A dynamic alert and dialogue on preserving the U.S.A. Constitutional Republic form of limited government, free enterprise systems and responsible individual self-rule, as in... We the people, for the people, and by the people. A free flow of ideas, comments and opinions about individual challenges and/or opportunities and their solutions - congruent with the Judeo-Christian core values on which the U.S.A. was created, developed and formed.
If health care gets tossed, Limbaugh doesn't expect pretty picture
If the U.S. Supreme Court tosses out Obamacare, radio giant Rush Limbaugh predicts President Obama will blame Republican justices, whose homes might become the target of political protest.
“Obama’s gonna make tracks for the first microphone and camera and he’s going to say something like this,” Limbaugh said this afternoon.
“‘For 60 to 75 years, we have been struggling to achieve fairness and justice for all people in this country, not just the privileged few. We’ve recognized that the way health care has existed in this country is emblematic of the injustice and the discrimination that has defined this country since its beginning. And look what happened. Republican judges just took away your health care. Republican judges just decided you were about to get too big a piece of the pie. Republican judges determined that you’re not important enough to have health care.’ And then he’ll throw in, ‘We’ve seen similar struggles since the days of Jim Crow’ or throw in some identifier, throw in some code word. And then he’ll relate the loss of health care to civil-rights battles that have occurred. And he’ll do this in his best professorial voice. And he in the process will be lighting another fuse.”
Once Obama finishes his assault on the GOP-appointed members of the bench, he says leftist “sycophants will hit the trail and we will hear slogans like ‘We shall overcome the court.’
“Then his buddies at the Daily Beast will start writing columns that the judges who voted to overturn it need to be impeached. Where they live will be discovered and publicized. And just as the Democrats sent Occupy people and union people up to the homes of the executives at AIG, so too might they do this to various judges, justices and so forth.
While Limbaugh said every event may not occur, he added. “I guarantee you there will be, with all the rest of this, a defiance [of] ‘Why do we have to listen to them anyway? … Why? They keep their health care. They didn’t get rid of their own, but they just got rid of yours,’ and it’s off to the races for the 2012 presidential election. That’s what’s going to happen.”
Yesterday, Limbaugh said President Obama was threatening Supreme Court justices with his comments about his signature health-care law.
Obama had said: “I think the American people understand and I think the justices should understand that, in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually get health care.”
“Obama’s put a bounty out on the Supreme Court, figuratively speaking, since bounties are in the news lately. There’s no question,” said Limbaugh. “This is a message to the conservative justices: Anthony Kennedy, look what you will be taking away if you strike down my law. Look at the people you will be hurting if you strike down my law.”
Even if media won't cover it, sheriff plans to spread word of eligibility scandal
“Is CBS here? ABC?” asked Brian Reilly of Arizona’s Surprise Tea Party. “How about ‘conservative’ Fox, are they here? They’re nowhere to be seen.”
Reilly was referring to the distinct lack of press at a press conference held over the weekend – and opened to the public – on investigative findings suggesting Barack Obama presented a forged birth certificate to the nation as “proof” of his eligibility to be president.
“The reason we’re here,” Reilly continued, “is because the media is not covering this particular topic.”
As WND reported, Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse announced at an earlier press conference that there is probable cause indicating the documents released by the White House last April purported to be Obama’s original, long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration card are actually forgeries.
But with the mainstream media’s refusal to give due attention to the investigation’s findings, Reilly, Arpaio and others involved with the Cold Case Posse met again at the Church on the Green in Surprise, Ariz., on March 31 to begin spreading the news by “word of mouth.”
Most of the event’s information was already presented in earlier press conferences, but now Arpaio is working to get the news out, without or without the media’s help.
“I’m just doing what I took an oath of office to do,” Arpaio told the crowd assembled at the church. “The media won’t print it.”
byDrew Zahn Email | ArchiveDrew Zahn is a former pastor who cut his editing teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today's professional journal for church leaders. He is the editor of seven books, including Movie-Based Illustrations for Preaching & Teaching, which sparked his ongoing love affair with film and his weekly WND column, "Popcorn and a (world)view."More
Chelsea Schilling is a commentary editor and staff writer for WND, an editor of Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, and a proud homeschooling mother of two. Schilling joined the Army at age 17, receiving the rare designation of expert marksman three times. In addition to WND, Schilling has worked as a news producer at USA Radio Network and as a news reporter for the Sacramento Union.
