13. March 2010 by Satire V.

There has been a lot of discussion lately about Michelle Bachmann’s statements about the Census.  She has publicly stated that she will not provide any information other than the number of people in her household.

Much of this discussion has centered around her pointing out that Census information was used to locate and round up American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II.  First I should point out that nobody has really challenged this assertion, and if anyone did, that person would be wrong.  Her statement in that regard is accurate.  Much of the argument appears to be that “we have come a long way since then, and besides, there are severe punishments for misuse of this information.”

Really?  Have we come a long way?  If that is true, why is the race card played so reliably by the left?  If one were only to listen to press conferences by the left in America (not to be confused for “the American left”, doesn’t exist) one would probably conclude that America is the most racist country on Earth.  Maybe challenging her concerns on that grounds isn’t the best road to take.

Are there ample punishments?  This of course assumes that first, the person using this information illegally will be caught.  That would require the transparency that this administration and Democrat leadership have talked so much about, but have definitely not produced.  Second it assumes that the punishments will be applied, and applied to all equally.  Not likely under this cronyism based administration.

Bachmann has also been challenged on her assertion that the Constitution does not provide for questions beyond how many people are in a household.  The arguments against this idea are not very strong.  One of the arguments is that the Supreme Court has ruled that additional questions are Constitutional.  This must be the infallible Supreme Court that I have heard so much about.  Dred Scott anyone??  See, I can play the race card too.

Another argument is that the language of the Constitution supports anything Congress wants to ask.  The words used to reinforce this theory are

“The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they by Law direct.” 

Most of the arguments, including those before the Supreme Court have concentrated on the words “in such Manner as they by Law direct”.   The idea is that the Congress can make whatever laws are necessary to accomplish the census.  More care should be taken with this though.  The Constitution directs the Congress to ENUMERATE the people.  This word, “enumerate” means the same thing now as it did then.  To count.  Some definitions include more as a result of the misuse of the word, but the accepted meaning is to count, nothing more. 

The Constitution is, contrary to that genius of a Constitutional scholar Barack Obama’s boneheaded assertions, a permissive document in relation to the Federal government.  This means that the Constitution restricts everything from the Federal except for those specific permissions given in the text.  Nothing should be inferred or assumed.  Article 1 is clear in using the term “enumeration.”  This means that the Congress should only make laws directing the manner of counting, not adding to the information collected.  The only exception the Constitution made was to determine whether a person was a slave or free, and this was compromise language.  It didn’t imply an intent to collect additional racial, ethnic, gender, or other data.

Of course, the most obvious proof that Bachmann is right on this, is that the blogs on the left say she is wrong.  To put that another way:  Stupid is as stupid does.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

13. March 2010 by Satire V.

More Federal government waste under Democrat leadership.  Shocking I know!

Most of you have probably received a letter from the US Census Bureau in recent days.  The purpose of this census letter is apparently to inform all of us ignorant proletariat that there is a census coming.  I suppose this might have been news to someone, but I can’t imagine that too many were unaware of the upcoming count.

Given that the number of households that would be caught with their pants down on this, it seems that this might not have been the best use of taxpayer money.  Given also that most people that choose to ignore the census when it arrives would likely ignore this letter even more studiously, it is definitely a waste of money.

How much money you ask?

Well, let’s assume that the postage was free.  We will also ignore the cost of ink/toner, equipment hours and depreciation, and manhours, and only concentrate on the envelope and paper.  GSA prices copy paper at $28.83 for 2500 sheets of low-quality paper.  Envelopes prices were $28.21 for 500.  The census bureau’s own estimate of the number of households in the US for 2010 is 114,825,428.  The total per mailing for just paper and envelope is over 1.95 million cents.

Compared with the spending of this administration and this Congress, this is chump change.  It is an example of the willingness of this group to waste money during difficult economic times.  This is irresponsible, and frankly, stupid.

These are the people we are supposed to trust with 1/6th of our economy?

I don’t think so. 

Posted in Things Obama Doesn't Understand, Its Only Hypocrisy If The Right Does It | Print | No Comments »

2. March 2010 by Satire V.

The health care reform debate has been raging for over a year now, and one fact about it has become more clear with every passing day. This has never been about your health.

Many leftist pundits and campaign strategists have been trying to make this point at the expense of the Republicans, but it really only sticks to the left. Yes, it is true that the Republican minority has been fighting these bills on every ground possible. It is also true that they are doing so because many of them are aware that this is a massive power grab by the Federal government, and the left in particular.

