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).

Joke of the Day

A police officer sees a man driving around with a pickup truck full of penguins.

He pulls the guy over and says, “You can’t drive around with penguins in this town! Take them to the zoo immediately.”

The guy says okay, and drives away. The next day, the officer sees the guy still driving around with the truck full of penguins — and they’re all wearing sunglasses.

He pulls the guy over and demands, “I thought I told you to take these penguins to the zoo yesterday?”

The guy replies, “I did. Today I’m taking them to the beach!”

Occupy Communism

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Diverse: of various kinds or forms; multiform (definition)

Tolerate: to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit. (definition)

The left and the progressives all claim to love diversity. They have the biggest tent and will welcome all comers for they are the most tolerant. Just witness the Occupy movement.

 All colors of the rainbow are welcomed into the lefts tent. Black, white, red, yellow.

Ones sexual orientation matters not to left. Whether they be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, multisexual, asexueal, transexual, trisexual (did I miss any? I’m truly sorry if I did. I don’t intend to discriminate).

All  true and legitimate forms of thought are tolerated embraced by the ever tolerant and diversity oriented left. Come on into the tent. It’s ok to be different. It doesn’t matter. You can be a communist, a marxist, a Maoist, a black separatist, an anarchist, a radical islamist or just a poor misguided liberal.

Of course, what will not be tolerated is the intolerant right and their hate speech. Their ought to be a law against that.

That well-known anti-American radical, Ted Nugent must be spoken to. He needs to get his mind right (or left). Rush Limbaugh must be dealt with. His sponsors must abandon him immediately. Glenn Beck must be driven from the airwaves for his constant racist hate speech. The ex-marine must be detained (without being read his rights), whisked away to a nearby psychiatric hospital for evaluation and dealt with for his anti-government facebook posts. These folks are all threats to our national security. And because they are such serious security threats, it’s ok to be intolrant of their radical views.

However, those with the same middleclass values as the rest of us should be celebrated for their views, such as the New Black Panthers. So they claim on several occasions to want to kill all the cracker babies. What’s so offensive about that?  That sort of diversity should be celebrated. And how about that apple pie and chevrolet, middle american group, the Muslim Brotherhood. So their charter includes the destruction of the west and rule under Shariah. If those aren’t true american values, I’ll eat my hat.

They should never be questioned, for as everyone knows, conservatives are the only subversives. The left would never conceive of such a thing as subvertion. Certainly not this guy:

Nothing to See Here

According to Western intelligence officials, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave the order to the elite Quds Force unit following a recent emergency meeting of Iran’s National Security Council in Tehran held to discuss a specially-commissioned report into the implications for Iran of the Assad regime’s overthrow.

Syria is Iran’s most important regional ally, and the survival of the Assad regime is regarded as vital to sustaining the Iranian-backed Hizbollah militia which controls southern Lebanon.

The report, which was personally commissioned by  Khamenei, concluded that Iran’s national interests were being threatened by a combination of the U.N. sanctions imposed over Iran’s nuclear program and the West’s continuing support for Syrian opposition groups attempting to overthrow the government.

Intelligence officials say the report concludes that Iran “cannot be passive” to the new threats posed to its national security, and warns that Western support for Syrian opposition groups was placing Iran’s “resistance alliance” in jeopardy, and could seriously disrupt Iran’s access to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

It advised that the Iranian regime should demonstrate to the West that there were “red lines” over what it would accept in Syria, and that a warning should be sent to “America, the Zionists, Britain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others that they cannot act with impunity in Syria and elsewhere in the region.”

Khamenei responded by issuing a directive to Qassem Suleimani, the Quds Force commander, to intensify attacks against the West and its allies around the world.

The Quds Force has recently been implicated in a series of terror attacks against Western targets. Last year U.S. officials implicated the organization in a failed assassination attempt against the Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington. It was also implicated in three bomb attacks against Israeli diplomats in February, planning to attack the Eurovision song contest in Azerbaijan while two Iranians were arrested in Kenya last month for possessing explosives.

