I am preparing a new criminal complaint against Obama and Peter Dreier. The Obama/Dreier complaint (I am hoping) will be much more extensive (versus the Obama/Holder complaint), and will be part criminal complaint and part commentary. As a basis, I hope to argue that Dreier's 1979 article ("The Case for Transitional Reform") that called for an exponential increase in entitlements to collapse the economy, and his subsequent (apparent) collusion with Obama (he was an advisor to Obama on urban affairs) and passage of Obamacare—the largest entitlement increase in U.S. history, is a basis for the charge of treason; in that the goal of collapsing the economy, is no different than an overt attempt to topple the government.
I also hope to comment on Dreier's call for a "public option," (pre-passage of Obamacare), which, really, is the ultimate goal of Obama. And this would include everything else being a “public option,” i.e., driving all capitalistic entities out of business, as one cannot compete with the government; it is ludicrous. It is like a child's lemonade stand trying to compete with a multinational chain of lemonade makers: which is interesting, for, as we have seen in the news, several kids' lemonade stands have been shut down. Can you imagine a Leave it to Beaver episode, where a little girl is selling lemonade so she can buy her dad a present for his birthday, and a police cruiser comes by and shuts her down? This country is becoming crazy. But in the complaint, I want to set up an extended analogy/metaphor, describing a child competing with a larger lemonade stand, in which the larger lemonade stand (run and financed by an adult) regulates, price fixes, inspects, etc. the child’s lemonade stand, showing that the so-called "competition" is rather a stealth tactic to put the child out of business. I also hope to argue against the Obamacare mandate, in which the Obama camp's argument is that because individuals not having insurance, and thus using emergency rooms for all ailments, tend to increase the cost of everyone else's insurance, thus effecting commerce, that this then authorizes the mandate, with the Commerce Clause as the basis thereof. I would like to argue that there is really no behavior, literally, that does not in some way affect pricing, however infinitesimally. For example, say a child goes on a school field trip to a farm, where she comes home with a single carrot seed embedded in the sole of her shoe. This seed falls off in the backyard, where it grows and becomes a carrot. When full grown, the mother places this carrot in a salad. Because she didn't have to buy a carrot that day at the market, the price of carrots are affected in a very small, infinitesimal way, not even calculable, but affecting it just the same. Now remember the argument of the healthcare mandate wasn't how much healthcare cost is increased due to emergency rooms being utilized by those without insurance, but that it simply is increased by this practice. So that a government worker sees this carrot, and “regulates” the carrot, the backyard, its consumption, or a host of other ways.
Now the healthcare mandate is a compulsion to buy something; a "dis"-compulsion, or forbidding of buying a product, could be supported by the same commerce-affecting argument: for example, it is found that individuals who eat more than ten fast food hamburgers a month tend to be obese. Obese people require more medical care, thus driving up healthcare costs. The government then mandates that Americans can buy no more than ten fast food hamburgers per month. In order to insure they comply, each person has to present their ID when purchasing hamburgers, and this information is fed into a database. If the individual attempts to buy an eleventh hamburger in one month, the fast food restaurant computer forbids the transaction. Meanwhile, fast food restaurants go bankrupt, because so few people are buying their product due to the onerous regulation. The government then finds that people are making hamburgers at home, "skirting" the system, and thus begins inspections of one's food supplies. Of course this seems Orwellian, but this is the logical end of the argument that whatever affects pricing can be "regulated" by the government under the Commerce Clause.
This is my plan for a future criminal complaint/commentary.