They have been fighting even on points that some of them agree with, because history has taught them that the Dems will try to get “bipartisan” agreement on a bill to nail down Republicans in the press. Once a Republican has signed on to legislation, the Dems call a press conference and talk about the bipartisan bill they have forged. If they expect it to be difficult, they put the name of a Republican on the bill to make it harder for the right to fight.

The problem for the left with this bill, is that at least in the Senate none of the Republicans have turned on America yet. The left had crowed about the wonderful things they were going to do for the downtrodden, how they were going to fix the broken health care system, and how they could do it because of the super-majority they held. This was to be their show of force. They were going to pass this bill, and tell the people how terrific they were, and declare themselves heroes of the working class.

The working class started the difficult times for the Dems by showing up at town hall meetings across the Country and declaring loudly that they didn’t want this bill. This of course made the Dems angry. How dare these unwashed masses question their moral authority? They were doing this for them! They even told Americans that were getting involved in their governance to shut up, and called them terrorists.

The angry reaction by the left in these meetings was partly for petty reasons; not wanting to be challenged in public, not wanting to be shown to be less informed than those that were questioning them at these meetings, and not wanting to answer to the people they believed they were smarter than.

Mos of it was about power. The left thought they had it, and in these meetings they felt it slipping away. They believed that a Democrat majority had been elected as a mandate to push through whatever they felt like doing. They thought the people had finally handed them the power they deserved, and were angry that everything was not under their control.

One of the greatest outcomes of this push for the health care reform bills has been that people are remembering that our Constitution vests most of the political power in their hands. The people, and particularly those on the right, are finally waking up.

Let’s hope that this leads to an electorate that is ever more willing to demand the power that our Constitution was supposed to guarantee.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

2. March 2010 by Satire V.

There have been some members of Congress that have had the guts to display their ignorance of our Constitution in this health care debate of late. Some of them have stood up and before their fellow members and the people have declared that health care is a right. (Please tell me what article this is in)

Let’s assume for a moment that the obvious mistake is not one at all, and follow the logic.

If health care is a right that must be afforded to the people, even though it isn’t stated in our Constitution, why must the government supply that health care? Keep in mind, that regardless of whether there is a single-payer system, exchanges, or other methods by which the government supplies health insurance or direct care by virtue of being alive on American soil, it is a matter of the people and that government providing the fruits of the created right.

Now, health care is not the only fairly expensive right that is guaranteed to the people. Let’s apply the same logic to the 2^nd Amendment.

If the Federal government is obligated to pay for our health care in any way, are they not as obligated to provide whatever it takes to fulfill our right to bear arms? I certainly think that it would then be only fair and right for the government to open and run firearms and ammunition stores. Also, it would be important for the government to do its best to provide for these things at a reduced cost.

To the contrary however, the Democrats have passed legislation intended to make gun and ammunition purchases more expensive.

Interesting that the Democrats are more interested in providing imaginary rights than protecting those that are actually enumerated in the Constitution.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

21. February 2010 by Satire V.

President Obama came to visit Denver to finish off Senator Michael Bennett’s campaing on Thursday. His trip turned out to be a metaphor for his presidency and the affect of the Democrat control of our Federal Government.

The Presidential motorcade departed back to the airport, and brought traffic on I-25, I-70, and other roads pretty much to a complete halt in much the same way that his administration has brought the economy to a halt. I’m sure that if asked, the Administration would blame the traffic problem on President Bush because of his last visit to Denver. This would of course be a lie. I was in Denver during one of President Bush’s last visits, and traffic was stopped for about 30 seconds. If pressed, I’m sure that Obama would tell us about how much worse the problem would have been had he not been there to fix it with hope, and change.

The light rail system in Denver was also brought to a halt for about 30 minutes. There didn’t appear to be a reason for it, at least not for more than about one minute. Of course, when one train stops on the Denver light rail, they all do. The interconnectedness of such things is beyond our fearless leader, in much the same way the interconnectedness of the economy is well beyond his understanding. I guess this is what happens when you never ride the train, and when you never had a job.

To top all of this off, the motorcade passed through the Denver area at about the start of rush hour. Obama and his handlers of course didn’t know this. (the whole not having a job thing again) The people who needed his interference the most were of course most inconvenienced by his choice. Of course, the people that can least afford his economic policies will be the ones most hurt by these policies. Of course, he doesn’t get that.