Intelligence officials believe the recent spate of Iranian attacks has been carried out by the Quds Force’s Unit 400, which runs special overseas operations.

“Unit 400 seems to have been involved in all the recent Iranian terrorist operations,” said a senior Western intelligence official. “The Iranian regime now seems determined to retaliate for what they regard as the West’s attempts to influence the outcome of the Syrian unrest.”

Iran has been actively supporting the Assad regime’s attempts to suppress the wave of anti-government protests that erupted in March last year. Iranian opposition groups claim teams of experienced Revolutionary Guard officers have been flying to Damascus on specially-chartered Iranian aircraft on a weekly basis to advise the Assad regime.

The extent of Iran’s support for the Assad regime was exposed earlier this month when 48 Iranians were captured and taken hostage by Syrian opposition fighters. The Iranians, who are said to include senior Revolutionary Guard officers, claimed they were conducting “reconnaissance missions”, and their capture by Syrian opposition fighters was deeply embarrassing for Tehran, which is demanding their immediate safe return to Iran. Syrian rebels have threatened to kill the hostages unless Iran ends its support for the Assad regime.

Attribution: UK Telegraph

Sunbathing Sharks

Sharks who spend too much time in the sun get a tan, researchers have discovered.

However, they do not appear to suffer from skin disease, raising hopes that shark skin could hold the key to beating skin cancer.

‘As far as I’m aware, sharks appear very robust to skin damage and disease,’ said Michael Sweet, a researcher in the School of Biology at Newcastle University’s Newcastle Institute for Research on Sustainability.

‘I don’t know what makes shark skin so special, but it definitely needs to be studied.

‘There have been a lot of attempts to induce melanomas in sharks to no affect.’

Researchers hope that if they can find the secret of how shark skin protects itself, it could be used to create a ‘shark lotion’ to protect human skin.

Another recent study, undertaken by the California State University Shark Lab, also looked at tanning in sharks.

Hammerhead shark pups held in a shallow clear seawater pond at the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology darkened after several weeks, where UV levels are 600 times greater than those in their regular habitat of Kaneohe Bay.

An opaque filter was placed over the pectoral fins of untanned sharks to cut out UV light, to determine whether the darkening was due to solar radiation.

‘Areas of skin from under the opaque filter were untanned, whereas all other skin exposed to direct sunlight was considerably darker, resulting in distinct ‘tan lines’, the researchers said.

Our experiments demonstrated that the sharks were truly sun-tanning and that the response was, in fact, induced by the increase in solar radiation, particularly UV.

‘These sharks increased the melanin content in their skin by 14 percent over 21 days, and up to 28 percent over 215 days.’

The researchers said the only other animals known to suntan are mammals.

Attribution: Medical Daily, Mail Online

Post-Constitutional America

“Issues” or America?

by: Thomas Sowell (my hero)

There are some very serious issues at stake in this year’s election — so many that some people may not be able to see the forest for the trees. Individual issues are the trees, but the forest is the future of America as we have known it.

The America that has flourished for more than two centuries is being quietly but steadily dismantled by the Obama administration, during the process of dealing with particular issues.

For example, the merits or demerits of President Obama’s recent executive order, suspending legal liability for young people who are here illegally, presumably as a result of being brought here as children by their parents, can be debated pro and con. But such a debate overlooks the much more fundamental undermining of the whole American system of Constitutional government.

The separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches of government is at the heart of the Constitution of the United States — and the Constitution is at the heart of freedom for Americans.

No President of the United States is authorized to repeal parts of legislation passed by Congress. He may veto the whole legislation, but then Congress can override his veto if they have enough votes. Nevertheless, every President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed and sustained — not just the ones he happens to agree with. [emphasis added]

If laws passed by the elected representatives of the people can be simply over-ruled unilaterally by whoever is in the White House, then we are no longer a free people, choosing what laws we want to live under.

When a President can ignore the plain language of duly passed laws, and substitute his own executive orders, then we no longer have “a government of laws, and not of men” but a President ruling by decree, like the dictator in some banana republic.

