Thursday, January 28, 2010

State of the Union Sham

Wow! It has been a LONG time since I heard so much BS and uintruths spoken by one person in such a short time.

But before we get to actual FACTS that dispute much of what the president said, let us first consider his public (and rude) rebuke of the Supreme Court for doing their job - protecting the Constitution when they struck down part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act.

When he rebuked the SCOTUS, Alito seemed to mouth (Not True", and that has liberals in a tizzy. But the fact is, Alito is 100% correct, and it is never wrong to tell the truth.

First, Obama said the court "reversed a century of law." I don't know how they tell time in Chicago, but McCain-Feingold was passed in 2002. Since then, only 8 years have passed. Where I come from, that's a LONG way from a "century".

Obama also stated the court decision was wrong. Also not true - the court had no choice but to stand on the First Amendment of Free Speech, whether or not the law was good.

Obama claimed the decision left the door open to foreign contributions. However, the fact is the courts left untouched the parts of the law that prohibited contributions from foreign sources.

Then there was Obama's statement that he would seek bipartisanship - then immediately pointed to the Republicans and told them to "stop being 'obstructionists' and the party of NO". Now that's bipartisanship, Chicago hoodlum style - do it my way or else. Truth be told, the Republicans have not been a party of "no" - they have presented many ideas and bills, but Pelosi and Reid will not even allow them to be presented on the floor.

Now for some other facts, as discovered at

OBAMA: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't."
THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than one percent of the deficit — and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along.
Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year to year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain's.
OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."
THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted — a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.
OBAMA: Discussing his health care initiative, he said: "Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan."
THE FACTS: The Democratic legislation now hanging in limbo on Capitol Hill aims to keep people with employer-sponsored coverage — the majority of Americans under age 65 — in the plans they already have. But Obama can't guarantee people won't see higher rates or fewer benefits in their existing plans. Because of elements such as new taxes on insurance companies, insurers could change what they offer or how much it costs. Moreover, Democrats have proposed a series of changes to the Medicare program for people 65 and older that would certainly pinch benefits enjoyed by some seniors. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted cuts for those enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans.
OBAMA: The president issued a populist broadside against lobbyists, saying they have "outsized influence" over the government. He said his administration has "excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs." He also said it's time to "require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress" and "to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office."
THE FACTS: Obama has limited the hiring of lobbyists for administration jobs, but the ban isn't absolute; seven waivers from the ban have been granted to White House officials alone. Getting lobbyists to report every contact they make with the federal government would be difficult at best; Congress would have to change the law, and that's unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving. Just like every other American, they're limited to giving $2,400 per election to federal candidates, with an overall ceiling of $115,500 every two years.
OBAMA: "Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. ... And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year."
THE FACTS: The success of the Obama-pushed economic stimulus that Congress approved early last year has been an ongoing point of contention for the president. In December, the administration reported that recipients of direct assistance from the government created or saved about 650,000 jobs. The number was based on self-reporting by recipients and some of the calculations were shown to be in error.
The Congressional Budget Office has been much more guarded than Obama in characterizing the success of the stimulus plan. In November, it reported that the stimulus increased the number of people employed by between 600,000 and 1.6 million "compared with what those values would have been otherwise." It said the ranges "reflect the uncertainty of such estimates." And it added: "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."
OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress "to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve."
THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign — to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN "so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it's acted upon.
OBAMA: "We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year."
THE FACTS: Identifying savings is far from achieving them. Congress routinely rejects many of a president's suggested spending cuts. The administration estimates 60 percent of the cuts sought by Obama last year went into effect.
OBAMA: "The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades."
THE FACTS: Despite insisting early last year that they would complete the negotiations in time to avoid expiration of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in early December, the U.S. and Russia failed to do so. And while officials say they think a deal on a new treaty is within reach, there has been no breakthrough. A new round of talks is set to start Monday. One important sticking point: disagreement over including missile defense issues in a new accord. If completed, the new deal may arguably be the farthest-reaching arms control treaty since the original 1991 agreement. An interim deal reached in 2002 did not include its own rules on verifying nuclear reductions.
OBAMA: Drawing on classified information, he claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: "And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed — far more than in 2008."
THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify. Neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghan border region. The pace of drone attacks has increased dramatically in the last 18 months, according to congressional officials briefed on the secret program.


Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Taking All Bets

It's official - the liberal state of Oregon has just voted to increase taxes on the wealthy and on businesses. So I predict Oregon will be the next in a line of liberal states to go bust.

When California pulled this stupidity, businesses moved to Nevada and Arizona, and the state lost far more in taxes and jobs than it could have ever gained by taxing the businesses. Recently, New York city has tried this - and we have seen a mass exodus of wealthy and of businesses heading to greener pastures.

Liberals just don't get it - businesses, and people with money, are the ONLY ones that can provide jobs, wealth and a strong economy. So they are the Golden Goose that lays the golden eggs. So what does a liberal do? He cooks the goose, then wonders why the eggs have stopped coming.

There are a lot of smart Democrats, but there is not a single intelligent liberal. Yes, they may have a decent IQ, and maybe they even went to college, but they have ZERO common sense and have no clue how economies work. None. And there is a scientific reason for that - liberals think with the right side of the brain, which is not analytical - it is creative, or "artsy". Conservatives are left brain oriented, and better suited to analytical thought.

If you look at the most bankrupt states and cities, almost every one has been run into the ground by liberals.

Being liberal, or "progressive" is not conducive to success. In fact, the two are diametrically opposed.


Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Typhoid Mary & Jackson Hole

I'll bet that title has you wondering what Typhoid Mary and Jackson Hole, Wyoming have in common. No, not Dick Cheney (although he does live there).

In 1963 I was in Jackson Hole. It was little more than an intersection with a lot of elk antlers used to create an arch over that intersection. Nestled at the foot of the Grand Tetons, never was there a more beautiful place anywhere on God's green Earth.

And that is exactly what destroyed it. I revisited Jackson Hole in 2005. It is almost a metropolis, with fast food places on every corner, motels and tourist traps. Unless you get out of town, you cannot even see the Grand Tetons anymore.

It seems that a lot of people fell in love with Jackson Hole - so they moved there. And in doing so, they destroyed that which had made it so attractive. The same thing happened to the hamlet of Banff, Alberta, nestled amid the Canadian Rockies.

Now back to Typhoid Mary. Mary was a "carrier". Wherever she went, she spread typhoid unknowingly. As typhoid spread, she would move on to get away from it, and in doing so she brought it with her. Just like all those people who left the smog-ridden cities to move to Jackson Hole. They, too, brought their disease with them.

Now it is a lot easier to understand what has happened to the beautiful, simple life that was found in New Hampshire and Vermont through the 70's. Because those states were conservative and believed in small government, the states were very attractive to those from Massachusetts and New York, where life was hectic, restricted by government, heavily taxed and just plain lousy because of their liberal, progressive ideals. They looked at the great life in New Hampshire and Vermont and decided they wanted that, and so moved into those great, conservative states. And they immediately set out to destroy that which attracted them, because when they moved to New Hampshire and Vermont they brought their progressive "typhoid" ideals with them.

And now New Hampshire is flailing for the first time in its history, and Vermont has become the most progressive (socialist) state in the nation. Yes, progressivism is the old word for socialism, made new again by the likes of far-left liberals.

The quality of life in New Hampshire and Vermont has suffered terribly over the last 30-40 years as the "Boston" and "Albany" crowds moved into the quaint countryside. And, like Jackson Hole, the beauty is gone.

This post is a warning to all the conservative states in "middle" America - your future is in jeopardy. The progressives spread their poison until even they can no longer tolerate the mess they have made, and so move on. But they do not move to other progressive areas - that is what they are running from. Instead, they will be looking you over, and when they can no longer tolerate their own polluted pond, they will swim on over to yours, and bring their typhoid with them.

Your only hope: when folks move to your area, let them know they will not be made welcome if they bring their poison with them. Let them know the REASON your state is so nice is because you are NOT progressive; not liberal and you intend to keep it that way. And if they intend to spread their poison, shun them just as you would quarantine Typhoid Mary if she came to your town. If you do not, rest assured your quality of life will suffer greatly.

