what we handle voter fraud. Unless that's been taken out of my jurisdiction and I didn't know it."

By: S.A. Miller,

Source: Newsmax

You Might Be a "Radicalized Right-Wing Extremist" If…

What and who exactly are President Obama's homeland security officials afraid of these days? If you are a member of an active conservative group that opposes abortion, favors strict immigration enforcement, lobbies to protect Second Amendment rights, protests big government, advocates federalism or represents veterans who believe in any of the above, the answer is: You.

Department of Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano has turned her attention away from acts of Islamic jihad on American soil (which she now refers to as "man-caused disasters"). Instead, her department is sounding the alarm over an unquantified "resurgence" in "right-wing extremism activity." On April 7, DHS sent a nine-page warning memo to law enforcement offices across the country titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

The report includes a sweeping definition of the threat:

"Right-wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

You cannot ignore the context or the timing of this DHS report. It's no small coincidence that Napolitano's agency disseminated the assessment just a week before the nationwide April 15 Tax Day Tea Party protests. The grassroots events organized by fiscal conservatives, independents, Libertarians and, yes, even some Blue Dog Democrats were fueled by the "current economic and political climate" of bipartisan profligate spending and endless taxpayer-funded bailouts. The growing success of the loose-knit movement has invited scorn, ridicule and fear-mongering from Obama's supporters. Liberal bloggers have likened the Tea Party movement to neo-Nazis, militias and even Weather Underground terrorists.

These attempts to demonize the Tea Party movement come on the heels of widespread conservative-bashing over the recent shooting sprees in Pittsburgh and Binghamton, N.Y. Taking Hillary Clinton's advice to "never waste a good crisis," left-wing pundits and analysts have blamed the tragedies on everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Fox News to the NRA.

The DHS spokespeople I talked to on Monday insisted that the report was not a politicized document and that DHS had done similar assessments on "left-wing extremism" in the past. But past domestic terrorism reports have always been very specific in identifying security threats -- such as the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front -- and very specific in identifying their methods and targets, including repeated physical harassment, arson and vandalism against pharmaceutical companies, farms, labs and university researchers.

By contrast, the Obama DHS report is an overarching indictment of conservatives. "Right-wing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures," the assessment warns. When I asked DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban to explain who was responsible for this "extremist chatter," she could not and would not name names.

Moreover, the report relies on the work of the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center to stir anxiety over "disgruntled military veterans" -- a citation that gives us valuable insight into how DHS will define "hate-oriented" groups. The SPLC, you see, has designated the venerable American Legion a "hate group" for its stance on immigration enforcement. The report offers zero data, but states with an almost resentful attitude toward protected free speech: "Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent."

"Potential to turn violent"? So did the hysterical fervor whipped up by Capitol Hill over the AIG bonuses, which prompted ugly death threats from across the country. No mention here, though. Not "right wing" enough. Nor will you see Obama DHS warnings to police and sheriff's departments about self-proclaimed bank terrorists such as Bruce Marks of the aggressive Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America or the mob activists of ACORN who have committed burglary, stormed corporate executives' homes and vowed to conduct "civil disobedience" by "any means necessary" in response to the "current economic and political climate."

If you can redefine dissenting opinion as "hate," you can brand your political opponents as "extremists" -- and you can marginalize electoral threats. "Antigovernment"? "Pro-enforcement"? "Disgruntled"? Feeling taxed enough already and "recruiting" and "radicalizing" your friends and neighbors through "chatter on the Internet"?

We are all right-wing extremists now. Welcome to the club.

By Michelle Malkin

Related Articles:  Napolitano stands by controversial report

Source:  TownHall.com

Posted:  Daily Thought Pad