When we confine our debates to the merits or demerits of particular executive orders, we are tacitly accepting arbitrary rule. The Constitution of the United States cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution. But, if we allow ourselves to get bogged down in the details of particular policies imposed by executive orders, and vote solely on that basis, then we have failed to protect the Constitution — and ourselves.

Whatever the merits or demerits of the No Child Left Behind Act, it is the law until Congress either repeals it or amends it. But for Barack Obama to unilaterally waive whatever provisions he doesn’t like in that law undermines the fundamental nature of American government.

President Obama has likewise unilaterally repealed the legal requirement that welfare recipients must work, by simply redefining “work” to include other things like going to classes on weight control. If we think the bipartisan welfare reform legislation from the Clinton administration should be repealed or amended, that is something for the legislative branch of government to consider.

There have been many wise warnings that freedom is seldom lost all at once. It is usually eroded away, bit by bit, until it is all gone. You may not notice a gradual erosion while it is going on, but you may eventually be shocked to discover one day that it is all gone, that we have been reduced from citizens to subjects, and the Constitution has become just a meaningless bunch of paper.

ObamaCare imposes huge costs on some institutions, while the President’s arbitrary waivers exempt other institutions from having to pay those same costs. That is hardly the “equal protection of the laws,” promised by the 14th Amendment.

John Stuart Mill explained the dangers in that kind of government long ago: “A government with all this mass of favours to give or to withhold, however free in name, wields a power of bribery scarcely surpassed by an avowed autocracy, rendering it master of the elections in almost any circumstances but those of rare and extraordinary public excitement.”

If Obama gets reelected, he knows that he need no longer worry about what the voters think about anything he does. Never having to face them again, he can take his arbitrary rule by decree as far as he wants. He may be challenged in the courts but, if he gets just one more Supreme Court appointment, he can pick someone who will rubber stamp anything he does and give him a 5 to 4 majority.

Fast Commute

These pictures show possibly the fastest commute between New Jersey and New York in history as a Formula 1 car travels at 190mph and takes less than 30 seconds to travel through New York’s Lincoln Tunnel.

Motoring his 900 horse-powered vehicle under the Hudson River, former Formula 1 driver David Coulthard raced from New Jersey to Manhattan and completed a journey that would take three minutes at the legal speed limit if there was zero traffic – which is rare.

The 1.5 mile long Lincoln Tunnel, which carries 120,000 cars a day, was closed in the early hours of Wednesday morning to allow Coulthard and the British-based Red Bull Racing Formula 1 team to play out every New Yorker’s fantasy.

‘The test drive is meant to bring the world’s attention to New Jersey and New Jersey’s attention to Formula 1 racing,’ said Tony Burrows, Red Bull Racing’s Support Team Manager.

This is the second summer in succession that the Red Bull team have visited Weehawken and West New York to test out and promote the proposed track of the ‘Grand Prix of America.’

Designed as a street circuit with the Manhattan skyline as the backdrop, the race would take place in New Jersey.

David Coulthard, the winner of 13 Grand Prix’s, took the Red Bull RB7 championship-winning car through Liberty State Park, the Lincoln Tunnel and parts of the race course.

Scottish Coulthard also took a tour of the 3.1 mile course in a road car, performing ‘donuts’, which is when a driver spins around on the spot burning the rubber of their tires to create circles on the road.

‘We were wondering about the cracks and everything in the roads, but I don’t think they’re an issue,’ said Coulthard to The Jersey Journal.

‘I think people are excited to see what we can do out there.’

Filming the Lincoln Tunnel drive from the air and the ground, Red Bull are hoping to keep enthusiasm going for the Formula 1 race in a country which is known to be ambivalent to the global race-fest.

‘The Grand Prix next June is not an official race yet,’ said Leo Parente, a former Formula 1 racer covering the event for Youtube’s Drive channel.

‘Generally, Formula 1 races are not official until the beginning of the year because local business or politics may interfere with planned races.

