I’m sure it says in the Constitution ‘The President’s motives must be Politically Correct.’ Keep looking, it has to be in there somewhere . . .

The Supreme Court On June 27 — with Flopping Fish John Roberts joining the mostly geriatric liberals — ruled that, by law, the Commerce Department can place any questions it wants on its decennial Census forms, but then proceeded to remand the case of the supposedly controversial “citizenship” question back to the lower court, on grounds that Roberts et al. found the Trump administration’s “Voting Rights Act” justification for including the question “contrived.”

Here we go with the “thought crimes” again. As in “Of course it’s perfectly legal for any president to block foreigners from coming here from any and all countries he deems to be aswarm with uncontrolled terrorists . . . but not if it’s President TRUMP, and not if he once on the campaign trail said something disparaging about, you know, . . . ‘Radical Mooslim terrorists!’” Kind of like “Of course you can declare war on any country that just sank our Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor in a surprise attack . . . but not if Franklin Roosevelt was once heard calling them “sneaky yellow bastards”!

Obviously, if Wilbur Ross and his Commerce Department have the right -– under both the Constitution and the Census Act -– to place any questions they like on the forms, the idea that the court has to approve (or is even allowed to inquire into) the REASONS for those questions is absurd on it face: Commerce is free to say either “No reason” or “Because Goofy is taller than Mickey Mouse.”

Along with nearly everyone else in Washington save the Very Stable Genius Donald Trump, the court has clearly been sipping the Silly Sauce.

Kris Kobach of “We Build the Wall” points out the citizenship question was on nearly every Census up until the 1950s, when it was dropped after assurances all resident aliens would be made to register and report any address changes so they could be kept track of THAT way -– yet another immigration-related federal promise which was never kept, as that requirement is rarely enforced. (See https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/27/kobach-why-the-citizenship-question-is-so-important/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+breitbart+%28Breitbart+News%29 .)

(By the way, all the Democrats who hope to be chosen to lose to Donald Trump next year assert they’re in favor of open borders and non-enforcement of our Immigration laws. Yet most of these clowns serve in Congress. So why hasn’t a single one of them introduced legislation to REPEAL all our immigration laws? Isn’t that what they’re supposed to do if they think existing laws are no longer needed –- draft “repeal” legislation in black-and-white which can then be publicly debated?)

This is all doubly absurd because no one in living memory has been jailed or punished in any way for throwing away a Census form without answering it, or for returning it, filled out with obvious lies.

Mind you, I’m not necessarily recommending you report you’re sheltering in your basement a 17-member Bulgarian midget gymnastics team, all of them illegal aliens, though the FedGov obviously has no interest in bringing a case if you merely state “Three people live at this address and I’m not going to answer any of your other insulting questions, none of which are authorized by the Constitution, which authorizes counting residents for purposes of apportioning congressional districts, and nothing else. I am CERTAINLY not going to tell you whether we have a flush toilet.”

Though if the goal now is to make sure no court can accuse Commerce of generating a “contrived and disingenuous” rationale for asking for a count of citizens vs. non-citizens, why not merely declare “So we can figure out how many goddamned illegal aliens we’re got to round up and deport in the next 16 months, to make sure blue-state Democrats don’t continue to let them vote, which is AGAINST FEDERAL LAW”? Would Justice Roberts then continue to argue “I don’t believe it; they’re just making that up to sound nice”?


Word is the Red Chinese are shocked -– shocked -– that Donald Trump is apparently unprepared to offer them any new trade “concessions” in Tokyo this weekend (so they can keep stealing our intellectual property and arranging forced technology transfers), in exchange for their magnanimously agreeing to buy from us some pork and soybeans without which they’re about to starve. (Xi, thanks, Gee!)

President Trump held off our next round of tariffs for four months, negotiating with them in good faith based on the promises they made in Buenos Aires in early December, and then in early May they came back and said, “You know all that stuff we already agreed to over all those tough bargaining sessions? Forget about it.”

And now they think he’s going to “cave” and agree to let Huawei build “back doors” into the 5G communication networks of every American and European Defense contractor . . . and the Pentagon, as well? “Just to be nice”? To sell some soybeans?

Let me get the straight: The Chinese Communists, with all their resources, still haven’t compiled and translated a basic biography of Donald Trump? He knew the Post Foundation considered the Mar-A Lago estate in South Florida a white elephant that they couldn’t afford to properly maintain, at the cost of several million greenbacks per year. (The U.S. government turned it down as a tax-funded “Winter White House”; even the Smithsonian turned it down.) So when Marjorie Merriweather Post’s descendants put the property on the market at $25 million, Trump offered . . . 15.

They snorted at this upstart. The nerve! And he was even proposing to let Jews and blacks play golf there! (Play back that part where they claim Trump, a former New York Democrat whose grandchildren are Jewish, is a “racist,” will you?)

But when they couldn’t find anyone else to meet even THAT price, they grudgingly went back to Trump . . . who proceeded to tell them “You had a chance at 15 but you turned it down. My offer is now $12 million.”

Outraged at such tactics, the Posts turned him down AGAIN, . . . and paid the price again, eventually selling to Trump for . . . $8 million.

Note he never “sweetened the deal”: In each case, declining to promptly take his offer COST THE OTHER SIDE something.

(And the Democrats think Donald Trump will now hand them the “big Wetback amnesty” deal they turned down in 2017? In exchange for . . . nothing but continuing to call him names?)

Trump held off the China tariffs for months last winter because Xi PERSONALLY stood up at the table at Buenos Aires and outlined the deal he was willing to make. Lighthizer and Mnuchin and Navarro were all very impressed that Xi made those promises PERSONALLY.

So who’s Xi going to blame, now? “Bad translator”?

I suspect (and hope) they’d seen all the “concessions” they were going to see, as of May 4. Witness Justin Sparkle-Sox and Christia Freeland insisting “Trump would never make a bilateral deal with Mexico without US! We’ll NEVER have to drop our 270 percent dairy tariffs! He’s just BLUFFING!”

— V.S.

11 Comments to “I’m sure it says in the Constitution ‘The President’s motives must be Politically Correct.’ Keep looking, it has to be in there somewhere . . .”

  1. K. Bill Hodges Says:

    Clarence Thomas for the win, as always.

  2. Rob Gillespie Says:

    His name is not “Justin Sparkle-Sox. It’s Justin the Groper…

  3. Thomas Knapp Says:

    And then there was the old Vin Suprynowicz, the Vin Suprynowicz who pointed out that the Constitution authorizes one, and only one, census question (how many people live at this address?).

    Apparently “it’s only different if it’s Trump” is a phenomenon that runs in more than one direction.

  4. vardis Says:

    Thomas Knapp Says:
    June 30th, 2019 at 7:57 am

    And then there was the old Vin Suprynowicz, the Vin Suprynowicz who pointed out that the Constitution authorizes one, and only one, census question (how many people live at this address?).

    Apparently “it’s only different if it’s Trump” is a phenomenon that runs in more than one direction.

    Thomas, i will attempt to answer for Vin,

    i would think the answer is self evident to any clear thinking citizen,

    the census has been weaponized, along with every other branch of government by prior democrat administrations, and as such is being used as a weapon in this situation, to thwart the trump admin attempt to clean up the big question of exactly who the politicians are really working for, (citizens or illegals) and to attack any effort to use the census in the service of the citizens of this country, I.E. if we were to subtract the # of illegals from the count, which are not to be included in the totals for congressional reps, the democrats will LOSE seats in congress, with the illegals included in the census counts the democrats get more seats in congress, and with the wholesale rush by the democrats for open borders, they look to overwhelm the system to get more seats in congress based on the numbers of persons(citizens+ legal immigrants+illegals) in a district! NOT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF CITIZENS IN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT- legal immigrants CANT VOTE.
    in our country foreigners are not supposed to be allowed to meddle in an election,,, having possibly up 30 million (https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twice-as-many-undocumented-immigrants-as-previous-estimates)illegals counted in the totals for congressional representation SCREWS with our elections in a very basic and fundamental way
    it cheats citizens out of their lawful representation in the halls of government, and gives benefits to violators of OUR laws and gives artificial benefit to crooked political parties (i include both the democrats and the rino repubs in that description)
    its really pretty simple, if we continue to allow what has gotten us into this mess, it will only get worse, to the point that this will no longer be the united states, what it turns into i speculate, is somewhere along the lines of los angeles/san fransisco/portland/seattle, 10s of thousands of homeless roaming the streets, and all of the problems that goes with that, street crime , drugs, mental issues, feces in the streets ,typhus, formerly nice cities run for decades by democrats ….. the election in 2020 is a make or break election for this country, if the democrats/rino repubs win ,, the citizens lose – EVERYTHING ! even if we the america first citizens are able to re-elect trump its still an uphill fight, as evidenced by the courts waffling on basic questions of law, which seems to confuse the judges, I.E. roberts obamacare tax/penalty pretzel decision, how he justify s that i will never know…. and the obama judge ruling on the wall funds(https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/judge-haywood-gilliam-blocks-defense-funds-border-wall.html) IIRC federal judges ARE NOT ALLOWED to issue rulings outside of their jurisdictions- I.E. a ruling in the 9th circuit ONLY applies to the 9th circuit,
    Clarence thomas has addressed this phenomenon in trump vs hawaii

