Custom Search

Saturday, March 31, 2012

YouTube Idiocy: 7 Arrested For Hate Crime Against One 15-Yr-Old

By Susan Duclos

Although the video has been removed from YouTube, the police do have it and according to The Bellingham Herald, the video captured multiple African-American teenagers, ages 13 to 16, beating on a 15-yr-old Hispanic boy, resulting in seven arrests so far.

The video shows as many as 10 boys surrounding the victim and challenging him to a fight. The suspects then began hitting the teen while others watched.

During the beating, the teens made racially derogatory statements that were captured on the video, Ford said.

After the victim fell to the ground, the assailants kicked him multiple times in the head, knocked out several teeth and left shoe impressions on his skin, Ford said.

The victim was able to get to his feet and escape the onslaught, and will need to undergo dental surgery.

The teens who were arrested were identified from the video, which was discovered by a Palmdale sheriff's deputy and has been retained for evidence. Authorities are not releasing the video.

The report says police should be making more arrests.

This is the latest of gang-style attacks uploaded on YouTube or other video uploading sites.

In January, ABC News reported "Girl, 15, Lured Victim to Gang Attack and Filmed It: Cops," in which a a gang attack in a Chicago alley was videotaped leading to the arrest of seven. That was also reported by their ABC News local station.

Back in 2008, another high profile gang beating was captured on YouTube and that resulted in a Life Time movie called "Girl Fight" being made about the horrendous case the fallout afterwards.


'Mega Millions' Winning Numbers: 3/30/2012

By Susan Duclos

With an estimated jackpot of $640,000,000, the Mega Millions jackpot was won by three ticket-holders. The winning numbers were 2, 4, 23, 38, 46 and 23.

The three ticket-holders that won the jackpot were in Kansas, Illinois and Maryland.

Mike Lang, spokesman for the Illinois Lottery said the winning tickets were expected to be worth more than $213 million before taxes.

More on the lucky winners at USA Today and Washington Post.

Congratulations to all the winners.

Tags: mega millions numbers, megamillions, megamillions winning numbers, mega ball winning numbers, lottery winners, lotto numbers, mega lottery


SURPRISE!!!! - Another $17 Trillion Obamacare Shortfall

By Susan Duclos

This is called F.U.B.A.R.

There has been a hidden shortfall recently found within the Democrats' and Obama's Affordable Care Act Law aka Obamacare law. A $17 trillion shortfall.

Via the Washington Free Beacon:

Staff at the Senate Budget Committee, which calculated the figure using methods based on those used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), found that total unfunded obligations for federal health care programs have jumped from $65 trillion in 2009 to $82 trillion in 2011.

Added to the government’s existing obligation for entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the total now comes to almost $100 trillion.

That is almost seven times the United States’ annual gross domestic product (GDP).

The figures are calculated over a 75-year period, and represent an estimate of the total mandatory spending on entitlement programs that do not have a dedicated source of revenue.

As Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), ranking member on the budget committee, said on Thursday: “It’s money we don’t have, but money we’re committed to spend.”

Sessions took to the Senate floor to denounce the increase as yet another reason why the law “must be removed from the books.”

“It is this kind of long-term, unfunded obligation that has placed this nation’s financial situation at such great risk,” he said. “We don’t have the money. We don’t have another $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities that we can add to our account. We have to reduce the ones that we have.”

WASHINGTON, March 29--On the Senate floor today, Ranking Member Sessions announced that a new Budget Committee analysis has found that the long-term, unfunded liabilities associated with President Obama's health care law will reach $17 trillion. The Committee's analysis is based on the Obama Administration's own numbers as well as those from the Congressional Budget Office. It is a modest, conservative estimate and yet is still more than double that of Social Security.

At a "bipartisan fiscal responsibility summit" in 2009, President Obama's then-OMB Director, Peter Orszag, stated: "To my fellow budget hawks in this room and in the rest of the country, let me be very clear: Health care reform is entitlement reform. The path to fiscal responsibility must run directly through health care." But despite this emphatic statement, the nation's unfunded liabilities--money we must spend but for which there is no source of funds set aside--increased from $65 trillion to $82 trillion since the health law was passed.

To view a graph depicting the increase in unfunded obligations brought on by the law, please click here:

WATCH: Stunning Finding: President's Health Law Creates $17 Trillion In Unfunded Financial Obligations

More at The Daily Caller.


One Chart- U.S. Now Has Highest Corporate Tax Rate in the World

By Susan Duclos

Heritage provides a chart showing that as of April 1, 2012, the U.S will have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.

Our high corporate tax rate has long made the U.S. an uncompetitive place for new investment. This has driven new jobs to other, more competitive nations and meant fewer jobs and lower wages for all Americans.

Other developed nations have been cutting their rates for over 20 years. The U.S. did nothing.

Read the rest at Heritage.


Embedded Ruling: Federal Court Rules On Governor Scott Walker's Collective Bargaining Law

By Susan Duclos

A Barack Obama nominated Federal Judge William M. Conley has ruled on the controversial collective bargaining law for Wisconsin signed by Governor Scott Walker and gave a little something to both the proponents of the law as well as the opponents.

(Embedded ruling below post)


A federal judge in Madison on Friday ruled that portions of Act 10 - the lightning-rod measure from Gov. Scott Walker that removed most collective bargaining for most public employees - are unconstitutional.

Critics of the law welcomed the decision as a major victory, but backers of the legislation seemed unconcerned since the ruling preserved a main limit on bargaining, and suggested broader restrictions would pass muster if applied to all state workers.

Seven major public employee unions had challenged the fact that Act 10 dramatically narrowed what could be bargained by general public employee unions, and required those unions to recertify every year by an absolute majority of membership while denying the same unions voluntary payroll deductions for dues.

The court sided with state officials in upholding limitations on what can be bargained, but found the two other provisions violated the union members' equal protection and First Amendment rights, considering that the same rules did not apply to unions for public safety workers such as police and firefighters.

Collective Bargaining Ruling

Although Governor Walker is pleased the court's ruling favored state officials in upholding limitations on what can be bargained they do plan to take it to a higher court for the ruling against the other two portions that the Judge struck down.

Cullen Werwie, a spokesman for Walker, said in a statement "Today, Judge Conley affirmed the constitutionality of nearly everything in Act 10. We are confident that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals will continue to uphold the constitutionality of the law."

The collective bargaining portion, which was upheld, was the most controversial portion of the law and at the time of passage resulted in massive Union protests, and the Democratic Senators leaving the state and hiding out in Illinois, in an attempt to prevent passage.

