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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

23. February 2009 by Satire V.

The first true salvos in the fight for control of the Repbublican Party have been exchanged.  Most political observers across the spectrum, from die-hard conservatives to the far-left have seen it coming.  The left has generally realized something that many on the right have not; this fight is about much more than who runs the Grand Ole Party.

The recent comments from Republican Governors have defined the debate pretty clearly.  On one side there are those such as Bobby Jindal, who believe that Conservatism is the best hope for the Party.  On the other side are those such as the governor of Florida that believe that we must broaden the base.

The answer, unlike many, does not lie somewhere in the middle.  The party needs to return to, and most importantly live, the ideals of the Conservative movement.  The desire to regain seats that have been lost in the last two election cycles leads some to believe that we must invite those with widely different views into the “big tent.”  The problem is not a lack of diversity in the Party, it is a failure to present, explain, live, and prove the ideals of limited government and fiscal responsibility.  Republicans don’t need to move to the center, we need to show America why it should move to the right.

This is not the time to water down our ideals to try to gain votes.  Although the last election cycle proved that Americans aren’t necessarily the clearest thinking voters in the world, the electorate is not stupid.  A party that doesn’t stand for anything will not appeal to much of anyone, nor should it. 

We as members of this party must explain to our neighbors, friends, and co-workers why liberalism will fail all of us in the long run.  We must teach our children why taking more and more wealth from those that create it makes most of us poorer.  We need to help others understand how increasing taxes and regulatory burdens on businesses causes them to send more and more jobs and corporate assets out of this country.  Most of all, we need to teach them the principles of Conservatism that will enable them to think through political and social questions and come to correct conclusions on their own.

Our children are learning knee-jerk liberalism in our public schools and by watching TV.  We must teach them to think for themselves, to resist peer pressure, and to challenge the liberal and socialist messages they are bombarded.with.  We should point out the hypocrisy of the left, and teach them to spot it on their own.  We must not let the left define fairness for us.  Our children should understand that they are the better judge of how to distribute any of the fruits of their labor, and that government rarely makes the right choices in this regard.

It is also up to us to ensure that the Party’s leaders are fully aware that watering down the principles that made us strong is not acceptable.  Contribute to the Republican Party, but be sure to let them know that you don’t want the money to go to candidates that move to the left.  Participate in local party meetings, and express your insistence that the party stand on principles.  We must hold our representatives to high standards and not allow them to violate the principles of responsibility and accountability.

The fight is on, and we must choose our side.  The center is not an option.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

23. February 2009 by Satire V.

The elections got me down.  I found it hard to write anything, even in the face of obvious targets.

 I suppose I should have said something when Obama decided that his first Executive Order would be to fund the killing of children in other countries.

I should have spoken up when Nancy Pelosi espoused ideas that would have made any Nazi eugenicist proud when she told us that birth control was economic stimulus.

 The passing of the stimulus package, which probably had many on the left weeping with joy about how Barack was going to stimulate them was truly a package of ammunition for any writer of the right.

 Unfortunately, it was just too depressing.  I have recovered enough though, and have decided that it is time to help move the Right in the right direction. 

So, onward…..

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

18. December 2008 by Satire V.

Barack Obama’s recent attempt at his administration’s promised transparency with reporter John McCormick revealed an interesting tendency on the PE’s part.  He occasionally engages in a practice sometimes referred to as “uptalk.”

Uptalk is the use of a rising inflection at the end of a statement.  This is normal for interrogatory statements, but not for declarative statements.  Although this practice is fairly common among Left coast residents, it is not the norm for the Midwest.  Also of note is that he doesn’t use this speech pattern very often.  In many speeches and interviews he ended his declaratives with the even inflection that denotes the completion of the statement.  When comfortable with the subject, or when interviewed by anyone left of Fox News, he rarely used uptalk.

Outside of those who use this speech pattern regularly, engaging in uptalk is potentially a sign of internal dissonance.  Most often, it indicates discomfort with, or unsureness about the statement being made.  Another common reason it comes out is that the speaker is unconsciously making a question out of the statement.  Think about when a child is questioned about doing something naughty, like the hand in the cookie jar.  When asked why or if he or she did it, the child will often try out answers, ending his or her statement with the rising inflection of a question.  Its as though the child is trying out the answer to see if the adult will bite.

I don’t think that I’m biting on this one.  Let’s see who left their prints on the Blagojevich cookie jar.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

17. December 2008 by Satire V.

One of the more foolish sentiments declared by the left during the last administration under President Bush was “Dissent is Patriotic”.

The idea in and of itself is not particularly foolish; it was the thought process, or more accurately the lack thereof, behind it.

There is much hypocrisy in the statement, rooted in the beliefs of those who make it. Those most likely to use it and stick it on the backs of their cars are those least interested in dissent. I sought out discussion with some of these people, and they had no interest in any opinion other than their own. They attempt to characterize any ideas they don’t agree with as hate speech, thus justifying in their minds that the speaker should be censored. Typically, it is Conservatives that are far more tolerant of the speech of others.

Most of the media establishment voices the same ideas as the “dissenters”. There is no shortage of time, venue, or validation from old media and Hollywood of their views.  During the Democrat convention in Denver, I personally observed leftist protesters violating the freedoms of others by blocking streets without permits, while they were allowed to freely exercise their rights to assembly and free speech. The government of Colorado and Denver went to great lengths to ensure the freedoms of those who wanted to be heard.  Some of these poor muted souls even attempted to attack a crew from Fox News.  So, with the assistance of the government,  the collusion of the media, and while physically assaulting a legitimate news organization because it doesn’t report everything from a leftist perspective, the left has still come to believe that they have been silenced. They seem to have forgotten a basic tenet of this Country; that we are each equally free to express our ideas.  That doesn’t mean that the government has to change to suit whomever shouts the loudest.

This freedom means that if, for example, I want to say that the actions of John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama lead me to question their patriotism, then that is my right.  My doubts don’t silence them, or any other person who speaks out against the defense of our Country.   I know these people don’t have the best interest of the Country at heart, and are therefore by definition not Patriots, but still they are free to speak.

Now the Democrats and others on the left are talking again about the “fairness doctrine.”. This doctrine has as its goal, the silencing of one side of the political debate. Liberals have a long history of trying to shout down or silence those who disagree with them. Although the left has gone to extreme measures to demonize and criminalize dissent, the Right will continue to express their dissatisfaction with the socialist ideas of the current government.

The left has achieved historic gains in the legislature while installing a socialist as our head of state. Given this situation, it should be expected that the minority will take issue with the upcoming administration and wish to speak out.  This opposition has every right to do so, but will the liberals defend this right?

So, the question for the left now is:

Is dissent still patriotic?

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »