The lady in not even in my district, but she sure has my vote.
Posted on 06/19/2009 7:33:29 AM PDT by GeorgiaDawg32
Outspoken Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann says she's so worried that information from next year's national census will be abused that she will refuse to fill out anything more than the number of people in her household.
In an interview Wednesday morning with The Washington Times "America's Morning News," Mrs. Bachmann, Minnesota Republican, said the questions have become "very intricate, very personal" and she also fears ACORN, the community organizing group that came under fire for its voter registration efforts last year, will be part of the Census Bureau's door-to-door information collection efforts.
(SNIP)
Shelly Lowe, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau, said Mrs. Bachmann is "misreading" the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I just called my Senators to complain. Hagan’s office dumpoed me to voicemail.
Burr’s office said they were beginning to hear about this from constituents. I suggested he and the other pubbies take a clue from Bachmann and refuse to answer the intrusive un-Constitutional questions and that many of the citizens would be right there with them. I told him NC wants leadership.
The lady in not even in my district, but she sure has my vote.
Hey, you don’t have to buy what _I’m_ saying.
That the certified copy of BHO’s birth certificate exists and has been seen by those who matter is NOT in doubt. Photos of it are right there for you to examine. The bickering on our side has not been whether the photographed document exists, the bickering on our side has been whether that document is good enough - and of yet nobody has offered a solid legal reason why it isn’t.
As I noted in the referenced post: yes, FactCheck is hard to take seriously - but there’s the photo of the document, in all its detailed glory, with absolutely no evidence that it is anything other than the real thing.
Just because I observe that certain facts are not in our favor does not make me a troll.
So let family historians send their own forms to their own families.
The government is NOT there to make their jobs easier, by invading the privacy of every single inhabitant of the nation.
It is also not a family historians business to know when my house was built, how many bathrooms it has, or how much I paid for sewerage, water, electricity, etc; nor my health insurance information; nor any of the rest of the prying they’re doing.
It’s been proved to be a fake and I don’t buy what you are saying.
Right, it doesn’t make you a troll; however, POTUS has spent a lot of money covering up his birth and background.
If one is telling the truth; one doesn’t do that.
Applying the SCOTUS decision that a farmer was engaging in Interstate Commerce by growing his wheat for his own personal use, because that replaced wheat/flour he would have otherwise purchased that was part of Interstate Commerce, then growing a vegetable garden is "engaging in interstate commerce and farming.
IOW, anything you make, grow, raise or otherwise produce for yourself is, if they wish, in violation one way or another.
Facts of the Case: Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a Department of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted thewheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use.
Conclusion: According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption, which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
Held, that, in any event, and even assuming that the penalties referred to in the speech were those prescribed by the Act, the validity of the vote was not thereby affected. P. 317 U. S. 117.
2. The wheat marketing quota and attendant penalty provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended by the Act of May 26, 1941, when applied to wheat not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for consumption on the farm, are within the commerce power of Congress. P. 317 U. S. 118.
3. The effect of the Act is to restrict the amount of wheat which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing for his own needs. P. 317 U. S. 127.
4. That the production of wheat for consumption on the farm may be trivial in the particular case is not enough to remove the grower from the scope of federal regulation where his contribution, taken with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial. P. 317 U. S. 127.
5. The power to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to regulate the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in and practices affecting such prices. P. 317 U. S. 128.
6. A factor of such volume and variability as wheat grown for home consumption would have a substantial influence on price conditions on the wheat market, both because such wheat, with rising prices, may flow into the market and check price increases and, because, though never marketed, it supplies the need of the grower which would otherwise be satisfied by his purchases in the open market. P. 317 U. S. 128.
Now that the census is under control of the white house and not the dept of commerce, wouldn’t these statues be bill and void?
Same here though, my only answer will be “3 occupants” followed by “see the gadsden flag on my flag pole, know what that means?” and if they press further I will say “let me introduce you to one of my family members, mr Remington 870”
We have at least 4 old bathtubs around the place, and at least 6 sinks, beside the one each installed in the only bath room & only kitchen...which has both a gas and a wood burning stove that we use. Barns have some old toilets in the too; and the outhouse still works...both holes.
What about the two habitable log cabins, now used for storage, each of which have at least one stove in them, but no plumbing or wiring?
Would old tin wash basins count as 'sinks'? If so, I can add to the count.
Oh, I almost forgot the portable "toilet" & solar shower for camping, in addition to the sink & mini-fridge in the horse trailer's living area.
Lots of ways to have fun, and still not (technically) commit perjury!
I’ve been wondering if I would be violating their silly little census rules if I wrote the following:
There is one American citizen living in this house. All other information can be found at the county courthouse or the state offices. Feel free to do your own research.
Unfortunately for our side, few people know there are TWO sets of BC photos going around - one badly and obviously faked, the other accurate as far as any expert can attest.
(Are you even looking at the links I'm giving you? only takes a few seconds.)
Now, given the circumstantial evidence coupled with BHO's extraordinary efforts to keep the original sealed, I'm with you in believing that he is in fact disqualified* - we just don't have the legal evidence to prove it.
(* - my take is his mother tried to fly to Hawaii before the birth, the airline wouldn't take her for risk of on-plane delivery, and she flew with him to HI after his birth in time to have a falsified "at home" BC registered within 3 days of delivery. There is evidence, but he has it sealed away, and what has been produced (argued above) is legally binding just like a passport acquired on false pretences.)
Documents can be faked. And you don’t spend upwards of a million dollars to hide everything about your past. And you don’t shut everyone up in the world about your past so you can manufacture whatever is being said; if you have nothing to hide.
All he has to do is produce the long form version of his bc; not some document that only provides a name of a person and place of birth and date; which also may or may not be the same Barak Obama.
So, I am wondering why you are so accepting?
I fail to see anything legally binding since there is nothing legal to look at.
I think all of Freepers should write in NATURAL BORN CITIZEN under race, lol.
I do too.
Uh, that would be the aforementioned multiply-photographed document with the leagl signature & seal of the state registrar and the phrase “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” You know, the markings which are acknowledged as legally binding in any court?
Covering your eyes and shouting “it’s not true! it’s not true!” doesn’t help our cause.
Also, I don’t think this kind of document was around when Obama was born; therefore there must be a real one.
I hardly think he sprouted under a mushroom.
They have a spot for that - it’s “Native American”.
They try to give a definition that means “American Indian”, but won’t say INDIAN.
As I said before; Obama was born before this type of document was invented; therefore he must have the original document of his bc. Where’s that? The kind of document displayed shows us nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