‘Events like this are a way to build excitement for the race and keep it from being canceled.’

The ‘Grand Prix of America’ is scheduled to be raced in June of 2013 and has the backing of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

‘It’s incredible. This is going to be an economic boom for this whole region,’ said the outspoken politician.

The circuit of the grand prix has already been compared to the Monte Carlo Grand Prix, the world’s premier and most glamorous street circuit.

The expected New Jersey race would come over 30 years since the sport’s boss, Bernie Ecclestone’s last serious attempt to set up an event in the Garden State.

It is part of his quest to strengthen Formula One in the U.S., where its popularity comes a distant third to NASCAR and IndyCar.

But with IndyCar seemingly in decline, which started with its split from CART in 1994 and has seen dwindling viewing figures and raceday fan numbers in the past 10 years, it could be the perfect time for Formula One to expand into America and take on NASCAR.

‘There is a lot of excitement about Formula One coming to America,’ said David Coulthard.

‘Red Bull have done more than anyone to promote the fact that we’re going to have not one, but two grands prix in the States.

‘This is a big enough country, a sophisticated audience that gets the technology of Formula One and at the moment, we are delivering good racing.’

The area is not foreign to motorsports, though it has been for a while.

The Meadowlands Grand Prix was a CART IndyCar race held in East Rutherford from 1984-1991.

It was the first major race in the New York City metropolitan area since 1937, and the course twisted and turned around the original Giants Stadium.

And to celebrate the fact that Red Bull are heavily promoting the ‘Grand Prix of America’, their engineering wizards got their car to perform the Star Spangled Banner.

Using computers to rev the engine in time to the U.S. national anthem, the Red Bull team’s car performed a seamless rendition.

Attribution: Mail Online

Jobless Non-Recovery

This is rather long but well worth the economics lesson, although my regular readers are already familiar with the terms and principles described below. No pictures this time, just facts.

When It Comes to the Jobless Numbers, President Obama Isn’t Talking Straight

by: Peter Ferrara, Forbes Online (08-09-12)

“This morning we learned that our businesses created 172,000 new jobs in the month of July,” President Obama bragged regarding last Friday’s jobs report. “That means we’ve now created 4.5 million over the last 29 months and 1.1 million new jobs this year.”

You should have learned by now on your own that you can’t believe a word the man says. If it is not outright false, it is cast out of context to deliberately mislead. Obama’s statement is like a pediatrician who brags to you that under his care your 16 year old son has grown to 4 feet, 5 inches. At the same point during the Reagan recovery, the economy had created more than 9.5 million new jobs.

Moreover, in just one month during the Reagan economic recovery boom, September, 1983, the economy created 1.1 million new jobs. That’s a real recovery.

But Obama’s statement is even more misleading. Because during his entire Administration, the economy has created less than zero jobs. Investors Business Daily replied on August 4 to Obama’s statement, “But ‘we’ haven’t created any jobs. As a matter of fact, since Obama has entered office, some 1.1 million payroll jobs have disappeared.” Former Bush Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors Edward Lazear added in the Wall Street Journal on July 30, “there hasn’t been one day during the entire Obama Presidency when as many Americans were working as on the day President Bush left office.”

Moreover, “since Obama stepped into office, 7.5 million people have left the workforce,” IBD added. Almost all of those folks are still out there without a job.

Obama also neglected to add that the Labor Department’s household survey, which determines the unemployment rate, found that the number of jobs plummeted last month by 195,000. That is why the U3 unemployment rate rose again, to 8.3%. It was the establishment survey of businesses that claimed the economy created 163,000, not 172,000, net new jobs last month. But that number is heavily influenced by seasonal adjustments that can be outdated, and by estimates, not counts of jobs created by new businesses. It is inconsistent with the fact the Labor Dept. also reported on Friday that 150,000 left the workforce last month.