The difference between a progressive and a conservative: A conservative, upon seeing a beautiful flower would take a moment to enjoy it, and leave it for others to enjoy. The progressive, upon seeing a beautiful flower will pick it and put it in a vase for his own pleasure, where it will soon die. And once dead, the progressive tosses it out, then picks another...

I am a conservative. I left Jackson Hole and Banff the way I found them - beautiful. Progressives did not.


Saturday, January 16, 2010

Belief vs Success

As any truly successful person can tell you (meaning successful in all aspects of their lives, not just the financial portion), success is impossible if your core beliefs conflict with reality.

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." - Matthew 6:24. When any of your beliefs conflict with reality, your subconscious is forced to try and serve two masters. The result will be failure, not success.

And we know that one of the most widely held and entrenched beliefs is that of religion. But to hear the non-religious people tell it, religion cannot possibly be reality and only superstitious idiots with low I.Q.'s would be religious. So then a thinking person must ask, "Why, then, are almost all of the most successful people and the most intelligent people religious?" The following are just a random smattering of those who claimed their religious beliefs were paramount:

DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Renoir, Rubens, Rembrandt, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Handel, Rachmaninoff, Vivaldi, Bronte, Browning, Chaucer, Dante, Dickenson, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Bacon, Descartes, Kierkegaard, Maritain, Rousseau, Pascal, Copernicus, Brahe, Einstein, Faraday, Galileo, Newton, Pasteur, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, King James
Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Millikan, Townes, Schawlow, Phillips, Bragg, Marconi, Compton, Penzias, Carrel, Eccles, Murray, Sir Ernst Chain, Wald, Sir Derek Barton, Anfinsen, Khon
Burnell - discovered pulsars
Penfield - world reknown neurosurgeon
Pert - Discoverer of the opiate receptor
Wickrasinge - worked with Sir Frederick Hoyle

But the question remains: how does one go about reconciling religious beliefs with reality if, in fact, evolution and not creationism is fact?

So I have decided to have a little fun with this, and I hope most of you will enjoy it. I have surfed the internet chat rooms and boards looking for comments concerning the issue of Intelligent Design vs Science and evolution, and they are posted here. Following each is my comment. I find it truly amazing that so many people go to such lengths to prove to the world how ignorant they are of simple facts.

"You ask what happened one second before creation? Numerous things. This univerese has been here forever and the right particles and minerals formed together to create what we call Earth."

[REPLY] Nice try, but not even close. Creation is obviously the point where all those things you mentioned were created. If they were created upon the instant of Creation, then they obviously could NOT have existed prior to that. This person's argument is simply that everything that was created somehow already existed before it was created. Nonsense. He is also saying the universe was not created at all - it has always been here. But science says that is a physical impossibility - nothing can exist until it is made to exist.

"And being that humans evolved from other life, the eye was already formed at the time we came to be. So that is a moot point."

[REPLY] The only "moot point" here is that the person who wrote this is completely uneducated and misinformed. First, there is no proof that humans evolved from other life, which is why evolution is still only a theory. And his assertion that the eye was already formed does not address the issue that was being discussed - that the way the eye works still stumps scientists who cannot attribute it to evolution because of its complexity.

"There is proof of evolution all around us every day and it has nothing to do with god."

[REPLY] Um, don't think so, Einstein. First, once again - there is no proof of evolution. None. There is proof of adaptation within a species to environmental changes, but that is not to be confused with evolution. Evolution says that every living thing evolved from some other species - from microbe to a worm to a fish to an ape to a man. There is not one tiny shard of evidence, let alone proof, that Man evolved from any other species. But even more important, this person's assertion that any such evolution "has nothing to do with God" is absurd. Assuming for a moment there is a God, would He not be at least smart enough to instill in all life the ability to adapt so that we could survive changes? Evolution would not disprove God - it would actually help to PROVE God.

