About the Common Constitutionalist

Brent, aka The Common Constitutionalist, is a Constitutional Conservative, and advocates for first principles, founders original intent and enemy of progressives. He is former Navy, Martial Arts expert. As well as publisher of the Common Constitutionalist blog, he also is a contributing writer for Political Outcast, Godfather Politics, Minute Men News (Liberty Alliance), Freedom Outpost, the Daily Caller, Vision To America and Free Republic. He also writes an exclusive weekly column for World Net Daily (WND).

Zimmerman Passed Lie Detector, Twice

A newly-released investigative report has found that George Zimmerman passed two lie detector tests given to him on the night Trayvon Martin was shot dead, backing up his version of the events.

An hour-long interrogation video released this week captured Zimmerman as he described the events leading up to the moment when Trayvon Martin was shot with a single bullet to the chest.

As he spoke, his voice levels were being measured with a Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA), and was found to be telling the truth.

However, the results of such tests are usually not admissible in court.

Sanford detective Chris Serino said Zimmerman verbally confronted the unarmed 17-year-old before the physical brawl that ended when Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

Zimmerman claimed he was acting in self-defence when he shot the teen, who was returning to his father’s girlfriend’s house from a 7-Eleven store.

The two got into a fistfight and the 28-year-old Zimmerman maintains that Martin attacked him and was beating him up before he fatally shot him.

He has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder.

Serino wrote in his report that Zimmerman and witnesses said the defendant who was in his car avoided Martin when he first saw him because, as he told investigators, ‘was afraid of Martin.’

Serino also said that later in the encounter, Zimmerman got out of his SUV and followed Martin.

“His actions are inconsistent of those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject”, Serino wrote.

Based on his investigation, Serino recommended a charge of manslaughter to the state attorney.

Today, it emerged that Serino, the lead detective in the case, has been reassigned to the patrol division at his request.

A Sanford Police Department statement said Serino made the reassignment decision ‘of his own volition.’ He will begin his new assignment in July. He did not have a listed number.

In video released last week by his attorney, Zimmerman told investigators his side of the story about the shooting.

He told them he grabbed his gun from a holster on his waist before Martin could get it, and shot the teenager once in the chest.

After firing, Zimmerman said he thought he missed, because Martin didn’t immediately fall over.

Zimmerman said Martin had been on top of him, slamming his head against the ground and smothering his mouth and nose with his hand and arm.

The tape shows two butterfly bandages on the back of Zimmerman’s head and another on his nose. There are red marks on the front of his head.

“It felt like my head was going to explode”, he says in the video.

Zimmerman claims he shot the teen in self-defense, under Florida’s ‘stand your ground’ law.

Martin’s parents have said Zimmerman was the aggressor. They said Martin was walking back from a convenience store through the gated community in Sanford when Zimmerman spotted the black teenager and started following him. They claim their son was racially profiled.

He remains in jail awaiting a second bond hearing scheduled for Friday.

Attribution: Mail Online

Somethings Eating at Me

While millions of people wonder if their money is safe in a bank, one woman was faced with her money disappearing altogether.

The culprit? Hordes of hungry termites.

The Taiwanese woman’s safe might well have been blast and fire proof, but it could not protect her money from the insects.

The tiny creatures somehow got into her safe and munched their way through $51,000.00 in cash.

She had spent eight years saving the money so she could study abroad.

She turned to Taiwan’s Investigation Bureau to help her exchange her bundles of damaged notes for new ones after she found the piles of cash she stored in her safe had been eaten by the termites.

However, forensic experts only managed to piece together a quarter of the notes from the piles of shredded paper.

 The woman, identified only by her surname Chen, who graduated from a Taipei university last year, was originally going to spend the money to study aboard, according to the Chinese-language Apple Daily.

It took her eight years of hard work to come up with the money which she stored at a safe in her house. This April, Chen found that termites had eaten most of the piles of cash in the safe.

She later sought out the Investigation Bureau for help after a bank refused to honor the bills.

They were sent to the bureau’s forensic unit for further examination. They will be honored based on the number of bills the experts succeed in restoring.

The bureau urged people to put their money in banks to avoid similar incidents from happening again.

Attribution: Daily Mail, China Post

So Pathetic, It’s Laughable

by: Derek Hunter

There’s desperation. Then there’s the Obama-Biden re-election campaign’s fundraising operation.

Remember that Seinfeld episode where George Costanza, because he’s cheap and didn’t want to buy co-workers anything for Christmas, gave everyone a card saying a gift had been made in their name to the “Human Fund”? The Human Fund didn’t exist. George made it up because he was just that cheap.

But those “I gave your gift to someone else” charitable donations do exist. I get a few of them every year from people who shouldn’t be giving me gifts in the first place. It never occurred to me to check and see if the charity actually exists.