Walker will face a recall election on June 5.


Friday, March 30, 2012

Current TV Dumps Keith Olbermann

By Susan Duclos

Via Current TV:

To the Viewers of Current:

We created Current to give voice to those Americans who refuse to rely on corporate-controlled media and are seeking an authentic progressive outlet. We are more committed to those goals today than ever before.

Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it.

According to NYT's Media Decoder, Current TV claims Olbermann did not honor the terms of his five-year, $50 million contract, therefore they opted to terminate it.

Olbermann is vowing to take legal action.

In a stream of Twitter messages, Mr. Olbermann responded to Current’s announcement by stating that “the claims against me in Current’s statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently.”

Tensions between Olbermann and Current TV became obvious in December 2011, as a he-said-she-said type back and forth became public as well as news that Olbermann was carrying on his reputation of being difficult to work with.


Obamacare And The Supreme Court: Liberals Can No Longer Live In Denial

By Susan Duclos

Watching the reactions from the far left liberal portion of the Democratic blogosphere and major media, their shock over the intense questioning from Supreme Court Justices over the individual mandate and whether Congress can force Americans to purchase a product, health insurance, or be penalized, has in and of itself, been shocking.

Before the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare was signed into law by a then controlled Democratic House, Senate and Obama, a CNS News reporter asked then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi about the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Pelosi condescendingly responded, "Are you serious?" (Video HERE)

Constitutional concerns were ignored and generally scoffed at by all liberals as well as liberal media personalities, Democrats on the whole, and Barack Obama. Unwilling to even acknowledge the concern or give any credence to the limits of power Congress and the President have.

If the "intentions" were good, then it should be constitutional has been the mindset of liberals in regards to Obamacare since the very beginning.

John Podhoretz in The New York Post comments talks about how Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker and CNN and veteran court reporter Linda Greenhouse from the The New York Times, both scoffed at the constitutional arguments before the Supreme Court heard them, then came away afterwards completely shocked, with Toobin declaring the proceedings “a train wreck for the Obama administration.”

He nails the reason for such surprise and shock right on the head:

Thus, the strength of the conservative arguments only came as a surprise to Toobin, Greenhouse and others because they evidently spent two years putting their fingers in their ears and singing, “La la la, I’m not listening” whenever the conservative argument was being advanced.

Spot on.

Not just two years though, the constitutional arguments were made before the bill was signed into law when it became common knowledge that that Democrats and Obama were planning to force Americans to buy coverage or they would be penalized.

From February 2010 here at Wake up America before reporting how individual states were preemptively passing laws making it illegal to require aka mandate that individuals buy health insurance:

When Barack Obama first spoke about the idea of requiring each American to purchase healthcare and then news leaked that Congress and the Senate both wrote versions of Obamacare to include a health insurance "mandate", article after article from legal scholars to political pundits to news media all argued about the constitutionality of such a mandate that would not only force an individual to buy health insurance, but if the individual did not buy into it there would be a monetary fine and if the fine wasn't paid there could be jail time involved.

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

Liberals are shocked now that the argument is being presented and argued on the grounds of constitutionality in the Supreme Court?

Where the hell have they been for the past three years? That is right, they have had their hands over their ears singing la la la la, as Podhoretz mentioned.

Then we have more shock from liberals on how the comparison of Congress forcing Americans to buy one product could lead to Congress then technically having the power to force Americans to buy anything they want, including, yesssssssssss, broccoli.

Accusations of "the conservative justices are now mimicking conservative talking points" are flying out fast and furiously and again, one must ask, where the hell have they been?

That argument was presented in a lower court and the example of broccoli was used and then made part of the permanent record in a judgement against Obamacare by Florida's Federal District Judge Roger Vinson. (78 page ruling HERE) That judgment automatically made the example of broccoli part of the record and part of the case.

All this shock on the part of liberals could have been avoided had they bothered to acknowledge the validity of the constitutional challenges and issues instead of scoffing with the attitude of "are you serious'?

Liberals can no longer live in denial of the fact that there are issues of constitutionality about the Obamacare law nor that the individual mandate and possibly the whole Obamacare law itself is in jeopardy because conservatives were prepared to fight long and hard for our rights inherent in the U.S. Constitution.

Ms. Pelosi? Do you think we are serious now?


Thursday, March 29, 2012

Liberal Supreme Court Justice, Stephen Breyer, Quotes Law Wrong In Obamacare Hearings

By Susan Duclos

There has been a lot of talk and analysis, including here at Wake up America, about the last three days of arguments in the Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of the individual mandate included in Obamacare.

Many liberals are criticizing Solicitor General Don Verrilli for his defense of the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare but some are noticing that even the liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer made some very noticeable mistakes in his own contribution to the hearing.

He quoted a few cases, including the creation of the national bank, Congress making people drive faster than 45 -- 40 miles an hour on a road, spouses being responsible for removing their significant other's marijuana stashes and a man growing his own wheat go into the market and buy other wheat for his cows.

Breyer cited case law, but in all four instances got it wrong.

Via Campaign 2012 written by Conn Carroll:

Breyer alludes to four Supreme Court cases. And he manages to botch the key facts of the case in every single one of them. Let's start at the top:

That's the national bank, which was created out of nothing to create other commerce out of nothing.

This is a reference to McCulloch v. Maryland, in which the Court upheld Congress' ability to create the Second Bank of the United States. But, as Paul Clement pointed out in oral argument, Chief Justice John Marshall found that Congress' power to create the bank came from the Necessary and Proper Clause, not the Commerce Clause as Breyer suggests. Furthermore, Congress did not compel individuals to deposit money in the bank, only that Congress could create it in order to better manage its financial affairs.

Next Breyer says:

I say, hey, can't Congress make people drive faster than 45 -- 40 miles an hour on a road?

No, actually they can't. Or at least no Court precedent says they can. The closest case is South Dakota v. Dole where the Court held that Congress could force states to raise their drinking age to 21. But again, that wasn't even a Commerce Clause case, it was a Spending Clause case (just like Wednesday's argument over the Medicaid expansion). And while Congress has, in the past, forced states to adopt a national speed limit in exchange for highway funds, it has never forced anyone to drive at a minimum speed.

Didn't they make that man growing his own wheat go into the market and buy other wheat for his -- for his cows?

