White House delays employer mandate until 2015 - Is this a Political Move? (Political Appeal)

Did the White House intentionally delay the employer mandate until after mid-term elections of 2014?

Or, was it simply an answer to business owners "concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively" as stated by Mark Mazur, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy?

One would think that with such a major change in policy, the author of the ACA (Affordable Care Act) would have called a press conference or at least released a statement. Instead, the chosen method of notification was via a U.S. Treasury blog post on a Tuesday night. 

Why such minimal attention to a major policy change? The link to the video below illustrates how it might even be unconstitutional to not enforce a law that is already on the books without a proper amendment to that law. 

The area of focus for this artifact starts around 4m:50s until 5m:30s. The text is also displayed below: 

BILL O'REILLY: Do you think it's unconstitutional for the president to take an existing law that he signed and say we're not going to force part of that law, the employer mandate. Is that unconstitutional?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Of course it's unconstitutional. The constitution says the executive has to faithfully execute the laws and here it is faithfully ignoring a law it doesn't like in the same way it wantonly passed the DREAM Act unilaterally, an act that the Congress had rejected. It is absolutely lawless in the things it does. This is only the latest example. (The O'Reilly Factor, July 9, 2013)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/09/krauthammer_obama_ignoring_parts_of_obamacare_unconstitutional_absolutely_lawless.html

No matter whether it is unconstitutional or not, there is an underlying reason as to why this significant change to the law was not done by Obama himself. He wanted it to be a subtle release by the Treasury in order to distance himself in the event any negativity built. 

One explanation is to create a delay for the biggest entitlement program in human history until both sides of Congress give you a pass to overcome the gridlock and filibusters that currently hinder his (Obama) ability to create a more progressive government. It isn't until after the 2014 elections that Obama would have full reign during the last two years of his presidency and therefore continue to leave his lasting legacy of entitlements. 

Take time to seriously consider why the mandate was delayed. Is this a Political Move?  

RAISE YOUR VOICE, NOT YOUR HANDS! - PSYCHOLOGICAL APPEAL

REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY - DOES IT REALLY WORK?

Don't think PINK?  Ok, be honest, what is the first thing you think about? If you said Pink, than you are right. 

This psychological approach was released last week by the Broward County Sheriff's Office in anticipation of the Trayvon Martin verdict that was sure to create a racial divide amongst many in our nation. This case revolved around a 17 year old black teenager who was walking home with a bag of Skittles when a white-hispanic man named George Zimmerman (the neighborhood watch captain) began to follow Martin. During a couple of 911 calls it is evident that Zimmerman is concerned about Martin walking around the neighborhood in a hoodie and acting suspicious. In one of the final 911 calls, an altercation breaks out, this ultimately ends in Zimmerman being attacked by Martin and the result is a dead 17 year old kid. Zimmerman claims self defense or in the state of Florida, he fell under the "Stand your ground law" which provides citizens the right to protect themselves in the event they fear for their own life. Over the weekend, the jury in the trial found George Zimmerman, not guilty citing that specific law. 

This video was anticipating a severe racial divide in the event that he was found not guilty. It was an admirable cause to believe that the PSA would provide a level of support for those who feel that law enforcement is out to get them, and therefore, the rioting and protests would be minimal or non-existant. It goes back to the idea of "don't think pink". It's the first thing you think about because reverse psychology is not based on a do as I say theory, it focuses on those fence sitters or swing voters, and makes them commit to one side of the debate. It is almost a method to help individuals do exactly the opposite of what you want them to do in the first place. - Don't think pink! Did it work? 

This PSA creates a level of cognitive dissonance. It relates to a theory referred to as “invisibility of whiteness” – the phenomenon that when someone’s skin is white, they tend to not think their race is even a factor in who they are as a person (Dr. Rebecca Diverniero). The complete opposite of this is how color effects the thoughts and cultural perspective of those who are not part of the in-group or dominant group. It is almost a part of their past and cultural understanding that they cannot shake. 

The jury didn't believe that Zimmerman broke the law under "stand your ground" and therefore didn't have reasonable cause to convict him. I am going to throw an idea out there, take it for what it's worth. I believe that this concept "invisibility of whiteness" played a role in the end result of this verdict. I am not saying that what Martin/Zimmerman did or did not do was right or wrong, however, it is worth examining that all six jurors in the case were white females. It may just be that they could not relate to the racial reality that exists in those not of the dominant group.  

This PSA has even more impact now. The case verdict was not guilty and we are in the third day of rioting throughout many parts of the county. White people are being beaten by black people to pay respect for Trayvon (Baltimore, MD) and who knows what the future holds. 

Will the racial divide continue to increase or will ads like these help to bridge the racial gap? Time will be the determining factor. 

Racial tensions are high... 

Raise your voice, Not your hands!

Popular Vote versus the U.S. Supreme Court. – Mormon response to Prop 8 supreme court rulings.

Over the past 5 years there has been a growing divide between what is appropriate to call traditional marriage. Is it the union of a man and a woman, or can it also include the union of two individuals of the same gender? This has been debated intensely back and forth in the state of California specifically. The people of California voted in favor of prop 8 in 2008 that amended the California Constitution to reflect “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This amendment would be challenged numerous times and ultimately be declared unconstitutional by California’s supreme court in 2010. Pending lawsuits forced the hand of the U.S. Supreme court to take action and decide on behalf of the case. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ultimately left the 2010 district court ruling to stand. On June 28, 2013, the ninth court lifted its stay on the ruling, which now enables same-sex marriages to resume.

As this intensely emotional issue unfolds one of the most persuasive aspect that impacted this discussion was the Mormon Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were proponents for the original Prop 8, and have continued to voice their opinions about the issue of marriage. In fact, recently, they released a campaign to continue their support for traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

Here is the response to the recent Supreme Court rulings from the Mormon Church: Response

                  "By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the                  Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates. Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.

  
 


                  "In addition, the effect of the ruling is to raise further complex jurisdictional issues that will need to be resolved. 




                  "Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children. Notably, the court decision does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three-fourths of the states."

This campaign response from the Mormon Church provides a level of conviction and faith based knowledge to confirm the belief of its members. The statement is also intended to draw a clear line in the sand about the churches stance on marriage and the unpopularity of this court decision within a majority of the remaining states. 

When any religion begins to express it's religious views on a subject as controversial as this one, it is on the basis of truth, conviction, and beliefs that a campaign is presented. This is the case with the Mormon Church in this campaign to define what true marriage is. It is only recognized between a man and a woman. The idea of having two people come together that are of the same gender and call it "marriage" is not what the church supports. If the recognition of the same-sex union were somewhat equal, but not referred to as "marriage" it is likely the Mormon Churches stance would be of acceptance. 

This campaign is all based on the idea of calling what has been traditionally a bond between a man and a woman since the beginning (Adam and Eve) and now suddenly proponents want the same recognition of that high status of "marriage." Let us call a spade a spade and realize that this recent push to call two people of the same gender a "marriage," cannot simply be redefined so suddenly. This high status of marriage has existed for thousands of years and to change it now to effect a small minority of the population seems to be insane. 

I believe that minorities should be represented, however, using the same name to represent a same-sex marriage is not moral nor ethical, especially when it has held such a high regard for thousands of years. If this minority group wants the same benefits, then create a definition of a same-sex relationship so that is can receive the same benefits, but do not change the definition of marriage to appease a minority group that only wants equality. 

Bottom line: If same-sex relationships could qualify for the same benefits by referring to their union as a Rainbow Alliance, and not a "marriage," then all will be well in Zion.