I’ve worked at a few non-profits, organizations whose existence is based upon the donations of others. I was in policy and thankfully never had to ask anyone for a donation, but I was in the room a lot when those asks happened. I could never, ever do it, but I’m thankful people who can are out there.

So I’m not unfamiliar with the concept of asking for donations. But those donations are never requested of people without jobs or who don’t have the money to donate. The potential donors knew what was coming precisely because they could afford it.

That’s what makes the latest tactic from the Obama-Biden re-election campaign so weird.

The “Obama event registry” is something new in politics – an ask that couples who are getting married forego gifts and money to help the president. And it’s not just limited to weddings. They want birthday and anniversary money, too.

The whole text of the “ask” would be a hilarious parody post if shameless reality hadn’t beaten The Onion to it. Here it is:

Got a birthday, anniversary, or wedding coming up? Let your friends know how important this election is to you—register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift. It’s a great way to support the President on your big day. Plus, it’s a gift that we can all appreciate—and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl.

Setting up and sharing your registry page is easy—so get started today.

 Take a second and reread that. I’ll wait.

Can you believe a President of the United States, or even a candidate for dog catcher, would think that is a good idea?

“Hey young couples just starting out, instead of creating a nest egg, saving for a down-payment for a house or simply paying for your wedding and reception, give your money to the President!” It’s the audacity of self-importance.

This tactlessness got me thinking – what other sorts of “asks” could the Obama 2012 team come up with?

“Do you have a terminal disease? That’s a tragedy, just as President Obama not winning a second term would be a tragedy. So as you get your affairs in order don’t forget to add the campaign to your last will and testament. Your family can have your furniture; we just want your cash. If you can survive long enough to sell the furniture, that’d be peachy. Cash is king, you know.

The campaign probably will find a more subtle way to make that ask. But a slogan is needed for this latest shamelessness:

“Help me fight corporate greed by giving me your kid’s birthday money!”

“Honeymoons are for suckers!”

“Since we’re all in the same boat, why not make it the Titanic?”

“President Obama already screwed your kid’s future, so why not let him screw their present too?”

“You can keep the money from your second marriage. Obama needs your cash now!”

“Seriously, if the concept of this appeals to you at all you should just send in all your money because you’ll probably just end up spending it all on meth.”

Jokes aside, this ploy just shows the desperation of the Obama campaign. The cash squeeze has begun. There are only so many vapid movie stars they can lure to their $40,000-per-plate dinners. New cash cows must be found to milk.

Mitt Romney is now raising more money than President Obama. That’s not just a sign of his failure on the economy, it’s an indication his former big donors have lost faith in his ability to govern effectively. One can hide incompetence only so long.

That the campaign would think this would work and not be a public-relations disaster shows how out of touch it is. Or how much staffers have bought into the Obama “cult of personality.”

Whatever the case, there’s no reason to think this venture won’t be as big a disaster as the president’s term has been for the economy. But if you want to balance things out, my birthday was Friday. In lieu of contributing to President Obama’s campaign, send cash to me. Thanks in advance.

Joke of the Day

There were three Indian squaws.

One slept on a deerskin, one slept on an elk skin and the third slept on a hippopotamus skin.

All three became pregnant and the first two each had a baby boy. The one who slept on the hippopotamus skin had twin boys.

This goes to prove that the squaw of the hippopotamus is equal to the sons of the squaws of the other two hides.

Yamamoto Redux

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

I hope this is exactly what has happened. Following the unbelievably bad decision doled out by Chief John Souter-Roberts and the other hacks on the bench, I believe conservatives will rise up & turn out in mass this November. They must!

Shockingly, I’ve already heard more than once today, Justice Roberts apologists trying to explain that Roberts is conservative but just got these 2 decisions (Arizona & Obamacare) wrong.

BULL CRAP!! You are the Chief Justice of the most powerful court in the world. He can’t and I contend, he didn’t “get in wrong”, in his eyes.

There are 2 likely scenarios presently floating around to explain his actions.

Scenario number 1, is that he has always been a moderate to liberal judge and was appointed by a like-minded individual, George W. Bush. Number 1A is that “W” insisted he did not have a litmus test for appointment to the court. Roberts was asked no hard questions and could better hide his true positions.

I think this is a mistake. The president should have a “litmus test”. How else would one find out how a judge will rule. I certainly would have a test. What the heck is so wrong with knowing where a candidate stands before potentially making a permanent mistake. After all, these are lifetime appointments.

It would be like hiring an employee with a wholly inadequate interview, and once he is hired, he makes all the wrong decisions, but you may never fire him, nor may you ever leave the company. You are stuck with him in perpetuity.

Scenario number 2 has been put forth today. It is that Roberts was somehow pressured from without to change his position. Could be. If that’s the case, I have even less respect for him than I did. I believe this scenario to be unlikely.