While many U.S. mainstream media outlets spike news about the Obama eligibility investigation, Russia’s government radio is keeping the world abreast of the scandal that has caused “the biggest censorship and blackout in the history of journalism.”
The Voice of Russia – successor of Radio Moscow, the official station of the Soviet Union – published an exclusive interview with Sheriff Joe Arpaio March 26 titled, “Obama’s birth certificate may be forgery.” As WND reported, Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse announced there is probable cause indicating the documents released by the White House last April purported to be Obama’s original, long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration card are actually forgeries.
“Wherever I go, people commend me for doing this,” Arpaio told The Voice of Russia. “So, naturally this has been probably the biggest censorship and blackout in the history of journalism when no one from the national level will cover the story.”
He continued, “You know, when I do something, whether it is [inaudible] pink underwear or chain gangs, what I feed to inmates, that goes national. I’ve been on 4,000 international profiles, international and national, and yet this has been has been blacked out when I’m investigating this situation.”
WND recently reported Russian news website Pravda published an accusation that the American media is “tame,” afraid to publish news and is “deliberately hiding the evidence published on the internet about [President Obama's] defrauding of the American public and the deliberate evisceration of the Constitution of the United States.”
However, in the recent The Voice of Russia interview, the Russian host argued that the Obama eligibility issue has been covered by “hundreds” of U.S. news outlets for years – after both Donald Trump and Arpaio brought up the question.
“Well, I wish you would tell me who they are. I’m sure it’s not national. CBS, ABC, cable?” Arpaio asked. “Just show me who has been covering it. They haven’t been covering. I’m not going to get into inside sources that say that they don’t want to cover it, that’s another issue when we are talking about the media. But where is all the news? You are calling me, you are dealing with Russia, so I have to talk to Russia to get this story out.”
Arpaio explained that he is on cable news outlets regularly to talk about other issues, but producers are not calling him to ask questions about the Cold Case Posse investigation.
He noted that major media outlets showed up to his March 1 press conference merely to scoff at his efforts to hold Obama accountable.
“They showed up to insult me and not look at the facts of the evidence that we put on the screen,” he said. “They didn’t question the evidence, which is interesting. They wanted to question what my motives were.”
Arpaio refuted allegations that the Cold Case Posse investigation has anything to do with his own efforts to be re-elected.
“I’ve been elected and re-elected five times,” he said. “I sure don’t need this to get elected this year, believe me. I can get elected on pink underwear that I make the inmates wear. I sure don’t need this issue. I’m doing something that I know might be rather controversial. But when people came to me and asked to look into it, why not give it to my volunteer posse? So, I did. And I told them I want you to clear the president on this birth certificate, but they’re coming up with evidence that’s not clearing the president. That’s the way it is in law enforcement.”
Arpaio explained that any layperson could conclude that the birth certificate Obama presented online is a forgery.
“Well, we’ve done our research,” he said. “I think any amateur could look at what we presented and come to the theory that it is not the true birth certificate.”
Arpaio added, “You know, I don’t run Hawaii, so I presume that we will be writing to Hawaii. And you know, from Day 1 all I said – to clear the air, let’s look at the microfilm in Hawaii, if the president was born in that hospital, look at the microfilm and prove it, that’s all. We have two other twins that were born the day after and the day before. The microfilm shows that they were born, so let’s see the microfilm – forget the birth certificate, if that’s an argument. Show the microfilm, and that clears the air. Where is the microfilm?”
President caught on mic asking Moscow for 'space' until 2nd term.
TEL AVIV – What specifically was President Obama referring to when he told Russian President Dmitri Medvedev he would have “more flexibility” after the November election to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense?
In remarks caught on mic and later broadcast around the world, Obama asked Medvedev to tell incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin to give him more “space,” indicating missile issues can be resolved during a second term in office.
Obama made the remarks in a bilateral meeting at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul.
Stated Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space.”