"science is fact-based. Religion is based in personal opinion"

[REPLY] Science claims to be fact-based, and in its pure form is likely to be so, except that even science is imperfect, because there are so few absolutes, and man tends to insert his own opinions into it (can anyone say "Global Warming"?). For example, science once believed the Earth was flat, and the Sun revolved around the Earth. Until 112 years ago science believed a woman's womb traveled around her body, which explained the menstruation period. As for religion being based in opinion, that is not quite true, either. Much of what is believed in religious circles has actually been proved to be true. In fact, it now appears that Sodom and Gomorrah have been unearthed, and that they were both destroyed by a great blast at the same time in 2200 BC - exactly the period the Bible claims it to have occured.

"Evolution Has bean witnessed & you can factually put names & dates to all who wrote & brang up those theory's"

[REPLY] Brang? Really? It would be nice if these enlightened atheists would learn how to spell, and learn decent grammar. But just for kicks, I will repeat - there is not an ounce of proof that evolution has actually ever occured. But consider this: evolution, if true, can only affect animate (living) objects. So evolution cannot explain how inanimate objects (dirt, air, planets, rocks, water) came about. They certainly could not have "evolved". And even in your precious science, is it not necessary for something to actually exist before it could possibly evolve?

"If I recall of, all of you church fearing folk thought the Earth revolved around the sun and you were wrong. You all thought the Earth was flat and you were wrong."

[REPLY] Actually, the Earth is referred to as a sphere in Genesis, and it was the "men of science" that taught everyone the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around it. You really should get your facts straight before putting them in writing.

"Evolutionary theory is not falling apart in any way, shape or form outside of the minds of peon America. It's so strong, we are able to make accurate predictions based on what we know about it. For example, we can assume by our similarities with apes and monkeys that we share a common ancestor."

[REPLY] There has not been a single "prediction" for evolution that has come to pass. Not one. On the contrary, the island that Darwin studied: Darwin claimed his theory would be proved out on that island within 100 years because of the constant adaptations of some of its indigenous species. Unfortunately, that never happened. And while there may be great similarities between YOU and monkeys, do not assume we are all that backward. And for you to "assume" anything at all only proves the point that your opinion is one founded in ignorance. There are planets similiar to Earth - that does not mean they evolved from Earth.

"Anti-bacterial soaps kill 99.9% of all bacteria. However, 0.09% of bacteria are left behind.The kitchen is allowed to get dirty again (without allowing in any outside bacteria). Over time, the 0.09% of bacteria left behind will take over the kitchen and grow over every surface. That is just one type of evolution."

[REPLY] This guy would be hilarious if not so pathetic. This proves there are three kinds of people - those who are good at math and those who are not. Just for the record, if you wipe out 99.9% it leaves .1%, not .09%. And just for the record - that is not evolution. It's procreation. You know, boy bacteria meets girl bacteria...(actually they procreate by division). But in no case is that any form of evolution. Example: if you have 100 rabbits in a room, and you kill all but two, would it prove evolution if you returned later to find 20 bunnies?

"I agree, evolution does exist - its been proven and observed."

[REPLY] I get really tired of such ignorant people professing abject lies in order to try and prove the unproved.

"If the "creatioinst" God doesn't make mistakes, how do we explain extinction?"

[REPLY] First, no one ever said he does not make mistakes - remember the Great Flood? He admitted it was a mistake. More to the point, extinction is part of life, just as death is part of life. Every individual dies, and every species dies. Here is a law of science that you evolutionists seem to keep missing - nothing can be created until something else is destroyed. The reason for that is the first law of physics - matter can neither be created not destroyed.

"Intelligent Design is the idea that God was not smart enough to create a system of evolution that could operate by itself without his intervention."

[REPLY] Talk about not being able to see past one's own ignorance. Intelligent Design is the idea that God created everything, AND allowed for it to survive by building in the processes necessary for adaptation. Just because you are stupid, do not assume God's intellect is limited by your own lack of intelligence.

"Why is it that the majority of very intelligent people on this planet do not believe in god, where you will find a survey of the people with lower IQ's will be largely religious."

