March 06, 2011

Blood for Windmills

Go and Google "Super Spike Friday" and take a quick look at the first few stories about the spike on crude oil prices that hit the market on Friday. You will find that they universally give the unrest in Libya as the primary reason oil closed at its highest level since September of 2008.


Then go and do a Google search on criticism of The One for his lack of leadership in dealing with the crisis in Libya. You will find a lot of criticism from both the left and the right over the fact that the administration has said little and done less to help or support the Libyan people in their struggle to end the rule of the dictator who has held their country in an iron grip for decades. The One and his administration have said little and done less to end the slaughter of Libyan people in the streets.

One last Google search. Do a little reading on the "permitorium" the administration has put in place and the efforts of The One, The EPA, and the Department of the interior to block development of domestic energy resources that don't fit their Green Utopian Vision.

In his State of the Union Address, The One set a national goal of having one million plug-in electric cars on the road by 2015. The first steps toward that goal are the new Chevy Volt being offered by Government Motors and the Nissan Leaf. Sales of both vehicles have been virtually non existent.

I guess part of the reason people aren't buying electric cars is the whole issue of having to plug them in to recharge them. There's a solution for that though, and luckily for all of us, it's being developed by The One's close friend and ally, Jeff Immelt, Chairman and CEO of General Electric. GE is also big into wind power, another key delusion in Green Utopian Vision.

The single biggest obstacle to the realization of The One's Green Utopian Vision is the simple fact that "green energy" in inefficient and expensive to produce. Wind power, solar power, and electric cars are not competitive even with large subsidies so The One has to take a two prong policy approach. First is to use taxpayer subsidies to make "green energy" appear less expensive, and the second is to drive up the cost of carbon based energy to the point where subsidized "green energy" looks competitive.

When this vision was limited to crony capitalism and a concerted effort to block development of domestic energy resources, it was just bad policy that could be argued against and someday even overturned and replaced with better policies. When the implementation of his vision became standing by, barely voting present, while a brutal dictator gunned down people in the streets because it advances his Green Utopian Vision by causing higher oil prices, it became one of the greatest moral failures of leadership in American history.

When The One is voted out of office it will be time for another apology tour. Only this time we will owe an apology to the dead in Libya.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 12:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment


March 03, 2011

Can You Hear Me Now?

The One and his highly political Attorney General have no interest in the case against ObamaCare actually making it to the Supreme Court. Could this be because they fear they might just lose?


Their response to the ruling by a federal judge that the law is unconstitutional was to do keep enacting the law for a couple more weeks then file a motion for "clarification."

I don't think Judge Vinson was amused.

My order of January 31, 2011 (“Order”), granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs (in part); held the “individual mandate” provision of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “Act”) unconstitutional; and declared the remainder of the Act void because it was not severable. The defendants have now filed a motion to “clarify” this ruling (doc. 156) (“Def. Mot.”). During the four-plus weeks since entry of my order, the defendants have seemingly continued to move forward and implement the Act. In their response in opposition to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiffs have asserted that “f the Government was not prepared to comply with the Court’s judgment, the proper and respectful course would have been to seek an immediate stay, not an untimely and unorthodox motion to clarify” (doc. 158 at 2) (“Pl. Resp.”).

The judge further wrote:

So to “clarify” my order and judgment: The individual mandate was declared unconstitutional. Because that “essential” provision was unseverable from the rest of the Act, the entire legislation was void. This declaratory judgment was expected to be treated as the “practical” and “functional equivalent of an injunction” with respect to the parties to the litigation. This expectation was based on the “longstanding presumption” that the defendants themselves identified and agreed to be bound by, which provides that a declaratory judgment against federal officials is a de facto injunction. To the extent that the defendants were unable (or believed that they were unable) to comply, it was expected that they would immediately seek a stay of the ruling, and at that point in time present their arguments for why such a stay is necessary, which is the usual and standard procedure. It was not expected that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to “clarify.”6

Judge Vinson decided that he was not going accept any more dithering on the part of the The administration:

After careful consideration of the factors noted above, and all the arguments set forth in the defendants’ motion to clarify, I find that the motion, construed as a motion for stay, should be GRANTED. However, the stay will be conditioned upon the defendants filing their anticipated appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and seeking an expedited appellate review, either in the Court of Appeals or with the Supreme Court under Rule 11 of that Court.

So for the next seven days ObamaCare is legal again. I would assume that if The One and his Department of Justice are at all competent their appeal is ready to file and when they file it they will request a stay of the judgement pending the appeal. However, I would not be surprised it the seven days passed without them filing anything, and that they would just continue on as if nothing had happened. They have already demonstrated their willingness to disregard the courts when they decide against them. Which lead to another federal judge finding the administration in contempt. 

Seven days. Is that clear enough?

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 07:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment


<< Page 1 of 1 >>
27kb generated in CPU 0.28, elapsed 0.2533 seconds.
31 queries taking 0.0469 seconds, 199 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.