Medvedev replied: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you. …”
Obama then stated: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”
Last year, Obama committed to reducing stocks of U.S. weapons-grade plutonium and signed an agreement that will lower the country’s deployed nuclear arsenals.
Obama’s “science czar,” John Holdren, long petitioned for the moves in a magazine whose personnel were used for the benefit of Soviet propaganda in an attempt to disarm America, according to a former top intelligence official during the Soviet era.
The magazine’s founders were accused of providing vital nuclear secrets that helped the Soviets develop an atomic bomb.
The magazine, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, has been urging the U.S. to surrender its nuclear arsenal to international control.
In April 2010, the U.S. and Russia signed a deal reducing stocks of weapons-grade plutonium, officials in both nations said at the time.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signed a non-binding protocol to a 2000 agreement on eliminating excess weapons-grade plutonium from defense programs.
U.S. officials have said each country is to dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium by burning it in reactors.
One week earlier, Medvedev and Obama signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, committing them to reducing their deployed nuclear arsenals.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, with Holdren on the board of directors from 1984 until recently, has long petitioned for the U.S. to reduce its nuclear stockpiles. According to Pavel Sudoplatov, a former major-general in Soviet intelligence, this kind of work by the magazine editors was for the benefit of the Soviet Union.
Holdren is assistant to the president for science and technology, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and co-chairman of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists began publishing regularly in 1945, when it was founded by former physicists from the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb.
Two of the magazine’s founding sponsors, Leo Szilard and Robert Oppenheimer, were accused of passing information from the Manhattan Project to the Soviets. Both were also key initiators of the Manhattan Project.
In 1994, Sudoplatov, a former major-general in Soviet intelligence, identified Szilard and Oppenheimer as key sources of crucial atomic information to the Soviet Union.
“The most vital information for developing the first Soviet atomic bomb came from scientists engaged in the Manhattan Project to build the American atomic bomb – Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard,” wrote Sudoplatov.
Sudoplatov wrote the Soviet Union “received reports on the progress of the Manhattan Project from Oppenheimer and his friends in oral form, through comments and asides, and from documents transferred through clandestine methods with their full knowledge that the information they were sharing would be passed on.”
Oppenheimer was accused in Senate hearings of bringing communists into the Manhattan Project. He brought his brother Frank and three former graduate students into the project, all of whom, according to Senate hearings, were well known to him to be “members of the Communist Party or closely associated with activities of the Communist Party.”
Oppenheimer admitted he knew by August 1943 that two of the scientists working under him were Communist Party members. Three of five scientists under Oppenheimer’s direct supervision were accused of leaking secret information about the atomic bomb to the Soviets.
On Oct. 25, 1945, Oppenheimer met with President Truman at the White House, urging him to surrender the U.S. nuclear monopoly to international control. Truman was outraged, reportedly telling Secretary of State Dean Acheson, “I don’t want to see that son-of-a-b*tch in this office ever again.”
Magazine used for ‘Soviet propaganda’
Oppenheimer and Szilard were stripped of their work in the Manhattan Project, but they continued to use the bulletin to petition for the U.S. to surrender its nuclear arsenal to international control.
“[Soviet politician and security chief Lavrentiy] Beria said we should think how to use Oppenheimer, Szilard and others around them in the peace campaign against nuclear armament. Disarmament and the inability to impose nuclear blackmail would deprive the United States of its advantage,” wrote Sudoplatov.
Sudoplatov said his spymasters knew the lobby efforts of the bulletin editors would be a “crucial factor in establishing the new world order after the war, and we took advantage of this.”
Another bulletin founding sponsor, Edward U. Condon, was mentioned by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover in a May 1947 letter as having contact with an alleged spy who had passed information to the Soviets from 1941 to 1944.
Holdren worked alongside communist sympathizers
When Holdren started work on the bulletin in 1984, communist and socialist sympathizers still occupied the magazine’s masthead.
TheNew Zeal blog notes the bulletin’s board of directors in 1984 included:
Board chairman Aaron Adler, who also served on the board of the Chicago Center for U.S./USSR Relations and Exchanges, alongside Larry McGurty of the Communist Party USA.Adler was also a member of what New Zeal labels a Communist Party front, the Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights. He was also involved in a committee to celebrate the 100th birthday of Communist Party member Paul Robeson.
Bernard Weissbourd, a former Manhattan Project scientist who later served on the transition oversight committee for incoming Chicago Mayor Harold Washington, who was active in Communist Party fronts. Weissbourds’ son, Robert M. Weissbourd, later served as chairman of the Obama for America Campaign Urban and Metropolitan Policy Committee and on the Obama Transition Housing and Urban Development Agency Review Team in 2008.
Ruth Adams, bulletin editor, who served in the 1960s on the Advisory Committee of the Hyde Park Community Peace Center. Other center members included lifelong communist-front activist Robert Havighurst, communist activist and radical Trotskyist Sydney Lens and Quentin Young, an avowed communist who has advised Obama on health care.
Holdren in Cold War
WND first reported Holdren visited the Soviet Union during the Cold War as vice chairman of a group whose founder was accused of providing vital nuclear information that helped the Soviets build an atom bomb.
The original leaders of the group, the Federation of American Scientists, also served on the board of the bulletin magazine.
Just after President Reagan’s March 1983 “Star Wars” speech in which he proposed a missile-defense shield to protect the U.S., a group of Soviet academicians sent a letter to the U.S. scientific community asking about the feasibility of such a shield.
The only group that responded directly to the Soviet scientists was the Federation of American Scientists, or FAS, leading to an invitation to visit from Evgeny Velikov, director of the Soviet Kurchatov Institute of Science.
Physicist David W. Hafemeister relates in his book, “Physics and Nuclear Arms Today,” how he was part of the FAS delegation to the USSR along with Holdren, who at the time was a professor at the University of California at Berkeley.
The FAS is a non-profit organization formed in 1945 by scientists from the Manhattan Project. The FAS has long petitioned for nuclear disarmament.
Szilard was a principal founder of the FAS. Founders of the FAS also were board members of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.
Along with Szilard and Oppenheimer, WND found other FAS founders that served on the bulletin’s board, including nuclear physicists Eugene Rabinowitch, Hans Bethe and V. F. Weisskopf
Surrender to planetary regime
Holdren, meanwhile, has been a longtime climate-change alarmist who has advocated ideas such as enforcing limits to world population growth.
Holdren’s name was in the emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K., which show that some climate researchers declined to share their data with fellow scientists, conspired to rig data and sought to keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.
FrontPageMag.com noted Holdren has endorsed “surrender of sovereignty” to “a comprehensive Planetary Regime” that would control all of the world’s resources; direct global redistribution of wealth; oversee the “de-development” of the West; control a world army and taxation regime; and enforce world population limits.
Holdren collaborated with conspiracy theorist Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb,” in which it was proclaimed: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.”
WND previously reported Holdren also predicted 1 billion people will die in “carbon-dioxide-induced famines” in a coming new ice age by 2020.
Holdren based his prediction on a theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe causing global cooling, with a consequent reduction in agricultural production resulting in widespread disaster.
But Holdren also argued “global warming” might cancel global cooling. In their 1970s textbook “Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Environment,” last revised in 1977, Holdren and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich argued on page 687 that “a man-made warming trend might cancel out a natural cooling trend.”
Last Wednesday in the White House briefing room, the administration’s press secretary, Jay Carney, opened on a somber note, citing the deaths of Marie Colvin and Anthony Shadid, two reporters who had died “in order to bring truth” while reporting in Syria.
Randy Sager/ABC
Jake Tapper of ABC News questioned the Obama administration's efforts to prosecute officials.
Timothy Jacobsen/Associated Press
Thomas A. Drake, a former employee of the National Security Agency, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act last year.
Jake Tapper, the White House correspondent for ABC News, pointed out that the administration had lauded brave reporting in distant lands more than once and then asked, “How does that square with the fact that this administration has been so aggressively trying to stop aggressive journalism in the United States by using the Espionage Act to take whistle-blowers to court?”
He then suggested that the administration seemed to believe that “the truth should come out abroad; it shouldn’t come out here.”
