As BlueCollar has argued on several occasions, Obamacare is unconstitutional.

Our Constitution requires that all ‘raising Revenue’ bills shall originate in the House.

Article 1, section 7 is very clear. But Obamacare was a Senate-originated bill.

When the Supreme Court ruled on the O’care individual mandate penalty, it decided the law could only be constitutional if the penalty were a ‘tax’…Congress has that power.

What wasn’t argued as an issue in that hearing, was how this ‘tax’ law was created. If it’s a Senate-created bill, it doesn’t pass the ‘shall originate in the House’ requirement.

Classifying Obamacare, then, as a ‘tax’, set the table to argue against its legality.

Those interested should read George Will’s article – he lays out a basic analysis of the issue, and the plain reason why Article 1, section 7 should be O’care’s downfall.

BlueCollar’s been arguing this for over a year. We’re pleased it will have its day in court.

But, will the Constitution prevail at Thursday’s DC Circuit Court of Appeals hearing?

Democrats said it wasn’t a tax when they argued for O’care’s passage, but their lawyers argued it was a tax at the Supreme Court, to justify the individual mandate’s legality.

It ‘wasn’t a tax’, before it ‘was a tax’…but now isn’t a tax?

One can only speculate how far Democrat logic can be stretched now.

Isn’t ‘Obamanomics’ wonderful?

That’s right – CNS reports the April female labor force was down 340k from March…

…yet the unemployment rate for women dropped, from 6.6% to 6.1%.

Yep…340,000 employable women lost jobs or stopped looking for work in April, yet in some mysterious way, the unemployment rate for women dropped 0.5%.

Only in Obama-world can so many women losing their job drive a jobless rate down. Only the tortured logic of Obama’s BLS could try to make this claim a reality.

‘Cuz, based on that scenario, to get the all-important ‘woman’s vote’ in the upcoming election, all Democrats need do is drive the female jobless rate down to 0%…

…by driving 4.1 million more women out of the labor force.

(Problem is, we wouldn’t put it past them to do it.)

“You guys are all just trying to bring Barack Obama down.”

Looking beyond the snarky tone of reader Anita K’s comment, we suggest she pictures her Mom in Benghazi as an American private contractor, on the evening of 9-11-2012.

Anita, you’re home in Podunk, California, glued to a TV set, as reports of terrorists attacking our American outpost continue…and your Mom may be in that building.

Through the night, reports of fighting continue. But there’s no mention of your president sending assistance to those under attack. Strangely, no one knows where Obama is.

You learn 4 Americans were killed; no military assistance was sent; their lie about a video causing the incident is exposed as a deception; and…TO THIS DAY… the location then, of the one person who could have sent the military in to help, is still unknown.

Days, maybe weeks later, you learn your Mom is okay…maybe wounded…but okay.

But you knew, for the 7-8 hrs it lasted, 30-40 Americans…including your Mom…were in harm’s way, and could have been killed at any time during that overnight terror attack.

And the same guy, Barack Obama, who photo-op’d ad nauseam during a Navy SEAL hit on Usama bin Laden, suddenly grew camera-shy; doesn’t want you to know his location during the Benghazi attack; and won’t answer why he refused to send help?

(And, dare we add, all of this just 6 weeks* before an election?)

Put yourself in the shoes of those Americans being attacked…or in their family’s shoes.

If that doesn’t work…

…picture George W. Bush trying to get away with the same thing while President…

Yeah…Benghazi accountability matters.

It may have happened 19 months ago, but Americans today are serving overseas. You think they won’t care where Obama is, or what he does…during the NEXT attack?

Which means our earlier post understated the number of reasons for accountability.

Thousands of Americans overseas hope next time he acts like a sitting President…

…not a running politician.

(*Updated to correct timing before election)

Despite Hillary’s shrill “What difference, at this point, does it make?”…

…despite Nat’l Security spokesman Vietor’s “Dude, this was 2 years ago”…

…Benghazi failures still matter…and there are 30-40 reasons why.

They’re called ‘SURVIVORS’, Barack. (You know, the ones you’re hiding?)

Because, while much of the media attention focused on the 4 who were killed that night, there were 30-40 more Americans in harm’s way, who were also abandoned by Obama.

Sending in American military may not have helped the first two, who were killed at the beginning of the assault. But Doherty and Woods were killed many hours later.

If Obama had done his job as Commander-in-Chief, they could have been saved.

Failure to order a military response was a death warrant for them, but the media forgets it could have been a death warrant for the 30-40 who did survive as well. And they have a right to know why this president turned his back on them, risking their deaths also.

McCarthy has a definitive article on Obama’s dereliction of duty, spelling it out clearly.

But still, he doesn’t touch on those who should be demanding an account from Obama.

Before, at the start, and during the attack, no one had any idea how long it would last, or how many Americans would die if help wasn’t sent in time.

To imply now, some 19 months later, an accounting is no longer needed, is heretical.

Answering for Doherty and Woods won’t bring them back to life, but…

…there are 30-40 Americans who need to know why they were left to die by Obama.

Only the President could have authorized American military assistance.

It could have been your son or daughter…your mom or dad…in that group.

So, for that matter, every American should be demanding that answer as well.

Oh look! Yet another story of a politician posturing on the immigration issue.

But, before anyone bashes Jeb Bush for “…including members of his own party…” in his remarks about federal government failure to take ‘real steps’ to address immigration challenges, it might be a good idea to look at his actual Facebook comment.

The LA Times seems to be churning mud – Jeb Bush didn’t attack his own party. As usual, the Left-wing media takes any opportunity to create GOP controversy where there’s none…while avoiding the real story on this issue: Democrat intransigence.

It’s obvious that illegal immigration challenges need to be dealt with.

It should also be obvious that those challenges cannot be overcome until Democrats join with Republicans to FIRST ensure America’s borders are secure.

After all, what good is any law if it doesn’t stop the flow of illegals crossing the border?

Just as importantly…what good are any laws if a President refuses to uphold them?

As long as Democrats can keep the issue alive, the Hispanic vote favors them.

Toothless laws, and refusing to uphold effective laws, keeps the issue open.

But you’ll never see the mainstream media make mention of that.