    hopefully this longwinded history lesson of corruption in OUR government shows why Vin might now in favor of more then just 1 question on the census ,, and that it really does seem to be “its only different if its trump”
    in the past i agreed that the government seemed to ask too many invasive questions, it seemed like they wanted to know every detail, things we dont even tell old friends, back then it seemed like they were trying to build a profile on every citizen, much like what google and facebook do today, and we were afraid that ‘they’ ( as we called them at the time”jackbooted thugs”)were going to weaponize all of the info they demanded from us , to use against us ,, well it turns out we had good reason to worry, they did EXACTLY THAT, turned the census into a democrat senate/congressional seat fixing scheme , complete with illegal voters, dead voters, bussed in voters, ghost voters ,false votes, cheating at all levels -to use AGAINST US in elections- just look at the vote harvesting scheme in calif, corrupt as the day is long,,,,,
    yup we were worried
    for good reason

  5. Thomas Knapp Says:

    “if we were to subtract the # of illegals from the count, which are not to be included in the totals for congressional reps”

    I’m not sure why you believe they are “not to be included in the totals for congressional reps,” when the Constitution says they most manifestly ARE to be counted for congressional reps.

    Only citizens get to VOTE, but congressional representation is apportioned on the basis of the number of “inhabitants,” not the number of “citizens.” That is, non-citizens get represented, even though they don’t get to choose their representation. America, as you may remember, fought a revolution over “no taxation without representation.”

    But then, another complaint of the American revolutionaries was that George III tried to regulate immigration. And then the Constitution was framed so as to clearly and unambiguously 1) prohibit for 20 years and 2) require a constitution amendment to create after 20 years, any federal authority to regulate immigration. Under the Supreme Law of the Land, there is no such thing as an “illegal alien.”

  6. Nuke Antifa Says:

    It is my hope to go through life having never filled out — even with lies — a census. So far I’ve made it through 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010.

    p.s. Screw Roberts in his wrinkled ass.

  7. Vin Says:

    And so once again our peaceful attempts to analyze the events of the day in a modestly entertaining manner are interrupted by the repetitive yelpings of our old acquaintance, the self-appointed provocateur of the “Libertarian Purity Inquisition.”

    This gentleman has shown himself stubbornly resistant to the calm, orderly, and time-consuming presentation of facts, evidence, or logic, which is why I have politely asked him in the past to stop gracing us at this Web site with his willful ignorance concerning the Constitution as it authorizes U.S. immigration law.

    Who should be counted when apportioning congressional districts might otherwise be a subject of some interest. Since every reference I can find says the count should “exclude Indians not taxed,” and since most of the (more than 10 million) illegal aliens now concealing themselves here are Mestizos (people of mixed Indian race) from Mexico or Central America who pay U.S. taxes only incidentally (unavoidable state or local sales taxes at the point of purchase, etc.), to not include them when apportioning congressional districts would clearly be legal as well as wise — though merely rounding them up and deporting them, with some more effective means to prevent their return, would surely be preferable.

    There is “no such thing as an illegal alien”? Visit a hospital Emergency Room in any large city in the American Southwest, and you’ll frequently find yourself waiting in line behind multiple family groups who speak Spanish in preference to English, who are there to use those costly and technically sophisticated facilities as though they were a “family health clinic” for a child with a cough or a rash, swamping such facilities and pushing them towards (if not already into) actuarial bankruptcy, since hardly any of these characters either buy health insurance coverage or pay their bills.

    These people have entered our country in knowing and willful violation of our duly enacted laws, cutting in line ahead of those resident on other continents who spend years learning English, studying America’s history and Constitution, putting their names on the list and patiently waiting their chance to come her LEGALLY – after subjecting themselves to the required health screening.

    Why else do you think the tax-funded public schools, especially in the Southwest, have become even more dysfunctional than they were 30 to 50 years ago, as teachers deal with children who speak literally a dozen or more languages in lieu of English, many of whom may never have seen a flush toilet, and who are re-introducing epidemics of contagious diseases not seen in this country in 80 years?