That makes a postwar record 42 months of unemployment over 8%, the longest period of unemployment that high since the Great Depression. While Obama promised us when he wanted to pass his nearly $1 trillion wasteful government spending stimulus that unemployment would never climb above 8% if we did, it has never fallen below 8% during his entire, mistaken Presidency.

Moreover, the U3 unemployment rate doesn’t count the millions who have fled the work force under the oppression of Obamanomics. If labor force participation had just remained the same as when Obama entered office, unemployment would be still stuck for months now at 11%, which would be a postwar record, the highest since the Great Depression.

U.S. News and World Report Chairman Mort Zuckerman elaborated in the Wall Street Journal on July 24, that if you add “the number of discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor market since the recession began in early 2008 – approximately eight million – the [unemployment] rate would be an alarming 12%. Fifty percent of the jobs created since the recession hit have been part time, with no benefits and a wage that’s inadequate to enter the middle class.” Discouraged workers who have left the work force, and those working part time only because they can’t find a full time job, are counted in the Labor Dept’s U6 unemployment rate, which rose last month to a depression level 15%. If you count the long term discouraged workers that the government stopped counting in 1994, the Shadow Government Statistics website reports that unemployment would be at the deep depression level of 22.9%.

The recession was scored by the National Bureau of Economic Research as ending in June, 2009, more than three years ago, because that is when GDP stopped declining and started growing again. That still made it the longest recession since the Great Depression at 18 months. As Jeffrey Anderson observed in IBD on August 6, “it’s not convincing for Obama to suggest – as he routinely does – that he should be evaluated on the basis of whether the recovery has been better than the recession. Recoveries, by definition, are better than recessions.”

Anderson rightly recognized that the comparable standard of measurement for Obama’s performance in office is: “How does the Obama recovery compare to other recoveries from similar downturns across the decades?”

Anderson noted that over the past 65 years, since World War II, America has experienced 10 previous recessions and 10 previous recoveries. He reports that average real GDP growth in the first three years after those recessions was 4.6%. In sharp contrast,

“During the Obama recovery…, average real GDP growth has been just 2.2% — less than half the historical norm. Of the past 11 recoveries, the Obama recovery has been the worst. The 10 stronger recoveries involved Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush – in other words, every other postwar President.”

Clearly, President Obama has been doing something wrong.

President Obama says out on the campaign trail, “We knew when I started in this job that this was going to take some time. We haven’t had to come back from an economic crisis this deep or this painful since the 1930s.” But Obama and his apologists cannot say that the recovery is so bad because the recession was so bad, because “the historical record shows that the pattern is generally as follows: the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery,” as Anderson proves. If we examine the 5 longest and worst recessions over the past 65 years, each lasting at least 11 months, “During the four pre-Obama recoveries from such recessions, average real GDP growth in the first three years was a whopping 5.9% — dwarfing the 2.2% figure under Obama.”

Anderson calculates what this Obama subpar performance has cost the American people. The difference between 5.9% and 2.2% real growth, a 3.7% per year shortfall, “equals about $555 billion per year, or $1.6 trillion over three years. If you divide that equally among the roughly 300 million Americans, it works out to a shortfall of more than $5,000 per person – or more than $20,000 for a family of four.”

Moreover, as Anderson reports, if the Obama recovery had rebounded as fast as the recoveries from the others of the worst 5 recessions since World War II, America would be enjoying 10 million more jobs now, with 10 million more workers contributing to the economy and paying taxes, rather than drawing taxpayer funded benefits.

And it is not getting any better, as Anderson also explains: “Over the first two years of the Obama recovery, average real GDP growth was 2.2%. During the third year, it remained at 2.2%. So far in 2012, it has been 1.8% annualized. In the most recent quarter, it was 1.5% annualized.”

