Monday, August 31, 2009


Moonbat Cindy Sheehan admits what should have been obvious to everyone, but probably won't be admitted by others on the far Left: that "the 'antiwar movement' wasn't so much antiwar as anti-Bush."

Friday, August 28, 2009

Another Death Penalty Offense?

There are some cases other than premeditated murder for which the death penalty may well be an appropriate penalty.

Those who perpetrated this crime --- the kidnapping, holding, and serial child rape of Jaycee Lee Dugard --- should be eligible for the ultimate penalty. Particularly heinous is the fact that the wife of the alleged rapist was completely complicit in his crimes.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Enlisting The Government Schools To Violate The Constitution

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
U.S. Const., amend. XIV
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 shall by Law direct.
U.S. Const., art. I, sec.3

One of the notions of which the Framers of our Constitution were keenly aware was the principle that, in a republic, a nation of laws, not men, it was absolutely necessary that our fundamental documents be easily understandable to the average citizen. Thus, our Constitution is a fairly simple document to understand.

One good example of this principle put into practice is the census. Having created — per James Madison’s “Virginia Plan” — one legislative branch based upon proportional representation of the population of each state, and foreseeing the growth to be enjoyed by the nascent nation, the members of the Constitutional Convention immediately understood that a method of apportioning those representatives among the several States would be necessary at certain
intervals. Hence, they required a decennial census to apportion representatives.

But apportionment of Members of Congress is the sole constitutional purpose for the census. Other than that sole design, the census has no other purpose authorized by the Constitution.
When, in 2000, the Youngs received their census form, Form D-2, to be precise, it was the long form. It included a cover letter over the signature of Kenneth Prewitt, Director of the Bureau of the Census.

While it was nice to see that we would be “actually enumerated” after years of talk of statistical “sampling” promoted by an administration desiring to rig the process, the actual form was something of an anticlimax, preceded by weeks of television and radio advertising. We even received, in this year’s property tax assessment, a palmcard from our friends in the McCoart Center, promoting participation.

Interestingly, not a single word of that advertising mentioned the constitutional purpose for the census, i.e., apportionment of representatives. All of it focused on what we would get for doing so. The palmcard provided a blurb about “What Happens when you fill out Census 2000... You can improve education, help our nation’s farmers, provide help to people in need of social services, build better housing where needed, move transportation forward and create jobs.” It was of a piece with the broadcast advertising.

Well thanks, but no thanks. The federal government shouldn’t be in the business of education in the first place, or in providing housing, or in socialist “services,” i.e., those enjoyed by identifiable groups of people whose votes politicians decide to buy. And it certainly shouldn’t pervert the important constitutional purpose of the Census to achieve the extra-constitutional ends which are the sole topic of the advertising campaign.

Like the advertising preceding it, the Youngs' last Census form was a fascinating exemplar of bloated, statist nannyism of the big-government bureaucrats who doubtless put it together. Some credit is due, however; Prewitt’s cover letter states that the “First” reason answering the form is important is apportionment. However, he then went on to talk about how “[t]he amount of government money your neighborhood receives depends on your answers.” What’s funny, though, is that looking around my neighborhood, I have a sneaking suspicion that my neighbors and I are paying for a lot more than we’re receiving. And I have a conceptual problem with voluntarily participating in a process by which my wages are plundered for government handouts in areas in which the federal government has no business whatsoever.

And I’m particularly offended by the notion that the federal government cares about my telephone number, my sex (properly identified as “sex,” not the ubiquitously misused “gender”), my age (asking for both age and date of birth; is this a math test, too?), my race, and my marital status (Questions 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6, and 7, respectively). Whether I’ve attended “regular school or college” in the last year, or the education I’ve completed also is none of the federal government’s business (Questions 8 and 9). Neither is my “ancestry or ethnic origin,” the language spoken at home, the state in which I was born, or my citizenship (Questions 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14).

Particularly offensive, though, were other questions, like where and in what type of housing I lived five years ago, or my disability status (Questions 15, 16, and 17). I’m not going to the government for a handout, and I’m offended by those who do. Why should I aid the imperial federal government in its plundering of my wages for those who do?