This guy is an economic traffic jam. I guess it is just a good thing there hasn’t been a train wreck to compare him too.

Satire V

Posted in Things Obama Doesn't Understand | Print | No Comments »

16. February 2010 by Satire V.

The recent spate of Democrats deciding to retire or otherwise not run for reelection is likely a response to the writing on the wall that has been clear since the Scott Brown victory. There is ample reason for many Dems to fear for their viability for reelection. The question is what are the actual sentiments that are written on this wall?

Recent comments from many bloggers on the right indicate a belief that the voters are expressing dissatisfaction with this Administration and this Congress. This is almost definitely true, and many polls bear this out. Many on the left are claiming that the problem for Dems is that they were not left enough, and that the people are throwing them out as more of an exercise in anti-incumbency. Let’s hope that the solution that the Democrat Party attempts is finding candidates that are even farther left than the current office holders. That would be akin to drilling holes in the bottom of their sinking boat to let the water out.

The anti-incumbency argument does carry some weight, and the RNC and State Republican Party chairs should be talking to as many voters as possible, right, center, and left. It is important to understand where these voters stand, and why they vote the way they do.

It is likely that voters on the Right are feeling some fairly strong feelings of “throw the bums out” even more so than usual. This could lead to some hard times for some centrist Republican candidates, and deservedly so. It is my sincere hope that John McCain is forced to retire from his seat, and is replaced with a Conservative Republican candidate. There is little chance that this group will support a Democrat in general elections, unless that candidate has some limited government chops.

I believe that it is possible that there are even some far left Liberal Democrats (I apologize for the redundancy) that will vote against a Democrat in general elections to send a message, but they won’t switch their vote to Republican if they can find a Socialist, Green, or Communist Party candidate.

The block in question is really those that consider themselves Independent, and actually vote that way. Clearly these voters believe that change is needed, but what exactly are they thinking? If this group is engaging in anti-incumbent based voting, Republican candidates will be no safer than Democrats. If the Dems are right on that score, dumping incumbents is good strategy. Replacing the current office-holder with a fresh, but not unknown, face may pay off, and assumptions by the Right that these seats are ours for the taking would be a big mistake.

If the theory of incumbent anger holds up under scrutiny, the Right needs to be prepared to run the right kinds of campaigns, focusing on what is wrong in Washington. The Right must clearly explain why limited government, free market, and Conservative principles are the way to correct the problem. Most importantly, we must find and cultivate candidates that will actually live these ideals.

If the Right fails to recognize the danger, we may have to be prepared for much smaller gains in Congress than many are predicting, and a much harder fight to keep our freedoms intact.

Satire V

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

12. February 2010 by Satire V.

The election of a majority Democrat Legislative and Executive branch and the power mad actions of that party have raised issues that haven’t been considered very seriously for many years, but it may be time for reconsideration of at least one such issue.

Nullification is the doctrine that a State has the right to nullify a Federal law if the State determines that the law violates the Constitution.  This idea is based in the correct understanding of the Constitution that the Federal government is subordinate to the States in almost every area and that its purpose is to serve the needs of the States (else why have it at all.)

The primary reason that many people would find this a shocking or dangerous idea is that those people do not understand the Constitution, how our Nation was formed, or even the meaning of the word “State”.  (for purposes of this discussion, we will include Commonwealths as States) 

Although many of our students in K-12 education do not understand the real meaning of the word State, it is more disturbing that many adults are ignorant regarding this word as well.  Most people don’t even think about it, and only come close to an accurate understanding of it when discussing foreign bodies.  To put it simply, a State (as understood by the original States that formed the United States of America) is a sovereign governmental or societal group within specified geographical borders.  The definition that many Americans unconsciously hold is that of a group of constituent districts within our Country.  If this second definition were the intent of the ratifiers of our Constitution, we could have a much less unwieldy name.  The “United States of” part would be superfluous at best.

Our Constitution was carefully written by, and discussed lengthily, by representative of each of these States, empowered by their respective States to defend its interests.  The document was clearly crafted to bring together these various governments in a limited way for specific purposes.  Purposes such as a common defense, and general (meaning mutually supportive) welfare.  Much of the argument related to ratification centered on ensuring that each State would retain sovereignty in most areas of consideration.