No, they didn't. Breyer is pretty clearly referring to the landmark New Deal case Wickard v Filburn here, a case where the Department of Agriculture fined a farmer for growing more wheat than the government set quota allowed. Again, no one forced the farmer to do anything. He could have chosen not to grow wheat, or not to be a farmer at all. The individual mandate is completely different because Congress is forcing all Americans to buy a specific product as a condition of their existence within the U.S.

Didn't they make Mrs. -- if she married somebody who had marijuana in her basement, wouldn't she have to go and get rid of it?

Again, no. The plaintiff in the Court's recent medical marijuana case, Gonzalez v. Raich, was suing the federal government to stop them from destroying her pot. No one was forcing her to grow pot or to go around throwing away other people's pot. Where Breyer came up with this fact pattern is a complete mystery.

Mr. Carroll's conclusion is one many may agree with when he writes "If this is the quality of argument the liberals on the court are making to Justice Kennedy, the individual mandate is a goner."

These examples have been mentioned by more than just Campaign 2012 and brings me back to a point I made in my last post about liberals' inability to defend the indefensible.

If this is the best the left could do in a fight they have had two years to prepare for, then the Supreme Court should strike down the individual mandate and since Democrats removed the severability clause, the whole law should fall with it.

As Steven Hayward over at Power Line highlights, the Obamacare arguments ends what has been a "Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Month for the Left."


Transcript and Audio- Supreme Court Hears Obamcare: Day Two Arguments

Transcript and Audio- Supreme Court Hears Obamcare: Day Three Arguments

Obamacare: In Defense Of Verrilli, He Was Asked To Defend The Indefensible

By Susan Duclos

Former White House spokesman Reid Cherlin, who once had the unpleasant job of having to defend Obamacare aka Affordable Care Act, has defended the job Solicitor General Don Verrilli did as he went before the Supreme Court the past three days and attempted to defend Obamacare. Mr. Cherlin writes "It's just that it's so goddamn hard to explain the thing—whether you're the guy answering questions from reporters or the guy answering questions from the nine justices who will decide the bill's fate."

He is talking about Obamacare, a bill that is well over 2,000 pages long. A bill that was passed through a Democratically controlled House of Representatives, a Democratically controlled Senate. Signed by a Democratic President. All of which was done without any Republican support and while 60 percent of Americans were opposed to it.

To this day, two years later, the majority of the public feels aspects of the law, specifically the individual mandate which forces Americans to purchase insurance or they are penalized, believe is unconstitutional. Even supporters of the law show a majority saying it is unconstitutional.

In February 2012, Gallup found that 72 percent of Americans believe the individual mandate- the government’s requirement for Americans to purchase health insurance — is unconstitutional.

Among those that thought the healthcare law was a good thing, 54 percent believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Even Obama's and Democratic politician's base, the majority of Democrats, come in at 56 percent saying it is unconstitutional.

When Obamacare was signed into law, constitutional scholars said it would be challenged in court on the grounds that it violated the constitution.

Two years later, after multiple lower court challenges the law has been heard by the Supreme Court.

With a good chance that the key part of Obamacare could be overturned and found to be unconstitutional, supporters of the law are attacking the Supreme Court justices and claiming if it is overturned in part or as a whole, then it is judicial activism.

Quick education for those folks and to make as easy as possible for them, let's use the Congress For Kids website:

Judicial Branch: Headed by the Supreme Court. Its powers include interpreting the Constitution, reviewing laws, and deciding cases involving states' rights.

There is a system of checks and balances set up in our Republic, consisting of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch.

One of the powers inherent of the Supreme Court is "The power of Judicial Review gives the Supreme Court the right to overturn state laws and laws passed by Congress."

There are checks and balances for a reason and that is stop any one branch from becoming too powerful and the Judicial Branch is to protect states rights and the constitution.

There have been claims of judicial activism from conservatives when the Court had more liberals on it and there have been claims from liberals when the opposite is true. Anytime a 5-4 decision happens and it falls between those that were nominated by a liberal and those nominated by a conservative, those accusations fly and they always will.

The fact is that Democrats, liberals and Barack Obama have had two years since the passage of the bill to convince Americans that it is constitutional and they have failed, as is evidenced by multiple polls from a variety of organizations showing that the public, by a majority, feel that Congress and Obama violated their constitutional rights by passing Obamacare.

Yet liberals now want to criticize Solicitor General Don Verrilli for being unable to defend what even ordinary Americans find indefensible and he attempted to do so in front of the highest Court in the land.

To top it off, the same people criticizing Verrilli, make no allowances for the fact they they also have not been able to defend the law to the satisfaction of the American people who still find it unconstitutional. Then they criticize him without offering up any better defenses other than they want it so it should be legal.

They are so busy screaming judicial activism because of the questions the conservative justices of the Court asked, they ignore the questions themselves, which if you read the transcripts are valid constitutional questions on the power Congress and Obama attempted to grab when they included the individual mandate in Obamacare to begin with and removed the severability clause which was present in earlier versions of the bill.

Now there is headlines talking about political fallout if Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional and parts or even the whole law is struck down.

This is news? This is a surprise? No, it isn't.

Democrats knew there would be political fallout when they passed Obamacare, evidenced by Nancy Pelosi herself saying they had to be prepared to "sacrifice" their jobs to pass it.

Obama himself insisted Congress pass the bill, even against the opposition of the majority of Americans and told Congress to let voters render a verdict, saying "That's what elections are for."

Voters did render their verdict and Democratic politicians did, indeed, sacrifice their jobs, and in 2010 Americans voted Democrats out of power in the House of Representatives in the largest turnover of seats from one party to another, in 70 years.

A recent study has shown that those Democratic losses were a direct result of their votes for Obamacare.

Liberals can blame Verrilli all they want. Democrats can scream judicial activism until they are blue in the face. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, every Democrats that voted for Obamacare that still holds their seat, liberal media and progressive bloggers and now Solicitor General Don Verrilli have proven one thing..... you cannot defend the indefensible.

Obamacare will once again be front and center in an election as it was in 2010, and for once I agree with Obama, voters will render their decision.

"That's what elections are for."