Then there’s the lifestyle questions. These ask about grandparents raising their grandchildren, and service in the military (like the government can’t figure that out for itself?!?). Most important to the federal government, however, are those questions which aid in its plunder of the productive, like whether and where an individual worked, how they got there, and what they earned (Questions 21 through 32). And then there are those about an individual’s household, their cars or trucks, and the costs (Questions 33 through 53). Maybe if I thought the last would result in an increase of the standard deduction on my income tax (which has gradually been reduced in value since the 1950s), I’d be inclined to answer them. Fat chance of that, though.

In 2000, many advocated refusing to answer any questions beyond the number of persons in a household, risking a fine of $100 under 13 U.S.C. Section 221. The Youngs did so, without consequence.

This year, however, according to News McNuggets ... er, USA Today, however, our government schools will be enlisted to violate the Constitution.

According to the article, our children will be enlisted in a process which is not only designed to satisfy its constitutional limits, but to "determine ... the distribution of more than $400 billion in federal funds to state and local governments every year." And rather than teaching our children of the sole constitutional purpose of the census --- something which should take about 15 minutes, in total, the article tells us that:
Between January and March, the Census Bureau will help plan a week of Census education in schools. During Census Week, teachers will devote 15 minutes every day for five days to the topic by discussing such things as civic participation, confidentiality or geography. Beginning in mid-March, more than 120 million Census questionnaires will be delivered to residential addresses.
Somehow, that sound suspiciously like using the government schools for statist indoctrination, rather than constitutional education.

Most disturbing in this entire process is that the “First” purpose of the census — apportionment — is virtually an afterthought to the government promoting full participation in it. Once again, the federal government is promoting ignorance among the citizenry. Perhaps it’s because the Left understands that constitutional ignorance is necessary if their statist agenda is to prevail.

She's At It Again

Moonbat Cindy Sheehan, that is. Now, she's dogging President Barry on his vacation.

Of course, you probably read it here first, since the media won't be giving her favorable coverage with President Barry in office.

H/T to Drudge.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

The Return of Political Ambulance Chasers

So Ted Kennedy has died. I associate myself with the comment of a Facebook friend, who observed that "it's fair to say his suffering, and ours, is lessened today, and for that, all can be thankful." Except that the suffering of many whose lives were ruined by the Liberal welfare state and its continuation will continue unabated. Since that's about the nicest thing I can say about this statist, let's leave it at that.

What is truly despicable are those who suggest that we should enact yet another bad policy --- socialized medicine --- in his memory. While of a piece with most of his legislative "accomplishments," it is little more than dancing on his grave to suggest that President Barry's health care "reform" should be enacted simply because this Senator-for-Life has given up the ghost.

But hey! There's nothing like the far-Left's arrogant and empty invitation to a public "debate" on the subject!

UPDATE: One more "nice thing" about the late departed comes to mind. Give him credit for this: he demonstrated more backbone that virtually any of his fellows. That it was in the service of an agenda of proven failure and anti-constitutional government authority diminishes that considerably.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Robert Novak, RIP

Since we're on vacation, I'm not posting much, but I couldn't let the passing of Robert Novak go by without notation.

Some view it as an opportunity to take one last cheap shot, from a far-Left propagandist who applies that label to Novak in an exercise which is more projection than anything else. One cannot help but wonder whether it's not jealousy, the covetous rantings of one well aware of the fact that his passing probably won't be noticed by ... well, virtually anyone.

Robert Novak made his mark on Washington in a way few journalists could hope to. Agree or disagree, he was a force with which to be reckoned.


Friday, August 14, 2009

I Wonder ....?

It seems that police have interviewed a "suspect" in the case of the posting of posters caricaturing President Barry as the Joker in The Dark Knight.

"Suspected of what?" you might ask. Well, you'll have to read the article to find out, and I'm not saying there might not have been a series of petite crimes here, but I have a question:

How many "suspects" were interviewed for posting caricatures of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in the last eight years?

I suspect that the answer is one fewer than have been interviewed over President Barry's caricature.

Yeah, But What Were You Saying A Few Years Ago?

