Thursday, March 29, 2012

Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare (Affordable Care Act of 2010)

I have long believed a lawyer need not be a Supreme Court Justice.  I think that anyone that can think logically and limit their attention to the constitution alone could successfully serve on the court.  I am a software engineer.  My entire day is spent evaluating variables within the logical constraints of the programming language.  Programming languages can span volumes and volumes of documents and nobody can be expected to fully understand everything about the language (just like obamacare).  However, if the constitution were a programming language, the entirety of his manual would only constitute a pamphlet.   Additionally, unlike a programming language, the constitution is rarely ever changed, and when it is changed, the totality of the change is a mere few paragraphs.  It would be very easy to apply an legislation (variables) through the very few filters of “if” statements and properly interpret whether or not the if is true or not.  Let me now use my engineering skills to interpret the constitutionality of Obamacare:
The Affordable Care Act of 2010 contains within a compulsory mandate requiring one to enter into commerce.  It is believed by this legislation that the power of government to regulate interstate commerce can be extended to anticipated commerce.  The foundation of commerce, whether interstate or otherwise, requires the voluntary engagement of both parties.  If one party is denied the opportunity to enter into that contract through act of government, regardless of the societal impact, the very nature of contracts, in fact the very nature of the power of government, is so substantially altered that Affordable Care Act of 2010 cannot be found to be constitutional.  If this court decides that the barrier to voluntary engagement in commerce is insubstantial enough to disallow government action, than there is no longer any boundary between the federal government and its ability to force compulsory action in voluntary commerce.
In regards to the severability of the individual mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, if the judicial is to determine that the individual mandate is severable from the act as a whole despite the lack of written intent of severability by the legislature, the judicial must then apply unwritten legislative intent to re-write the act in a way that would anticipate the legislative intent for the act without the mandate language; therefore, if portions of the act are stricken, the entirety of the act must be stricken as well.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Obama's All Of The Above Approach Exposes Lies


The high price of gas is horrible.  It affects every aspect of the economy from the price of shipping all products to the affect it has on people’s disposable income.  There is no escaping its affects.  Unemployment is bad, but it is specifically bad for those that are unemployed.  All the myriad of regulations are bad, but you don’t know its affect unless you are directly involved in an aspect of the regulations scope.  Basically, so much of the destruction that has been wreaked on the nation for decades by the left, and accelerated by the Obama administration, has been felt indirectly. 
The left has been successful in their ability to lie about the negative effects of their policies.  For example, they say unemployment is going down, but in order to make that claim, they must decrease the total number of jobs available in the job market through slight of hand maneuvers.  The reality is there are less jobs in the job market than there were 3 years ago.
The fuel price crisis allows everyone the opportunity to see the Obama’s lies unmasked.  As the price continues to rise, more than double the price when he took office, the president is stating that he is taking an “all of the above” approach to energy.  He stands by a pipeline and says he is going to push it through, though he has no ability to do so, meanwhile, the pipeline he can influence is unchanged.  He says we can’t drill our way out of the problem, but says we have more drilling than when he took office.  He says we can’t give 4 billion to oil companies, while he is spending billions on unproven and unwanted “green technologies.   The truth is that it doesn’t matter what he says this time.  At least once a week, everybody gets a reminder that he has either increased the problem, done nothing to help the problem, or whatever he has done has not worked.  Obama cannot run and hide from this issue. This issue does not stand apart from an otherwise stellar presidency.  This issue epitomizes the idealism and foolishness apparent in everything he takes on, from healthcare to foreign policy.  Carter had the misery index, perhaps Obama will have the idealism to realism ratio.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Obama's Policies Enact Plantation Culture for the Entitlement Class

If you simply read the title of this post, you would think that I was making an insensitive comparison between those that are recipients of the many government programs, such as welfare, and the slaves of the south prior to emancipation.  Quite the contrary.  The actual comparison I'm making is to say that those that do not work, but are capable of doing so, for which all of their needs are being provided for through government programs are more like plantation owners. 
In the plantation days, you had a few southern, you guessed it, democrats that had plantations.  They were sprawling estates that dwarfed the relative poverty of those all around them, a kind of 99% to 1% thing of the day.  On these estates, the plantation owners had slaves.  These men and woman were forced to give the fruits of their labor to those that engaged in little to no work, aside from enjoying the fruits of the slave's labors.  With a touch of irony, the non slave owning, but free men of the south went to war and were willing to die for the Democrats cause.  They went to war against, you guessed it, the Republicans from the north that believed in freedom for all men and that the idea of benefiting from another person's labor against that person's will is against democracy. 
Now let's contrast the slavery of old to the slavery of new.  For the sake of argument, we will exclude the inhumane treatment of the slaves of the south and the fact that they were taken from their native lands and simply focus on the use of their labor.  If we define slavery as using one person's labor for the benefit of another person against the will of the person performing the labor, than our current system of taxes and entitlements is governmental slavery.  The harder you work, the more of your labor is taken away and given to people that, while capable of working, are simply content sitting in their living room watching the TV.  And all of the same parties are at play here that were at play 150 years ago.  You have the Democrats defending slavery and Republicans fighting against slavery.  But it isn't the same thing at all you say?  Let's suppose you are self-employed.  You make $100,000.   During the course of that year, as you earned that money, you also earned a debt.   The debt is to the government.  If you do not pay that debt, you will be treated harshly, including jail.  The government for our purposes is simply the middleman between the the taxpaying laborer and the government beneficiary "master".  It didn't profit our nation then, and it doesn't profit us now in its new form.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Obama's 1% Solution To Gas Prices and Energy

Our President is for the poor.  There is no question about it.  I would say he is for maintaining the poor in perpetuity by removing the mechanisms in our society that allow for social movement.  Obama is for the 99%,   He is for maintaining the status of a top 1% by limiting the other 99%'s chance of moving into the 1%.  Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the President's approach to gas prices and energy furthers the effort to maintain the poor as poor.  You see, if our dear leader truly cared about the poor, he would understand that things like gas prices and inflation hurt the poor the most as they have little to no room to absorb the dramatic increases we have seen over the last 3 years.  He would set aside his noble green agenda until the economy bounces back so that real relief can be felt by the poor.  He can do this by aggressively pursuing domestic energy production as well as refinery construction.  The effects would be dramatic and immediate and the constituency that he is associated by the media as representing would be grateful. 
Our President is not at all about improving the lives of the poor.  His policy toward gasoline, as reflected through his actions, in-actions, his words, and those of his Energy Secretary serve as the best example of his hypocrisy.  First of all, as I have already explained, if Obama wanted to help the poor he would make their gasoline and heat and electricity cheaper, but he does not.  So what is his solution.  His solution is to produce vehicles through government motors, such as the volt, for which there are no driving market forces.  These vehicles are very expensive and are out of the reach of most Americans.  The only people that can afford these cars are what most people would classify as the 1%.  You could therefore say that Obama's approach is to provide relief for the top 1% only to our current energy crisis.  The next time you are asked which party supports the 99%, ask what they are trying to do to make gasoline cheaper.