Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘far left’


Why is the decision by the Administration, through its Department of Commerce Census Bureau, to count all residents of the United States without regard to resident status in the 2010 Census a big deal?

Before we can answer this question, we need some background.  The United States Census is the cornerstone of our constitutional republic.   It is the ultimate arbiter of how states are represented in the House of Representatives and how the President of the United States is elected by the Electoral College.   Due to the cornerstone nature of the Census to our nation, it is unconscionable to make the 2010 Census subject to tampering, manipulation, a skewed citizen count, or an ideological interpretation.  Why will it be skewed if the current Census Director, members of Congress, and the Administration proceed as intended?

Article I Section 2 of our Constitution originally provided for the enumeration of “persons” of the several states.  At the time the Constitution was adopted, “persons” consisted of free persons and a three fifths fraction of the slaves inhabiting this land, with the exception of Indians.  Let’s look to a further clarification of the intent of the Founders at the time of ratification of the Constitution by the states.  We find in Article II, Section 1 instructions on the presidency eligibility: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”   Thus all persons residing in the United States at ratification were considered to be Citizens of the United States and thus the term persons referred to Citizens.  We also find that the Fourteenth Amendment in Section 2, which modified Article 1 Section 2, requires “…counting the whole number of all persons…” eliminating the fraction and the counting only of free persons.

Before you go off on a tangent about the callous use of a “fraction” of slaves, the compromise method was to prevent the people of the Southern States from having a lopsided vote and a lopsided representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College and a “super vote”, if you will, using slaves to inflate the population count, while only white men voted.    Now to the big deal!

The 2010 census operation fully plans to count any person legal or illegal, citizen or non-citizen—remember only citizens can vote.  We should be counting only “persons” which in the Constitution is synonymous with citizens.  Failure to do this means that states with an abundance of people who are not citizens made up of both legal and illegal residents, without the right to vote, will be unjustly rewarded with more representatives in Congress for law making and taxation and a greater weight to the Electoral College to elect the president of the United States.  If we grant more representatives and more electoral votes to these states, then we seriously skew the one person (citizen) one vote rule.  We end up giving the citizens of these states the power to cast what amount to those “super votes”.  Essentially, a smaller electorate will have the power of a larger state population.

Senator Vitter of Louisiana, Senator Bennett of Utah, and Representative Chaffets of Utah, want to add a question to the Census Questionnaire, which asks “are you a citizen?”  They are not being received very well, by the Bureau of the Census and members of Congress.  Seems like a logical and appropriate constitutional question to ask during a census, as we are also asking many other questions that are not nearly as important as how many possible legitimate voters exist to apportion House seats and to be represented in the Electoral College—remember only citizens are supposed to vote and be counted in Congress.

We must be cognizant of and stand up to prevent this ideological effort to establish an unbalanced and truly un-constitutional apportionment in the House of Representatives and in Electoral College voting to states with a large illegal population.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


When reading print media pundits, like Maureen Down, or listening to cable media pundits and our black Representatives in Congress, I have become seriously distraught.  Throughout my life, I have learned that when you disagree with someone or find them misrepresenting the truth—lying, you could call them out on the statement or statements based on the facts.

Now, I am finding out that when I or another —shall I say it—white person call out or simply question a person of color about a disagreement of ideology or simply thought, I am a racist.  When I need to question statements of incorrect fact from a person of color, formerly known as lying, then again I am a racist.  I am so sorry for the previous indiscretions and failure to understand that I have become a racist.  Apparently I need to apologize.  But how and to whom?

This brings up another bit of recent confusion.  How and to whom do I apologize?  Apparently, as Representative Joe Wilson found out, there is now an extensive protocol to an apology involving dissent of a far left liberal of color.  As a newly identified racist, I apparently must apologize to the party who was misrepresenting the truth, his Chief of Staff, the Vice-President, both in writing and by telephone, and then finally apologize to the political community as demanded by another person of color, Congressman James E. Clyburn.

I wish someone would provide a manual on this racist apology thing.  I also hope that someone includes in the manual a section on:

  • How do I tell a person of color that they are misrepresenting the truth, lying, or that they are just simply misguided?
  • Will this section in the manual suggest that I just sit on my hands and close my mouth—saying absolutely nothing?
  • Would this be acceptable?

Perhaps, there might be some sort of color code.  If I feel a person of color is not telling the truth or is misguided, perhaps I can hold up a color coded card.  Choice of color must be absolutely correct of course or I might inadvertently move to the bigot category.

Maybe we can use a nondescript muted red color to tell a person of color that they are misrepresenting the truth.  A bland off white—oh, that will not work—white may be offensive as I am white, thus it may be interpreted by the far left as I am right and they are wrong.  Wait, we can use a bland gray—the equal mix of white and black can be used to indicate that I disagree with the potentially offended person of color.

