Bush was right in 2000 and Bush did blow it when he subsequently failed to follow his own advice in Afghanistan and Iraq. But Bush's advise is better preventive medicine then any cure for existing involvement – if we don't want to be involved in nation building then we shouldn't use our forces for nation destroying. As a general rule, if the enforcement of law and order is removed in the defeated country then disorder, not a better government, follows and the result will be worse than if we hadn't gone in in the first place.

I believe that those who violate the law (either actively or passively) on moral grounds have the moral obligation to accept the punishment that the law provides for its violators. Very few advocates of active or passive resistance to law seem to publically share this view – they seem to think that their self proclaimed righteousness exempts them from the penalties of the law. I despise that point of view. And I am uncertain where Williams stands on that issue.

I find repugnant the idea that individual members of law enforcement (civil or military) should use their own political judgment to refuse direct orders to enforce civil law over an issue as minor as ObamaCare. I admit that there are some government policies in our past and/or possible in our future in which I, if I were on active law enforcement duty, might refuse to carry out – I'd mention the forced relocation and uncompensated seizure of property of our First Peoples early in our history and native born citizens of Japanese descent during WW-II as historical examples and in the future any similar treatment of cultural, religious, racial, or political sub-populations without individual due process of law.

In a democratic republican system, there must be a clear distinction between laws one disagrees with for personal/political reasons and laws which exceed constitutional limitations. I think that unconstitutional laws fit Williams' thesis but laws that some of us (but not others) find morally repugnant do not. There are many reasonable constitutional arguments supporting ObamaCare and several historical precedents, not the least of which is Medicare. ObamaCare, regardless of any inefficacy and/or undesirability as a law, is neither clearly constitutional nor clearly unconstitutional.

The Constitution in Article I Section 8 provides Congress the power to declare war, establish and fund the military, and establish the codes of military justice and goes no further. Nepolitano must have confused the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution explicitly provides Congress power over military action by the States (Article I Section 10) but fails to explicitly empower Congress that power over the President. There is NO place in the Constitution that "limits the presidential use of war powers to those necessary for an immediate defense of the United States or those exercised pursuant to a valid congressional declaration of war" – that limitation applies ONLY to the States.

Obama will win the pipeline fight when the pipeline gets built where it ought to be built. Obama would have approved a more logical route had one been proposed and would have worked with the proposers on specifying a better route if Congress and party politics gave him only a yes / no option on the original plan. Obama wisely choose no. A better plan will soon be proposed that Obama would have accepted if made initially, and he will a accept it.

Mitchell says "The statists say that the commerce clause (“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”) is a blank check for federal intervention". I am not sure who the statists that Mitchell refers to are but liberals believe that the commerce clause is limited but broader than conservatives believe.

If the Founding Fathers really wanted to prevent Obamacare, they would have said so in Article 1 Section 9. By not doing so, they left the decision as to what Commerce may mean to the lawmaking process and the Court. The Court's interpretation of what Commerce means is reasonably well defined in precedent, going back to the early 1800's and the decisions of the Court under John Marshall. Mitchell should read the sections on the Commerce Clause in Meese et al "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution". http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2012/03/27/why_did_the_founding_fathers_bother_with_a_list_of_enumerated_powers_if_not_to_prevent_obamacare#

There are no valid logical arguments that the unborn are or are not persons – the unborn either are or are not by the definition of person. There are reasons why someone may or may not want to consider an unborn a person, but these do not constitute logical arguments. Among the reasons for believing an unborn is not a person is that society celebrates birthdays, not conception days. Legalized voluntary abortions as practiced in the US are not genocide nor constitute any kind of holocaust.

A holocaust by definition is a great destruction of life, especially by fire. The Holocaust generally refers genocide of Jews and other minorities by the Nazis. Genocide requires, as part of it's definition the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. To use "feminist Holocaust" along side of "Nazi Holocaust" would require proof that abortion is being used in order to eliminate a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. There is no such evidence that that is the motivation for those who support or carry out voluntary abortions.