[REPLY] I took that on at the beginning of this post. Contrary to your warped assertions based on your personal fantasy, the most intelligent people have always been believers in a God. Also, do not start an argument stating "God", and then change it to "religion". The two are not interchangeable. That said, I believe in God. And I have three degrees, including a Masters, I maintained a 4.0 GPA throughout college, and I have an I.Q. that would make you shrivel. I have written 32 books, I write 5 blogs, and earn more in one week than half the folks in this country earn in a year. How about you? The point is, the most intelligent people are religious.

"I figured out there was no Santa Clause (Christian beliefs are nothing but fairy tails)."

[REPLY] Wow! I see you have it nailed. You actually believe Santa is a Christian belief, and you think I'm nuts for believing in God. For the record, Santa has no basis in Christianity, nor in any other religion on planet Earth. The original Saint Nicholas who was a real person was, indeed, Christian, but that is where any connection ends. The creation of Santa Claus was simply an inspiration to make Christmas "important" to children until such time as they were able to be taught the real meaning of Christmas. To teach, you must first gain attention.

"Maybe you need to read Genesis again. Where in the bible were people living on Earth before Adam and Eve? Oh you must mean the people that have lived on this Earth for the past 1.8 million years and of course Adam and Eve and the Earth are only 6,000 years old."

[REPLY] If there is any small truth embedded somewhere in your post, I cannot find it. First, Genesis said on the "4th day" God created Man. Only AFTER the 7th day of rest did He look around and see something was missing, and created Adam. This is fully in keeping with science, which has already proved the existence of species of Man that predates Cro-magnon (modern man). It also fully explains how Cain was able to find a spouse in the land of Nod.

And while we are on the subject, nowhere does the Bible claim that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. The original Hebrew text, when describing the Creation, used the word "yom", which King James incorrectly translated to mean "day". In truth, the word yom is used for any period of time - day, year, Genesis actually says God created the Earth in six times, not six days. Since a time could be and era or epoch, that would certainly allow for Earth to be 4 billion years old, and Man to be kicking around for a couple million of those. And it would certainly allow for mutations and adaptations and, yes, possibly evolution.

"Belief in God? Which one? The God argument is bogus because everyone believes in a different one."

[REPLY] I'll bet you are funny at parties, too. First, there is only one God. The fact that different religions all have a different name for Him does not change that. And just because people believe in "different Gods" would not necessarily mean they are all bogus. Or are you just saying that if some people believe in 50 Earths, that would mean ours does not exist because the other 49 are bogus? If I believe there are 100 of you, do you cease to exist because the others are a figment of the imagination?

"Nothing in the Bible has ever been proven."

[REPLY] You should try getting some sort of education. According to the Bible we should not partake of the blood of any animal, yet it was not discovered until the 1800's that many diseases were bloodborne. According to the Bible we should not eat any seafood that feeds on the bottom. It was not until the mid 1950's that red tide was discovered to affect those same creatures and pass it on to humans. The Bible says pork is "unclean", and not to eat it. Trichinosis (lockjaw) was only discovered to come from pork about 100 years ago. Sodom & Gomorrah appear to have been found. Jesus has been historically proven to have existed. Science has proved there was, indeed, a Great Flood. The short take - much in the Bible has proved out. More has been proven in the Bible than has been proved in the theory of Evolution and the "Big Bang" theory combined.

All of that said, here is the nut of it...

Religious beliefs are as sound as any science, and people whose faith is strong enough will find success much more easily that anyone who has no religious faith.

So, don't be afraid to believe. It will do a lot more good than harm. Especially if it turns out there is a God.


Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Success Not Possible If Built On The Wind

Everyone understands that success is something that must be built from a solid foundation on firm ground. So when the Obama administration again tries to pull the slight-of-hand trick of saying, "The Stimulus Has Saved Two Million Jobs", we not only must question writings on the wind, but dismiss them out of hand.

If any jobs could be shown to be directly tied to the stimulus, then there needs to be hard facts and figures to prove it. If there are none, then the administration is simply removing truth from the room in an attempt to make black look like white - to try and convince less educated people into thinking you can actually spend your way out of a recession without fueling the economic engine - small business.

It is worth noting that even the White House knows their statement is bogus - they recently stopped putting out regular updates of the employment benefits of the stimulus package because it has been impossible to find hard numbers to back up its claims.

