The Border Fence Argument

The argument that a border fence is useless because illegal aliens will find a way around it is a weak argument. You can use the same argument about not having a firewall on your computer. After all a hacker will just find a way around it. Or not lock the windows and doors on your house because a burglar will just break in anyway. Come on! Anything is better than nothing. There is no perfect solution.

If a border fence or wall (or even the National Guard on the border) makes it hard for the illegal aliens to come across is good. An obstacle is an obstacle. At least the Cubans have to build a raft or some flotation device to get over to America.

Obamacare Rationing Choices

Under Obamacare the question how will health care be rationed (and it will be rationed)? Here's my idea how different groups of people will stand in line to get their health care (from first to last):

• Obama's family, friends and staff
• Biden's family, friends and staff
• The various secretaries (like Secretary of State) etc. and their staff
• Congress and their staff (always remember the powers that be always take care of themselves first.)
• The Supreme Court
• The elite Left (eg Labor Union bosses, movie stars, etc.)
• Women and minorities*
• Young people*
• Middle aged people*
• Old people*
• The terminally ill*
• Fetuses
• Pets (Canada has health care for pets. PETA may lobby to move pets ahead of fetuses or even ahead of the elderly.)

What this could mean is that more elderly people will be running for Congress, so they can move up the line.

If you are a Liberal (er a Progressive) and are part of the * group, you get to move ahead the line. I don't know what political persuasion fetuses or pets are.

Also, the terms "young", "middle age" and "old" will be defined by a gov't created health board.

Enjoy your health care while it lasts!

Empathetic Supreme Court Judges

Imagine this scenario: An umpire for whatever reason (the reason doesn't matter) calls the same baseball player (and only that player) safe on every call no matter if he is safe or not. Like I said the reason does not matter. The baseball player and umpire could be friends, they could be family, the umpire could have been paid off. The reason does not matter. The umpire is not upholding the rules of the game. Even if the player was having a bad day the umpire has to uphold the rules. The rules make the game fair to both sides.

When a Supreme Court Judge makes a ruling he or she has to follow the laws of the Constitution just like the umpire has to follow the rules of a baseball game. Supreme Court judges cannot create their own laws just like the umpire cannot create rules of the game. That's anarchy. A judge has to treat the parties involved impartially and fairly. Justice is blind after all. He cannot and must not take sides.

When Obama talks about emphatic Supreme Court judges what does he mean? Emphatic to who? Women and minorities? Is that fair? Judges should not let their emotions or personal experiences rules them.

When your a district judge being emphatic could be alright. For instance not letting a terrified child be in the same court of law with its attacker. If this case the guardians of the child could represent the child's interest. Even then a district court judge has to stay within the guidelines of the law.