    These are illegal aliens, and we all know it. Is it a useful first step in dealing with this assault on our culture and national identity — an assault on the rule of law by people who show no inclination to “assimilate,” who commit the crime of Identity Theft anew every day they’re here — to simply pretend they and the crises they cause don’t exist?

    To say they don’t exist is the equivalent of saying “That concrete bridge abutment we’re approaching at 60 miles an hour was built with taxes collecting in an unconstitutional manner. Therefore that bridge abutment doesn’t exist. Watch me and I’ll prove it; I’m about the drive right through it.”

    Or — with negative consequences which differ only in the scale of time — to assert a) The Constitution authorizes only two kinds of federal taxes, the direct tax apportioned among the states and collected by capitation, and the indirect excise, collected by “privileged” licensed vendors of gasoline, alcoholic beverages, etc. (True); b) The individual income tax is not collected by either of those methods (True); c) the federal income tax is therefore unconstitutional as currently enforced (True); d) and therefore the federal income tax does not exist and we can safely ignore the dictates and demands of the so-called “IRS,” an agency which was never authorized by statute and therefore does not exist.

    Dangerously fantastic, Cloud-Cuckooland conclusions like “d” helping to explain why Libertarians have never been able to muster as much as 2 percent popular political support, as most voters, wage-earners, and people responsible for protecting families in a harsh “real world” decline to have their actions guided by babbling theoretical fantasists.

    Except that America’s immigration laws ARE Constitutional. The gentleman in question has been informed many times, over a period of years if not decades, in some cases by scholars much more familiar with these matters than I am, that the section of Article One Section 9 of the Constitution which states “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person” is generally and correctly referred to as to “slave trade provision.”

    Considered necessary to get the Southern “slave” states to ratify, it meant the importation of black chattel slaves could not be banned by federal law until 1807 – as the Act prohibiting the Importation of Slaves was indeed enacted March 2, 1807 and took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by said Constitution.

    The bald assertion that some kind of “Constitutional Amendment” was required to enable passage of this statute is simply and profoundly false. No such Amendment was needed, proposed, or ratified. The Act was passed. It took effect. It is still in effect.

    Though even if read in ignorance of that fact, the provision clearly states Congress may prohibit the immigration of anyone it chooses, after 1807.

    Furthermore, as the gentleman has been patiently instructed, many times over a period of years, when the Constitution grants the federal government power to “define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations,” the Founders were not using “The Law of Nations” as some vague and flowery filler. They were specifically referring to the Law of Nations as defined by Blackstone and in Emer de Vattel’s masterwork titled (curiously enough) “The Law of Nations,” including the stipulation that any sovereign state may enact laws requiring the “honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties” and barring any “entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.”

    https://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm , or


    Life is short. Having to repeat all this, over and over, for the benefit of someone who can’t be bothered to do (or contemplate) the reading, is a waste of precious time. I am done.

    — V.S.

  8. NotChuck Says:

    “By the way, all the Democrats who hope to be chosen to lose to Donald Trump next year . . . ” invites the question of, if off the main topic of the article a bit:


    Why are there ~26 Democrat presidential wannabes engaged in a long shot adventure to secure the nomination to oppose Donald Trump?

    It’s not like they’re pledging their lives and their sacred fortunes rebelling against a King in an effort to secure the rights and liberties they, and we their descendants, hold dear.

    Whatever happens, they’re not going to be thrust into poverty or insurmountable debt. Even if they lose (which ~25 of them will), they’ll likely come out more wealthy than when they started! So how is this possible?

    How do people profit from running failed campaigns for a nearly unobtainable goal?

    If I can find the answer to running a certain-to-fail campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, without losing a penny, I’ll donate the profits to to my favorite conservative / libertarian foundations and educational institutions!

    Let’s follow the money!!

  9. Kingsnake Says:

    NotChuck: They are cannon fodder in the ongoing insurrection. (Since competent incumbents win.) The main thrust of the socialist attack will in 2024 …

  10. Vin Says:

    Should illegal aliens be counted as “persons in the state” for purposes of congressional apportionment?

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/07/roll_tide_alabama_versus_the_census.html .

  11. NotChuck Says:

    I misspoke (or miswrote) when I wrote previously “It’s not like they’re pledging their lives and their sacred fortunes rebelling against a King . . . .” I meant to write “pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. . . .”

    But, then again, I was talking about Democrats, so I guess I was right the first time!