How, after all this time of hearing the tax is not a tax but a penalty, has it magically become a tax again. Simple. Like activists do, they just change the language. Simply reinterpret the penalty clause so it’s now a tax. Roberts all but comes out and states that the congress didn’t realize it was a tax when they labelled it a penalty. Wow, Congress sure is stupid.

Thank heavens the Chief Justice was there to set them straight. The problem is that congress knew full well Obamacare wouldn’t have passed to begin with if the penalty was called a tax. Obama said it himself on several occasions. That’s why they labelled it a penalty in the first place. Those who crafted this piece of crap knew exactly what they were doing. and how to properly word it.

So now the precedent has been set. Congress may now tax us for virtually anything they please in conjunction with the health of the citizenry. And, of course, everything can be said to involve our health. The food you consume, the car you drive, where you live, etc.

Keep Smiling Comrade Roberts

 But, you say, we can elect those who promise to repeal Obamacare in full. That will take care of it, right? Only partially. The law would be no more, but the Supreme Court taxing precedent cannot be undone without the court, itself, reversing it. What are the odds of that happening?

Don’t listen to the inside-the-beltway apologists like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, or even Erick Erickson. There was no lesson learned, no victory of any kind.

If you want to learn something, read the dissenting opinion of the 4 justices that stood up for us and more importantly, took their job seriously and did the only thing they were appointed to do, stood up for the Constitution.  

Thank you Justices Sam Alido, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas & I can’t believe I’m doing this, but also Anthony Kennedy. We had this won but for Roberts.

Never thought I’d say this either but, GO MITT!

Then we need to “repeal & replace” everyone in the republican leadership, both in the House and Senate.

Double Standard?

by: Dana Loesch

At a recent Obama rally in Ohio, prospective attendees were told to brandish their photo IDs if they expected admittance to the rally. No word yet on whether Attorney General Eric Holder plans to file suit against the Obama campaign for infringing upon Ohioans’ right of peaceful assembly by way of a racist photo ID rule.

Jessica Kershaw, the Obama campaign’s Ohio Press Secretary, confirmed in a statement to BuzzFeed that the campaign checked every supporter’s identification at the door.

“We checked every ID at the door to make sure it matched with the name on the ticket that supporters filled out,” she said. “We did this for every person who came in.”

Since President Obama sides with Holder in thinking it’s Racist™ for states to require photo identification to vote, he must be apoplectic at himself for discriminating against those who don’t get state-issued photo IDs. By asking for rally-goers to provide photo ID before entry, the Obama campaign is silently sanctioning the effectiveness of photo identification.

What makes a rally different from voter integrity? What makes buying cigarettes, alcohol, renting a car, a hotel room, cashing a check, opening a bank account, membership at the Y, buying cold medicine, or entering a club any different? You check photo identification to protect the thing which such an exchange accesses and to confirm that you are the age you claim. Is a person’s vote less unworthy of protection than buying Sudafed — or attending an Obama rally?

Evidently, for some, it is.

Fast Frozen

It is a question which has perplexed the world’s greatest scientific minds and even eluded great thinkers like Aristotle.

But now scientists have become so infuriated about the mystery of why hot water freezes faster than cold, that they have put up a cash reward to find the answer.

The Royal Society of Chemistry has offered $1500.00 for a member of the public to come up with a convincing explanation for the phenomenon, which has mystified humankind.

The scientific problem, which has become known as the Mpemba effect, has also defeated Francis Bacon and René Descartes.

 The problem got its modern name in 1968, when Tanzanian student Erasto Mpemba posed the question to professors visiting his school.

Mr Mpemba, who had been studying the problem for five years, had asked Professor Denis Osborne, of Dar es Salaam University: ‘If you take two similar containers with equal volumes of water, one at 35C and the other at 100C, and put them in a refrigerator, the one that started at 100C freezes first. Why?’

The professor was unable to answer and published a paper on the problem the following year, calling it the ‘Mpemba Effect’.

Brian Emsley, media relations manager at the Royal Society of Chemistry, wrote in the Guardian that the winner of the $1500.00 prize will need to ‘make a convincing case and employ some creative thinking’.

Many standard physical effects are said to contribute to the phenomenon, although no single one has been conclusively proved as the cause.

Theories put forward based on evaporation, convection and supercooling have all been put forward, but as yet the question still remains unanswered.

Members of the public have until July 30 to submit their entries.

They will be pitted against worldwide postgraduate scientists, who, sponsored by the Royal Society of Chemistry, will be tackling the same problem.
 

Attribution: Daily Mail

David Souter Rides Again

Really Quick-

THANK YOU CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN (DAVID SOUTER) ROBERTS for selling this country out.

If Mitt Romney doesn’t come out swinging for the fences today, he is done!

He had better start screaming a real conservative message or he will lose us all!

NO MORE COMPROMISE! No more bull crap wishy washy moderate tone.

If we go down, we go down fighting to the death.