Transcript and Audio- Supreme Court Hears Obamcare: Day Two Arguments

Transcript and Audio- Supreme Court Hears Obamcare: Day Three Arguments


Obama Revives Jim Crow

By Guest Writer Greg Lewis

The Jim Crow era was, as Thomas Sowell points out, a time when “courts [made] decisions based on the race of the defendants, rather than the facts of the case.” In the Trayvon Martin case, the “court” is the court of public opinion, one in which both the media who side with and protect the president and the president himself are the perpetrators of a new iteration of Jim-Crowism. They’re re-introducing this ugly practice into the public arena by quickly, before any evidence pro or con has been allowed to surface and be vetted, making inflammatory comments based on their biased assumptions that no white person could possibly be within his rights to use a gun against a black person in an incident such as the one that occurred between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

Barack Obama, Al Sharpton — you remember the 1987 Tawana Brawley case in which Sharpton was found guilty and fined for perpetuating Brawley’s lies about being raped by a group of white men — and the other race hustlers who have once again surfaced in the Trayvon Martin case are bringing Jim Crow back into the discussion, as they more recently did in the case of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. The results of the inflammatory rhetoric and the blatant misrepresentation of what is likely to have taken place between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman are that the president and his race confederates have spawned an ugly and dangerous escalation of tension, one fraught with violent intent.

Film director and Madison Square Garden denizen ”Spike” Lee tweeted an incorrect address for George Zimmerman to his 250,000 twitter followers, causing the couple in their 70s who live at that address to go into hiding, fearing for their safety because of the angry mobs that have surfaced in response to Martin’s death. Although Lee has apologized, he has not retracted his tweet or showed appropriate concern for the elderly couple his stupid and thoughtless action put in danger.

In what Florida Congressman Allen West correctly calls a ”hate crime,” New Black Panther Party higher-up Hashim Nzinga — now under arrest on a weapons charge — put a bounty on Zimmerman’s head, calling for him to be taken “dead or alive.” The first difference between this type of action and those of the period in our history from reconstruction through the 1960s is that it’s now blacks and not whites who are the raceniks. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s refusal to prosecute blacks accused of criminal activity is the hallmark of the new Jim-Crowism. The second is that the black race-perps have found, in addition to whites, a new minority to persecute: Hispanics. The attempt to cover up the fact that Zimmerman is of Hispanic origin was quickly initiated by the leftist media, who found it necessary to label him “white Hispanic.” They conveniently forgot to mention that Barack Obama is a “white African-American.”

Comedian Steve Byrne, who is half Irish and half Korean, explains the confusion about racial identity this way in his Comedy Channel Special, “The Byrne Identity”:

Barack Obama, half black, half white, you can be a black president. Tiger Woods, half black, half Asian, you can be a black golfer. Steve Byrne, gook. I have been called Gook, Chink, Pan-Face, Slope, Short-Round, Data, I-killed-your-dad-in-Vietnam. I’ve heard all those things, OK? My last name is Byrne, I’ve never been called Irish in my life. . . . When you’re mixed, we gotta call you something. What do we call you? Here’s what we call you: Whatever dilutes the water, whatever messes up Whitey, that’s what you are.

You’d think it was the president’s son who had been killed. Oh, wait, Trayvon Martin is what Obama’s son would have looked like if the president had had a son, therefore . . . well, you make the leap of race. Was Obama also suggesting that if he’d had a son it might be that his son, like Martin, would have been suspended from school for possessing marijuana paraphernalia, too, given the president’s indifference to the culture of the black community that implicitly condones such behavior and his unwillingness to speak out and take a stand against it?

Members of the black community have staged flash mobs to loot stores in North Miami Beach and Montgomery County, Maryland, in response to Martin’s death. Black Congressman Bobby Rush donned a “hoodie” on the House floor, then began reading from a Bible in order to further incite the growing liberal mob calling for Zimmerman to be figuratively strung up, or at least detained and made to appear before a kangaroo court. In doing so Rush violated the House rule that you can’t wear a hat in the Chambers of Congress, not to mention the unwritten liberal law that the Good Book and Christian principles are to be trashed at every opportunity. By his appearance and lawless behavior, Rush also made a mockery of his own claim that ”just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum.”

Contrary to what you’ve heard and seen on MSNBC, it does look as though Trayvon Martin might have been the aggressor in the incident. It is entirely possible that after Zimmerman followed Martin through the neighborhood, talking on his cell phone with a 911 operator, then stopped his pursuit and turned around, possibly returning to his car. It appears from eye-witness reports that Martin then turned around and followed Zimmerman, accosting him, and that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense, after Martin had broken his (Zimmerman’s) nose and had wrestled him to the ground and was beating him.

The fact is, though, that we’re not certain of exactly what took place, and until we are, the president, instead of fanning the flames of the new Jim-Crowism, might do well to make another public appearance, this one to warn the media purveyors of false evidence, those threatening and intimidating citizens, and the mobs taking matters into their own hands that he stands on the side of the due process of law and that he’ll let the law take its course before he again mounts the bully pulpit to spew another round of Jim Crow-worthy rhetoric.

Greg Lewis Ph.D. is the author of The Politics of Anger, which systematically lays out the communist/socialist foundations of the liberal political agenda by examining the important writings of leftist thinkers of the past 75 years.

Lewis also co-authored "End Your Addiction Now : The Proven Nutritional Supplement Program That Can Set You Free."


© 2012 by Greg Lewis
First Rights Only

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Transcript And Audio- Supreme Court Hears Obamacare Day Three Arguments

By Susan Duclos

The Court heard arguments today, Wednesday, March 28, 2012, on the Severability issue and Medicaid issue of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare cases. The audio recording and unofficial transcript of the oral argument on the Severability issue (Nat. Fed. Indep. Business v. Sebelius, Sec. of H&HS, 11-393; and Florida v. Dept. of H&HS, 11-400) are available at this link. The audio recording and unofficial transcript of the oral argument on the Medicaid issue (Florida v. Dept. of H&HS, 11-400) are available at this link.

The orders, briefs, and other information regarding the Obamacare cases are available at this link.

Embed below:

Supreme Court Obamacare

Media and discussion links below:

LA Times headlines with "Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law ."

ScotusBlog headlines with "First severability argument update."

MSNBC headlines with "First Thoughts: Brace yourself for another 5-4 decision ."

New York Times headlines with "Justices Ask if Health Law Is Viable Without Mandate."

New York Times, in a second piece, headlines with "Contingency Plans Are Few if Court Strikes Down Insurance Requirement."

Washington Wire headlines with "Live Blog: Obama Health Law at the Supreme Court, Day 3 ."

Campaign 2012 headlines with "SCOTUS mulls striking down all of Obamacare."

Mother Jones headlines with "Obamacare's Supreme Court Disaster."

Hot Air headlines with "Kennedy: Would leaving parts of ObamaCare in place be more “extreme” than entire repeal? Update: “Plane wreck” for White House?"