The Associated Press recently reported being unable to locate any facts at all that would lead anyone to believe a single job has been created. And that is an eye-opener, coming from the liberal AP that worked so tirelessly to get Obama elected.

Obama has often said the stimulus has kept public service employees such as teachers and police from losing their jobs. However, right here in Maine, 7 police officers were laid off in York County, and a few others in Cumberland County. So much for "saving" the public service jobs.

Actually, it was not the Obama administration that saved 2,000,000 jobs. I did that. And I challenge the administration to prove otherwise.

The Obama administration will gain credibility in my eyes when they stop trying to BS everyone and begin to be honest and open, and when they stop hiding behind closed doors, with only members of their own party, working secret deals in the dark.

After all, it was this administration that promised transparency. And it was this administration that promised bipartisanship. Neither of which they have made possible. Republicans are not even allowed in discussions, and there are no transparent "closed doors" in the back halls of Congress and in the White House.

But there seems to be no shortage of liars in those once revered halls.


Monday, January 11, 2010

I see (Better Than They Think)

Professor Mojib Latif, the author of the United Nation's report on Global Warming has now stated that all computer models now show that we can expect 30 years of Global Cooling. He goes on to say that this should not be taken to mean we are not experiencing Global Warming.

He had to come out with a report on the cooling in order to "explain" why the last 10 years have actually been colder than normal. It's called damage control via "spin".

This is the same man whose earlier computer models showed we would be underwater in 30 years.

These people are freakin' nuts! But I've been saying that for years.


Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Census Nonsense

2010 is the year of the census. And harrassment.

The Constitution of the United States clearly states, and I quote, "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. "

In raw terms, the enumeration, i.e. COUNT, shall be taken in such MANNER, i.e MEANS as the law requires.

"Manner" is defined as "means". In other words, the count can be taken by going house to house, or by mail, or by fax or any other means.

What does all this come down to? In a nutshell, the law can only require you to give a COUNT of the persons in your household. No other information need be given up. The Constitution also states that the government has no rights that are not expressed stated in the Constitution, so Congress cannot expand on the census without violating the law of the land.

For valid reasons, however, it is considered part of the census to also offer up the ages and gender of each person, so that the government has some means by which to determine the possibility of enlisting a strong militia.

Other than that, the government has no legal right to require any other information in the census, even if Congress passes a bogus law that does require it.

The current census asks a lot of very personal questions of which the only purpose is to decide where the pork goes so votes can be bought, or where the best places are to discriminate.

The problem is this: although the government assures us of privacy, they really cannot assure it at all. Hackers break into the Pentagon. Secret CIA documents are leaked to the New York Times on a regular basis. And there is always the possibility that even America's democracy can fall some day, leaving all those records to some maniacal regime.

Imagine if Hitler had had access to records showing exactly where every person of Jewish descent was living. Do you really want the government to have access to such information about you and your family? Do you really want that info to fall into the wrong hands?

It's like the DNA bank that local, state and federal agencies are building. Eventually they want a sample of everyone's DNA on file. But then what happens when society gets to the point where only the most fit can be allowed to survive - or even be born? Those DNA samples can be a death warrant for millions, in an attempt to "cleanse" Mankind of diseases or mental problems. Or even races.

It matters not what the government says the information can be used for. What matters is that it could fall into the wrong hands because the government is not even close to being infallible.

That is why in 2000 when I received a 24 page census, I only listed names, number, age and gender. I left everything else blank. For the next two months I was harrassed by census takers. They called; they came to my door. Each time I refused to cooperate further. Then they began with threats of fines, even jail. At that point I wrote a letter and sent it by registered mail to the census bureau, stating that if even so much as one more census person or government employee harrassed me about this, I would sue. I further stated that if they believe they can legally subvert the Constitution and use punitive measures for not cooperating, to go right ahead - that I would look forward to getting this into the courts.

I never heard from them again.

The government has no right to know my ethnic background, the state of my marriage or family, what I do for a living, how much I earn, or what color my socks are. Nor will they get any of that information from me.

This year I will provide the same information as in 2000, nothing more. And I expect once again to get harrassed and threatened. Only this time, I will send that letter the first time they come back...