Hat tip to MPR/Polinaut for this one:
Bachmann earns two more Pants on Fires
By Robert Farley
Published on Friday, June 26th, 2009 at 3:45 p.m.
Michele Bachmann, Wednesday, June 17th, 2009.
Ruling: Pants on Fire!
Says the Constitution only requires her to tell the census "how many people are in our home."
Michele Bachmann, Wednesday, June 17th, 2009.
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., is no stranger to the Truth-O-Meter. So far, her comments have decidedly bent the needle to the left and, on one occasion, set the meter on fire.
We swear we're not trying to pick on her, but we just couldn't let this latest one go...
...There's a lot wrong in her statement, so we divided it into two Truth-O-Meter items. You can read the one on ACORN's involvement here. And in this item, we'll address Bachmann's claim that she's only constitutionally obligated to provide the number of people in her household.
(Then what happens, is you scroll back up to the upper right hand of the very same PolitiFact web page and see the two "flaming" graphics--click on the first one and you'll see this kind of thing:)
...let's count the ways Bachmann is wrong:
ACORN will not be "in charge" of going door-to-door and collecting data from the American public, as Bachmann said. The U.S. Census will be in charge of that. Some of the 1.4 million people who get Census-taking jobs may learn about the job through ACORN. Workers who apply to the Census through ACORN have no better shot at the job than those who apply through any of the 30,000 other partners. That's it.
And despite Bachmann's claim, ACORN gets no money for signing on as a partner.
Once again, she is making a scaremongering claim about ACORN with facts that are ridiculously wrong. So we have to set the meter on fire once again. She earns another Pants on Fire.
(Click on the second one (about her claim that Congress has no constitutional authority to ask about more than the number of people in her house) and you'll see this:)
...We draw your attention to the last clause (in the "census" portion of the Constitution:) "in such a manner as they shall by law direct." The "they" in that sentence refers to members of Congress. They write laws about the content of the census and require that people answer the questions.
Even the very first census in 1790 included more than just the question of how many people lived in the household...
...Congress' use of the Census to ask questions well beyond just the number of people has been upheld several times by the Supreme Court, (Census spokeswoman Stacy Gimbel) said, citing several cases.
(Editor's note: Those court rulings mean that it IS constitutional for Congress to ask more questions on the Census than the kind specifically mentioned in the original Constitution document. Because federal court rulings on constitutionality and on how the Constitution should be understood and interpreted--ARE law, the law of the land, the law of the Constitution itself. That's the way it is, and the way it has been for at least two hundred years in the United States. And if Bachmann is telling conservatives that *their* understanding of the plain reading of the original Constitution document somehow trumps a federal court's understanding and rulings on that document...well, that's just another Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire piece that PolitiFact can do on her. Such a piece would serve the public very well, since so few conservatives seem to understand this "constitutional/unconstitutional" stuff.)
...What's more, a law passed by Congress requires people to answer "any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census" from the U.S. Census...
...Bachmann's claims that the Constitution only requires people to say how many people live in their household is "completely baseless," Gimbel said.
...Bachmann is not only wrong here, she is engaging in fearmongering that encourages people to break the law. And in doing so, she's falsely telling people that the Constitution would support them. In fact, the Washington Times reporter followed her answer by saying, "Well, I'm going to take your hint then and that'll save me some time." And so we feel it's necessary to rate this one Pants on Fire.
PolitFact's only mistake here is including the mealy-mouth thing about "how they're not trying to pick on her or anything." Because you see, this is *exactly* what a press operation is supposed to be doing, once they know that they're dealing with a politician who's also an habitual liar and conspiracy monger.
Once a journalist knows that, his or her *job* is to fact-check every single claim about any controversial issue that that politician makes. Once you know that a politician is in the habit of lying about the obvious and important issues--you should be checking all the controversial statements that that politician makes, and printing the lies so the public knows that this or that politician *is* an habitual liar, basing important public policy decisions on lies. Don't be sheepish about doing that, Politifact, that's like a fireman being sheepish about putting out fires by an arsonist! ("Gee, we don't mean to be picking on Mr. Pyro, or anything, but...")
Reporting, explaining and documenting outright lies is one of the tools the media is supposed to use to keep the public from being misled, to keep nuts and rogues *out* of political office.
And here they are, making mealy mouth noises about how they swear they're not picking on her or nothin'! They write a column reporting obvious lies by politicians, for God's sake--Michele Bachmann's bound to show up as a regular. The basis of her entire political career has been deceit, she's even lied to evangelicals while testifying for Christ!
If PolitiFact's job is to fill inches of column space exposing lies and untruths every week, they could save themselves a hell of a lot of trouble. All they would have to do is simply assign someone to a regular Bachmann beat--to examine all the statements she makes before conservative audiences, all week. If you're mining for ridiculous lies--she's a gold mine. |
|