[Update] Nice doom and gloom from CNN's Jeff Toobin again, video below:

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeff Toobin: “This still looks like a train wreck for the Obama Administration, and it may also be a plane wreck. This entire law is now in serious trouble. It also seems that the individual mandate is doomed. I mean, Anthony Kennedy spent much of this morning talking about if we strike down the individual mandate, how should we handle the rest of the law? Now, it is less clear that they are going to strike down the whole law. There does seem to be some controversy in the court about that. Certainly there are some members of the court, Antonin Scalia, Justice Alito, who want to strike down the entire law, but it seemed almost a foregone conclusion today that they were going to strike down the individual mandate, and the only question is does the whole law go out the window with it?”

Whitfield: “Oh, my goodness. Okay, so I have got about 20 seconds or so left. How might this impact arguments later on this afternoon, Jeff?”

Toobin: “Well, it’s hard to imagine how things could be going much worse for the Obama Administration, but now they’re going to be dealing with the Medicaid portion, and they may decide to get rid of that as well.”


Transcript and Audio- Supreme Court Hears Obamcare: Day Two Arguments


IDF Cancelling All Passover Leaves

Some thing's up.  Chief of Staff Benny Gantz has done something that hasn't been done in many years.  He has cancelled ALL leaves for Passover.
Chief of Staff Benny Gantz has ordered all IDF units to cancel their traditional Passover breaks so that they can operate in full capacity over the upcoming holiday, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Wednesday.

The implication of the decision is that for the first time in many years, all IDF units will maintain their regular operations and remain on full alert throughout the holiday.

As result of the unexpected decision, thousands of soldiers at various IDF headquarters and bases will have to report for duty as usual in order to allow their units to operate with no interruption.

IDF officials dismissed suggestions that the decision is related to operational circumstances or preparations for military maneuvers. The army said Chief of Staff Gantz made the call after asserting that he does not accept the notion of an army-wide Passover vacation.

However, IDF soldiers who received the news Tuesday could not be convinced that the timing of the decision was arbitrary.

Notably, German Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere on Tuesday said that after meeting Israeli counterpart Ehud Barak, he was more concerned about the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran.

Over the years, an army-wide break during Passover became a tradition followed by all major military units, including the Air Force, Navy and intelligence corps. The IDF's headquarters in Tel Aviv is also traditionally deserted during the holiday.

But as noted, the longtime tradition will be broken this year, as soldiers will have to divide their vacation days among themselves in order to ensure that their units maintain their full capacity to operate if needed.

Every military man will tell you that if you want rumors to run rampant you cancel all leaves.  I could speculate for hours on this but I won't.  I'll let you, my truth seekers to put 2+2 together.  I hope it equals 4.

Evidence: Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, Spike Lee,The Black Panthers And Hate Crimes

By Susan Duclos

Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by William George Zimmerman in an altercation. Police were called. Witnesses were questioned. Police were convinced at the time that the shooting was self-defense and did not arrest Zimmerman.

The media storm that has followed is a perfect representation of media malpractice.

No matter the color, race, or nationality of the victim or the shooter, police need evidence before making an arrest. The prosecutors need evidence before they can ask for an indictment. No prosecutor worth a damn will take a case to court without evidence to prove intent, malice, motive or guilt. At worst, charges of Manslaughter were discussed. Not a hate crime. Not murder.

The investigation is continuing, new investigators will re-interview witnesses and determinations will be made.

Liberals have accused Zimmerman of racism, of murder, making Martin out to be a shining example of a kid killed for no reason but the color of his skin but the police have not found evidence to prove those assertions. The media took up the mantle and continued to stoke the tensions, again, no evidence proving those assertions. Politicians, Barack Obama and everyone and their brother rushed to make statements, again, not waiting for an investigation to come to completion.

Total irresponsibility.

While their has not been sufficient evidence to charge Zimmerman, there is ample evidence to a hate crime, not by Zimmerman against Martin, but by Spike Lee and the Black Panthers.

The Black Panthers publicly threatened Zimmerman offering a reward for his capture, inciting a lynch mob mentality, creating "Wanted: Dead or Alive" posters, passed them out and deliberately incited violence. That is a hate crime.

Spike Lee, published the address of an elderly couple, claiming it was Zimmerman's address, causing that elderly couple to fear for their lives and forcing them to move from their homes.

While ample evidence has not been collected to arrest Zimmerman as of yet, why haven't the members of the Back Panthers that publicly made those statements been arrested for inciting violence?

Why hasn't Spike Lee been arrested for inciting violence?

Why are the true provable hate crimes not being reported on as fervently as the liberal and media manufactured one has?

[Update] Justice Department’s official definition of Hate Crime:

Hate crime is the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious, sexual orientation, or disability. The purveyors of hate use explosives, arson, weapons, vandalism, physical violence, and verbal threats of violence to instill fear in their victims, leaving them vulnerable to more attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious and fearful.


Romney: Pre-Empting the Left’s Coming Attacks

By Greg Lewis and Susan Duclos

The consensus is growing that the Republican presidential nomination is Mitt Romney’s, that neither Santorum nor Gingrich can win enough delegates to cause a brokered Republican convention. Romney is also gathering an increasing number of influential Republican endorsements, including that of Jeb Bush shortly after his Illinois victory and, more recently . Behind the scenes Romney is said to be meeting with influential conservative political figures, including Jim DeMint, who offered strong support for Romney with these words: “I can tell conservatives from my perspective . . . that I’m not only comfortable with Romney, I’m excited about the possibility of him possibly being our nominee.“ Romney has also picked up the endorsements of House Republican majority whip Kevin McCarthy and the chairman of the American Conservative Union, Al Cardenas.

Romney is beginning to shift his focus away from what he needs to do in order to gain the nomination to what he needs to do to get his and his Party’s message out as the Republican nominee. A significant component of that task will be to prepare, not just to counter from a defensive stance the Democratic onslaught against his record that is sure to come — his Republican challengers have certainly given us a preview of what that might be in their attacks on Romney — but to aggressively address his “issues issue”; that is, what have been characterized as his flip-flops on everything from health care to environmentalism. In addition, he must seize on issues that undermine Obama’s presidency and relentlessly attack the president on them.

One of the key issues that concerns many Republicans and may become a focus of the Democrat attack on Romney is Romneycare. In a Wall Street Journal piece, Kimberly Strassel points out that Santorum has been “skewering” Romney’s defense that “[o]ur plan was a state solution to a state problem” seems to miss the point. It’s difficult to see how Obama can attack Romney on his Massachusetts health care plan, having passed ObamaCare himself. If Obama surrogates do come after Romney on health care and force him onto the defensive, he can point out that he was presiding over one of the bluest of blue states and that he necessarily had to govern in a bi-partisan manner, to work on behalf of his constituents and not promote the “party line.”