This proper understanding of what a State is, and the understanding of the limitations imposed on Federal power, lends credence to the concept of nullification.  Nullification however, has been largely considered only as a response to Federal laws that violate the Constitution and the broadly defined rights of the States.

The areas in which it has not been given much consideration have even wider, and potentially longer lasting, implications.  The people of many of the States have seen their rights to self-governance eroded by the Supreme Court of the United States, and these States have not stood up to the Court.  Perhaps it is time for States to say “No!”  Roe v. Wade is a well known example of the Court interfering with State governance without regard for the strict limitations placed on the Federal government by the Constitution.  The grasp of the Court not only surpassed its Constitutionally intended reach, it also created a right to privacy not provided for in the Constitution.  Assuming the Court could locate this right, it certainly didn’t apply.  This is not a matter of National Defense, it is not a matter of interstate commerce, it is not a matter of any right under the bill of rights, it is not provided for as a power specifically given to the Federal government, and it is therefore not a matter for the Federal government.  Each State consequently has the right to nullify any affects of that decision.

There have been many other decisions made by the Court that clearly violate the rights of the State, based on flimsy arguments related to interstate commerce, establishment, and the non-existent “wall between church and State.”  Many of these decisions have had as the result (and possibly intent) to grab power for the Federal from the State.  This clearly violates the intent of the Constitution and its specified limitations on the power of the Federal government.

This concept of nullification can be extended to the Executive as well.  A recent example is the Secretary of Health and Human Services demanding an explanation of rate hikes by the Anthem insurance company in California.  This is a situation where the company has every right to tell Sebelius, and by extension the President, to stuff it.   The State of California should represent the citizens and corporate entities within the State and add “where the sun don’t shine.”  The executive nose has been poked deeply into State business in the areas of education, labor, and infrastructure.

The road to this point where the people must decide whether their States will become states has been long, and with almost no exceptions, downhill.  I have defended the nation and its colors with great pride for all of my adult life.  I believe in the flag, and “the Republic for which it stands.”  It may be time though, to start flying the flag of my State with as much or more pride than those beloved colors.  It may be time to fly the Gadsden flag in mindfulness of its more contemporary meaning alongside both the State and American flags.

And it may be past time to say “No!”

Satire V

Posted in Things Obama Doesn't Understand | Print | No Comments »

9. February 2010 by Satire V.

Lawyers in Colorado and California are challenging the Stolen Valor Act on First Amendment grounds.  Arguing that wearing a uniform and medals a person did not earn is a form of speech, these lawyers are attempting to gain acquittal for their despicable clients.

For those of you who don’t know, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was proposed by Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006.  The Act provides for Federal criminal charges for those who wear US Military uniforms or medals not earned, claim service in the US Military that wasn’t served, or claim to have earned specific qualifications (such as Navy Seal, Army Special Forces) that were not earned.

Lawyers for Rick Strandloff and for other defendants are making the moronic claim that as long as there is no financial gain, this is protected speech under the First Amendment to our Constitution.  This ridiculous notion that everything is “speech” and therefore protected under the First Amendment has been the result of some of the more creatively wrong (and politically motivated) Supreme and lower Court decisions.  Don’t get me wrong, I understand the obligation of an attorney to make every effort on behalf of their client to obtain the best result for that client.  The Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct; rule 1.3 Diligence, states:

[1] A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client’s cause or endeavor. A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf. A lawyer is not bound, however, to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client. For example, a lawyer may have authority to exercise professional discretion in determining the means by which a matter should be pursued. See Rule 1.2. The lawyer’s duty to act with reasonable diligence does not require the use of offensive tactics or preclude the treating of all persons involved in the legal process with courtesy and respect. (emphasis mine)

It seems that conducting a defense based on an intentional misinterpretation of the Constitution isn’t terribly ethical.  It also seems that challenging this law on such grounds doesn’t seem to treat those Veterans with respect.  All this without even discussing the blatant stupidity of it.

Using the strained logic that leads to a defense of this sort one could argue that it would be OK for a person to drive around in a car painted to look like a local police car, complete with lights, sirens, and spotlights, dress in a police uniform, wear a badge, and make any other effort to appear like a Police Officer.  As long as the person does not commit any other crime, one could say it was merely “speech”.

