Political hackery is obscene, regardless from which side it comes from.
When RedState says:
In fact, it's more than a little strange to assert that the President broke Congress's law with Congressional approval.
Does that mean that Congressmen can’t break federal law?
the President has the right, in cases of "Rebellion or Ivasion" or "when the public safety may require it" to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Never mind that the Constitution grants this power to Congress, the more important point is that there is no when and, despite appearances there is no break between “Rebellion or Invasion” and “the public safety may require it.” The phrase, in it’s entirety is “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” That is quite a different reading than what RedState is trying to insinuate.
I think that reasonable people can disagree about the proper scope of federal government, but obfuscating the arguments behind walls of misrepresentation of facts shouldn’t be tolerated – regardless of which side of the debate you are on.