It seems that the Washington Post has published Michael Gerson's comments indicating that he is mightily perturbed at the casual use of the imagery of Nazism, describing it (rightly) as a "lazy shortcut to secure an emotional response." He goes on to condemn it when "Michael Moore compared the USA Patriot Act to 'Mein Kampf,'" and "Al Gore warned of 'digital Brownshirts.'"

Some are mightily impressed that the WaPo has published his commentary, and indeed, there is much that accurate and praiseworthy in it.

Gerson uses nice historical examples of inaccurate and intemperate use of the analogy. He gives credence to his argument when he condemns the tactic when used by the far Left.

When the WaPo does so nearly a decade after their invocation of that imagery by the far Left? Not so much.

The relevant question to the WaPo is "What were you saying when Moore and Gore invoked Nazi imagery against Conservatives?"

My guess is that the WaPo didn't have too much to say at the time, rendering publication of Gerson's present comments like nothing so much as partisanship applying purportedly objective principles in pursuit of a partisan agenda.

It's too bad that Gerson --- a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush --- is allowing himself to be used by the WaPo in pursuit of its unremittingly partisan agenda to discredit those resisting President Barry's push for socialism.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Empty Complaints About Health "Reform" Protestors

It's become quite a mantra with those who are complaining about the protests at various townhall meetings. Even the sometimes sensible have gotten in on the attack on what they call "poisonous rhetoric."

I'm a little confused by their complaints, though. Are they objectively disgusted by the behavior people who refuse to go along with the rest of the Obama-addled sheeple?

Or are they merely angry because people who refuse to go along with the Obamorons are employing the same tactics that they Obamorons and their fellow travelers have used for, well, decades? After all, for most, the outrage is selective, and targeted only at political enemies. No enemies to the far Left, after all.

Once again, as they did for years with criminals, the far Left is confusing they victim with the perpetrator.

What's really sad is the fact that there are those who are not on the far Left who are perfectly willing to lend them aid and comfort.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Propagandistic Buzzword Of The Day

Turned on C-SPAN's Washington Journal for a few minutes this morning, and there was former ABC infobabe ... er, propagandist ... er, "journalist" Linda Douglass, in her new role as White House Minister of Propaganda for Health Care, with the talking point of the day.

After months on the campaign trail and in the White House, President Barry's Administration is no longer calling it "health care reform"; now it's "health insurance reform." Ms. Douglass must have used it over a dozen times in five minutes.

Never mind that President Barry's program would virtually destroy private health insurance in the United States which is, of course, his unstated goal.

So remember: the buzzword phrase of the day is "health insurance reform."

Monday, August 10, 2009


A few days ago, I noted the passing of John Hughes.

Here, you can read a tribute by a young lady who became his pen pal. If you're not left with a tear in your eye after reading it, you have no heart.

Having had a few professional dealings with people in the public eye, I have become keenly aware of the fact that --- media notwithstanding --- most of them are a lot like the rest of us. John Hughes' gift seems to have been a keen awareness of that fact, and the ability translate it onto the screen.

An Interesting If Not Unexpected Source

After years of hearing dovish Democrats making false claims that the Bush Administration and/or Conservatives had accused them of being "unAmerican," it is nevertheless unsurprising that the first politicians whom I have heard using that word to describe their political opponents are House Speak Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD). It's not a new thing from the Obamorons, but it remains despicable, nonetheless.

They should be forced to resign their posts. Immediately.

Hypocrisy, thy name is "Democrat."

UPDATE: Doug Mataconis has a good discussion here.

Friday, August 07, 2009

Perhaps It's Your Policies Which Are The Problem

Apparently, a Washington Democrat Congress-critter so fears his constituents that he's decided to phone it in. He also compares opponents of socialized medicine to Nazis, though --- of course --- the premises and rhetorical tactics of proponents for Obamacare --- demonizing insurance companies and their executives (read: "Jews"); taking over a large swath of the American economy --- has much more to do with the philosophy of National Socialism than do its opponents.

If you can't face the the people whose lives you are attempting to "change," you don't belong in office.

Great Video Demonstrating Liberal Arrogance

This demonstrates the difference between a "meeting" and an "indoctrination session." What the AARP intended was an indoctrination session. When the attendees insisted on a meeting, the AARP officials walked out:

I guess the vanguard of the proletariat couldn't be bothered with the uninformed opinions of the proles.

Thursday, August 06, 2009

John Hughes, RIP

Anyone who came of age in the Eighties knows well his work: Ferris Bueller's Day Off; The Breakfast Club; Sixteen Candles. Children today still love his Home Alone movies. For many, his movies marked their own passing from youth into young adulthood. Many were, and remain, classics of the movie genre which, in literature, is called bildungsroman.

John Hughes, taken too soon from us at age 59, in New York.


Despicable Double Standards

A few days ago, I had a post about a poster being distributed around Los Angeles. Since then, the far Left has gone virtually apopletic, and the inevitable cries of "racism!" have been heard about the land. The whole contretemps even warranted a truly asinine front-page story by Phillip Kennicott in today's Washington Post Style section.

This poster seems to capture the double standards being applied by those on the far Left. Since I can't seem to make it larger, the poster shows President George W. Bush as a Nazi, giving the upraised arm salute, while reading underneath "Free Speech." President Barry's caricature read "Treason."

Pathologically Silly

This is just one of those things that strike me as silly: asking people six months into a new presidential administration "Do you consider the first six months of the Obama administration to be a success or a failure?"

Nevertheless, that appears to be just what CNN has done, learning that: 37% of those polled deem it a failure; 51% deem it a success; and only 11% say it's "too soon to tell."

Well, cast me in the small minority. Short of suffering a full-scale nuclear attack, I don't know how you deem any President's term a "failure" after only six months. Similarly, I don't know how you deem any President's term a "success" after only six months.

While I have little use for President Barry --- my definition of a "successful" Obama presidency is one in which he doesn't get what he wants --- it's simply nonsense to suggest that any assessment of his presidency can be made at this time.

The good news is this: President Barry's "failure" number is 5% higher than George W. Bush's at a similar point in the latter's presidency.


Over at the Star City Harbinger, a neo-socialist website mainly for the Roanoke area, they recently posted a quotation from Samuel Adams, apparently claiming affinity with the great Patriot of the Founding Era.

Of course, claiming accord with Adams --- a believer in natural law; signer of the Declaration of Independence; and perhaps most importantly, brewer of beer --- is simply a paradigm case of an illegitimate effort to seek legitimacy.

Indeed, one would have had to have consumed an excess of his eponymous modern product to believe that Adams' political beliefs had anything to do with the efforts at the website which seeks legitimacy by invoking his name.

The Perfect Choice

I refer, of course, to the Great Prevaricator's recent trip to North Korea to secure the release of two American journalists charged with espionage. Of course, in the warped view of the Dear Leader, anyone who tries to obtain and report upon facts about his regime is engaged in "espionage," but never mind that.

The bottom line is this: who else would you send to pick up two women?

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

Obama Cult Of Personality On Full Display

At the White House, no less! Apparently, it's in celebration of der Fuhr... er, President Barry's birthday.

And it's pathetic. It reminds me of the penultimate scenes of Rocky IV, where Ivan Drago's greater-than-life-sized visage is raised before the fight in Moscow.

Come to think of it, it's a lot like Soviet-style propaganda. To the same end, as well.

Say what you will about George W. Bush (many do), but if he ever attempted the power grabs sought by this third-rate Chicago hack (auto industry; financial industry; health care; etc.), the far Left moonbats who survived their strokes would be in a permanent state of high dudgeon. And yet ... they cheerlead for a power-grabber of proportions beyond those even of the moonbats' most fanciful construction of Bush Administration efforts to respond to the terrorist threat.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberal.

And by the way, I'm not calling President Barry a "Nazi," unlike those who frequently equate George W. Bush with Hitler, as Doug Mataconis notes here. For the historically challenged, der Fuhrer's birthday was widely celebrated by the mind-numbed, sycophantic faithful, who apparently behaved much as the Obamorons are behaving today. I am not commenting upon any similarities between the two other than that one.

Monday, August 03, 2009

Alabama County Lay Off 2/3 Of Bureaucracy

Now, the real question is, will anyone notice?


One of those things that makes me wish that I had some artistic talent:

Of course, that I don't does not mean that I can't reproduce it here.

H/T to Drudge.