But to the larger issue: Would the president’s pointing out how RomneyCare resembles Obama’s own legislation be effective in a presidential campaign against Romney? Further, though, the entire issue might well be moot by the time the presidential campaign rolls around if the Supreme Court invalidates part or all of the federal law. To these points: It’s difficult for me to see how Republicans might respond to an Obama critique of RomneyCare by not going to the polls to vote for Romney, and a Supreme Court strikedown of ObamaCare would certainly all but cripple Obama’s legislative record, leaving him only a failed stimulus plan and an arguably illegal takeover of General Motors and Chrysler to run on.

In any case, Romney must go on the offensive with regard to health care, especially through his own supporters, who must methodically point out the differences in the two plans. In other words, Romney needs, not to damn his own plan, but to continue to aggressively pursue Obama on his, keeping on with his pledge to repeal ObamaCare by executive order on his first day in the White House. He’ll likely win moderate votes — and even those of some wavering liberal Democrats — with this strategy.

In the face of what Obama’s advisors must understand as the difficulties of the president’s running on his record, they have scrambled to reposition their candidate as the “energy president.” They’ve stuffed his teleprompter with lies about the state of the nation’s energy reserves and the president’s contributions to “increased drilling” for oil, while ignoring or trying to suppress or misrepresent these facts: that the administration has been cited for contempt of court for not reopening drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, that he’s shut down the Keystone XL pipeline despite the fact that every one of the administration’s environmental issues has been addressed and corrected, and that his advisors and their policies have been instrumental in causing the dramatic rise in gas prices at the pump that Americans feel directly.

Romney’s weakness in this area is his seeming agreement with the idea that we’re at risk from global warming, despite the fact that it is clear by now that the “science” behind this issue is corrupt and incorrect. Romney must reverse his stance on this issue, and the best way he can do that is to attack Obama’s unwillingness to upset his radical environmentalist base by pursuing an energy policy that was even close to sanity. This will be an issue on which Romney can pound Obama relentlessly.

In the wake of the Obama-Medvedev exchange caught on a live mike in which Obama explained that after his “last election” he’d be in a position to work with “Vladimir” [Putin] on the issue of nuclear weapons, Romney needs to hammer home an explanation of what that means, and he needs to provide historical background to buttress his assertions. The American people need to hear from Romney a coherent review of how president Obama sold out our European and Eastern European allies, especially Poland and the Czech Republic, by shutting down a missile defense system already in development and thereby weakening them against potential Iranian missile strikes. Romney needs to make it clear that the upshot of the exchange is that Obama is effectively promising to ally the U.S. with the Russian-Iranian axis in weakening democracies against possible missile attacks by our sworn enemies while at the same time diminishing our own nuclear arsenal.

The Obama administration’s economic policies, particularly its “strategy” of recklessly printing (and thus devaluing) U.S. currency and buying billions in U.S. debt as part of its Quantitative Easing policies, have helped drive up the price of food and energy dramatically over the past two years. In order to mask the inflation virtually all Americans know is occurring, food and energy have been removed from the federal government’s inflation index. Unemployment is still above eight percent, and the president’s advisors concede it will probably stay there throughout 2012. Further, the U6 unemployment rate, which counts not only those seeking full-time employment but also those ”marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons” is over 14 percent, and black unemployment increased to 14.1 percent in February. The economic disaster we’re flirting with is another point Romney must drive home, and it’s one that every American will respond to.

In the wake of Obama’s appointment of a supremely unqualified Hispanic woman to the Supreme Court in order to further shift the demographic and political balance of the court, it is of paramount importance that Romney make it clear that during his administration it’s likely that several Supreme Court justices will be retiring and that when that happens he will nominate strong conservatives to replace them.

As important as they seem to be at this time because his Republican opponents are attacking him relentlessly on his flip-flops, the key is that Romney’s shifting positions on issues such as health care are not likely to define the campaign. As we’ve noted, ObamaCare, if it’s repealed by the U.S. Supreme Court, will become more of an albatross around the neck of the Obama campaign than something detrimental to Romney. Obama is not likely to attack Romney for his foray into government-controlled healthcare legislation in Massachusetts, especially in the face of the potentially fatal wound that a Supreme Court healthcare rebuke might already have caused.

Romney needs to get the party message out, but it is just as important that he start selling himself, his strengths. Attacking Obama with negative ads as he has done seven to one against the other GOP candidates will not be enough. Romney is reviled by many strict conservatives because his past positions have not been conservative. He needs this base, and in order to solidify it he must show that he will fight strongly for conservative positions.

Greg Lewis Ph.D. is the author of The Politics of Anger, which systematically lays out the communist/socialist foundations of the liberal political agenda by examining the important writings of leftist thinkers of the past 75 years.

Lewis also co-authored "End Your Addiction Now : The Proven Nutritional Supplement Program That Can Set You Free."



Commenting System Change: From Echo To Disqus

By Susan Duclos

Quick note that Wake up America has changed from the Echo Live commenting system to Disqus. As per Disqus the importing of older comments could take up to 24 hours. This should not affect any comments made at this time.


Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Transcript and Audio- Supreme Court Hears Obamcare: Day Two Arguments

By Susan Duclos

Today's topic in the Supreme Court over Obamacare was the individual mandate and whether or not Congress exceeded it's bounds and if it is constitutional.

The Audio is HERE and the 131 page transcript, via The Hill is embedded below and underneath that is some linkage to analysis from people more versed in law than myself and some of the headlines from the MSM.

327 Scotus Transcript

According to CNN's legal correspondent Jeffrey Toobin, "This was a train wreck for the Obama administration. This law looks like it's going to be struck down.All of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong."

"The only conservative justice who looked like he might uphold the law was Chief Justice Roberts who asked hard questions of both sides, all four liberal justices tried as hard as they could to make the arguments in favor of the law, but they were -- they did not meet with their success with their colleagues."

Video below:

ScotusBlog gives an argument recap of Day Two.

Business Insider headlines with "People Are Saying That Obama's Healthcare Law Got Massacred At The Supreme Court Today."

Wall Street Journal headlines with "Conservative Justices Challenge Government Over Health Law."

New York Times headlines with "Hard Questions From Justices Over Insurance Mandate."