Art Laffer explained in the Wall Street Journal on Monday why Obama’s recovery has been so awful – he relied on old-fashioned Keynesian “stimulus,” rather than the pro-growth incentives of the more modern supply side economics. Laffer explains,

“[S]timulus spending doesn’t really make much sense. In essence, it’s when government takes additional resources beyond what it would otherwise take from one group of people (usually the people who produced the resources) and then gives those resources to another group of people (often to non-workers and non-producers). Often as not, the qualification for receiving stimulus funds is the absence of work or income – such as banks and companies that fail, solar energy companies that can’t make it on their own, unemployment benefits and the like. Quite simply, government taxing people more who work and then giving more money to people who don’t work is a surefire recipe for less work, less output and more unemployment.” (emphasis added).

Laffer then explained the fundamental fallacy of Keynesian economics:

“Without ever thinking where the money comes from, politicians and many economists believe additional government spending adds to aggregate demand. You’d think that single-entry accounting were the God’s truth and that, for the government at least, every check written has no offsetting debit. [But] for every additional government dollar spent there is an additional private dollar taken. All the stimulus to the spending recipients is matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis every minute of every day by a depressant placed on the people who pay for these transfers. Or as a student of the dismal science might say, the total income effects of additional government spending always sum to zero.” (zero sum game)

But Laffer added that Keynesian stimulus spending is actually a net drag on the economy because the incentive effects of that spending encourage the recipients of the taxpayer largesse to reduce work and other productive activities, while the incentive effects of the increased taxes on producers to finance those benefits encourage them as well to reduce work and other productive activities. Hence the woefully below average Obama recovery. Yet, Obama is campaigning for hundreds of billions in additional, Keynesian, stimulus spending, which will only drive the economy down further, and further increase unemployment.

Laffer might have added that the central concern of Keynesian economics that inadequate demand can cause economic downturns is also wholly fallacious. In a market economy, if demand for a product or service is inadequate, then its price will fall until demand equals supply. So in a market economy, demand can never be inadequate.

Laffer proved out his analysis in the Journal commentary with a table of data showing that in the 34 Organization for Economic Development countries, greater Keynesian stimulus spending was followed by lower growth rates. Laffer concluded that Keynesian “Stimulus advocates have a lot of explaining to do. Their massive spending programs have hurt the economy and left us with huge bills to pay.”

But under Obama, the worst is yet to come. Under current law enacted under Obama, on January 1 the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax are scheduled to soar, except for the federal corporate income tax, which under Obama is already the highest in the industrialized world. With Obama’s regulatory costs building to a crescendo then, government spending, deficits and debt already accelerating, and the Fed flooding the market with cheapened currency, the result will be one big, bad, whopping recession next year. Unemployment would then soar back into double digits, the deficit would rocket to over $2 trillion for the first time in world history, real wages and family incomes would fall further, and poverty would explode. If Obama is reelected, the American people would have achieved these results the old-fashioned way: they will have earned them.

Too many Americans are not getting what is happening with the economy and the election because they are relying too much on the so-called mainstream media. They don’t understand that ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, etc., are not reporting on the election. They are participating in it.

Not a Drop to Drink

The City of Phoenix could face a lawsuit after a city worker told a woman she could not hand out free water. Lawyers say that, under the 1st and 14th amendments, Dana Crow-Smith should have been able to give water to thirsty citizens.

Crow-Smith was handing out free water last month in Phoenix when she was told she was violating city code and would need a permit in order to continue. She was threatened with a citation.

“It was really hot and yeah we wanted to show God’s love and a small act of kindness is a great way to do that without shoving it down someone’s throat,” Crow-Smith said.

The Rutherford Institute is representing Crow-Smith, believing that the city violated “Crow-Smith’s First Amendment right to freely exercise her religion, her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act.”

The Rutherford Institute wants the city apologize to Crow-Smith and state that she is allowed to distribute water in the future. If the city does not comply, The Rutherford Institute says that a lawsuit will ensue.

“But I don’t think it’s even about religious beliefs. I think anybody should be able to giveaway water on the sidewalk to anybody. It’s hot and it’s a nice thing to do,” Crow-Smith said.

John W. Whitehead, the president of The Rutherford Institute agreed: “It is a sad day when local government officials prohibit Americans from such charitable acts as giving water to the thirsty in their city.”

Attribution: , Personal Liberty Digest