The Framers and ratifiers of our Constitution were not attempting to protect any and all things a person might do, say, or write as speech.  The intent was to protect political speech.  The purpose of the First Amendment was to ensure that criticism of the government was protected.  The intent was not to protect art, pornography, or other forms of non-political speech.  Flag burning is more reasonably protected under the First Amendment than any of these other things, including violations of the Stolen Valor Act.

Although it is probably acceptable to call the written word “speech”, dressing in a uniform you did not earn should not be construed as such.  Strandloff in particular made his claims for pecuniary gain.  To construe his actions as speech under the Constitution weakens the standing of political speech, and certainly does not protect the people from predatory behavior.

It’s time for Judges to take a bit of time and read not only the Constitution, but also the ratification debates when deciding an issue on Constitutional grounds.  Where the ratification debates do not specifically speak to the issue, Judges could reasonably consult the words of the Framers, keeping in mind that only a totality of the words of all the framers can reasonably express intent.  Cherry picking is not an acceptable method of determining this intent.  Where neither speak to the issue, stick to the text and the intent and purpose of the Legislative branch at the pertinent level of government.

Satire V

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

3. February 2010 by Satire V.

Colorado Senators Bennett and Udall presented the name of William J. Martinez along with 5 others to President Obama to fill a vacant seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.  This choice is revealing of the philosophy that Bennett, Udall, and Obama have toward the judiciary.

Martinez is a partner in the law firm of McNamara, Roseman, Martinez, and Kazmierski.  His experience is largely in the realm of equal opportunity law.  This alone certainly shouldn’t disqualify him, but there are other factors that make him a poor choice at best.

There is a standard that applies to the employment and equal opportunity, and is the law in Federal employment.  Creating a hostile work environment or an appearance of bias is a violation.  The appearance of bias or preferential treatment is considered to be as bad as proven bias.  Indications of predetermination can raise legitimate questions regarding the fairness of decisions in which the bias could play a part.

This is important because Martinez has shown a marked tendency toward a very particular point of view that a thinking person would assume will color his decisions from the bench.  Unfortunately, this predeliction is not one of Constitutional originalism.  To the contrary, Martinez is a member of some organizations that have shown marked hostility toward the Constitution, and support of liberal judicial activism.

 Martinez is a member of Greenpeace, USA; Amnesty International; the Sierra Club; Colorado Public Radio; the National Resources Defense Council; and worst of all, the ACLU of Colorado.

One can only assume that Bennett, Udall, and Obama are aware of these memberships.  The well known liberal agendas of these organizations could not have escaped the attention of Martinez or his nominators.  The appearance of bias alone should disqualify him from this nomination, but if it doesn’t, he should be questioned vigorously by Congress in regard to his potential bias.  Most importantly, if he is seated on this bench, President Obama and Senator Udall should be held to account for the affect of his opinions and rulings.

Martinez has promised to end his membership in most of these organizations if he is given the seat, but trusting a liberal to leave his ideology at the court room door is like trusting the current administration to be as tranparent as promised.

 Not gonna happen.

Satire V

 (As of this date, no nominee is listed in the Judicial Committee vacancies http://www.uscourts.gov/judicialvac.cfm?WT.cg_n=Newsroom)

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

22. November 2009 by Satire V.

Obama has done it again.  During his Far East trip he has almost simultaneously embarrassed and denigrated our Country while displaying his typical arrogance and egotism.

The Apologizer in Chief has once again shown either a fundamental lack of understanding of international protocol, or a belief that America holds a subordinate position to yet another foreign power.  Ignorance, incompetence, or servility are not acceptable.  We (and sovereign nations in general) don’t dip our flag for that of another nation, and our head of state should never display such obsequious behavior.  Perhaps he was confused about whether the emperor was standing before him, or behind him?

Moving to China, Obama displayed his typical arrogance.  He actually lectured the Chinese about allowing full access to the Internet, saying that they shouldn’t be afraid of some criticism.  This is the same man that attempted to ban Fox News from the White House press pool because he couldn’t handle the criticism.  How egotistical to believe that his reasons for his attempted censorship are somehow OK, while it is not acceptable for the Chinese. 

Although the left and the press often tried to make us think that we should be embarrassed by our last Commander In Chief, at least President Bush never appeared to be embarrassed by this great Country.  How far the left has taken us that not only is our President apparently ashamed of his Nation, but that he gives us so much reason to be ashamed of him.

Satire V

Posted in Things Obama Doesn't Understand, Its Only Hypocrisy If The Right Does It | Print | No Comments »