I have it now!  When I confront a person of color who is lying, I will just hold up a red card.  When I just disagree, I will hold up a gray card.  This system, I hope will keep me out of racist hell and avoid that bigot label.  I certainly hope this will be acceptable to the far left, the pundit police, and our Representatives in Congress who are not  Caucasians.

Alternatively: All these folks can get real and not use the now heavily over used “racist” label to attempt to intimidate and quiet dissent, as they have been doing.   Generally and often calling a person a racist when they disagree with a person of color can only be the last arrow in the quiver of the far left in their fight to move an unpopular agenda and to quiet the other side by intimidation.

Read Full Post »


Updated: March 23, 2010

The two most important issues facing this nation are now very clear.  These two issues have now risen past all other issues previously highlighted in this blog.  The first big issue is:

We now have a House of Representatives where the progressives hold just about all committee chairmanships; A Senate with progressives from both parties holding key committee positions; we have an extreme progressive as Speaker of the House; an extreme progressive as Senate Majority Leader; and an extreme progressive, near socialist, as President of the United States.  I use the term progressive, because I believe the progressives have taken over the Democratic Party – it is certainly not the party of John F. Kennedy and not the party that my mother and father admired.  To digress a bit, just take a good look at the advisors with which our President surrounds himself.  These are for the most part radical revolutionaries with the pedigrees to match.

Their agenda is simple, provide as much social legislation without regard to the debt and to our ability to pay the bill.  This is the first big issue facing America.  The means used to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act demonstrated that this group of progressives believes that the end, that they seek, justifies the means with which they achieve the end.

They stopped at nothing in their effort to push a piece of legislation by going outside the rules of each House of Congress, by buying votes from legislators with our money, by a complete obfuscation of the true facts about the bill when informing or rather ill informing the public.  They wrote provisions into the bill to force the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to provide a dollar amount that was on the surface revenue neutral, even a debt reducer, when it is neither.  They did this by double counting supposed savings in a number of areas, with an egregious mis-count on Medicare savings to the tune of $563 Billion.

They sold this bill to the public as a bill to insure thirty-two million uninsured Americans, yet they do not cover these Americans for years.  In fact, the thirty two-million includes illegal aliens, but we were told that no illegal aliens would be covered.  What we were not told was that the next bill up in Congress, and they have started to work on this, is to provide amnesty for these illegal aliens, so they will be covered as well.

In this bill the Democrats have given the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority and the marching orders 1,200 times to write her own rules for all sorts of health care, from payments to procedures, to insurance, to who is covered, to rationing, since thirty-two million newly insured will need to be covered by the same number of doctors who now practice – rationing will be necessary.  The Secretary has now been given the ability to write law without Congressional oversight. Remember the Secretary is Kathleen Sibelius, who refused to take action against “Tiller the Baby Killer” when she was governor, because he contributed heavily to her campaign.  “Tiller The Baby Killer” was one of two or three doctors in Kansas who would routinely abort late-term babies for frivolous reasons, before he was assassinated – these were babies who could have lived outside the womb.

This bill is actually a violation of Roe v. Wade – the Supreme Court decision that protected a women’s right to do with her body as she sees fit.  This also applies to men who wish to do with their body as they see fit.  Should men or women choose to not have health insurance and not to seek regular medical care, they have that right under Roe v. Wade. Read: Roe v. Wade to the Rescue: right to privacy or health care mandates.

One last item about this bill, is that you can search it high and low and you will find nothing in it that attempts to control the cost of health care.  Why?  Well, this bill is only intended to drive the health insurance companies out of business, leading to single payer universal health care, just as found in Canada and Great Britain.   Until this happens, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is in control of the insurance companies.

The second big issue facing this nation is even more dangerous to us than health insurance reform:

The flagrant disregard for our Constitution by Congressional leaders and our President should be a warning to all.  Speaker Pelosi actually laughed at a reporter who seriously asked if what she was proposing was Constitutional.  At the minimum they have flouted the spirit of the Constitution and at the most egregious they have simply ignored it.  The President is on record with his disdain for the Constitution, in that it does not offer mandates of what the government must do for its citizens.

It is clear that he and his cadre wish to rewrite our storied Constitution that currently prohibits our federal government from taking over the rights of people.  This document prohibits the federal government from diminishing the states and Congress to roles as bit players in the governing of this country.  It is clear that the current leadership in Washington feels inhibited by this Constitution – they cannot ignore the whole thing.

This progressive cadre wants to rewrite the Constitution and the way to do that is to create a national economic emergency the size of which has never been imagined.  They will spend us into oblivion until our economy is broken and our free markets are teetering on collapse.  Then and only then, to solve a national emergency, they will offer a solution to the problem that includes an even bigger federal government driven by an even bigger centralized executive branch.  They will attempt to use the tragic events of a broken economy to rouse public interest to rewrite the Constitution.

Read an indepth look at how the progressives have attempted to marginalize and discard our Constitution in a bookblog dedicated to looking at what is wrong, why it is wrong, and what we need to do to fix the problem at U.S. Constitution – “Sine Die”.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: