Obama said “I won.”

It’s true, he did win. And yes, he has a mandate from the electorate. According to the definition of the word, any election win is a mandate:

man·date noun (plural man·dates) - support from electorate: the authority bestowed on a government or other organization by an electoral victory, effectively authorizing it to carry out the policies for which it campaigned

So, I’ll accept that Obama has a “mandate” from the electorate to carry out his policies (distasteful as that is).

But does a 9,522,083 vote win mean that the 59,934,814 that didn’t vote for him should be ignored? Do almost 60,000,000 voters become second-class citizens because they voted for someone else? Ignoring them can easily be construed as a form of retaliation, can’t it? He is supposed to be a President of the country, not just those who voted for him.

Let’s put his win in perspective. Obama won by the combined populations of New York City and Dallas, TX. That puts some perspective on the size of his win. Remember, we only have to turn about 10,000,000 people to put someone else in office in 2012; only about 7 % of those voting.

But now the democrats are embolden and beginning to push their pet projects, the first being their distribution of taxpayer funds to pay for votes they purchased in the 2008 elections, a classic quid pro quo situation.

What we’ve seen so far – just since January 20^th – looks ominous. A number of major proposals that are, or will be, presented in bills are enough to give a conservative a searing, burning case of political hemorrhoids.

Get your inflatable doughnuts ready and follow along:

Political Hemorrhoid #1 - The Census Bureau.

The Census Bureau is an agency within, and under the jurisdiction of, the Department of Commerce or, at least it was BO (Before Obama).

Last week, an administration official revealed that the yet-to-be-named director of the Census Bureau will report to Rahm Emanuel (Obama’s Chief of Staff) widely known to be an uber-partisan, instead of Commerce Secretary nominee Judd Gregg.

The main reason that the black and Hispanic groups were against Gregg is that he was against a “re-evaluation” of the Census hard count in order to introduce adjustment of results through sampling and computer modeling. Ostensibly, these “adjustments” would increase black and Hispanic counts in order to compensate for under-counts.

There is a 1999 Supreme Court ruling that would make sampling-based adjustment difficult in the absence of compelling evidence that the customary hard count would be less credible. And that evidence not only is lacking, but a three year statistical study that was finished in 2003 to respond to this issue concluded just the opposite: adjusting the Census numbers through sampling and computer models could lead to a less credible Census result. A hard count has always been legally defensible. A fuzzy “adjusted” Census, where figures at the Census tract and block level would be plainly erroneous in many cases could invite endless litigation.

Since its inception, the Census Bureau has reported to the Commerce Secretary. The Obama administration is ending the Census Bureau's traditional (and necessary) autonomy and is now introducing the opportunity for political skullduggery.

The U.S. census - a counting of the U.S. population - is conducted every 10 years by the Commerce Department. Its results determine the decennial redrawing of congressional districts.

Now, why would Rahm Emanuel want the Census under his control in the White House? Huh? Why might that be? "There's only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement," a career professional at the Census Bureau says, "and it's called politics, not science."

As a matter of impact, the census has tremendous political significance. Political parties are always eager to have a hand in redrawing districts so that they can maximize their own party's clout while minimizing the opposition, this is called gerrymandering.

The census also determines the composition of the Electoral College, which chooses the president. If one party were to control the census, it could perpetuate its hold on political power.

The results of the census are also enormously important in another way - the allocation of federal funds. Theoretically, a political party could disproportionately steer federal funding to areas dominated by its own members through a skewing of census numbers. 

What Obama is proposing "takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political," Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah said of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who would be tasked with overseeing the census at the White House.

Joseph Stalin said: “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” The same principle applies to the census.

This action is another step taken by the democrats to maintain control of Congress indefinitely – perhaps, if they’re successful, permanently.

An 2/12/2009 update: Senator Gregg has withdrawn his nomination as Commerce Secretary, citing "irresolvable conflicts" with President Barack Obama's handling of the economic stimulus and 2010 census.

~~~

Political Hemorrhoid #2 - FOCA, The Freedom Of Choice Act.

Nearly two years ago, the public debate over abortion was irrevocably altered. In the landmark Gonzales v. Carhart decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and, more importantly, abdicated, at least in part, its role as a de facto “Abortion Control Board.”

In its decision, the Court signaled an increasing willingness to blunt attempts by abortion extremists to use the federal courts to impose their radical agenda. The immediate reaction of activists and some members of Congress confirmed the view that the court decision effectively stripped them of their most effective weapon in forcing abortion “rights” on the population.

Recognizing that the federal courts would no longer be a reliable tool for actualizing their demands for unlimited and unregulated abortion, abortion supporters began to look elsewhere for the means to advance their radical agenda.

In late April 2007, Obama along with Senator Hillary Clinton and others, re-introduced the federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a radical attempt to enshrine abortion-on-demand into American law, to sweep aside existing laws that the majority of Americans support - such as requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions, fully-informed consent, and parental involvement -and to prevent states from enacting similar protective measures in the future.

More importantly, FOCA is a cynical attempt to prematurely end the debate over abortion and declare “victory” in the face of mounting evidence that (a) the American public does not support the vast majority of abortions being performed in the U.S. each year and (b) abortion has a substantial negative impact on women.

Although expressing as its goal the simple codification of Roe, FOCA also expressly provided that it would apply “to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment.” “Before, on, or after,” that pretty much covers everything doesn’t it? As Senator Boxer eloquently explained in 2004, “FOCA [will] supersede all other laws,” especially those that the Supreme Court has held to be constitutional under Roe and its progeny.

FOCA creates a new and dangerously radical “right.” It establishes the right to abortion as a “fundamental right,” elevating it to the same status as the right to vote and the right to free speech which (unlike the abortion license), are specifically referenced in the U.S. Constitution.

If enacted, FOCA would retroactively be applied to all abortion-related laws and would result in the invalidation of more than 550 federal and state laws.

If implemented, FOCA would invalidate common-sense, protective laws that the majority of Americans support. It will not protect or empower women. Instead, it would protect and promote the abortion industry, sacrifice women and their health to a radical political ideology, and silence the voices of everyday Americans who want to engage in a meaningful public discussion over the availability, safety, and even desirability of abortion. 

Source: Americans United for Life, by Denise M. Burke

~~~

Political Hemorrhoid #3 - The “Stimulus” bill.

I’m not going to spend much time on this aberration since everyone else in the known universe is writing about it. There are just a few points that cry out for special emphasis. For example, what should a stimulus bill do?

By now, it’s apparent that there is a divergence between what the dems intend to accomplish with this bill and what it should do. For Nancy Pelosi and her band of ne’er-do-wells, it is an omnibus spending bill although they are intentionally misleading the uninformed public by calling it an “economic stimulus package.”

The intent of such a bill should be to fund those activities that will put people to work and cut taxes to get money into the public’s hands – more tax cuts and less government spending. It should remove impediments to production, saving and investing. But the bill, as it currently stands, is heavy on spending and light on tax cuts.

First, it is impossible for many of the recipients of this bill to immediately stimulate the stagnant economy. Some funding won’t be in a position to affect the economy until 2-3 years down the road. It’s like planning a dinner party when you’re up to your arse in alligators. Your immediate action should be to save yourself from the ‘gators – worry about the guest seating arrangements later.

And secondly, much of the bill is simply the dems paying off political debts via pork. Obama bristles when asked about the “pork” in the bill. In Obama’s vocabulary (using his definition de jour), “pork” = “specified earmark.” Thus, if there are no specified earmarks, there is no pork. But there is language in the bill directing funds to entities defined in such a way as to leave no doubt as to the intended recipient – it is therefore an earmark even though it isn’t called an earmark.

Exactly what is an “earmark” in the context of its use by congress?

There is not a single specific definition of the term earmark accepted by all

practitioners and observers of the appropriations process, nor is there a standard earmark practice across all 13 regular appropriations bills.

According to the Congressional Quarterly’s American Congressional Dictionary, under the broadest definition “virtually every appropriation is earmarked.” In practice, however, earmarks are generally defined more narrowly, often reflecting procedures established over time that may differ from one appropriation bill to another.

For one bill, an earmark may refer to a certain level of specificity within an account. For other bills, an earmark may refer to funds set aside within an account for individual projects, locations, or institutions. (emphasis mine)

 Source: www.senate.gov

It is plain that there are earmarks in the stimulus bill, whether they’re specified as congressional earmarks or not. There is plainly pork in the bill although Obama won’t admit to it. An animal with a flat snout and a curly tail that makes “oinking” sounds, is a pig - just ‘cause Obama wants to mislead taxpayers and call it a hampster, doesn’t mean it’s not pork.

~~~

Political Hemorrhoid #4 – Our Guns and Ammo.

Second Amendment foes are taking two new and different paths to reach their desired goal – taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

One bill filed early this year by U.S. Representative Bobby Rush would require each gun owner to be licensed in order to retain his/her guns. I won’t go into detail about that bill here since it was covered by an earlier post on Pesky Truth. This bill has no co-sponsors at present and is not actively being pushed – hopefully, it will die a natural death.

Here’s a link to that article:

http://garnet92.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/07/hr_45,_assault_on_the_constitution.thtml

The second attack is by way of “encoded ammunition.” There is an e-mail currently making the rounds that makes it sound like this is a fait accompli when it is not. It has not (yet) become law in any state.

Eighteen states have introduced bills to require that the base of each and every bullet and the inside of the cartridge casing would have to be encoded with the same unique identifying number. Each round in a box of ammo would be encoded with the same number. Each box (a unique number) would be registered to the purchaser. The original purchaser would have to maintain a record of a transfer if he/she gave or sold the ammunition to someone else (the tax applicable to the cartridges would apply on any transfer).

This required encoding would apply to all center-fire as well as all rim-fire cartridges. Some even mentioned shotgun ammo, but that seems like an impossible task and not at all realistic.

A tax would be levied on each round of (approximately) 5 cents per cartridge. Re-loading would be abolished so that cartridge cases couldn’t be reused with different (or non-encoded) bullets.

And the worst stipulation is that all un-coded ammunition would be forfeit after a specified time period – typically, two years. Consider that gun owners currently possess hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition that would become illegal on some specified date. Consider also that American manufacturers produce some 8,000,000,000 (8 billion) rounds each year. All un-encoded ammunition would be confiscated (without compensation) from gun owners on/after a date specified in each state’s law.

In 2007 and 2008, eighteen states introduced bills requiring ammo encoding – so far, none have become law.

Although ammunition encoding is not yet a law in any state, this new attack is presented here to illustrate the length to which the “gun-grabbers” will go to take the guns from American citizens. After all, there’s no need to ban guns if ammunition is expensive and tightly controlled.