Fair point. The Obama administration, which promised during its transition to power that it would enhance “whistle-blower laws to protect federal workers,” has been more prone than any administration in history in trying to silence and prosecute federal workers.
The Espionage Act, enacted back in 1917 to punish those who gave aid to our enemies, was used three times in all the prior administrations to bring cases against government officials accused of providing classified information to the media. It has been used six times since the current president took office.
Setting aside the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst who is accused of stealing thousands of secret documents, the majority of the recent prosecutions seem to have everything to do with administrative secrecy and very little to do with national security.
In case after case, the Espionage Act has been deployed as a kind of ad hoc Official Secrets Act, which is not a law that has ever found traction in America, a place where the people’s right to know is viewed as superseding the government’s right to hide its business.
In the most recent case, John Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. officer who became a Democratic staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was charged under the Espionage Act with leaking information to journalists about other C.I.A. officers, some of whom were involved in the agency’s interrogation program, which included waterboarding.
For those of you keeping score, none of the individuals who engaged in or authorized the waterboarding of terror suspects have been prosecuted, but Mr. Kiriakou is in federal cross hairs, accused of talking to journalists and news organizations, including The New York Times.
Mr. Tapper said that he had not planned on raising the issue, but hearing Mr. Carney echo the praise for reporters who dug deep to bring out the truth elsewhere got his attention.
“I have been following all of these case, and it’s not like they are instances of government employees leaking the location of secret nuclear sites,” Mr. Tapper said. “These are classic whistle-blower cases that dealt with questionable behavior by government officials or its agents acting in the name of protecting America.”
Mr. Carney said in the briefing that he felt it was appropriate “to honor and praise the bravery” of Ms. Colvin and Mr. Shadid, but he did not really engage Mr. Tapper’s broader question, saying he could not go into information about specific cases. He did not respond to an e-mail message seeking comment.
In one of the more remarkable examples of the administration’s aggressive approach, Thomas A. Drake, a former employee of the National Security Agency, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act last year and faced a possible 35 years in prison.
His crime? When his agency was about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a software program bought from the private sector intended to monitor digital data, he spoke with a reporter at The Baltimore Sun. He suggested an internally developed program that cost significantly less would be more effective and not violate privacy in the way the product from the vendor would. (He turned out to be right, by the way.)
Jesselyn Radack, the director for national security and human rights at the Government Accountability Project, was one of the lawyers who represented him.
“The Obama administration has been quite hypocritical about its promises of openness, transparency and accountability,” she said. “All presidents hate leaks, but pursuing whistle-blowers as spies is heavy-handed and beyond the scope of the law.”
Mark Corallo, who served under Attorney General John D. Ashcroft during the Bush administration, told Adam Liptak of The New York Times this month that he was “sort of shocked” by the number of leak prosecutions under President Obama. “We would have gotten hammered for it,” he said.
As Mr. Liptak pointed out, it has become easier to ferret out leakers in a digital age, but just because it can be done doesn’t mean it should be.
These kinds of prosecutions can have ripples well beyond the immediate proceedings. Two reporters in Washington who work on national security issues said that the rulings had created a chilly environment between journalists and people who work at the various government agencies.
During a point in history when our government has been accused of sending prisoners to secret locations where they were said to have been tortured and the C.I.A. is conducting remote-controlled wars in far-flung places, it’s not a good time to treat the people who aid in the publication of critical information as spies.
And it’s worth pointing out that the administration’s emphasis on secrecy comes and goes depending on the news. Reporters were immediately and endlessly briefed on the “secret” operation that successfully found and killed Osama bin Laden. And the drone program in Pakistan and Afghanistan comes to light in a very organized and systematic way every time there is a successful mission.
There is plenty of authorized leaking going on, but this particular boat leaks from the top. Leaks from the decks below, especially ones that might embarrass the administration, have been dealt with very differently.
Elena Kagan served as Barack Obama’s solicitor general during the time that a legal strategy to defend Obamacare was being assembled, and Judicial Watch, which investigates government corruption, now has filed a lawsuit to gain access to records of her role in the Obamacare discussions.
That’s because of the convergence of her appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court and that court’s scheduled review of Obamacare in just a few weeks.