The Politico headlines with "Mandate could be in big trouble after Supreme Court arguments."

LA Times headlines with "Skeptical Kennedy signals trouble for Obama's healthcare law."


Monday, March 26, 2012

Study: Obamacare Medical Device Tax Will Cost 39,000 Jobs And $2 Billion Personal Income

By Susan Duclos

A new study has been released prepared for the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed)by Battelle Technology Partnership Practice, the study finds that a tax associated with Obamacare, scheduled to begin in 2013, on medical device manufacturers, will cause a loss of jobs for tens of thousands of workers, cost $2 billion in personal income for U.S. workers and more than $8 billion in national economic output.

As one of the 21 different tax increases associated with the Affordable Care act aka Obamcare which is is being challenged on constitutionality issues in the Supreme Court, (arguments started today), there is a tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Tax hike of $20 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

The study shows the advanced medical technology industry is responsible for generating:

• Almost 1.9 million U.S. jobs; nearly 519,000 are industry jobs;
• More than $113 billion in personal income for U.S. workers; and
• Nearly $382 billion in national economic

In 2010, the industry generated export revenues in excess of $40 billion and a positive balance of trade of more than $3 billion.

The study estimates that an economic event resulting in a $3 billion decline in the industry’s direct output (such as the impending medical device tax) would cause the loss of:

• Nearly 39,000 U.S. jobs;
• More than $2 billion in personal income for U.S. workers; and
• More than $8 billion in national economic output.

A copy of the study can be found HERE.

According to the Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA), the initial estimates of $20 billion have already ballooned to $30.5 billion. While the tax is not to be implemented until 2013, conveniently set after the November 2012 presidential election as are many of the 21 tax increases written into the Obamacare law, the effects are already being felt across the country.

Statement from the MDMA below:

While the 2.3% medical device tax isn’t scheduled for implementation until 2013, its impact is already being felt across the country on the two year anniversary of it being signed into law as a part of the Affordable Care Act. MDMA, the leading voice in opposing the device tax, reiterated its commitment to a full repeal, and noted the growing coalition working to do so.

“MDMA said from the beginning that the device tax would hamper job creation and patient care, and unfortunately we are already seeing this play out as companies plan for what is really a tax on innovation,” said Mark Leahey, President and CEO of MDMA. “As the voice of small and innovative medical technology entrepreneurs, we know of many companies who will be paying more in taxes than they earn in profits starting in 2013.”

Organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the National Venture Capital Association and others have joined MDMA’s efforts to push for repeal. Leahey noted that the bipartisan support to repeal the medical device tax in Congress is recognition of how important it is for the United States to retain our leadership position in this dynamic industry.

“MDMA and our members remain committed to repealing this onerous provision of health care reform,” Leahey added. “This issue presents a clear opportunity for elected officials to support innovation and empower America’s entrepreneurs to improve patient care and create great jobs.”

In February 2012, a letter was signed by 70 Congressmen pushing for a House vote to repeal the medical device tax. The bill was sponsored by Congressman Erik Paulsen (MN) currently has strong bipartisan support, with 228 cosponsors.

There is momentum in the Republican controlled House for the repeal of this tax but the Democratically controlled Senate is dragging it's heels and has been referred to the Senate's Finance Committee.


Obama On Open Mic, To Russians: 'This Is My Last Election. After My Election I Have More Flexibility.'

By Susan Duclos

Turner's full letter below the original post.

ABC News' Jake Tapper reports that Barack Obama has yet again been caught on an open microphone, this time begging Russian President Dmitri Medvedev for some "space" on missile defense because he would have more flexibility after the November presidential election.

The exchange:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

Ed Morrissey reminds readers this is not the first time Obama has been embarrassed or embarrassed America by having his comments caught on an open microphone, then goes on to ask a very valid question:

Obama won’t share these plans with the American people. However, he’ll share them with the Russians, and ask for their help in influencing the election. That should tell American voters all they need to know about this President.

Or perhaps not. What other nations has Obama asked for “space” on American foreign and national-security policy so that he can win a second term? And what American interests is Obama willing to trade for that “space”?

More via The Politico:

White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said in a statement that “the United States is committed to implementing our missile defense system, which we’ve repeatedly said is not aimed at Russia."


video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

This brings up the obvious question of "Flexibility to do what exactly?"

That is a question being asked by Rep. Michael R. Turner (R., Ohio), chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, according to The Washington Free Beacon:

“Congress has made exquisitely clear to your administration and to other nations that it will block all attempts to weaken U.S. missile defense,” Turner stated in the letter. “As the chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee, which authorizes U.S. missile defense and nuclear weapons policy, I want to make perfectly clear that my colleagues and I will not allow any attempts to trade missile defense of the United States to Russia or any other country.”

Turner noted that during the December 2010 ratification debate over the New START arms treaty with Russia that the president made specific promises that Russia’s opposition to U.S. missile defenses would not impact U.S. plans to deploy both short- and medium-range missile defenses in Europe and elsewhere.

Additionally, the president promised to make both “qualitative and quantitative improvements in its missile defenses,” Turner said.

“You have already walked away from detailed promises to modernize the U.S. nuclear deterrent; are you now planning to walk away from your promises regarding U.S. missile defense as well?” Turner asked.

Amid concerns that the administration planned to share highly classified missile defense secrets with Russia in an effort to assuage Moscow’s fears that U.S. defenses will target its missiles, the defense authorization bill signed into law by the president contains a provision that limits the president’s ability to share classified data with Russia.

“Congress took this step because it was clear based on official testimony and administration comments in the press that classified information about U.S. missile defenses, including hit-to-kill technology and velocity at burnout information, may be on the table as negotiating leverage for your reset with Russia,” Turner said, noting that the president said he may treat the limit as nonbinding when he signed the defense bill into law.

The comments in Seoul, in addition to the signing statement, “suggests that you and your administration have plans for U.S. missile defenses that you believe will not stand up to electoral scrutiny,” Turner said.

Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl weighs in and criticizes Obama for promising concessions on missile defense.

In a statement, Kyl said that the president canceled plans for anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and Czech Republic and supported langauge in the New START arms treaty that links missile defense to nuclear reductions.

“We know the administration is sharing information with Russia, including plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe,” Kyl said. “We know the president has significantly reduced funding and curtailed development of the U.S. national missile defense system, undermining our ability to effectively intercept long-range ballistic missiles. And we know the president has doubled-down on efforts to reduce our nuclear arsenal while failing to honor his promises to modernize the aging nuclear weapons complex.”

