I’ve been reviewing some of the RCS Board of Education video recordings and have attempted to make sense out of what Mr David Bartlett and some of the other witchhunters are driving at in their questions of a board member’s ability to uphold the provisions of the United States Constitution. Really.
Several questions arise:
Are Mr Bartlett and his supporters questioning the boardmember’s citizenship? If so, then attorney May’s response at the January 24 meeting is on target. That also raises the question of whether Mr Bartlett and his cronies would exclude from the board any person who is not a US citizen. This would, of course, include any individual in good-standing not yet having taken the citizenship oath: a foreign business person, a green cardholder, someone waiting to take the citizenship oath. That’s a very interesting suggestion, Mr Bartlett, and it would be very interesting to hear your response. If a non-citizen Canadian businessperson offered a $200,000 no-strings-attached gift to the school district, Bartlett would probably send it back because the donor is not a citizen. Go bloody figure!
The targeted boardmember is accused by his detractors of “not paying his taxes.” I would guess that most of the detractors are pig-ignorant of the actual circumstances of the case. Right? I would further guess that the majority of the detractors are pig-ignorant of the tax codes. Right? So why are these pig-ignorants opening their pie holes anyway? Every citizen and non-citizen working in the United States can contest and then appeal any provision of the tax code, including whether or not he or she is liable for a given tax. Wake up and shut up until you know what you’re talking about! The targeted boardmember is fully within his rights!
Some of the detractors have questioned why the boardmember won’t speak up. Again, shut up until you know what you’re talking about. Any statement made publicly by the boardmember relating to an issue in controversy can and probably would be refashioned and distorted and held against him. The only prudent and cautious thing to do is not to comment. Only a fool would risk satisfying the pig-ignorant with a public statement and then risk his entire standing and case. Wake up or shut up!
But what really irks me is when I hear people like David Bartlett and his ilk making comments in pulbic meetings and in the comments on some of the newspaper blogs that are so general it would take weeks to first figure out what Bartlett is asking specifically–Does he even know or is he just being a nuisance?–and once figured out, to even attempt answering the question, that is, if the question is even relevant. (Which at this point it is not!)
Mr Bartlett is specifically attacking the boardmember by referring to the boardmember’s pending tax case and the boardmember’s competence to uphold the Constitution based on what I think I hear to be (1) the pending tax case and/or (2) the boardmember’s secured party creditor status and his claim of natural sovereignty. (If you or any of your minions, Mr Bartlett, have any questions on natural sovereignty I would refer you to John Locke and Emanuel Kant!)
The pending tax case is as normal as vanilla ice cream and is no business of the board or you, Mr Bartlett, or your co-conspirators. Period.
The fact that the board member disagrees, strongly or otherwise, with a provision of the United States Constitution is also irrelevant, as it does not affect in any way whatsoever the boardmember’s fitness or competence to serve efficaciously on the Board of Education in whatever capacity the Board deems appropriate. In a democracy, Mr Bartlett, you voluntarily delegate some of your decision power to the officials duely elected by the majority (Or did you forget that in your minority standing?). Wake up or shut up!
If Mr Bartlett and/or his cronies were to continue the overly broad and vague accusations, they would only further add to their appearance of pig-ignorance, since they make no impression that they have any idea of what they are in fact accusing the boardmember of that obviates his competence! Neither Bartlett nor any of his chorus of sharks has stated specifically which part of the US Constitution he alleges the boardmember to be incapable of upholding. Or is it the entire US Constitution, which is idiotic even to suggest.
The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. Initially, the legislatures of the following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it: Connecticut, Rhode Island, Utah. Virginia.Furthermore, the legislatures of the following states never considered the proposed amendment: Florida, Pennsylvania.
While today individuals and businesses in all 50 states pay federal income tax, residents in 41 states also pay state income tax. Nine states have no state income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. The states of New Hampshire and Tennessee tax their residents only on income earned through interest and dividends.
But check this out:
Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million And that was during 2006. At that time Tax Foundation economists estimates that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That’s out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006. Were you aware of that Mr Bartlett & Co?
It gets even better:
Most Companies Pay No Federal Income Tax Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress. That number has grown since then and we all know the local example of GE who pays NO TAX. Want to talk about the notorious 1%, the Bloombergs, Gates, and Zuckerbergs of the American “classless society?” What are you preaching about them, Mr Bartlett? Wake up or shut up!
Now, back to the Constitution: Abortion as we all know is murder and a crime against the unborn; a movement of the Culture of Death. But it’s been made legal under the United States Constitution under the due process provision of the 14th Amendment. So, Mr Bartlett, according to you any right-to-lifer would be barred from serving on the Board of Education because s/he does not support the Constitution.
Another example: Ownership of automatic weapons, assault weapons. Accoding to Bartlettian logic, anyone who advocates gun control or the ban on automatic or assault weapons cannot defend the Constitution because s/he opposes the 2nd Amendment. By that reasoning, therefore, if someone quite capable and valuable wants to serve on the BoE but opposes the 2nd Amendment right to own automatic or assault weapons s/he is ipso facto and de facto, even de jure barred from serving. Right?
What about the religion provisions of the First Amendment? If I am following your logic, Mr Bartlett, according to you and your friends, only atheists would be eligible to serve. Right?
So, here’s a little exercise for you: Can you identify the most accurate depiction of your brain in the the image series below ?
Next Part of the Test: What do you feel when you look at this picture?
One more to go. Now be patient:
Does this picture accurately depict the evolutionary path taken by the Constitutional wizards attacking the boardmember?
Thank you for your participation!
You’re now officially a Constitution Defiler.
Disclaimer: Sincerest apologies to any pig who may have been inadvertently offended by our use of the phrase “pig-ignorant” to characterize any individual or individual’s behavior on this blog. The use of the phrase was not intended to characterize the porcine species as a group, and its use was intended solely for illustrative and figurative purposes.
|Special Notice: We make every effort to be truthful, complete, fair, and balanced on this blog; therefore, if you see anything that you know to be false or incorrect, or if you have additional information to clarify any issue, please let us know by e-mailing your information or by leaving a comment. It’s very important to us that we don’t fall into the same category as those whom this blog is intended to expose. Thank you very much in advance for your cooperation and assistance!|