Kagan so far has refused to recuse herself from the case, considered one of the biggest cases ever to confront the court since it would impose a social program requiring every person in the country to purchase government-specified health insurance or face the wrath of Washington in the form of fines and penalties.
E-mails that previously were obtained by the organization suggest Kagan and her staff in the White House “may have participated in discussions pertaining to the legal defense of Obamacare,” Judicial Watch said.
“Other records show then-Solicitor General Kagan commenting excitedly on the passage of Obamacare,” Judicial Watch reported.
But the administration has refused to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests for details regarding just exactly what Kagan did in the development of the Obamacare strategy.
“This is no time for the Obama administration to stonewall and obfuscate,” said Tom Fitton, the chief of Judicial Watch. “We hope the court will force the Obama administration to respond to our request in a manner consistent with federal law.”
He said, “The American people deserve to know how deeply involved Elena Kagan and her top deputies were in shaping the Obama administration’s legal defense of Obamacare. The integrity of the courts requires a full airing of those facts before she participates in ruling on a matter she may have helped prepare for litigation. There is more information at the Justice Department but clearly Eric Holder intends to run out the clock.”
In an earlier FOIA action, Judicial Watch obtained copies of some e-mails that indicated Kagan was cheering the Obamacare developments.
The new legal action, Judicial Watch is seeking “calendars, schedules, phone logs and agenda” for Kagan and several deputies, Neal Katyal, Edwin Kneedler, Malcolm Stewart and Michael Dreeben.
Katyal, Kneedler, Stewart and Dreeben all were deputy solicitors under Kagan.
Judicial Watch said the Obama administration was required by law to respond to the FOIA request by January 25, 2012. But neither have any records been released nor has any explanation been given about why records should be withheld.
“Justice Kagan has said that she was not ‘substantially’ involved in the DOJ discussions regarding Obamacare’s constitutional or litigation issues. The White House, despite repeated inquiries, has refused to confirm to Judicial Watch that Justice Kagan was ‘walled off’ from Obamacare defense discussions while at the DOJ,” Judicial Watch said.
Separately, Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch who now directs Freedom Watch USA, has challenged the Supreme Court to have Kagan removed from the deliberations over Obamacare.
In a motion to the court, Klayman explained the issue of judicial integrity is even more important that the substance of the Obamacare dispute itself.
“The ‘greater’ issue is the integrity of the Supreme Court itself and whether or not it will adhere to and respect centuries old rules of judicial ethics, which require a judge to recuse herself when she has a conflict of interest and when to continue on the case would create even the appearance of partiality,” Klayman said in the motion.
He wrote that in addition to Kagan’s “conflict of interest” because of her work in the White House, apparently including on behalf of Obamacare, she also reportedly advocated for Obamacare in another case.
“This act constitutes not only a conflict of interest, but creates more than the appearance of partiality, for which she must recuse herself or be disqualified by the court,” he wrote.
“If the Supreme Court does not adhere to accepted rules of judicial ethics in this case, and others, it will lose credibility as the ‘People’s Supreme Court,’ and indeed its ultimate decision herein will be forever held illegitimate and tainted by judicial misconduct. This is why the issue of Justice Kagan’s recusal or disqualification is even more important than the underlying issues of this Obamacare case itself. It will have a lasting effect on the integrity of the Supreme Court and how Americans view their court,” he said.
Klayman earlier cited statements in e-mails that reveal “Kagan’s personal bias in favor of the act.”
Among the evidence cited is an e-mail from March 21, 2010, when Kagan, “then senior counselor for access to Justice Laurence Tribe, wrote, ‘I hear they have votes Larry!! Simply amazing . . . ‘ Tribe then responded, ‘So healthcare is basically done! Remarkable.’”
Additionally, on March 16, 2010, there was an e-mail from Kagan to David Barron, asking if he had seen a Wall Street Journal article on the issue.
And Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal told Kagan in a 2009 email, “We just got [Olympia] Snowe on health care.”
Klayman wrote, “Without a neutral, unbiased Supreme Court, there simply is no rule of law and any decision concerning the act will be seen as illegitimate.”
by 
by 
by 
by 