However, Kyl said what is unknown is what Obama has planned for after the election after gaining the reported “flexibility” in dealing with Moscow.

“Perhaps the Russians, in whom President Obama recently confided, could shed some light on his missile defense plans for the American people who otherwise have been left in the dark by this president,” Kyl said.

Professor William A. Jaconson asks "Why does Obama feel the President of Russia is entitled to know more about Obama’s plans than the American public?"

Many American voters would like to know the answer to that question.

Turner's full letter below- Press release HERE and PDF of letter HERE.

Dear Mr. President,

I request your urgent explanation of your comments to President Medvedev in Seoul this morning.

During the New START treaty ratification process, you made specific promises that Russian concerns about missile defense will not be allowed to affect U.S. missile defense deployment plans. You further committed that the United States will make both qualitative and quantitative improvements in its missile defenses. You have already walked away from detailed promises to modernize the U.S. nuclear deterrent; are you now planning to walk away from your promises regarding U.S. missile defense as well?

As you know, in the FY12 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress enacted, and you signed into law, a provision constraining your ability to share classified U.S. missile defense information with the Russian Federation. Congress took this step because it was clear based on official testimony and Administration comments in the press that classified information about U.S. missile defenses, including hit-to-kill technology and velocity at burnout information, may be on the table as negotiating leverage for your reset with Russia. Despite signing the FY12 defense authorization legislation into law, you then issued a signing statement signaling that you may treat that provision protecting U.S. missile defense information as non-binding. This morning’s comments, on top of that action, suggests that you and your administration have plans for U.S. missile defenses that you believe will not stand up to electoral scrutiny.

Congress has made exquisitely clear to your Administration and to other nations that it will block all attempts to weaken U.S. missile defenses. As the Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which authorizes U.S. missile defense and nuclear weapons policy, I want to make perfectly clear that my colleagues and I will not allow any attempts to trade missile defense of the United States to Russia or any other country.


Michael R. Turner

Chairman, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces


As The Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Obamacare, Polling Still Shows It Is Unpopular

By Susan Duclos

As opponents and proponents of the Affordable Care Act, more widely known as Obamacare, line up outside, the Supreme Court starts hearing arguments on Obamacare today and will continue to hear arguments until Wednesday.

The Court will be listening to arguments on four specific issues:

First is the "Anti-Injunction Act of 1867", where the Obama administration will argue that a tax cannot be challenged until someone has actually had to pay it.

This was the issue focused on in day one.

The transcript of oral argument is here. The audio is here.

Second is the "The Individual Mandate" where opponents of the law assert it is unconstitutional because the U.S. government cannot force Americans to buy a specific product.

Third is "Severability" where the Court is being asked to determine whether the individual mandate is severable, meaning if the mandate is struck down, does that automatically strike down the law in it's entirety.

Note- The severability clause was in the Obamacare bill originally and Democrats removed it before passage. This was noted by U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson, who back in February 2011, ruled against the individual mandate stating that because there was no severability clause "the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit<' and therefore the entire law "must be declared void."

In that ruling Vinson noted that a severability clause was included "in an earlier version of the act" and was removed from "the bill that subsequently became law." Vinson continued by noting the removal of the severability clause "can be viewed as strong evidence that Congress recognized the act could not operate as intended without the individual mandate."

Fourth issue the Court will be hearing arguments on is Medicaid Expansion.

There are number of views of what the Court will or will not do, but those are guesses at best and until the final decision is rendered sometime in June or early July, the public will not know if the law will stand or be struck down in it's entirety or whether only certain parts of the law will be nullified as unconstitutional.

(Scotus Blog has provided a health care resource page, including briefs and documents, argument previews and other archived coverage, found HERE.)

Since Obamacare's passage two years ago, public polling before it was passed and up until the latest polls published today, have shown the law, on the whole, is widely unpopular with majorities (72 percent) believing the individual mandate part of the law is unconstitutional. That belief crosses party and among those that think the healthcare law was a good thing, 54 percent believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Half of likely voters want the Supreme Court to overturn President Obama’s healthcare law, according to The Hill’s latest poll.

A majority of both men and women want the law voided. By a 52-percent-to-39-percent margin women are more opposed to it than men, who oppose it 48 percent to 45 percent, a difference that matches the poll’s 3-point margin of error.

Gallup and The Hill are not the only two that has found this pattern in polling as the new Reason-Rupe poll also shows 62 percent of Americans believe it is unconstitutional for Congress to mandate the purchase of health insurance, while 30 percent think requiring health insurance is constitutional.

Legal experts have suggested that if Congress has the power to require individuals to buy health care insurance, it may also mandate that Americans buy broccoli. The Reason-Rupe poll finds 87 percent of Americans believe Congress does not have the power to require the purchase of broccoli, while 8 percent say Congress can force you to buy vegetables.

Reason-Rupe finds 54 percent of Americans think the health care law will result in the rationing of health care services. Half of Americans have an unfavorable view of the health care law, while 32 percent have a favorable view of it. Similarly, 49 percent say the law should be repealed and 36 percent would let it stand.

When it comes to addressing their health care needs, just 23 percent of Americans trust the government. That’s less than half of the 50 percent who say they trust health insurance companies and considerably lower than the 84 percent who trust their doctors.

Two years later, public perception has not changed, yet Obama officials claim that "eventually" Obamacare will become widely popular, which is the same argument that Democrats and Barack Obama made when they passed the bill two years ago against the opposition of the majority of Americans and with absolutely no support from Republicans who, at that time, did not control the House of Representatives, which allowed Nancy Pelosi to jam the bill through, Harry Reid to pass it in the Senate and Obama to sign it into law.

The Supreme Court Court will release audio files and written transcripts shortly after the arguments end each day, which will be available on the Court's web site.

C-SPAN will be broadcasting those tapes on television and through its web site. You can access its page dedicated to the ACA arguments HERE.

As an amusing side show and in an attempt to change the perception of the term "Obamacare", Democrats and Obama's reelection team now claim that they are in favor of the term Obamacare, as evidenced by an email sent out by Stephanie Cutter, deputy campaign manager for Obama for America, where she stated "They even assigned the law a moniker that they intended to be a dirty word: Obamacare. Well, we just so happen to love the name. Thanks, guys."

This is a complete turnaround from the last two years where Democrats have referred to the term as "disparaging" in an attempt to ban the use of the word on the floor of the House as well as a failed attempt to stop Republicans from using the term Obamacare in their mass mailings.