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 »